Here's my Stella angel to wish you a "get well soon"!
Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
He shor nuff is!!! I stand more amazed and in love with him every day he allows me to wake up! :o)
Yes, it certainly would make my job easier for everyone to forgive and forget and elevate the tone on the Religion Forum.
Some of my best friendships began as barroom brawls. At one time, it was a military tradition.
I’m glad to call a cease fire.
Concerning your cold, here’s a sure fire way to relieve the symptoms.
Take a sturdy shot glass (not the thin, fancy kind but an old fashioned thick variety). Fill to about half with honey (local, if you can get it). Microwave in 5 - 10 second intervals until it bubbles. Do not allow it to bubble over. Carefully remove from the microwave (boiling honey will cause particularly nasty burns). Top off with your favorite whisky (Single Malt Scotch was originally distilled for medicinal purposes). Breath the fumes as soon as you pour in the whisky. Sip it slowly. Repeat as needed.
May God speed your recovery.
Thank you for explaining that, but which relates to two more things.
One is that, as pointed out before, Mary was begotten by a sinner and sinners going back to Adam, and the idea that God required a sinless vessel to beget the word made flesh is no more warranted than holding that the Divinely inspired word of God required sinless holy men. As was also pointed out before. And so if the Eucharist is eating Mary's flesh it is to some degree consuming Adam's.
The second is that of the confusion over what is considered binding in Catholicism. The Infallible Magisterium considered all teaching to to be assuredly infallible when spoken in accordance with her infallible defined formula. While the AIM does a type of unity based upon assent of faith to infallible teaching, which all the teachings are that infallible as well as what they mean is open to interpretation. With some pronouncements it is quite evident and accepted that the criteria for infallibly has been fulfilled, although there is disagreement how many times. One Roman Catholic apologist will hold that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra twice while another believes it has been four. Of all teaching, it has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined.”
Others argue for more, such as Orthodox who postulate such based upon the statement by Bishop Vincent Gasser, who stated, "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" Gasser was spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), who delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser stated is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility.
As for FIdentem Piumque Animum, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the rosary, if the science is not right then the theology is not. But this is a m,atter of interpretation. As for its infallibility,
Humani Generis, #20, states,
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Which presumes clarity, or a degree of such, part or whole, that precludes charges of ambiguity.
We’ll try to behave. Thanks for doing a job that I do not want!
;-)
LOL. Thank you for your support.
Here's my Stella angel to wish you a "get well soon"!
What are you doing but using human reasoning? What do you think discernment is? We are not angels, but creatures of flesh and blood.
“Where does Jesus say one must be married to enter heaven? “
The Bible clearly shows that is not necessary, and my point was your argument from silence is invalid, when evidence to the contrary exists, in this case stated requirements for the baptizee are stipulated.
If you stand is absolute, then Cornelius and household were not saved, which conversions i pointed out to you.
Your premise is that children need to be baptized, which i also responded to.
If you are saved, you have received the spirit which is of God; that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Cor. 2:12.
The natural man (the unsaved man) uses human reasoning for his discernment. "But the natural man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14.
What a beautiful cat!
What about the thief crucified next to Jesus? Jesus told him they would be together in paradise.
Man, saved or not, is a composite of body and soul. Potters clay infused with a spirit. When you read the Bible you do so with fleshly eyes even though it is the inner eye that “sees” the truth. When you speak to others it is with a fleshly tongue that communicates what you know to others.
Unsaved man does not have the Holy Spirit indwelling him. ANd that is where spiritual discernment comes from.
>>Take a sturdy shot glass (not the thin, fancy kind but an old fashioned thick variety). Fill to about half with honey (local, if you can get it). Microwave in 5 - 10 second intervals until it bubbles. Do not allow it to bubble over. Carefully remove from the microwave (boiling honey will cause particularly nasty burns). Top off with your favorite whisky (Single Malt Scotch was originally distilled for medicinal purposes). Breath the fumes as soon as you pour in the whisky. Sip it slowly. Repeat as needed.<<
Do I get to blame my subsequent posts on you???
Seriously, I am glad we have come to accord and I think I will turn off my computer before seriously hitting your remedy.
Any other posts you see from me later this evening is the ghost of my beloved parted kittie who really, really loved FR!
Thanks for those beautiful eyes.
I spent the last 18 and 25 years — yes Musica lived to be 25! — of my life (well, sadly, until several years ago) with 2 wonderful kitties who I love to this day as much as when they were with me.
I was only a “dog” person before that b/c I was a believer in the stereotype of cats. Of course, having been owned by those cats, I learned the basics: “Dogs have owners, Cats have staff” Dog: “you feed me, you love me, you play with me, you do everything — You must be God!” Cat: “you feed me, you love me, you play with me, you do everything — I must be God!” :) ;)
Buenos noches and thanks for the lovely image as I lay me down to rest...
Not for a lack of trying, anyway!
>>Would that make your job easier, RM? <<
Last thought — I was composing as you were posting LOL!
We can perhaps reach another accord: GMTA!!
Thanks again and God bless and keep you and yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.