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.
That would be covered under “baptism of desire,” and the principle behind it is valid, but excludes the doctrine that baptism is absolutely necessary to be born again.
The real issue is whether a response is needed to be saved, and that of attributing salvific merit to works, which is not a thread one should start at midnight. But,
Romans 10:9,10 states: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto [contended word] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”
There is no real difference with confessing the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord by moving your neurons or tongue and moving you legs in confession Christ as regards this being a work.
Calvinism holds one is born again before they confess Christ while Arminianim holds that this happens as a consequence of responding to God’s grace in believing. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; Eph. 1:13)
I see salvation being by forgiveness and imputed righteousness appropriated by God-given repentance and faith, a decision one would not have made if he was not persuaded by God to do so. Thus no boasting, nor is there man meriting eternal life by works done in God, as in what Trent states. But the kind of faith that saves is one that is confessional in nature, which will confess Christ, and so upon such a complete faith is one saved, though God sees the heart before it comes out.
INDEED:
Christ gave us The Way, The Truth, and The Light. He made it so simple a child can grasp much of it. It doesn’t take knowing years of studying and understanding Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient writings, passed down traditions of man. That system FAILED!!!
Reading the third Chapter of John and believing can bring you salvation through Jesus Christ the very instant you believe and accept it. Reading books upon books and studying years upon years of ancient tradition will bring you ancient traditions.
The miracle of salvation is GOD through the Holy Spirits Gives You Your Daily Bread just a GOD gave Israel Manna Whom did the Manna come from GOD or Moses? We need to be dependent on that and not relying on mans traditions. Come to Him as a child not a scholar and theologists. A child need not fully understand to believe a child believes by faith and trust. A child is taught by The Father. {and earthly mother}.
WRONG FAR AND WIDE
AGAIN!
I gather you’ve not read Psalms?
When John baptised, he said that he baptised with water. But one (Jesus) would come and He would baptise with fire and the spirit.
I understand that baptism is and outward act used to demonstrate an internal act.
We seem to be alright.
Dang, what am I gonna do with this bucket of rotten tomatos...
just kiddin ;-)
I see them as two different and distinct Baptisms not occuring at the same time. Christ Baptism the one John spoke of with fire and spirit comes at the instant you accept Him as Lord and Savior. IOW it is a spiritual Baptism of your very soul. The second the public profession and baptism usually coming later. Some churches require membership classes etc for that. That is the Baptism of obedience in accordance with The Great Commission.
Quix, there you go again, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Is is not possible that one might know “Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient writings” and still also be childlike in faith? Believe me, I take this very personally.
Hyperbole set against hyperbole in moments of high drama when debating may garner immediate support from the audience, but wise and experienced debate judges are not fooled. Childlike faith and learning are not mutually exclusive. But I will agree with you in this, childlike faith is the proper - the only! - attitude to adopt before Him who is the “Ancient of Days,” who is “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God.”
Thank you! She is our sweetie.
God is the one who designed how skin is made. Now they are giving His creation of human skin over to Mary?
Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
What I mean is learning Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc is not necessary. Why? Because we have The Holy Spirit who leads into all truths. I've seen many a Preacher who never attended any formal seminary be able to hold their own in knowledge of the Bible and meaning of scripture.
If a person has the tallents and desrires to learn ancient text go for it. But that by no means says such a person holds more knowledge of scripture than another to whom scripture has been revealed.
First of all, my apologies to Quix for attributing to you what is not yours.
For cva66snipe, my criticism is simple. Why are you linking two things that really don’t have anything to do with each other? You may have heard many a preacher who never attended any formal seminary who can hold their own ... I haven’t. But I have heard plenty of fools who thought they were led by the Spirit, and quite clearly, they were not. That there are some who have not been particularly well educated in traditional seminary areas of study but who understand well the Holy Scriptures, I have no doubt. But most of them aren’t preachers. They are lay people in other callings. Don’t underestimate the devil’s ability to play on the weaknesses, presumptions, and prejudices of all. On the other hand, I have also heard plenty of other preachers who have all the formal training in the world, but who didn’t know Scripture and its meaning nearly as well as any of my four daughters, who’ve had no formal training in such things. In fact I have heard plenty of such preachers who should never have been preachers.
Face it, there are quacks in every profession, some are duplicitous, some are well-intentioned. But you know what they say the road to hell is paved with. And when you add the element of faith, as you must in anything that touches on Christianity, the situation becomes still more confused. There is no substitute for faith in the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And there is no substitute for a sound and well-rounded education. The two are not in conflict, nor are they mutually exclusive.
And how do you tell when someone is "another to whom scripture has been revealed"? What if someone only THINKS they have more knowledge of scripture than someone who has learned the ancient texts? What if someone has deluded themselves that the Holy Spirit has revealed knowledge of scripture, when that isn't true?
Isn't that why there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations, because there are people who insist that the Holy Spirit has spoken directly to them, and only their understanding is divine, and everyone else is wrong?
It would seem that learning the ancient languages, meanings, and interpretations from the earliest church fathers would give more actual knowledge of the scripture and its meanings, than those who flatter themselves that their own interpretations are the voice of the Holy Spirit.
I just have difficulty trusting anyone who knows nothing about the ancient languages holding him/hersef up as some kind of scriptural authority.
The Church upon Christ built is in our plain sight. It is Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ to us and His truths through The Holy Spirit given us. That was what was being said to Peter not that Peter was to be a Pope. It is this way the One on One relationship with Jesus Christ so no man decieve you.
Man falls when he starts depending on other men for truth rather than the Word Of GOD.
you could go ask the tens of thousands of charismatic Catholics, they all claim to have the answer
Which version? Which translation? How do you know it is accurate? What if important words are mistranslated? Are human translations the Perfect Word? Who said so?
If any person who calls him/herself Catholic differs from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, then whatever answer they claim to have is wrong.
Isee, and who says so?
and which Catholic church? The fundamentalist one, or the novus ordo one? the charismatic one, or the communist ones? how many are there anyway? Most just ignore the Pope and his edicts, so who’s in charge? From what I’ve read lately, each are going off in their own direction, so which one is the right one? How do you know?
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.