Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Mary Sinless?
The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicbashing; idolatry; marianobsession; mary; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,301-1,3201,321-1,3401,341-1,360 ... 3,401-3,413 next last
To: Iscool
Cronos: We like to believe that the Holy Spirit is all-powerful and He protected Mary from sin.

Iscool: For what purpose???

I don't know -- why don't you ask Him? Don't you realise that the ways of God are God's ways? Why do you question His ways?

Do you think it impossible for the Holy Spirit to preserve a created being like Mary from sin? Just as the Holy Spirit is living within all us Christians and the Holy Spirit permeates Christ's Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church
1,321 posted on 12/08/2010 12:28:51 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

My reference is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, as I said in my previous post.


1,322 posted on 12/08/2010 12:34:32 AM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Well that is your reference, all those millions of Catholics off the reservation, have a different idea, 7,000,000 is it? to one, so who’s right? How do we know?


1,323 posted on 12/08/2010 12:36:18 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; UriÂ’el-2012; metmom; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings

Actually, no, I read God’s Word, in the Bible quite often thank you — do you and your crew here do the same? What about you, Uri? Do you as a Protestant read even the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter? What about you Alex? Do you read the same as Uri?


1,324 posted on 12/08/2010 12:41:11 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; UriÂ’el-2012; metmom; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings

Actually, no, I read God’s Word, in the Bible quite often thank you — do you and your crew here do the same? What about you, Uri? Do you as a Protestant read even the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter? What about you Alex? Do you read the same as Uri?


1,325 posted on 12/08/2010 12:43:08 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]

To: UriÂ’el-2012

This needs to be repeated over and over cause so many people just don’t understand how much order there was in God’s plan.

Thanks Uri’el-2012


1,326 posted on 12/08/2010 12:43:27 AM PST by Lera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; metmom; RnMomof7
Oh, and of course, you must remember This thread that suggests that if you read the NIV instead of the KJV, you're a heretic who believes that Jesus is the same as Lucifer! --- this is typical sola mio nonsense
1,327 posted on 12/08/2010 12:43:54 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

119 million, and 3 Popes said it was ok for individual Catholics to deal directly with the Holy Spirit, bypassing Rome, speak in tongues, have visions and recite prophecy.So 119 million, with 3 pope’s blessings, can do everything other pentecostals can do, so I guess that’s your authority


1,328 posted on 12/08/2010 12:45:33 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

What is “off the reservation” supposed to mean, according to you?


1,329 posted on 12/08/2010 12:46:07 AM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
119 million, and 3 Popes said it was ok for individual Catholics to deal directly with the Holy Spirit, bypassing Rome, speak in tongues, have visions and recite prophecy.

Link?

1,330 posted on 12/08/2010 12:51:28 AM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1328 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I'll repeat what I asked you in post #482 why do you think your denying of Mary's sinless affect your salvation?. Why does your gruop's definition of beliefs hinge on negativity? No love in God, just attacking Christ's Church?

I'll repeat to you once more
As per Church teachings, Christ's sacrifice is what won us salvation. All Glory to Christ who saved us. His sacrifice was super-sufficient for our salvation. THAT is Church teaching
We pray to God, we ask others to pray for us.
br>
1,331 posted on 12/08/2010 12:55:32 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; UriÂ’el-2012; starlifter
***So is eating pork or lobster. Puts an extra meaning into the phrase “a damned good meal.”***

Except the New Testament did away with dietary laws, just like circumcision.

Really? Let's ask Uri what a Protestant like him thinks of this point of saying it's ok to eat pork or lobster and no to circumcision

1,332 posted on 12/08/2010 12:56:54 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Gamecock; RnMomof7; metmom; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg
Isccol: No Protestant says everything has to be in scripture

REALLY? No Protestants agrees with SOLA scriptura? What do you, Rn, Met, Game and Alex say to that? What does the OPC say about this statement, Dr, E?
1,333 posted on 12/08/2010 12:59:34 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Also, by the way, you just lied -- Church teaching is that Salvation is from Christ's sacrifice which was sufficient for our salvation.

Why don't you read up a bit? you're the same guy who said "the pope doesn't wash anyone's feet" and then was given adequate proof that this happens each Maundy Thursday! You consistently have wrong facts, about history, Church teaching, the Bible which, if you had actually read a bit, could have saved us the effort of pointing out all of your numerous errors.
1,334 posted on 12/08/2010 1:02:13 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Do read the bible a bit ok, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

Also, I know that your cult has a membership of one, but didn't know that it was now dabbling in vampirism to drink other people's blood -- I thought your cult just spent time repeating crazy stories without bothering to check up on them, but now your cult seems to be dabbling in Buffy-lore.
1,335 posted on 12/08/2010 1:04:28 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"call your priests father" --> what rot are you talking about? I call my priest Ksiądz -- even as a form of address -- which translates as "priest".

Do READ a little bit. Just because your little command of English colors your world view, don't forget that English is the exception in having no honorifics.
1,336 posted on 12/08/2010 1:07:46 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
don't talk about Jesus...It's always Christ this or Christ that...

1. Do read -- even this thread.
2. You DO realise that Jesus Christ is one "being" God and Man, right?
1,337 posted on 12/08/2010 1:08:52 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; wagglebee; Running On Empty
Iscool: don't talk about Jesus...It's always Christ this or Christ that.

Izzie Lizzie -- do read, if you can't read the bible, at least read this thread before spouting off and looking like an idiot. Here's some sample posts for you:

Post 934 by wagglebee "the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother are things that JESUS DID, not Mary."

In 934 again But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. -- John 20:31-31

And again But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. -- John 21:24-25

And 914 by me Mary did NOT save herself, she needed salvation and got that from her God, her Son, her Savior. Jesus saved Mary, He was her savior. He saved her, protected her from sin.

And 904 It gives them (Calvin followers) a reason to shout (and they don't shout "I believe in a God of Love, in Jesus Christ", rather they shout "hate, hate, hate. Hate CAtholics, hate Arminians, hate Methodists, hate Pentecostals, hate, hate, hate")

And ROE in post 826 In his wonderful book “Jesus of Nazareth”.

Those are just a few. Do read even this thread before shooting your mouth off. Do you see the numerous times Catholics here refer to Jesus, Jesus Christ. But, don't let that stop you from coming up with fantastical stories like we "don't talk about Jesus...It's always Christ this or Christ that" -- oh and you DO realise the it is Jesus Christ, right? GOd and man, right? Not some strange beliefs that your cult of one has.
1,338 posted on 12/08/2010 1:25:42 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; RnMomof7; metmom; Quix
cronos: To Rn and Met: Do you think it impossible for the Holy Spirit to preserve a created being like Mary from sin?

Iscool: Why would he??? He didn't preserve Adam and Eve from sin...

Ah, there you go Iscool, doubting the power of the Holy SPirit. you think He can't or couldn't do something so simple for Him? you doubt His powers? you should remember that a sin against the Holy SPirit is unforgiveable -- don't go about maligning Him and His power. And don't go about questioning the Holy SPirit.
1,339 posted on 12/08/2010 1:28:13 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; wagglebee
There's a reason John didn't tell us the other signs that Jesus performed...And that's because they were nothing that we needed to know for our salvation...

Ah, so you now can read minds of St. John and others? Also, so you say it's ok for something not to be in the bible because they were not needed for our salvation? the IC and Assumption are not necessary for our salvation -- Church teaching is that salvation came from Jesus Christ's sacrifice.
1,340 posted on 12/08/2010 1:30:52 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonst us))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,301-1,3201,321-1,3401,341-1,360 ... 3,401-3,413 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson