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.
What does John Ch 1 mean to you. Not your Priest but to you? Not meant as an attack but a question. 1In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. 5The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.
The WORD OF GOD relies not on man to survive. You can take every document penned by man and they be destroyed by man but what still lives? Why? It is not man who leads you into truth but The Light Leads you into truth. The Light is Christ the truth is taught by The Holy Spirit.
The many Biblical Translations are not there to deceive but so many can RECIEVE THE WORD and be saved. The Gospel must be preached to all nations people that means many translations. If The King James is what you are lead to read then do it. If it is NIV same. The Catholic translated Bible the same. If they are wrong they will not stand for long. Read them. Pray in earnest to GOD through Christ directly for truth, guidance, and wisdom. The only perfect translation is The Holy Spirit whom Christ sent to lead and teach us all truths.
Why are churches jealous of each other yet most serve the same Jesus Christ? OK why did Paul and Barnabas disagree? What happened? Two men of equal faith went to two differing cities instead of together. Their trivial quarrel was later mended just as the quarrels and jealousy between Roman Catholics and Protestants will be mended when Christ returns for His Bride. You will all be in the same Heaven serving the same GOD, LORD and Savior.
The doctorine differences in these churches are not ones which lead unto eternal damnation if the church preaches The Gospel. Christ said plainly there would be others teaching and preaching in His name when His jealous disciples informed Him of it.
Look at the missions of the churches for your answers as to are they abiding by the Gospel and Christ teachings. Is The First Baptist running a soup kitchen? The Roman Catholic Church running Mercy Health Care? What about the missionaries of the Methodist? Homeless shelters by some Independent denomination perhaps? These are just examples there are many more Christ abiding Churches and some who are not.
While the Baptist, Methodist, Prebst, Pentecostals, etc take on the Catholics and vice Versa The United Church Of Christ ministers are taking on Christianity meaning all of us and trying to remove it from every aspect of public life. Has anyone noticed yet?
Strawman — no comparison between the two verses. One is a clear allegory, the second is a statement repeated twice in scripture to a Jewish crowd to whom drinking of blood was blasphemy of the highest degree. This was no allegory.
Last statement of course correct. Original analogy was incorrect.
Now your statement is incorrect. The reasoning for the IC was not that He could not be near anything unclean. I expected better from you, GB, really. The reasoning for this (which you can disagree with), let be more specific the historic reasoning is more to do with the idea that Sin cannot withstand God’s presence, so if the container was “tainted”, how could it withstand God’s presence. Of course, you can disagree with that argument, but do note that this is quite different from your supposition that it is due to Him not being near anything unclean.
Actually more than that — I do make it a point to read through the Bible far more often than just listening to the Word on Sunday. And that is true for nearly all the Catholic posters here on this thread. So, please don’t go about telling us we don’t read the Bible.
very nicely done
"The walk" is works, not grace.. the walk can lead right to the pit of hell..ask the Pharisees
I have seen that quote as well .
What is amazing is no Muslim would say that ...but a pope devoid of discernment does not seem to know one god from another
Again, I expected better research from you. The divinity is not tied to the v. Nowhere do you read that in statements of dogma or doctrine — how do you jump to that conclusion?
And many more have joined. Do you believe that God did not do or could not do such wonders?
I, for one, read a Chapter every morning, go to Mass everyday where I hear the Gospel and sometimes it's the same I read that morning!
My best friend is a Baptist and she was told all kinds of erroneous things about Catholics....some of it is rightening and some is hilarious, but it's ALL WRONG!!PLUS, I know the Bible way better than she does.
SS — there is a difference between anti-Catholics and non-Catholics. In the real world, most of the non-Catholic Protestants etc. are Christians and even if they disagree strongly with Catholic teachings, they still share a common belief in Christ. the anti-Catholics here are a sub-set of many different groups: you have Unitarians, you have Mormon-type OPC members, you even have a denier of the Trinity and divinity of Christ (bashem Hash’e...etc).
During his papacy, Benedict XVI has advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of many developed countries. He views relativism’s denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. He teaches the importance of both the Catholic Church and an understanding of God’s redemptive love. He has reaffirmed the “importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work.”you asked in #805
This giant in the religious community....where does he teach of the importance of - God's Word? #1 in importance.to which ROE said in #826
In his wonderful book “Jesus of Nazareth”. I understand that the second in this series is due out soon.How do you get this to mean
You would consider that God’s Word?How do you jump to such conclusions? That is just sola interpretura.
Actually the counterfeit false churches (7 or more) are the ones that have been formed by various cult-leaders (what’s your pastor’s name again?).
Wait a minute — do YOU believe that JEsus was/is/will alwasys be God? Do YOU believe in the Trinity?
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.