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.
Do you think that's fair? The posts I've seen on FR by actual Mormons are notable for their intelligence, spirit of charity and civility.
“”SFA, you’re overreacting. Reread my post. I said that Mary’s DNA was present in the ovum.””
BB, DNA is found in the blood ,so Pope Leo XIII was not wrong
From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_DNA_found_in_white_blood_cells
Question:Is DNA found in white blood cells?
In: Cells and Genetics
Answer
Yes.
White blood cells (leukocytes) have a nucleus. It is mature red blood cells (erythrocytes) that lack one.
Bear in mind that mitochondria contain DNA, too.
DNA can also be found in the skin,bb
Here is more..
Where Is DNA Found?
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitdna/intro02.jsp
Throughout the body - in cells...
Our bodies are formed from between 50 and 100 trillion cells (a trillion is a thousand billion, or a thousand, thousand million). These cells are organized into tissues, such as skin, muscle, and bone. Each cell contains all of the organism’s genetic instructions stored as DNA. However, each cell uses only the instructions from part of the DNA. For example, a muscle cell uses the DNA that specifies the muscle apparatus, whereas a nerve cell uses DNA that specifies the nervous system. It is as if each cell reads only that part of a book of instructions that it needs.
Within the cell - in chromosomes...
Each very long DNA molecule is tightly wound and packaged as a chromosome. Humans have two sets of 23 chromosomes in every cell, one set inherited from each parent. A human cell therefore contains 46 of these chromosomal DNA molecules.
You’re walking close to the fringe of Nestorian heresy,bb, when you try and eliminate the human connection to Christ.
Christ was fully man, and that is because of the human MARY
Please site the Scripture that supports the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to her and other saints, the trinity, the primacy of the pope, the use of holy water, for a few.
Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Clearly Jesus saw error comes in from not knowing Scripture.
2 Timothy 3 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Now, also provide where we are to have *Holy Tradition* trump Scripture and tells us exactly what the traditions which Paul referred to having handed down were and how you know that and how you know that they were handed down without corruption.
What I find ironic is that Catholics appeal to tradition to give authority to tradition. That is such a disconnect. You can't use something to prove or validate itself.
I have no idea what you're talking about or why you're dangling this worm-n-hook in front of me. Crack open the nut of trititarian theology with about 20 centuries of theologians and I will gladly be a spectator, but I am not taking that scenic route today. Not that it's not a worthy topic, but if you are asking me about it, you might as well ask an elephant to do needlepoint.
The Catholic church shouldn't be following Augustine at all. It should be following Jesus.
Likewise, I'm sure.....
Non-Catholics appeal to the authority of Scripture.
Catholics appeal to the authority of man and tradition.
Why should we believe those over Scripture?
Those who seek to mislead unbelievers into believing Mary is Divine, providing attributes to God, as implied by the title of Mother of God, without well stipulating they only refer to her providing the motherhood of His Incarnation, will naturally claim they are innocent and have no idea of how they are telling a tale.
I do not know your heart nor your intent, but the words without stipulation, “mother of God”, implies Divine attributes to the mother being passed to her son.
I find Mary as blessed and I rejoice in what God has provided us and her, and the best form of respect for her is the proper worship of Christ Jesus.
No, not the ignored question. I was not home all day. I drove to Boston for a doctors appointment and was on the road from 7 AM till 11:30 PM and did not have time to answer the question.
Stop making baseless assumptions about why something wasn't answered. You know what they say about assuming things.....
And check your pings
That's really an irrelevant question because the issue is not whether He could but whether He did.
And since Mary says she needs a savior, then, no, He didn't. If she had not sinned, she would not have recognized her need for one.
That's really an irrelevant question because the issue is not whether He could but whether He did.
Tell us this then. If He could do it for her, why not do it for the rest of us? Why make us go through our lives sinning, hurting others, being hurt by others, living with and dealing with the consequences of sin?
Does not the Catholic church teach free will? If God kept Mary from sin, where was her free will in all this? If He kept her from sin, she had no choice about whether to sin or not so the Catholic veneration of her for being sinless is meaningless because she then would have only been doing what she was pre-programmed to do.
Kinda sounds like she was predestined to me.....
No harm no foul - except I wouldn't say 'mother only of His incarnation' because that seems to make Jesus into God-lite. I am sure that is not your intention, but it is the slippery slope of language. Jesus was/is was all God and all man, and the Incarnation is a every bit as much divinity as God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. So I punt on unsnarling the God-Man mystery but don't retreat on the title 'mother of God' precisely because Christ is God and an equal part of the three-in-one Godhead, and he was born of Mary, who said 'yes' to God and was blessed above all women for it and who humbly brought into history the source or our salvation.
He had to kill all those sacred cows and spent three years renewing his mind from The Source.
Mark 7:18-20 And [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Acts 10:9-16 9The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common." 16This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
Jesus declared all foods clean. The vision came to Peter as well.
Why do you call that an abomination?
I wasn’t talking about my pastor. Assuming again?
I left the cult teachings from the Vatican many years ago.
Of course I agree with you.
However, the condition of child-like faith amongst the learned is about as common
as the rich entering the Kingdom of God.
Not impossible . . . not as plentiful as . . . snowflakes in January.
LOL.
You likely know you have tons of my respect on many counts, including such as those.
Sigh.
Those are my strong convictions as well.
Thx.
Actually, Paul evidently studied under Gamalelial and had the equivalent of a PhD in such matters for the era.
Don't they take communion? Doesn't the Catholic church teach that the cup becomes the literal blood of Christ? Catholics even quote out of John 6 to support it.
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.