Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[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.

[Cronos]

well, any argument will do at times for folks as long as they can then bash Catholics! I know many Protestants who will say “I don’t agree with your belief in IC” and can argue nicely about it without the virulence, but they leave when they see this anti-Church crew come on board a thread.

[maryz]

It's not been primarily Protestants that have had posts yanked for violating the RF rules on these types of threads.

Really? IIRC, it was a Protestant boasting not long ago that it was mainly Catholics who have posts pulled. I haven't been keeping count myself because it strikes me a stupid pastime.

[Cronos]

insist she is the mother, ergo preceding source, of God?

Very strange conclusion -- do you think YOUR mother is your preceding source, your creator?

[verity]

Merry Christmas.

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

I'm not interpreting anything...

Well if you are not doing the interpreting, someone is doing it for you!

By interpretation I mean you look at a verse, or theme of scripture, and believe it means one thing. I look at it and believe it means something else. We cannot both be right, can we?

"Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5).

I interpret that (in agreement with the Catholic Church) as meaning baptism is necessary for salvation. Obviously you don't.

Can Jesus make exceptions, as objected in the case of the "good thief", and infants who are not baptized, and those who have not heard of Jesus or baptism?

Sure He can; He's God! But if He tells me to do something, I'm going to do it!

[maryz]

Ever notice how cult members refuse to refer to the mother of Jesus Christ, but insist she is the mother, ergo preceding source, of God?

And you keep demonstrating that you don't understand our doctrine and seem to have a fuzzy understanding of the nature of Christ -- or at least a fuzzy (not clear enough to be officially Nestorian but tending there) understanding of how the Church teaches it.

[maryz]

She did not provide Divinity to Jesus Christ.

No one claims that she did.

[maryz]

So you don’t believe God is Divine?

Huh? Where did you get that out of Puddleglum's post?

[Cronos]

insist she is the mother, ergo preceding source, of God?

Very strange conclusion -- do you think YOUR mother is your preceding source, your creator?

Mary, as we have repeated ad nauseum on this thread, was a created being, created by Jesus Christ her God, her son and her Savior.

She was not his preceding source, his creator, no more than our mothers are our creators.

The term Theotokos, or God-bearer, specifically was formulated to point out that Jesus was God, not a man who became God, not a spirit, but God AND man.

[Quix]

and which
[ROMAN] Catholic church?
The fundamentalist one,
or the novus ordo one?
the charismatic one,
or the communist ones?
how many are there anyway?
[LOTS--they seem to proliferate like bunnies in Alice's burrow]
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,
[With the whole show seemingly gearing up to be led by
the fallen angel critters in UFO's
as part of the globalist one world religion]
so which one is the right one? How do you know?

.
------
.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

Or which Encyclical has the AUTHORITY OF THE DAY/HOUR/MOMENT?

Or which infallible fall-der-all wields the mitre in which kind of weather?

Or which bureaucratic political power-mongering magicsterical collection of elitistly freaky fossilized old burps are driving the train off the cliff TODAY?

Or which pile of white hankys they are building today's horrifically false theological edifice on, TODAY?

Or which statues one must kiss the toes off of, TODAY in order to be truly sacredly absolutely, 100% sorta maybe possibly, slightly tentatively saved, TODAY?

Or whether one fondles the beads clockwise on odd days and counterclockwise on even days or vice versa in order to stay in pretend 'Salvific Mary's' graciousness TODAY?

Or precisely how many millimeters one has to stick one's tongue out or hold one's tongue in by, when receiving the magic wafer in order to properly facilitate the fleshy transformation?

Goodness, what a maze for the neophyte sheeple to navigate. Without Holy Spirit's guidance, they MUST have to have a very large and complex 'crawl by numbers' map to make it through the day, not to mention the week or month!

[Cronos]

Strawman -- you do realise that Church teachings is that Mary was the mother of our Lord God Jesus Christ, right?

No-one ever has said or believes that she provided divinity -- do you believe that? Because The Church certainly does not.

[Cronos]

“he conducted more terror upon believers than Hitler or Stalin” —> Where do you get that? Do you mean to compare the holocausts or the holodny to what Saul did?

[Quix]

It’s not been primarily Protestants that have had posts yanked for violating the RF rules on these types of threads. And it tends to be Catholics who get chastised for spamming the abuse button.

Go back and read the RM’s posting history and see who most of the rebukes are to.

Mater of fact, go back to the beginning of this thread and see the tone of how it started and when it changed. This one started out pretty civil until a couple more rabid Catholics jumped in and started shredding people, carrying arguments from other threads.

Precious few Catholics are in any position to complain about behavior.

---

INDEED.

[Quix]

THAT’S A GREAT ONE.

Looks just like all the RC Nurse Rachetts typically sound! LOL.

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Cronos]

Nice twisting, Cvengr. you said Yes, she is the mother of our Lord, Christ Jesus --> do you believe she was the mother of Our God, Jesus Christ?

Don't you realise that Jesus Christ was man and God?

Being a mother of someone does not mean being the creator of someone or do you refer to your mom as your creator?

[wagglebee]

What's even stranger is the seeming inability some have (and mind you these are people who claim to be Christians) to grasp that Jesus Christ IS GOD.

To deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God REQUIRES a person to accept one of two heretical views:

A. They deny that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
or
B. They deny that Jesus Christ is God.

[wagglebee]

What's even stranger is the seeming inability some have (and mind you these are people who claim to be Christians) to grasp that Jesus Christ IS GOD.

To deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God REQUIRES a person to accept one of two heretical views:

A. They deny that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
or
B. They deny that Jesus Christ is God.

[Cronos]

You’re right, the OPC, while being a non-Christian group that masquerades as Christian (like the lds.org), seems to train it’s cultists to leave their brains at the door. That’s why you see the same pictures and rehashed arguments posted over and over again (do you remember the time one OPC cultist posted a link to a Jewish mystic’s website called “Zena’s divinology page” and then said that it was an “official Catholic page”? Or the time that cultist called a blog an “official source of Catholic dogma”?)

[maryz]

And since Mary says she needs a savior,

"That's not right; in fact, that's not even wrong"

refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable. The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even seem to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.