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.
Does Yah'shua believe in the trinity ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
***Well Mom, you got me on the food (I am grateful for Gamecock’s correction yesterday) and I will be less riven by guilt when I enjoy a pork loin done on the grill.***
Pork loin? Splurge and have lobster!
Sure there was discussion about what books belonged in the bible- the early church had those discussions way before Luther- and decided it's canon at the Council of Rome in 382; reaffirmed throughout the 390’s. Up until Luther, that was the Christian canon.
I'm going from memory here, as I don't have a lot of time to post; your posts really deserve more time and I'm sorry I can't put in that time; nor am I a scholar.
The Jerusalem Jews of the first century wanted to differentiate themselves from the new Christians, so they decided they would abandon the Septuagint, and went back to what they thought were the Hebrew scriptures- those written originally in Hebrew. There was widespread dissention among them even then; and if I'm not mistaken, even today the Ethiopian Jews still use the 46 books of the Septuagint.
The books you mention as the apocrypha (Catholics call deuterocanonical) were believed to have been written in Greek (though we now know that Sirach or Ecclesiasticus was originally written in Hebrew, though no copy of the Hebrew was known of until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls); so the Jerusalem Jews excluded them, as well as the New Testament.
Trent was just reaffirming the Church's unaltered stance since 382; perhaps expanding on it's reasons, and declaring it infallible, due to Luther's liberties, but not adding or taking away any books of Scripture.
From what I remember about Esdras, there were four books; 2 in and 2 out; we now call them Ezra and Nehemiah, but they were always there, though not always under that same name.
Luther, due to his “sola fide” or “salvation by faith alone” belief, called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because it contains the only reference to “faith alone” in the bible, and it contradicted Luther (James 2:24). He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
That's not quite right.
Mary says she rejoices IN her Savior. This indicates that she already had salvation, it WAS NOT conditioned on a future event.
The Church has NEVER questioned the Blessed Virgin Mary's NEED for a Savior. Original Sin comes at the moment of conception, not at birth. Babies who are never born still need a Savior, yet they will NEVER commit actual sin.
The Immaculate Conception was Mary's salvation, it was performed by God Himself, to deny that He could do this is to deny His omnipotence.
Doesn't seem so. Seems more like you're in a state of reaction against it, bound as fiercely to it by hatred as Catholics are by love. As Chesterton said of the anti-Christians of his day:
They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian conroversy. They cannot be Chrisians and they cannot leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmostphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of tghe faith.
Sort of like the divorcee who can't get over bitterness toward the ex.
I agree that adults must repent before they are baptized. In the early church, most of those becoming Christians were adults (although whole households are mentioned). So of course they would repent, since they were able to.
Well if you want to “read into” whole households that there were no infants, you certainly can; I choose to believe that some of those whole households included infants.
I think we also differ on “being born again” and “being baptized”. To me they are the same thing. It appears to you they are two things.
No, the early church baptized infants; it has been the teaching of the Church throughout the ages, there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
The crux of the issue, as is most disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, is whether the written Word is the only authority.
Acts 10:9-20
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
Jesus said baptism was necessary; I am sure there are exceptions; but that is not for me to decide; my job is to follow, as best as I am able, what Jesus said to do.
I don't really have the time to create a huge post on the Catholic belief of original sin; basically it is a condition we are born with that prevents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us; it should be removed as soon as possible; the Sacrament of Baptism accomplishes that; makes us members of the Church of Christ and adopted children of God. That is why Catholics baptize infants.
I have to stop posting, but since this thread was started to attack the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception, and since today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I would like to give a shout out to my fellow Catholics and wish them a happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception!
O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you!
Walking the path of righteousness will lead to Salvation, however having ones backside permanently affixed to a recliner while boasting about ones grace won't.
Please go back and reread my post 989. You seem to have committed a grievous error and assigned, to me, an incorrect point of view.
A minute amount of reading comprehension will reveal that I'm talking about those on this thread who froth at the mouth when someone suggests that Joseph and Mary likely enjoyed all the benefits of a loving marriage after Mary gave birth to Jesus.
It appears that you are intellectually and spiritually evolving before our very eyes. Praise God!. At one time you believed and professed that Tradition and the authority of man were one in the same. Now you are conceding that Tradition is something different and apart from the authority of man. Welcome home!
Yes it is. A very interesting and impressive historical figure. Most notable is that he became a Christian, baptized by St. Peter and is preserved at the Duomo di Pisa, in Pisa, Italy.
Jesus warned that you can only serve one master. He warned you could not serve both God and Mammon.
There are plenty of (small 'g') gods.
Ask any Hindu.
QED!
Cronos, it’s homoousios. And it’s Greek, not Latin.
And, yes, I know what you are talking about when it comes to buying furniture in eastern/central Europe, but one country south of Poland. And I know what reading an author is like in his native tongue and not a translation.
Very strange conclusion -- do you think YOUR mother is your preceding source, your creator?
Are you suggesting that God did not exist until Jesus was born of Mary? You seem to be using circular logic in order to confound the conversation.
God was God before Mary.
And you grant their reality?
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.