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.
They are very real and they fell from heaven along with their master, Satan.
If I knew what comic books you were talking about, I might consider it. Whatever the comic is, I'm sure I don't own it nor is it likely that I have ever read the alleged issue in question.
....so much of your game is posting unattributed and second hand quotes that are so very Alberto-esque.
"I've got one that can see!"
cva66snipe wrote:
“These were men of minimal schooling likely except for possibly Matthew.”
Really? Let’s see, which of them was illiterate? Which of them did not understand Biblical Hebrew better than anyone on this thread? Which of them did not speak as his native language Aramaic? Which of them was not well able to converse and write in Greek? That makes them all trilingual. And then -then! - they did three years of seminary training with, shall we say, a rather respected professor.
You are not reading the Scriptures for what they say, you are reading your presumptions and prejudices back into the Scriptures. But in this you are quite correct, the church was built in plain sight. So, open your eyes.
As far as your arguments against Peter being appointed pope, I have no idea why you are directing that at me.
What is NIV?
Thanks for all that information.
That looks like a keeper.....
New International Version translation of the Holy Bible.
Considering Peter's reaction in his vision in Acts 10 where God tells him to rise, kill, and eat, and how horrified he was at the thought, it's inconceivable that he would have agreed to drink the cup if he thought it meant real blood.
And it's inconceivable that Jesus would have eaten flesh and blood Himself, thus rendering Himself incapable of fulfilling the Law, and demanding that His disciples eat in violation of the Law.
All those things would have rendered Him incapable of being perfect and sinless.
As far as the *God can do what ever He wants* line of reasoning, that's a strawman. God cannot do whatever He wants. That's a false premise and any argument built on it will not stand. God cannot deny Himself.
What is that? The New Catholic Translation? Quite a departure from NASB. I couldnt find any translation on biblegateway that supports your translation. Thats beside the point though ... What is your evidence that “she” is Mary ... at this point in history ... the only “she” was Eve.
****************************************************************************************
Actually, it’s from this translation of the Catholic Bible, one they used for centuries.
Latin Vulgate Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible
http://www.drbo.org/
The translators deliberately went and translated the personal pronoun *he* as *she*.
This link shows comparisons between the various translations and near the top of the page is a tab for looking at the original language to see what words were really used.
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-15.htm
Would that be like taking John 6:53-56 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
literally, but not taking John 6:28-29 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Literally?
And there are a multitude of other passages in Scripture where Catholics demand a literal reading of Scripture to back up their doctrine, and else where insist that it's figurative, and in even other places, deny Scripture entirely and use *TRADITION* to trump Scripture.
You're in a poor position to make that complaint against others.
At least according to
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
LOL.
You posting history says differently. By your own words, you are condemned.
My theory was that all or most of them were illiterates during the early years for a purpose. Jesus brought a message intended for the poor, the uneducated and the disenfranchised. The last thing he needed or wanted were biblical scholars, legalists and theologians. What we do know is that He was not followed around by scribes and secretaries capturing His every word.
Natural Law wrote:
“My theory was that all or most of them were illiterates during the early years for a purpose.”
Well, you have your theory. I’m glad it is not mine.
Very nice.....
You object to someone being someone being *patronizing* and *condescending*????
Who knew?
Though i have not attended any formal seminary or college for that (and was a poor HS student), and one who needs to learn obedience (a most importance lesson) much better, and much more, I agree with you that education and Biblical spirituality are are not mutually exclusive or need to be in conflict. And the early Protestants placed a premium upon such (and i doubt anyone today at Harvard would want to keep its Laws of 1642: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/HARVARD_LAWES.HTML). And if we read some of the older writings we can see this.
However, as knowledge puffeth up without the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of true knowledge, which is wisdom, (Ps. 110:10) education in general today is marked by liberalism. And as the devil understands how to poison the well at the source, and our flesh seeks a easier way to a crown, so early on seminary training of preachers began to substitute anointing with academia.
The devil’s response to the vibrant evangelism of the 1800’s was to both raise up cults whose leaders effectively were of superior authority over the Scriptures, as well as promote “higher criticism (which had begin earlier, even in Gn. 3) and the the JEDP theory which predominates today, including within R. Catholicism.
This resulted in a reactionary division with Protestantism, with the necessary rise of Fundamentalism which sought to preserve the ancient landmarks. But which in some ways overreacted, including by tending to then demean formal education and social outreach outside their church (though today its notables today all have letters after their names, and many engage mercy missions).
But as for “You may have heard many a preacher who never attended any formal seminary who can hold their own ... I haven’t. it,” surely this cannot be true, as those unlearned and ignorant fishermen (Acts 4:13) attest, as well as others such as the effective evangelist but largely illiterate D. L. Moody was, after being filled with the Holy Spirit, One can be Biblically erudite w/out formal education, while manifest Holy Spirit anointing is what the church God existed under and grew, while continuing in the apostle doctrine. And this church of the living (not dead) was established as being such by a holiness and teaching and manifestation of the power of God which conformed to and complemented that which was written, by which means itself was likewise established.
I do agree that lack of formal education is not the norm for a pastor, and many preachers today suffer from an animosity toward education such as i history, as well as wisdom, which is the principal thing,” (Prov. 4:7) which discerns truth and rightly applies knowledge.
And i certainly come short in all, to the Lord’s dishonor, and must have a real and greater commitment to obtain that “higher education” which the learned apostle sought after:
“That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Phil. 3:10,11; cf. 1Pt. 4:1) “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. “ (Phil. 3:15) Brethren, pray for me.
INDEED.
I’ve heard that Moody spoke in tongues . . . though hotly disputed by his institution.
What have you read/heard about his being filled with Holy Spirit?
Certainly he was anointed, imho.
And if we accommodate your request, will someone end up hitting the abuse button on the FReeper who complies and have the RM smack them down for *making it personal*????
Condemnd if they do, condemned if they don't.
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.