The Romanist Jesus?
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 not make this thread about individual freepers. Discuss the issues all you want. Abide by the rules. if you talk ill of someone at least have the decency to ping them.
Ok...
How does one teach their seeing-eye-dog to type for them?
you’ve been pinging me all morning to your polemic drivel, and so what? last i looked it’s an open thread
I’m on it!
The Romanist Jesus?
I pity the fool who don't have 1611 ENGLISH as his first language!
If Mary had never sinned, she wouldn’t have acknowledged that she needed a savior.
Mary’s Song
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
The whole reasoning that she was forgiven for sins before she committed them doesn’t make sense. In that case, she committed no sin to be forgiven for. It’s circular reasoning like none I’ve ever seen.
Mary didn’t need to be sinless because sin comes from within, not from without. Jesus was sinless because He was God Incarnate, not because didn’t have physical contact with sinful people.
If sin is transferred by contact, how was Mary immaculately conceived? Wouldn’t her mother have needed to be sinless to produce the (allegedly) sinless *ark* that carried Jesus?
And whatever miracle God would have used to produce a sinless Mary from sinful parents, why couldn’t He have used that same miracle to produce a sinless Jesus from a sinful Mary?
If Mary could be produced sinless from sinful parents but Jesus could not have been produced sinless from a sinful mother, that would make Mary greater in nature than Jesus.
What kind of God would Jesus be if contact with sin contaminated Him but not Mary?
What kind of God would Jesus be if contact with sinful people contaminated Him, period....?
I am about 1550 replies late for this party, and NO! I am not going back and read them all before posting my 2 cents worth!
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
How did a yearly remembrance meal - PASSOVER - become morphed into a ritual that occurs every time someone darkens a Catholic Churchs doors?
That's what you call "substantiating your story"? What part of these unsubstantiated, anecdotal, subjective private recollections do you consider to have "substantiated" your claim? Frankly, you've given me no reason as yet to take you at your word for anything. Am I supposed to believe that you actually kept notes of all the scriptures read, cited, or referenced in every service you attended since childhood, and that you saved them to compare to your Catholic experiences later? Am I supposed to believe that your personal recollections (assuming they are true) are indicative of every Protestant worship service that took place worldwide over the last half-century?
He didn’t know. And told my mother in law as much. My wife yelled for me to come over.
The priest is a good guy, but a bit odd. I wasn’t really surprised he didn’t have any verses handy, and he is hardley a good example.
You know, anyone with posts pulled that everyone knows really happened can afford to taunt others to provide *proof* knowing full well that the evidence is no longer in existence on the forum.
It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available.
As a matter of fact, that seems like pretty despicable behavior itself.
where’s that girl that tells those apocryphal tales of baptists in the heartland when you need her? Those stories were entertainingly demented
When prey-tell was that? Would you point one out?
Rome 382:
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book:
Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book;
Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings];
Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one
book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus
(Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth,
that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one
book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias,
one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job,
one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Carthage 419:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, The Kings iv. books, The Chronicles ij. books, Job, The Psalter, The Five books of Solomon, The Twelve Books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra ij. books, Macchabees, ij. books.
Trent 1542:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Some of the names, order and combinations are different, but they are the same books.
The reason why the Trent list is the first infallible pronouncement of the list is because nobody ever challenged it before Luther!
One can point out what God had to say by directing others to the Scripture He inspired. That does not constitute *speaking for God*.
Speaking for God would be telling you that Dancing is a sin. Or that you shouldn't go to movies.
Directing someone to the passages that say, *Do not murder* is not speaking for God. God has already spoken on it and put it in writing. The person pointing it out is not speaking FOR God.
Rome would have people believe that Christ not only got his human nature from Mary, but also some sort of perfection from her, too.
And that's a lie. All and only perfection came from the Holy Spirit.
From Mary Christ was able to know and understand sin and to feel the depth of it because Mary was a sinner just like the rest of mankind.
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." -- Hebrews 2:9-10
" For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Rome bows down to the creature when God's word tells us ALL the glory belongs to God ALONE.
Why are you changing the subject?
That's not what sola scriptura is all about and that's not what anybody claimed.
If you're going to debate, debate what people have actually said.
Why are you asking me? Who said that I followed Augustine?
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.