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.
When I really want to know the most precise interpretation, I use a study Bible and a concordance and look up the meanings of the words in their original language.
This link is very useful.
You can compare multiple versions of one verse on one page, and then click on one of the links above and go to the Greek or Hebrew and connect with a Strong’s and find the meaning and other usage of the word in the Bible.
lol, the guy pings me to 19 out of 20 posts and when i respond to the 20th, he says he wasn’t talking to me. I dont think he even knows what he’s talking about, just yapping
I really don't care what you do or don't believe. Since you obviously don't believe the Revealed Word of God it isn't an insult if you don't believe me either. People like you have a bidirectional filter on their brains. They restrict what comes in and goes out to only what conforms to their preconceived prejudices.
Why doesn’t He?
What is the gospel?
Actually, the despicable act was making a personal assault and "authoritatively" citing evidence that one knows to not be verifiable. Some might go so far as to call that lying.
is she in the heartland?
Cronos I know and understand what you are saying. But in truth it will be The Holy Spirit who determines and teaches us final truth in meaning of a wording. Mans readings meaning anyones can be in error as well as mans writings for they are works of man. That is why I said what I said in Post 1344. Even the Disciples own understndings at times were in error as The Bible shows. The corrections came from The Holy Spirit either by Divine Revelation or by The Holy Spirt within a person doing the correcting like Paul correcting Peter.
No doubt.....
It’s been pretty quiet since the crevo debates have pretty much ceased. They need to have something to chew on to keep the site going.
Attacking FR provided most of the impetus for that site to keep going.
Are you really that seriously clueless to what that post was about?
By the same token, wouldn't it also be disingenuous to claim that the majority of posts pulled were made by Catholics without proof?
To further complicate matters, it's not at all uncommon for the RM to pull a post which quotes another pulled post.
It's hardly a secret that some of these threads get very heated, from time-to-time a poster is banned, suspended or asked to leave the thread; aside from that, it's somewhat foolish to read much into it.
Why, thank you, Cronos, you are a gentleman and a scholar! ;o)
Boy, is that a relief - I was worried that you thought I was insulting you.
Catholics believe Christ is "true God and true Man", His human and divine natures perfectly united in one Person -- not 50% of each in some weird amalgamation. Perhaps you'd assign different percentages , , , or perhaps you wouldn't assign a "percentage" to "true God" at all . . .
You do still seem to be using circumlocutions to avoid saying that Christ is God.
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.
This you have made up from whole cloth -- and follow it with apparently randomly generated scripture verses as if they were the source or the confirmation, which they are not.
What I said, over and over, is that some here through a fit when I questioned their claims that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life following Jesus' birth.
At least one claimed that Jesus could not be devine if this was otherwise.
Scroll back through this thread and you'll see I'm not "repeating an untruth."
I was talking about the opinions of persons who claim membership in said church. They strongly expressed their faith in the power of Mary's virginity.
Are the people not the church?
The original New Testament church had no priests and no pope. The NT church did not pray to the deceased saints, or Mary . Mary was a part of the NT church, but she was not the church. There is no record of Mary after Pentecost when she received the Holy Spirit.
The reason we do not hear of her after that is that she was not essential or a part of the development of the New Testament church
She was respected by the disciples I would think, ..but no one felt she was important enough or essential enough after Pentecost to write about.
There is no record of the apostles or disciples going to visit Mary and ask her prayer or intercession.. none , nada.. If that was to be practice in the new church they would have modeled it and the Holy Spirit would have seen that it was left for us to know through the infallible word of God
If Mary was sinless, God would have wanted to be glorified for sparing mary the sin of Adam, if He had assumed Mary into the heavens He would have recorded it in His word for our edification and His glory
The Catholic church has deified Mary, intentionally or not. In doing that they have removed themselves from the gospel of Christ and instead preach another gospel that has a god that does what his mother tells him, so she is the one that one goes to in time of need
Gal 1:8
Yes. Maryz asked RnMomof7 on a very public message board. This left the question open for anyone to answer.
The manner in which I answered seems to have disturbed you. You seem to have reacted by attempting to moderate my interaction with Maryz.
While I certainly appreciate your efforts, you should be well aware that we have an active and capable Religion Moderator who monitors these threads.
Perhaps if you asked nicely, you too could be a moderator.
Maybe you could find these posts you claim exist. Are you sure you didn't just read too quickly and reverse the claimed causality, i.e., that both the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity are appropriate because Christ is divine -- they didn't cause the divinity, but were caused by it.
The Bible is the infallible word of God, knowing that, the question has to be raised, if it is not in the scripture..how does one know with absolute certainty that the doctrine is correct and from God ?
The early church fathers believed that you needed to check doctrine against the scripture...
If someone does not know the bible he will never know if his doctrine is really true.
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.