Was Mary Sinless?

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.

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.

Let me give a thread as a link to elaborate what Judith is asking: here is a thread that asks NIV Bible Error Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV There, the poster says All know the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! But what does the NIV say? In the NIV, Lucifer is the "morning star". Now in the NIV, the KJV word "Lucifer" is identified as the "morning star". See for yourself: Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

I know. I read the NIV myself along with a couple more translations when I do have the mental abilities to read. Newer translations are easier for me and allow me more time reading.

OK for your answer. What is the nature of Lucifer? What has he done since time of earth? Deception and even worse trying to copy Jesus Christ. Reading of scripture shows this will continue even until the end times as Satan himself will even try to copy the resurrection. I've read three translations of that verse. Let me ask you something? What do you think the verse shows? For the answer go to Revelation ch 22

16“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne.£ I am the bright morning star.”

Isaiah is calling Lucifer a fraud in that passage in chapter 14. In Revelation Christ says which is which. He is the BRIGHT morning star. Reading either the KJV or the NIV verses might have one come to a wrong conclusion about the verse in question. But understanding the nature of Lucifer exposes it. It really doesn't take understanding ancient word origins. It takes prayer for guidance and understanding. Thus Matthew Ch 16

17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven.”

The Church is within your heart and soul. Your Body is a Temple. A spirit filled Christian in relation to scripture is not very easily mislead and any misleading usually is not for long. As with The Disciple so it is with us The Holy Spirit gives correction and truth. It doesn't mean we may not get scriptural meaning wrong at times. I've read passages all my life then read it and WHAM! I see something I never realized before.

A believer is like a Baby dependent upon parent for Bread of Life. GOD starts you off on milk meaning a basic understanding of The Gospel and salvation. From their each child grows different and is given different talents and dispositions and for that matter different spiritual gifts. Just as with children growing up they will go through their trials and adversities into more maturity.

I want to share something with you. How can GOD's Grace and power work? About 15 years ago I began to loose my abilities to read and concentrate while doing so. My concentration window sometimes per day can be 15 minutes. You might be able to pray for an hour. I struggle to pray two minutes and maintain my concentration. It is a problem beyond my control. The one place where I can pray and do it where I can say what is on my heart is walking a quiet river bank near my home. Oh but when I can't pray The Spirit does it for me.

Your replies may take you a minute on a keyboard. Mine may take two hours for it to all come together. I can't at times have a complete conversation with loved ones without loosing train of thought but when it comes to The Gospel I can through GOD do so. I do admit to one thing. I do have a computer program which lets me pull up verses. But I remember the passages I want to pull up. I remember them. Why? How? Because GOD wrote them in my heart and not because of my own abilities.

An organized church? Outside of my daughters wedding I haven't been in 15 years. My now departed Preacher whom I enjoyed listening to his sermons would now have me seizuring so violently I would be a disruption to any service in about any church. I'm half deaf as well. I use hearing aids but they often trigger my other condition for which medical science has no name. Am I doing what GOD asked of me? Hard question. GOD asked of me 25 years ago and I in faith obeyed. An act some churches like the RC may have seen as sin. But a response to a situation that held no easy answers. A situation that three persons lives needed intervention then and there. A very grave situation thrown in my own and then girlfriends face to deal with. What gave me the faith to act? The Holy Spirit. I tried to run from it. GOD convicted me. A Nun set me straight actually. I'm Missionary Baptist BTW.

Only GOD knows us, our hearts, and our futures. GOD did a miracle in mine. Two persons united in marriage before GOD dependendent on GOD and each other to get through the day. My issues did not take my physical strength. Thank GOD because I need it. My wife needs it. Without it she can't get from the bed to the wheelchair she was put in 25 years ago. Thank GOD her brain is intact and her concentration is good. She can remind me where the van keys are or to take our medication or to pay the bills. GOD knew what he was doing 25 years ago when I said my final good bye to my first wife and He called her home. He knew what hHe was doing when a few months later I met a divorced and abandoned woman raising two kids alone and we becamew good friends and a mutual love developed from it. A love that through GOD's strength and Grace has endured more trails and adversities than I can begin to post about.

What if a preacher or a Priest had said No you can not marry because her husband is living? Her husband walked out two years prior to take a kid to his bed. He abandoned his family to survive on their own. Yet one church I know of prohibits marriage if the husband is a quadriplegic. THAT IS WRONG!!! It is not a doctorine of Christ and love it is a mans doctorine of CONTROL!! GOD CAN PRODUCE MAN'S OFF SPRING if He sees the need. Let them marry and bless them. I speak as one who knows the ins and out aof this very issue. I am a man hapilly married to a quadriplegic wife for 25 years. I thank GOD for my wife. No I don't cheat which is one of that churches weak reasonings for prohibition of such. Sarah became pregnant at an old age. If GOD intends for a Quadriplegic husband to father a child it will happen in spite of them or any church leaders saying otherwise.

Even though Christ found me when I was lost at about age 12 it took time for some changes in me to happen. About 18 years ago I guess maybe 20 an urgency was placed on my heart to read scripture. Not the usual nightly reading many do but chapters a day. An urgency and thirst for knowledge that lasted several years till this affliction struck me. I can recall passages I read and think on them now.

When a subject comes up I can recall the relevant passage and use the computer program via key words to find them. Yet I can not do hardly anything needs doing except by the Grace of GOD. Yea every once in a while He gives me the physical energy to even clean the house as this affliction robs me of physical endurance as well.

So folks please excuse my grammar errors as I can not detect them easily. Spell check helps somewhat. My sensory processing system is shot. It may also mean an incomplete sentence form time to time. What I know and what I understand has been what has been given to me from GOD. Tomorrow GOD may give me more understanding, correction, or I may loose all that I have. But that is tomorrow. This is today. My soul is safe with GOD the gates of hell can not prevail. I'm now at the ripe old age of 53 and have a lot more to learn.

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.