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.
I’ve used a lot of software Bibles. They usually include various commentarys and concordances. I have one CD Bible package that included “A Pilgrim’s Progress.”
Good grief...it’s Matthew Mark Luke and John. You might want to read them!! Lots of jesus’s own words in that.
If you're a man, I'm calling you "husky and solid." If you're a woman, I'm calling you "voluptuous and Curvy."
Am I off the hook?
I think it maybe because it is not all that important to us..we do not identify ourselves with a church as much as with Jesus Christ..
It has to do with an entirely different perspective on salvation . Catholics see the church as the means of salvation.. Protestants see the church as the gathering of the saved . I have know Alex a long time, I have no idea what his church is.. it just does not matter to me as long as He names Christ as his Savior and Lord .
Praise God for your honest and sobering testimony in the midst of all else here, in which you are finding that God’s grace in Christ is sufficient for you. It was the power of an exchanged life that Paul operated under, as He followed the Lord Jesus who said “ the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (Jn. 14:10) And the joy of the Lord must be our strength, and i have much to go in all this.
Your faith is a reminder that salvation nor service is contingent upon brains and brawn, though we are to be thankful for such and consecrate them to serve the King, but He only saves those who are of poor and contrite spirit and reverence His Word. And is the negative things that devil meant for evil that works to bring souls to see their need for the Savior, while such also helps to keep one from being exalted above measure. Our inadequacies also work to make the body of Christ more interdependent, and so “the feeble members are more necessary.” (1Cor. 12:22)
While Jesus still heals by His stripes, if all in the church and even in the world were all healthy, then we would be shallow people.
And thank God you found a gospel church early on.
Your posting is better in grammar and spelling than many i see. With my stiff fingers it takes me a long time to type and i appreciate the auto speck check in Firefox and OpenOffice. Do you ever try use speech to text software? I have an older copy of Dragon, which leaves much to be desired and so i rarely use it. But it has much potential.
Those are BOOKS we call the gospels ..they contain the gospel along with many of the events and encounters of Christ..
They tell us that Jesus PREACHED the gospel
Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
When the epistles were written the gospels had not been written , yet the epistles refer to the gospel .. the gospel is a specific message of Christ that was taught by the writers of the epistles . I thought that maybe as a student of the bible you might know what it is
LOL
Thanks for answering for Alex...I have NO idea WHY Protestants are never willing to say what sect of Prtenstanism they belong to!
I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND VERY PROUD OF IT!!!!
So not ture....some of the Epistles are OT....some are NT.
And your religion is re-instituting it's age old law of not eating meat on Friday...
The beam in your eye is shaped like a horeshoe...It runs thru both of your eyes...
Again....I KNOW ALex Murphy WON"T answer what sect of Protestantism he is, so which one are you!! And bet you don't answer either!!
BTW...I salute you for having 7 children....Blessing from God that you accepted!!
Really? Works done with an empty and calloused heart purely for compliance to the letter of the law won't save anyone, but works done out of love and beatitude will. If faith is not expressed in works, it is dead and cannot bear fruit unto eternal life.
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? - Jas 2:14-16
I do not know where you went to Catholic school..BUT I went from 1st grade through college and only had one bible class (as a philosophy credit) in college..
We had church teachings and catechism and sodality and mass.. but no Bible
Didn't John Kerry quote the "Faith without works" passage to justify government social programs?
What the hell do you think CATECHISM is?? good freaking grief!! No.....we didn’t have something called BIBLE class...it was ALL BIBLE, ALL THE TIME!! maybe you were taght by Jesuits!!
Are you telling me that you are IGNORANT of the Bible??
Are you an EX-Catholic, then???
I didn;t see that it was YOU!!! Again...I BEG you to tell me what sect of Protestantism you are, but you won’t and neither do others!! What is the MATTER with you people...be PROUD of your sect!!
The Church published a list at the Council of Rome in 382. I posted it, but you can look it up. Trent did not change it.
Mmmm, cat: the other white meat... :)
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.