Thar ya go agin . . . pretending that RC's . . .
.
.
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.
No, I am not. Grace, the fruit of the sacraments, is the irreplaceable condition for Christian living, just as participation in the Church's Liturgy requires faith. If faith is not expressed in works, it is dead.
Condemnd if they do, condemned if they don’t.
It’s
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
from RC’s to Proddys hereon.
Thar ya go agin . . . pretending that RC's . . .
INDEED.
‘Tis but one of many of the Vatican AIWSOTARM’s
farcical contentions, assertions, dogmas.
Wonderful.
Excellent.
Thanks for the great history and important theological, Biblical points.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
unlike the [ROMAN] Catholic church tho, we don't chase our exs down and kill them
INDEED. THX.
good to see it never gets personal here.
LOL
Thanks, you have all be been great. Remember to tip your waiter/waitresses and next time try the veal.
Blessings to one and all and your families and loved ones
:)
Your posts remind me of the annoying kid sister that tries so desperately to be noticed by her big sister's boyfriend. Grow up!
There are two reasons.
One is that you've already identified us as Protestants. That's as specific as saying that you're Catholic. Why do you want more?
The other is that our identifying faith is not a denomination. It's the Lord Jesus Christ and faith in Him alone for salvation.
There are true Christians in every church and there are unbelievers in every church, just differing percentages. Some have more Christians and some have fewer.
Since church membership is not what saves one, it's irrelevant which specific denomination one affiliates oneself with.
The other reason that people are hesitant to reveal churches by name is because of confidentiality. By knowing where someone lives and what denomination they affiliate with, it would be far too easy to track them down and identify them, and there are plenty of kooks out there in the world who I would now want to know how to find me. I like my nice peaceful existence. People who take stands for righteousness and Christianity have been known to get death threats from the unhinged God hating left.
Would you tell others on this forum what specific Catholic parish you attend in what specific city?
When this happened to my at that time girl friend I had a one on one in spirit with The Lord. Some believers may say rubbish but I know and understand what happened and why. Through that message given me I was able to make some hard choices some of which I was not capable of handling of my own maturity or even educational knowledge to take on. In a few weeks time I became a caregiver to my wife and a father to teenagers. I was 27.
If anyone thinks getting a message from The Lord means things will be easy or all A OK think again.
After we got married and settled another call was placed on me. One I said yes to at that time because of overwhelming conviction to do so. I said yes and it was gone. For a number of years I questioned it and wondered why I was asked to do it especially under what was already more on my plate than I thought I could handle. I talked to my preacher and he wisely said pray on it. I did and still felt no further calling. Getting before people and speaking is the last thing I want to do. Then my own medical issues began to become more acute. Ones I had dealt with for nearly 30 years since birth.
Why would GOD ask something of me then leave me hanging. He didn't leave me hanging rather I was impatient LOL. That answer came to me much later actually. You're reading it. A person call witness and preach The Gospel in many venues. When I had a calling I didn't even own a computer and never thought I would I had no interest in such. I realize now what that calling was. But when I received it I wasn't ready. In the Bible GOD calls many persons to do things. The thing GOD calls them to do may not come till even decades later in their life. What I have is my experiences with my walk with The Lord. All I can do is share them hoping it helps someone facing what seems an impossible situation.
I believe churches need to return to basics and stop being so wrapped up in denominational dogmas and I say that to all including Southern Baptist where I was raised in. Christ gave us a simple message and a simple way to go. The old way of trying to live the laws and being justified living in them failed by that I mean the Jewish laws which would confound anyone and keep them busy 24/7 trying to abide in them. Even the Disciples were careful to leave it basic. They themselves had to overcome the desire to live under the old laws. Christ did what man could not.
I do not believe in name it claim it theology either or the Gospel of Prosperity. No indeed the chosen of Christ lived often in poverty, in prison, etc. That is not to say prosperity is a sin because it isn't. But GOD is not going to buy anyone a Mercedes Benz. LOL. He leaves that up to you.
When related to the Gospel and The Bible I can concentrate and GOD allows me to keep my energy and thought train. Yet I have trouble with one on one converstaions with my parents or my wife. GOD works in many mysterious ways to His Glory through our weaknesses.
We can’t do enough and good enough works to get into heaven.
The Pharisees kept the Law blamelessly and Jesus said our righteousness needed to exceed theirs.
If they couldn’t get into heaven based on works and they did so well at keeping the Law, how can we think we can do it.
The Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ. It never was meant as a means to earn salvation.
If the Law that God instituted among men through Moses was incapable of saving, then any replacement law that men decide to institute is not going to do any better.
ph
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction,and a haughty spirit before a fall.
I'm not proud of the church I attend, nor ashamed of it. It's merely a meeting place for worship and equipping the saints. When we move again, we'll find another church which may or may not be the same denomination.
1 Corinthians 1:30-31 30And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
1 Corinthians 1:11-13 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Likewise, was Peter crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Peter?
Our faith is in Christ. We are followers of HIM not something or someone else.
I have two more programs one which has about seven translations I think. With me program simplicity is a friend LOL. What I'd really like to get is Revell Bible Dictionary and the Holman Bible Dictionary on CD Rom. I already have the books though. Maybe one of these days.
Sorry, but there is just one Catholic Church, headquarters the Vatican.
Your did not actually have to read the links to see that your charge that no one challenged the apocrypha before Luther is manifestly false, as was abundantly documented right before your eyes, including by Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, and which others affirm.
Instead of having the decency to make a specific argument, you post links to sites that you refer to as “documented history”.
“Decency to post a specific argument?” You said that Martin Luther wanted to toss Revelation , along with the Epistle of James and the Letter to the Hebrews, as if he were the first to question such or the Apocrypha, and in response i provided much substantiated evidence from from that historian, among other sources, that this was not the case, nor had a “infallible and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon been issued until Trent, as the referenced New Catholic Encyclopedia stated.
I could post links to sites as well, but consider that to be cowardice. I posted the canons, you can cry “ignorant” all you want. Trent was in response to Luther!
Posting links to over 1,000 words of carefully formatted material from their sites is cowardice? And yet regardless of the evidence, your only “substantiation” is to post the books of the most standard list, which is not the issue, and which does not prove there was no disagreement within Trent and before it, so you can more boldly state, “The reason why the Trent list is the first infallible pronouncement of the list is because nobody ever challenged it before Luther!” As for Trent being in response to Luther,” that is moving the goal posts, as that was not the issue, but that Luther was the first to challenge the disputed books. Do you suppose that basically tossing documented evidence, and then more boldly stating a claim, and that an argument predicated upon “if I remember correctly,” and “I'm going from memory here” is courageous?
I do not want too hard on you, but it would be better if you were more careful and reasonable. Good night.
Your post meant a great deal to me and I sincerely thank you for sharing your burdens and joys with us. God is truly wonderful and gracious and each one of us has a special purpose that our Heavenly Father has designed precisely for us, in our time and space. I rejoice with you in how he provides for our deepest longings and needs. I will pray for you and your family to grow even closer to the Lord and each other.
Thank you, apology accepted.
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.