Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[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.

[metmom]

Romans 14:1-18

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

[Cronos]

Very good post, but do note the entirety of Romans 3

[11]There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet swift to shed blood:

[16] Destruction and misery in their ways: [17] And the way of peace they have not known: [18] There is no fear of God before their eyes. [19] Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God. [20] Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

[21] But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. [22] Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: [23] For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths:

(1) Mary did need a savior;
(2) her savior was Jesus Christ;
(3) Mary’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and
(4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are.

Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception.

Medieval theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, "Thank you for saving me," recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord "stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag" (Psalm 40:2-4).

A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me" (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less "saved" than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.

Note also John 1:5-6

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.
And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel." This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the "seed of the woman," a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s--not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

[Cronos]

Of course they are ashamed of their cult — you don’t get Moonies admitting too often, so similarly other loonies don’t admit their cult either. They will hide behind everything to not tell you that they are non-Christians. They will even pretend to speak for our brother Christian Protestants and they seek to cause enimities between Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants etc. because the love of Christ hurts them — the light hurts them.

[Alex Murphy]

Cronos: 1. These are not Christian Protestants. They hid which cult they belong to.
2. In contrast, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans will come out clearly and say "I am SBC, LCMS, etc", but these cultists don't
3. Their religion is not a Christian religion based on love, but rather a cult based on hate -- hatred of Catholics, Arminians, Anglicans, Protestants, in that order.
Please refrain from calling these guys "Protestants" as that term Protestant generally should be restricted only to Christian Protestants, not to the non-Christian cults like the LDS or OPC.
Cronos: they can’t be proud of their various cults, because their cults are, well, cults, not Christian.
Ann Archy: You’ve told me all I want to know about your sect....mostly they don’t like Catholics.

[Cronos]

Actually, your cult should give up it's non-Christian ways and should follow Christ and Christ's teachings.

We in Christ's Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church are pretty content with Christ's Good News, Christ's teachings.

If your cult wishes to keep on following local guru-cult-leaders, that's your group's problems.

[Gamecock]

***If your cult wishes to keep the Mosaic dietary laws and then attacking other folks who don’t****

That’s right Cronos, let’s all do away with Mosaic dietary laws and follow the ones started by Rome!

Remember everyone, fish only on Fridays! Give up something you really, really like during Lent! It’s not Scriptural, but let’s all blindly follow tradition based on who knows what!!

[Cronos]

Yes, good point, metmom -- to GB, as you, metmom asked "Why do you need to badger the RM over stuff like this?"

Why does your group with Uri'el-2012 (ex-XeniaST)'s cult include the Mosaic dietary restrictions and attack those who don't?

[Alex Murphy]

Wise.

Doubly wise:

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."
-- Matthew 7:6

[Cronos]

And Metmom, all this Making sweeping generalizations about Catholics as if they were true and then challenging them to defend them or deny them is disingenuous.

It's a dishonest debate tactic that people who have nothing better to offer resort to. You can do better

Give us the false pastors who lead your group to perdition, come to Christ.

[Cronos]

Cool, we know that, but I asked you a specific question:

Does your (metmo) group believe it wrong to eat pork because it is against dietary laws?

And to Uri -- does your group (Uri) agree with met's group?

[Cronos]

Cool, we know that and we condemn no-one, but I asked you a specific question:

Does your (metmo) group believe it wrong to eat pork because it is against dietary laws?

And to Uri -- does your group (Uri's) condemn folks who eat pork?

[Elsie]

The Early Christians also gathered together every Sunday and did what Christ said to do in remembrance of Him.

HE said, "...as often as you do THIS..."

the 'this' was the PASSOVER meal.

---

1 Corinthians 11

  ²³For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

 ²⁴And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 ²⁵After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

 ²⁶For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

 ²⁷Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 ²⁸But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

 

 

Once a year.

[Cronos]

Why does your group (Gamecook and metmo's) with Uri'el-2012 (ex-XeniaST)'s group include the Mosaic dietary restrictions and attack those who don't?

If you want to attack people who do not follow the Mosaic dietary restrictions, then you should remember Romans 14:1-18

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Why does YOUR group judge us Christians for not following the Mosaic dietary restrictions?

[Gamecock]

I don’t follow Mosaic dietary restrictions.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of you attacking those who follow Mosaic dietary restrictions when your cult has dietary restriction based on, well, non-Biblical musings codified as tradition..

[Cronos]

A very good post, I note that it points out the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (believed by Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, Orientals and Assyrians)

Now why this this change from once a year to on Sunday? You can refer to the Didache (written around 70 AD) which says

Chap. IX.

    1.  Now as regards the Eucharist (the Thank-offering), give thanks after this manner:

    2.  First for the cup: "We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory for ever."

    3.  And for the broken bread: "We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory for ever.

    4.  "As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and gathered together became one, so let Thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever."

    5.  But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the Lord has said: "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Chap. X.

    1.  Now after being filled, give thanks after this manner:

    2.  "We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name, which Thou hast caused to dwell (tabernacle) in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant, to Thee be the glory for ever.

    3.  "Thou, O, Almighty Sovereign, didst make all things for Thy Name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.

    4.  "Before all things we give thanks to Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever.

    5.  "Remember, O Lord, Thy Church to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in Thy love; and gather her together from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou didst prepare for her; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.

    6.  "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any one is holy let him come, if any one is not holy let him repent. Maranatha. Amen."

    7.  But permit the Prophets to give thanks as much as [in what words] they wish.

....

Chap. XIV.

    1.  And on the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, and break bread, and give thanks, having before confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

    2.  Let no one who has a dispute with his fellow come together with you until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.

    3.  For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles."

The Early, 1st Century Christians did this each Sunday.

Justin Martyr, writing to the Roman Emperor around 155, also describes the Christian liturgies of baptism and the Eucharist, which included the "kiss of peace" (Apologia 1:61-66).

We can point to Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition (composed in 210), which includes a liturgical text which looks suspiciously like the Mass. Indeed, our current second Eucharistic prayer was modeled upon the prayer found in this document

[Cronos]

Gamecock "I don’t follow Mosaic dietary restrictions."

Good for you, Gamecock -- then you can join me in asking Uri why his group attacks those who do not follow the Mosaic dietary restrictions.

If your (Uri's) “protestant” group believes it’s wrong to eat pork, then that's your (Uri's) group's problem, we don't mind what you do, just don't condemn Gamecock and the rest of us for not following Mosaic dietary restrictions

[jjotto]

It’s only JEWISH traditions that are anathema. Christian ones are OK.

[Cronos]

Sorry Elsie, I missed this out. So, the Early Christians from the first century onwards took this to mean a more reqular ceremony rather than once a year. Why? I’ll need to research, but I would guess that folks living in Apostolic Times (there were still Apostles around in 70 AD), should have had pretty good reasons!

[Cronos]

Sorry Elsie, I missed this out.

So, the Early Christians from the first century onwards took this to mean a more reqular ceremony rather than once a year. Why? I'll need to research, but I would guess that folks living in Apostolic Times (there were still Apostles around in 70 AD), should have had pretty good reasons!

[Cronos]

Actually, Jewish rules on dietary restrictions and circumcisoin are not anathema, you can follow them if you want. it's the extremist Judaising groups like Uri's that condemn us for NOT following these restrictions