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.
1) I am not "lying" and it's against the rules of the FR RF for you to make that statement, and
2) Ratzinger's words say what they say. He's not stupid; just dangerous. He hedges his bet and surrounds his insidious communism with treacly platitudes in order to misdirect those who would prefer NOT to actually read the total of what he wrote.
As I said, even "Das Kapital" contained occasional simplistic sentiments you and I might agree with regarding the welfare of humanity.
It is in the details as well as the over-all intention of a written work that its raison d'etre lies...and the "reason for this encyclical to exist" is to persuade the people of this world that a "global authority" "with the power of enforcement" "on the order of a strengthened U.N." is necessary for world peace. And this "global authority" is to have the power to regulate THIS COUNTRY'S politics, social structure, tax system, food distribution, employment, immigration, judicial system and defense!
The fact that supposed "conservatives" applaud this communistic blueprint is nauseating.
Regardless of what challenges or opinions were stated or by whom- Jerome had his also- the Church was consistent.
Looking at your “links to over 1,000 words of carefully formatted material” show the first to be a Lutheran site (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com), the second, obvious non-Catholic (tektonics.org), ditto the third (christiantruth.com).
Finally in the fourth link (back to beggardallreformation) we see the first mention of the expert Jedin! There was discussion about the Canon at Trent. Ditto with your fifth link, also non-Catholic (aomin.org). On to your sixth link (back to beggarsallreformation), more discussion at the Council (gee, isn't that what Councils do?)
On to your seventh link (back to christiantruth.com)-no wait; this is the same as link#3 above!
Link eight, back to aomin.org for Luther myths; I'm not going down that road right now; the only pertinent part is the canon of scripture; as far as I know he still considered James to be “an epistle of straw.”. But to his credit, he did include it.
Link nine, Wikepdia; link ten, something about Eusebius; link ten, another non-Catholic site about the letter of James; link 11, a duplicate of line 5; link 12, a footnote in a long article; 13 a link to a verse in First Corinthians; 14 a duplicate of link #2, and 15 something about the JEDP theory? “Roman Catholic liberal scholarship”? Discredited theories? What does any of this have to do with the canon of Scripture?
And finally, the 16th link, looks to be done by a Catholic; his opinion about scripture.
Though I just looked quickly, I did not see anything that disputes the canon of 382 on down through the ages to Trent.
So what if there was disagreement? I'll side with Augustine over your 15 links: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”
I suppose it boils down to whose authority you accept on the matter. You can trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or Luther, or whomever you please; I will trust the Church that Jesus established.
Martin Luther states in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
By the way, to show you how much of a non-expert I am, I have never heard of Jedin!
If I had an unlimited amount of time, I could read and reply to each one of your links in detail. But I do not. So I consider your dumping of links (not as careful as you claim, as there were duplicate links) to be serious overkill. If you can't include a quote in a post, I'm not going to spend hours reading links I probably would not agree with anyway.
I will agree that my saying “nobody ever challenged it before Luther” is not technically correct; I did not think that one through; most of the time my posts, infrequent as they are, have to be done quickly.
I have said that that the Catholic Church has had a consistent list of books since 382. Can you dispute that?
blah blah blah
Who’s being thick?
I told you what I asked, not said.
Amen.", hence we have Holy Tradition.
Good...Now you can explain what these traditions are that Jesus DID and who he revealed them to...
You SAID I wouldn’t name where I went to church because YOU wouldn’t because of confidentiality....and I DID name the Church and time!! You are worried about confidentiality about your church!! Shows ALL I need to know about your church. Don’t bother to write back. I have decided not to talk to anti-Catholics anymore...it’s CHRISTMAS!!
It's nothing but an attempt to cause trouble, everything Cronos posts is an attack on somebody.
I don't eat pork because I don't like it, not because of any "Mosaic dietary restrictions"
Do you even read the Bible? Or is Paul completely off-limits to you?
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." -- Romans 14:13-23"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Now I read Paul here as saying that the dietary laws are of no consequence anymore, but that if a person keeps those dietary laws while having faith in Jesus Christ then we are to remain in fellowship with that person because food is not what sustains us, but the manna from heaven which ultimately sustains us both.
From post 1758 (nota bene- this quote is not directed towards GB, but rather a quotation from a post to another poster)
“And BTW, don’t think for a minute that we don’t see and recognize the baiting and loaded questions and accusations you are making for what they are.
Making sweeping generalizations about people 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. “
GB, Aside from all of the above, it’s also finessing the guidelines.
Good, you evidently read GB’s post 1641 that included the Religion Moderator and noticed that my reply to GB included the other people he cced, named the RM and so you will be asking him “Why do you need to badger the RM over stuff like this?”
“The Word made flesh, Jesus, set us free. Man made traditions are used to chain us.” -> exactly, that’s why we follow Christ and Christ’s Holy Traditions and reject the man-made traditions of folks like the followers of Calvin or the traditions of whichever non-Christian guru RnMom’s group now follows
What was the good news Jesus preached ? He was not reading from the "books we call the gospels " when He preached HIS gospel .
I think it is interesting that Catholics can never tell me what the Good news is.. maybe because they do not have any???
Manipulation, indeed.
Cronos, Alinksy’s method is the tool of the left and they don’t work on Conservative Christians. ‘Your labels’ and ‘groups’ tactics fail. Christians that know Him (not through tradition) are ‘in Christ’. That’s how you address them, Christians who are ‘in Christ’.
Now, some words from God on the subject of meat.
Romans 14:3 ‘The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him’.
Matt 15:11 ‘What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”
Col 2:16 ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days ...”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
Do you feel better now?
Why do you continue to make the same false assertion?
They do believe in the real presence and thus are your brethern according to your own standard.
Perhaps you should seek out an OPC brother (or sister) on this forum and seek their forgiveness.
Oh, wow — Uri, now you want to take on the RM too?
She was obviously a righteous person, but not without sin. For her to be sinless, her mom and dad had to be sinless as well, and on and on.
ANd do NOT post to me anymore...I am finished with anti_Catholics.
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.