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.
now that’s just plain funny!!!!
DO NOT post to me anymore...I have had it with all of you anti-Catholics!
lol
LAstchance - Dr. E belongs to the OPC, the OPC is a non-Christian cult. THey will keep attacking and repeating their cult-leaders pronouncements (which are lies). The OPC cultists are completely brainwashed and are to be pitied.
If the pope washes anybody’s feet it’s because he’s checking to see if their shoes are better than his red pradas
Do you love me?
Thanks for the opportunity to post the Scripturally-solid website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church...
Wrong on all counts. Stop buy and get your prize on the way out.
Nice. Don’t you think that the OPC cult’s lame attempts to prove itself Christian are hilarious?
Don’t you mean www.lds.org? It’s the same type of lying non-Christian cult as the OPC. The OPC with it’s fake website is hilarious1
I think it is interesting that Catholics can never tell me what the Good news is...maybe because they do not have any???
Wmfights started asking this question a few years ago and the silence from dozens of Roman Catholics has been thunderous.
They weakly fall back on the first four books of the Bible which are basically the biography of Christ. The teaching of Christ is taught by Paul, Peter, Luke and John, and it's painfully obvious most RCs on this forum have never read what these men taught about Christ.
And yet, strangely, when asked why did Christ speak in parables in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are likewise silent. Apparently they haven't a clue.
I think the lame attempts here to prove that you are any kind of Christian is anything but hilarious.
Whatever Cronos' and Ann's version of the Gospel might be, we now hear that it is far, far larger than all of the four Gospels in the New Testament combined. That might explain why we never hear it.
I don't think that's the reason, however. I think the reason is shame. To paraphrase some earlier posts:
"What is it with Catholics that they cannot answer that question?? Really....have you EVER known a Protestant that couldn’t answer what the Gospel is?? Catholics must be ashamed of the Gospel!"
Show me this alleged post.....
Provide a link, if you can, where I SAID that you wouldn't do it.
Thank you. Was your typo a Freudian slip since Rome teaches salvation can literally be bought via indulgences, etc?
OTOH, I, like Paul, "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:14) gratefully "knowing my election of God" (1 Thess. 1:4.)
lol. How can anyone look at the false bishop of Rome and deduce this is a humble servant of God???
You presume much and are in great error when you say Catholics are ashamed of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
The Gospels in the Written NT Scripture are the 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Your claims of that not being so are not going to change historical accepted fact. Now as to what Good News the authors of the Epistles refered to it would be what Jesus taught them and how and why He came for our salvation. These things are contained in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Jesus Himself not only came to give the Good News. He is the Good News. He is the embodiment of the Gospels. The Living Word, The Logos. Apart from Him, there is no Good News.
As I answered before:
Gospel means good news. Epistle means a letter. The gospels are narratives of the life and words of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke are the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John is a non synoptic gospel.
As for specifics of the good news, Luke 4:18-21 is probably as good a summary as any.
18”(A)THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED
19(T)TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”
20And He (U)closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and (V)sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
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.