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.

[narses]

presently no screen name:
“The RCC traditions totally opposes God’s Word. “

John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke
(St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”

[freedumb2003]

>>She is also beloved by the Orthodox.<<

That is good to know — thanks, lastchance.

[Religion Moderator]

Posters on every side wave bloody shirts in their choice of articles. That is to be expected on the Religion Forum.

Individual disputes between individual posters, however, should not be carried from thread to thread.

[Secret Agent Man]

Correct. Even Mary knew she needed her son Jesus as her Savior and Lord. If Mary was sinless there’d have been no reason for her (and Joseph) to reprimand Jesus when He stayed in the temple, she would have known He was in His Father’s house and not needed a parental “talking to” like that.

Further if Mary was sinless the Word of God is a liar. All are sinful. All fall short of the glory of God. Not one of us is holy and perfect. The very fact that under Grace, this present Church Age we are in, at Baptism God actually lives INSIDE US, while we still have a sin nature we fight against at the same time,

it is totally logical (and not only that, true) that Mary could give birth to the sinless Son of God, without being sinless.

The thing that’s so ironic is the very people who believe Mary was at conception, made instantly sinless by God, refuse to believe that when you die, God completes your sanctification instantly so that when you are absent from the body you will be present with the Lord, and instead want to believe God will not do that for you but instead delay it and somehow exact a little more suffering and discomfort until He feels you’re finally ready.

[narses]

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin...”

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works,

English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.

Louis], Volume 4, 694.

[Mark17]

Mary - like other biblical figures of faith are great examples for us in our daily walk with Him.

Right on sister. There is no doubt at all that Mary was blessed among women, and a wonderful example, but not sinless. Hi again Annie and Rn. Keep the faith, for we are closer than we have ever been before.

[Salvation]

How many times do Catholics need to tell you that WE gave you the Bible. Like it or not, that's the truth. Even Luther said so.....LOL!

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

[lastchance]

You lie. But I see what you mean.
Did you know many Protestants have a strong inclination to follow the ancient worship of (insert male pagan deity of choice) who is called Lord, King of Heaven, Mighty. See that is how your lie works. Of course Protestants do not worship anyone but God. But I can take a fact and twist it to become calumny. You do it so well. I thought I would see if I could match your skill.

[Texas Eagle]

The bible says if you break ONE of the commandments you have broken them all (Jam 2:10)...

Doesn't the Bible also say that ALL have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God?

If Mary DIDN'T sin, then the Bible itself must be a lie.

[editor-surveyor]

> “Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, Zeitoun”

.
You freely attribute these obvious demonic manifestations to Mary?

Truly sad!
.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not accuse another Freeper of telling a lie, it attributes motive, the intent to deceive. It is "making it personal."

Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" "misleading" do not attribute motive.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[freedumb2003]

>>That’s not the Mary of the Bible. The RCC traditions totally opposes God’s Word. <<

Nothing could be more clear.

So, RM, is Catholic-bashing allowed (or by some, encouraged)?

We seem to have left the confines of an academic debate of Mary’s status and just degenerated into the simple statement above.

I certainly don’t call for banning nor post deletion - just a clarification of the Religion Forum rules...

[Texas Eagle]

Mary was not immaculately conceived, she was immaculately impregnated.

[lastchance]

The feast of the Immaculate Conception is approaching they are getting an early start.

I know non Catholics who believe Mary was blessed and that she lived a sinless life. I can accept their belief as it does not dishonor her. But when the bashers on here claim she was just a vessel or that she could well have been a doxy I get very angry.

[Religion Moderator]

Posters may condemn dieties, religious authorities, beliefs, groups of believers, authors, etc. on "open" Religion Forum threads. But they must not "make it personal" - e.g. reading minds, attributing motives, making the thread "about" individual Freepers, etc.

Thick skin is required for the town square format of "open" Religion Forum threads.

Different guidelines apply to "caucus" "ecumenical" "devotional" and "prayer" threads.

Click on my profile page for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.

[metmom]

Not quite. He needed a sinless vessel to bring the Savior.

No, He didn't. Show us where it says that in Scripture.

Do you have any idea WHY Jesus was sinless?

Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin, live as a man, then die as a martyr for God to save all of mankind.

Yes, yes, and no.

He had to do the first two to fulfill prophecy, but he did not die as a martyr. He died as a sacrifice to redeem mankind from the penalty of sin.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Thanks for the links.

It is quite instructional here. To see so many who claim to be Christian yet are unable to even respond without anger and untruths about a religion they know nothing about.

Learning to read would be a good thing. Perhaps they could start with the Bible and work themselves up to the early Church fathers. Perhaps some history could become part of the mix.

[freedumb2003]

>>I know non Catholics who believe Mary was blessed and that she lived a sinless life. I can accept their belief as it does not dishonor her. But when the bashers on here claim she was just a vessel or that she could well have been a doxy I get very angry.<<

I am pretty sure RCC doctrine is that not so much she lived a sinless life, but was absolved of sin at the time of the Immaculate Conception. “Blessed art thou amongst women” is a strong and poignant statement — directly from God’s messengers and not to be taken lightly.