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.
and Pol Pot attended a Catholic college, then straight into Marxism. birds of a feather
There, fixed it for you.
The original post was wrong. The fact is, Hitler rewrote the Bible and replaced God with the state. Progressive/Socialist NAZIs are still trying to do this today.
Sorry Dr E, I gotta call them as I see them.
lol,lol, you and Rnmomof 7 are doomed to be Catholic until the day you die, but the people that they dont want to be aligned with-— out the door, FORMER Catholics, lol, oh that is rich
Shall I FReep mail you the next time I post to ensure it meets with your approval?
As stated earlier, the thief on the cross was not baptized. Baptism is important, but not crucial.
written from my holy water tub
The Catholics are like the evos. Secret little boys club definitions of everything so they can control the discussion and always tell everyone else that they are wrong and they are so ignorant and why don’t they get an education so they know what they’re talking about, and can you believe those ignurint outsiders..... /roll eyes, snicker, high-five each other.....
I am in agreement with Metmom on this. For example, when I go to the hospital for tests, etc., they ask me for my "religion". I always answer, "Christian", though I even am a little resistant to that because I don't believe that Christianity IS a religion. It is actually the very opposite of religion because that word means "to bind back". It refers to man's attempts to bind himself back to God and, as a result, it explains why there are so many different religions in the world. We believe, on the other hand, that it was God himself who binds us back to Him through the free gift of eternal life he has given all by grace through faith.
I believe you nailed it. That’s what happens when you believe your never wrong. Always needing to rationalize and qualify some previous position.
Sure it can be.
The law contained rules and regulations for washings, offerings, ceremonies, hygiene, food preparation, a criminal code, etc. One could follow the letter of the Law and not ever err in keeping the written down instructions and still not be saved because the Law was not established to be a vehicle for salvation. That's why Jesus said that one's righteousness had to exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.
They kept the letter of the Law, thinking that in it they had eternal life. They didn't keep the spirit of the Law, which is what the Law was really about.
In which case, they didn't keep it "blamelessly," which is what you claimed. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength" is part of the Law too.
Philippians 3:4b-6 If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Are you going to tell us now that Paul lied?
I do not think you understood the discussion or the question
Sure it can be.
Luke 11:42-53
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.
“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”
One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”
Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.
It’s somewhat amusing that the Catholic church didn’t ex-communicate them and the excuse is that they ex-communicated themselves.
It kind of absolves the RCC from actually taking responsibility for the action. They could have done it anyway. They SHOULD HAVE done it anyway.
Otherwise, it demonstrates the same lack of moral fiber that they’ve been displaying for years now in regards to dealing with the pedophile priests and abortion supporting leftist politicians.
That way, they can wash their hands of the matter and not have to deal with the unpleasantness of actually making a statement or take a stand. All it does is demonstrate weakness on the part of the Catholic church..
In a church I once attended, a member’s name was removed from the membership list because of adultery. Now, anticipating this, the person quit the church before the action was taken, but the pastor and elders took the action officially anyway on principle. They wanted it on record that this action was taken against that person so that there would be no question about their position.
Cronos...Seems to me you’re on an uneasy role with your posts which can generally be informative even if others disagree...or at least debated. But this “stuff” going on now is just plain foolish and unproductive. Why get yourself in such a tissy? It accomplishes nothing at all and certainly doesn’t honor Christ...so why give place to this tit-for tat non-sense? You’ve forgotten yourself...so put your mind back in place so the debate can continue...and I say this respectfully Cronos....deal with the facts..you always do better by far than this stuff.
I would eliminate the baptism mandate , but you are the first to come close... What do we have to believe about Him Wag? I think THAT is the key :)
However, we must also follow His commandment to love one another.
Actually this is law and not grace.. the law is do, the gospel is done.. We keep His commandments not to be saved, but because we are saved.
I guess I do not understand the distinction between their decision to leave the catholic church and say mine..
Yes, metmom, et al, give them/inquisitors your "false prophets/pastors who lead you to perdition". I'm sure they will be treated with the utmost respect and will be allowed to personally confess their blasphemy and repent of their sins of coercion. And if they do not, then they will be allowed to bribe their inquisitors so that they can be provided with a sack of gunpowder to hang around their necks when they are tied to the stake and before the fire is started./sarc off
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.