Was Mary Sinless?

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.

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.

Interesting. I doubt it is true, however. What is your source for saying Bormann’s wife was Catholic? Because his oldest son CONVERTED to Catholicism after the war, iirc.

Anyway, here’s an interesting internet page:

LUTHER AND PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF THE NAZI GOVERNMENT

“It is easy to see how Luther prepared the way Hitler.” - Dr. William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury[1]

Adolf Hitler himself was indeed a true (spiritual) son of Luther and in many ways was only being logical to the principles set forth by Luther in his approach to things. Hitler himself declared the reality of this point in one of his speeches saying: “I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later – once we hold power – Christianity will be overcome and the German Church established. Yes, the German church, without a Pope and without the bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.” - ( Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speeches, edited by Prof. N.H. Baynes [oxford, 1942], pg. 369).
A Man like Hitler could have only have succeeded in country that was thoroughly Protestant (or godless) or else he would have been put down and strongly resisted (as was the case with Mussolini in Italy). This fact comes through as we read that “the first electoral breakthroughs enjoyed by the Nazis came in Protestant rural areas, such as Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, ...Subsequently the constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities; and by 1932 the stream of peasant deserters to Hitler’s party had become a torrent.” (The “History Today” Magazine, October 1998, from the article entitled “WHO VOTED FOR THE NAZIS?)

Peter F. Wiener[2] (a German author) in his work “Martin Luther, ” states that “Many attempts have been made to explain the exaggerated destructive nationalism of the Germans and the Nazis. Again, I think that to a great extent Martin Luther is at the bottom of it”. (pg. 81). These words are no doubt true, since a countries future is found in its past. The ramification for Germany embracing the erroneous ideas of Luther was inevitably going to have its consequences.

This map shows the influence of religious conviction on the Nazi vote for the Reichstag election 7/32. Elevation represents the share of Catholics / protestants (the higher, the more Catholics live in a Kreis) in relation to total population. The Nazi vote share is represented by different color shadings (dark red: highest NSDAP share; light green: lowest NSDAP share). The map reveals that the NSDAP strongholds are clearly restricted to protestant areas. This becomes very clear e.g. in East Prussia, where in a small catholic enclave the NSDAP performed very poorly in comparison to the surrounding Kreise dominated by protestants.

It is also inportant to note that of the 21 Nazi Germans tried as war criminals at Nuremberg 16 indicated they were “Protestant.”

Lets Look at three of the most distinguished German Protestant theologians—Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanual Hirsch. These men were highly respected, extremely erudite, uncommonly productive, and internationally known professors, each at a different, first-class university.

Professor Robert P. Erickson did an unusually comprehensive investigation of the three theologians’ writings, utterances, and activities as they pertain to Nazism and the Jewish Question. He reports his findings in a book, Theologians Under Hitler. If anyone should know whether submission or opposition is demanded of the followers of the living Christ when confronted with a regime as totally reprehensible as that of the Nazis, surely it would be these theologians.

What conclusions did Erickson reach as to the stance of the three men who would be expected to exemplify the ultimate in the embodiment of those noble values that millions of Sunday school children are taught attach to Christian folk? They are grim:

“They each supported Hitler openly, enthusiastically, and with little restraint.” In fact, they deemed it the Christian thing to do. They “saw themselves and were seen by others as genuine Christians acting upon genuine Christian impulses.” Furthermore, all three tended “to see God’s hand in the elevation of Hitler to power.” Hirsch was a member of the Nazi party and of the SS. The Nazi state, he said, should be accepted and supported by Christians as a tool of God’s grace. To Althaus, Hitler’s coming to power was “a gift and miracle of God.” He taught that “we Christians know ourselves bound by God’s will to the promotion of National Socialism.”

September 1933: German Protestant deacons meet in Hamburg to celebrate the centennial of their association. A Protestant pastor addresses his comrades in a speech entitled Deaconry as attack: “All this is Protestant deaconry: Service and fight. We greet you all as the SA of Jesus Christ and the SS of the Church, you brave ... [fighters] of need, misery, despair and dereliction.” [KS57] After the war the swastika was removed from most of the photographs of the meeting. Only a few survived unaltered, such as this one.
Kittel and a group of twelve leading theologians and pastors issued a proclamation that Nazism is “a call of God,” and they thanked God for Adolf Hitler. Kittel was a party member and he himself proudly claimed that he was a good Nazi. He explains that he did not join it as a result of pressure or for pragmatic reasons but because he concluded that the Nazi phenomenon was “a völkisch renewal movement on a Christian, moral foundation.” He accorded Christianity a place of honor in Nazi Germany precisely because of its position on the Jewish Question. He said he was speaking for other theologians too when he maintained that agreement with state and Führer was obedience to the law of God.

These theologians were drenched in anti-Semitism. For example, throughout the whole of the Nazi era, Kittel’s writings, Erickson has determined, “correspond to and support Nazi politics, including all of the policies on the Jewish question, with the possible exception of genocide,” but one is led to wonder. He never spoke out against extermination. Indeed, he actually propounded what was purported to be a theologically solid Christian justification for the oppression of the Jews, whom he referred to as “refuse.”

Let me quote what a well know German Protestant Pastor at the time had to say about Hitler’s regime “We again feel ourselves created beings. Profession and Social standing, race and nationality are today again being regarded by us as important facts!” . . . He goes on to tell his congregation about the “divine call in the (Hitler’s) spiritual revolution which is beginning to take place throughout the whole of our nation” - (Pastor Neimoeller, The First Commandment, Pg. 58-59).

During the Nazi regime, the Protestant Church in general supported Hitler. The Protestant clergymen who wound up as inmates at Dachau were those who were anti-Nazi, such as the Reverend Martin Niemöeller, one of the founders of the Confessional Church. Other Protestant ministers who were incarcerated in the Dachau concentration camp were Ernst Wilm and Kurt Scharf. Although there were far fewer Protestants who were persecuted by the Nazis than there were Catholics and Jews, Germany’s Protestant Church has admitted using slave labour during World War II, and has pledged to pay compensation to Nazi victims. The admission came after revelations that Berlin church parishes set up a forced labour camp during the war, and used workers from mainly central and eastern Europe for tasks such as grave-digging. “This was complicity in a regime based on force and removed from the rule of law. We accept this guilt,” said church council president Manfred Kock.

Again Peter F. Wiener in these regard confirms for us that that “After the Nazis came to Power, the Lutherans supported Hitler. To them the as ordained by Luther was infinitely more important than the Church or Christianity”. Again he tells us “When the people asked why the German people have never shown any sign of revolt against Hitler and his gang, I have usually referred my questioners to Luther, who was the first to say that even against the most unjust ruler the people have never a right to revolt.” (Ibid, Pg. 87-88).

November 15, 1933: More than a thousand Lutheran nuns, meet under the swastika. The Bishop of Berlin in his speech: “Permit me to compare our sisters with the SA!” (a paramilitary Nazi troop). (Though it may be coincidental, even the layout of this meeting, at least on this photograph, seems to resemble a huge swastika.
The church and its social services arm, the Diakonisches Werk, said it would pay 10 million marks ($4.9m) into a fund for surviving victims around the world recently set up by the German Government and leading businesses. Along with the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church is one of the two main denominations in Germany. Both were subject to serious oppression during the Nazi regime. The peak of the forced labour scheme came during the latter years of the war, as thousands of civilians mainly from occupied eastern Europe were forcibly transported to Germany to boost the flagging war effort. Most were housed in extremely poor conditions in labour camps and made to work long hours in munitions factories.

All This Lutheran hatred for the Jews should not be shocking for did not Luther preach this same hatred? Did not on February 15, 1996 [the 450th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther - the father of the Reformation] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada publicly denounced Martin Luther’s many “anti-Judaic diatribes” at its biennial national conference in Winnipeg. Prior to that, Lutheran churches in the United States and elsewhere had issued similar declarations.

Title Page of a German “German Deacon Press MAGAZINE FOR MALE DEACONRY Official Organ of the German Deacons” April 1939

Please note that when this magazine was printed, the majority of the Nazis’ crimes had already been committed. Communists, democrats, homosexuals, and others had already been carried off into concentration camps, the shameful anti-Jewish race laws of Nuremberg had been introduced 1935. Even those who for a long time had been closing their eyes to the evilness of the Nazis could no longer delude themselves, after the “Kristallnacht” of November 1938, a government-incited public pogrom against the remaining Jews when thousands were killed in the streets, had taken place. The German army had “peacefully” (and to the relief of the major part of its population) annexed Austria in early 1938, and - less peacefully - invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939.

Among the latest institutions to pledge support was Germany’s Evangelical Church, which promised $5 million last week as it acknowledged that Protestant churches used forced laborers during the Nazi era for such jobs as grave-digging.” [CBS News, July 17, 2000]

Let me conclude by quoting for the last time Mr. Peter F. Wiener “Throughout the Last war (WWI) and throughout the present one (WWII), the Germans have committed atrocities which are impossible to imagine by those who have merely read or heard about them. This is teaching hatred, but an undeniable though most unplasant fact. Not once in either war has any section of the Lutheran clergy protested — such as have the churches of Norway and other occpied counties where the Gestapo is at least as strong as inside Germany. With the exception of a few refugee pastors in Britain, I do not know of any section of the German Protestant Confessional Church whose pastors have refused to preach, to serve, to ordain and bless the atrocities and horrors committed by the German armies and their leaders. These facts are unpleasant and horrible. I maintain that we can understand them and explain them only if we look at the dark figure from whom the German Lutheran clergy has for four centuries taken their orders: Martin Luther” (Ibid, Pg. 98-99).

Footnotes:

1. The Archbishop’s, Conference, Malvern, 1941, London, 1941, Pg. 13.

2. Peter F. Weiner, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Published by Marian House, Powers Lake, N.D. 58773. This book explains at greater length the fact that Hitler’s ideas were only a logical conclusion of the teachings of Luther. Mr. Peter F. Weiner, is also the author of : German for the Scientist, and German with Tears.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hitler.htm

And from the Athenasian Creed!

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence.
For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.

The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited.

The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite.

So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty.

So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another.

But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world.

Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.
Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.
One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies;
And shall give account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire

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.