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.
Nor did I say you were. No reason to take the post personally, it was not posted to you.
Please accept my apology, it WAS posted to you. However, it wasn’t personal, I’ve known you were not Lutheran for years.
I would eliminate the baptism mandate
Until Zwingli in the 16th century, NOBODY suggested that baptism was not necessary for salvation.
As for the question of those who COULD NOT be baptized after they accept the need for it, the Church has long recognized that there is a "baptism of desire" and this would apply to the thief on the cross because there was no opportunity for him to be baptized between his acceptance of Christ and his death (there is also the "baptism of blood" which applies to unbaptized martyrs and especially the Holy Innocents).
However, Scripture clearly shows that the Apostles considered baptism to be mandatory:
[43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.[46] For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. [47] Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.
-- Acts 10:44-48
We see here that the people hearing Saint Peter preach were converted and received the Holy Spirit; however, Peter STILL insisted that they be baptized. Why would that be unless he considered baptism to be mandatory?
What do we have to believe about Him Wag? I think THAT is the key
I would say that Galatians 1:4 is probably as precise an answer as any; however, I also think that the entire First Epistle of Saint John expands on this perfectly.
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 would basically agree with that.
I know you cannot read minds, but I find some of these posts telling Catholics what they believe to be so ridiculously ignorant they are actually funny!
Find that beam yet? It should be pretty easy!
cronos:Good catch -- it should be Give up the false pastors who lead your groups to perdition and come to Christ.
More Catholic support of the Inquisition I see. Catholics just can't seem to get rid of that bloodlust.
No. We never had enough money to BUY a birthday cake and my sister was the baker in the family.
Besides, my mom is dead, and I don't pray to her either. I'll catch up with things when it's my turn and I see her again.
Catholics admit that they *venerate* etc Mary. Worship by any other name is worship.
The only way Catholics can justify their teachings and practice is by twisting the definitions of words and that is an intellectually dishonest way to debate or reason.
Give up the false pastors who lead your groups to perdition and come to Christ
Give up the false pastors who lead your groups to perdition and come to Christyour groups are led by false pastors.
It’s them telling us what they believe! FYI, Myself and others here were part of the RCC at one time.
If the beam is so easy to find, did you find it? I found Jesus, The Rock!
Another excommunicated Catholic! How nice for you.
When they leave the Church and excommunicate themselves, they are driven by the nearly unbearable loss to build up whatever poor substitute they can find...nothing compares to the Church they denied, so they have to tear it down in order to make their phony church look bigger.
If they actually believed their new “church” they would simply stick with it, and ignore what they decided was wrong, instead of fixating on what they rejected and continually looking for minute differences to magnify and shout about.
....Which is part of the problem you see...you cannot offer the Sacrifice of Gods Son...not in your power...Christ layed down His life willing...and it is finished...done...no need for further sacrifice. In fact it sppears catholics forget we serve 'a risen Christ'. He is no longer on the cross to be sacrificed over and over. Remember...He won!
And so you are then saying taking communion is your worship. Seems pretty flat compared to the adulation given Mary....here's a prayer of worship one of your Popes gave in worship of Mary...and this over that which Christ alone is worthy of.
As follows:
PRAYER OF POPE PIUS XII
This prayer, dedicated to Mary Immaculate, was composed by the Pope for the Marian Year (December 8, 1953-December 8, 1954), which was proclaimed to mark the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world,.... we cast ourselves into your arms,..... 0 Immacuate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled you,.... above every other mere creature,.... from the first moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume!..... 0 Conqueress of evil and death,.......(Note: Mary did not conquer death for us Christ alone did).... inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!
O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people! Amen."
Prayer Source: Prayer Book, The by Reverend John P. O’Connell, M.A., S.T.D. and Jex Martin, M.A., The Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1954
Sadly this is worship of the departed....and worship only Christ is deserving of. Catholics replace Jesus with worship for Mary which far exceeds that they give to Christ.
You still don’t understand. I realize you don’t believe as we do, but I would think you might try to understand what it is we believe before you criticize. Since you apparently have no interest in understanding, I leave you to your ignorance.
Pope St. Damasus I begins the 382 canon: "It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins..."
This also from the Catholic Encyclopedia you quote:
"Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent."
Whether the Church defines something as infallible is immaterial; it was the teaching of the Church. The Church rarely makes infallible definitions as it's ordinary definition is sufficient. When seriously challenged, infallible definitions are made, as at Trent.
As to scholars disagreeing, isn't that what scholars typically do? Again I am not a scholar, but I have had discussions with even Catholics about different scripture passages (one that comes to mind is the feeding of the 5,000- some claim it was not a miracle, Jesus merely induced everyone to share what they had); if people on a non-scholarly level cannot agree, I would not expect scholars to!
Regarding your mega posts, I wish I had the time to spend on them, but I do not. So I consider throwing a dozen or more links at someone, and expecting them to research and respond to them is a bit much. If you want to argue with scholars, FR is probably not the place to do it. I am not a scholar, nor do I have the time to be one. So basically mine is a protest against information overload!
I can appreciate the time you put into these posts, but as far as I'm concerned, it's largely wasted as I just do not have the time!
I come close to agreement with your last paragraph. To me it comes down to whose "experts" you believe.
Tarik Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s top henchman is a Chaldean Catholic, whatever that is...
You are misinformed. Who are you to tell Catholics what they do?
I am a Catholic, and while I respect, honor and ask Mary for her help, I certainly do not worship her. Worship is for God alone.
Thank you.
Where did you ever get the unGodly idea that you can offer the life of Jesus to God??? There is nothing anywhere in the scriptures that even hints that someone offered the life of Jesus Christ to the Father at the Crucifixion...
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.