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.
Sounds reasonable to me- I’ll give it an Amen!
metmom you wrote
“If I was so poorly catechized, just whose fault is it? The priest who is supposed to be responsible for the flock he’s entrusted with? Or the nuns who taught my catechism classes?
And why on earth would I want to stay in a church that can’t even teach correctly to its members what it considers the truths it holds?”
Guess what I totally agree with you there. It never, ever shocks me to find out that Catholics were and still are in many cases being poorly taught. And yes I blame all those modernist, liberal priests, sisters and lay people who bastardized Vatican II for that. I do not blame you or anyone else who left the Church.
I have wrote elsewhere that I would rather somebody be a good Protestant than a bad Catholic. Obviously you were being held back from giving yourself fully to God by practices in Catholicism which you could not in good faith support. In that case you should not be Catholic. For anything that separates us from God must be left behind. Because the only thing that matters in the end is our soul’s salvation. If you can not worship God without hesitation how can you rest easy that you are doing as God desires?
I believe the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth as revealed to her by God. If you can not believe that you should not be Catholic. You did the right thing for yourself. Especially since you indicate you only sought out a Bible after you left. I’m a life long Catholic with periods of lapsing (in College) and I’ve always had a Bible. So I get the importance of Scripture to our daily lives. As does the Church. Too bad those teachers of yours failed so disgracefully in passing that on to you.
I do see most of your posts as anti Catholic and not pro Jesus. No doubt you do not mean it to be so.
We'll simply give Christ the full measure of worship and leave you to do as you see right in your own eyes.
If anyone were to kneel before me, light candles and plead for me to facilitate their requests, I'd tell them to stop worshiping me.
AMEN! That's why we advise every Roman Catholic to return to the Bible and read it. And if that happens, it will be because the Holy Spirit is guiding that person to the truth.
I read if voraciously. In the meantime, I knew I needed to start going back to church, so I did and I actually started by attending the parish I had been raised in. I didn't go to any Protestant churches for months. But the more I went and the more I read, the more and more discrepancies I saw between what was written in the Bible and what the Catholic church taught and practiced.
Amen!
"Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word." -- Psalm 119:41
I finally went to a Evangelical/Protestant church and could not believe the difference. Not only did they teach and preach right out of the Bible, the sermons were interesting, and the people actually loved each other and cared about each other. Something that I never saw in the RCC I grew up in.
That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
You are repeating a scandal which fails to reveal very important facts. But you know this...
MInd-reading is against the rules.
Somehow there was not one man in all the world to lead the Roman Catholic church other than a man who had been in the Hitler Youth, whose father was S.S. and retired on time with no repercussions from Nazi authorities, who was a member of a German anti-aircraft unit who shot down Allied planes, who was held as a prisoner of war after he "deserted" along with thousands of German soldiers as the war was ending, and whose brother was involved in a pedophilia scandal of his own.
In all the world, Ratzinger was the only man to lead the RCC.
Apparently a good fit.
As were John Calvin, Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli, Theodore Beza, James Arminius, John Knox, and Thomas Cromwell.
how is saying the Shema every day, keeping the whole Law? do you even know what the Shema is?
Face it. There is something about the papist mentality that loves human authority, that cow-tows to men and bows to them and kisses their feet and rings and calls them "father" when there is only one Father in heaven and He deserves ALL the glory.
or, her son goes off to war and is a hero, returning to receive many awards and medals. At the ceremony, everyone ignores him and gushes over her, even pinning the medals on her, that's Mary worship
Do you kneel to Mary and ask for her mediation between yourself and God?
Wow. I did not know that.
Some fraternity, eh?
You are aware of course that Rabbi Hillel (roughly contemporary with Christ or a little before) taught that the commandments to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself "are the Law and Prophets; all else is commentary"? Maybe not . . .
As were John Calvin, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Theodore Beza, James Arminius, John Knox, Henry Plantagenet and Thomas Cromwell.
Reciting the shema daily isn’t the same as keeping it. He may have been a “good” man, but unless his righteousness came from God, all his own deeds were worthless. you have no way of knowing what the man was like, nor does anyone but God
I should not have read your mind.
Yet you do print falsehoods without apology. Let’s look at your statement that his father was in the S.S.
“The Sunday Times described the older Ratzinger as “an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move several times.” [1]. According to the International Herald Tribune, these relocations were directly related to Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.’s continued resistance to Nazism, which resulted in demotions and transfers.[2] “
Yep sure sounds like an S.S. member to me.
Let me follow your logic down its twisted path. Ratzinger at 14 joined the Nazi’s out of his own desire to serve the evil regime. This was wrong, especially since he enthusiatically shot down RAF and American fighter jets. He did this partly because his father was a loyal SS member who endorsed the Paganism of the Nazi elite. No doubt only his age prevented Ratzinger from volunteering to serve at Dachua. He and his family were favorites of the NAZI’s and enjoyed great privleges. The man was and is evil incarnate. Which explains why he is Catholic nad the Pope. All Pope’s are evil and they drink the blood of babies in dark rituals. But, but, but.
He was wrong to desert the German army. No he did not desert the army. He was really a spy. Hoping to be captured by Soviet or American forces in order to report back to his cabal about troop strength. He was plotting to get close enough to assasinate important allied military leaders and by doing so revive the weary German populace to defeat the invaders.
Ratzinger has never denied that he was with Hitler in the bunker. In fact we have no proof he did not help Frau Goebbels kill her children. It was Joseph who really poisoned Blondie.
Is it a mere coincidence that Joseph shares name with Mengele? I say not. He has no alibi for his presence while the evil experiments were being done at Auschwitz. He is guilty.
You persist in posting falsehoods, knowing full well the mods allow them to stand and remove any corrections. For how does one defend against a lie without stating that the one who writes it is indeed doing so with full knowledge. To say you are in error, mistaken and wrong is rather generous and I only do so because of the rules. If permitted I would say just what you are and no one would be able to gainsay me.
If the rabbi with his dying breath said instead of “I” kept it, that the Lord preserved him in keeping it, you might have a point
That is pure revisionism. The fact is the father’s police unit was subsumed into the S.S. and he stayed in that job until he retired on time the following year. The family faced no reprisals. That is just made-up pablum trying to erase a disreputable history. And all of it was created AFTER he became pope.
Let's be fair. Some of the teachings of the OPC are actually Christian and there are members of the OPC who are actually Christians, but they don't show up on the Religion Forum threads. As I pointed out yesterday even Dr. Eck is not in communion with her Church's teachings on Catholics.
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.