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.
Another falsehood. Put up or shut up.
and not only that, you have no way of knowing what the man may have said about Christ in his lifetime
I think you’ve missed a lot of this conversation, because your comments make no sense in the context of it.
“As I pointed out yesterday even Dr. Eck is not in communion with her Church’s teachings on Catholics.”
lol. If you’re referring to this post of yours I ignored it because it made no sense...again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=1921#1921
All GERMAN POLICE UNITS WERE UNDER THE S.S.
That’s correct. And Ratzinger’s father stayed employed until his normal retirement, thus, as you admit, put him under the S.S.
What is wrong with kneeling? Have you ever knelt to pray? I've seen non-Catholics kneel to pray- are they worshiping the bible?
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between worshiping someone or something and showing a person honor and respect.
I most certainly do ask for Mary's help, and can attest to her powerful intercession. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? Obviously she does not take the place of the “One Mediator” Jesus.
I am reminded of Mary's role in the wedding at Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine on her behalf. Most imporantly, Catholics are very aware of her last words in the Gospel: “Do whatever He tell you”.
A basic tenet of Judaism is that none are righteous, or "good", that any righteousness that men have, comes from God. Jesus also affirmed this and we know from the prophet, that good deeds avail one nothing. If on his dying, he had given God the glory for keeping the Shema for him, instead of taking the credit himself, he would have shown that basic understanding.
Furthermore now I see that he was a pharisee of the first order, did not recognize Christ as the Messiah but instead followed another man that claimed he was the Messiah. A cursory reading of the NT will tell you that the pharisees did try to keep the whole law, but Jesus told them they could not.
So, who is right, you or Jesus?
That does not mean he was complicit in any S.S. actions as you are trying to imply. EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN GERMANY WAS UNDER THE S.S. BECAUSE THEIR UNITS (WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT) WERE PUT UNDER THE S.S. SO BY YOUR LOGIC EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN GERMANY AT THE TIME WAS ALSO COMPLICIT IN S.S. ACTIONS. THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL LEFT IMMEDIATELY. NOW I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ASPECT OF CIVILIAN LIFE AT THE TIME WAS NOT UNDER NAZI CONTROL? WHAT JOBS WERE OUTSIDE OF THE NAZI PURVIEW? WHAT BRANCH OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE WAS INDEPENDENT OF STATE CONTROL?
You mean Calvin’s Geneva was not a democracy?
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.
Invoking Godwin's law, I declare you have lost the argument. Oh, and give a source for your calumny, BTW.
I said he kept the commandment to love God with his whole heart, etc.
Did you learn your Judaism from Protestant sources too? Try a Jewish source.
Well Christ said he couldn’t so who is right, you or Jesus? I learned my knowledge of Judaism from the old testament, why, where did you learn yours? Who is right, you or Jesus?
An archangel was sent from Heaven to say to the Theotokos: Rejoice! And beholding Thee, O Lord, taking bodily form, he was amazed and with his bodiless voice he stood crying to Her such things as these:
Rejoice, Thou through whom joy will shine forth:
Rejoice, Thou through whom the curse will cease!
Rejoice, recall of fallen Adam:
Rejoice, redemption of the tears of Eve!
Rejoice, height inaccessible to human thoughts:
Rejoice, depth undiscernible even for the eyes of angels!
Rejoice, for Thou art the throne of the King:
Rejoice, for Thou bearest Him Who beareth all!
Rejoice, star that causest the Sun to appear:
Rejoice, womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Rejoice, Thou through whom creation is renewed:
Rejoice, Thou through whom we worship the Creator!
Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
you want to claim that the rabbi kept the whole law. Outside of Christ, this is not even a possibility. where did you learn Christianity?
Then why do you pray to Mary?
When Jesus disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, what did He say?
Was it not this....?
Luke 11:1-13 1Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." 2And he said to them, "When you pray, say:
"Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation."
5And he said to them, "Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves, 6for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him'; 7and he will answer from within, 'Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything'? 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs.
9And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
Now, tell me this....
Where did Jesus EVER teach anyone to pray to someone besides the Father?
Did He ever command anyone to pray to Mary or those who the RCC designates with the term *saint*?
Where did He ever command anyone to pray to someone besides the Father at all?
Is there any record of Jesus Himself ever praying to anyone but the Father?
Why don't Catholics pray as Jesus instructed us to?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding?
In any case, I have stuff to finish up today if you don’t.
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.