Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[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.

[Grizzled Bear]

Sigh...

Go back and read my post again. The liberals did not want Ratzinger to become Pope. They said it was time to elect a liberal Pope, rather than Ratzinger.

The liberal press made a lot of outrageous claims about Ratzinger. The same people have reported blatant lies about George W. They also attributed to Sarah Palin, things said by Tina Fey during an SNL skit. Furthermore, they completely ignored Obama’s and Biden’s gaffs while exagerating any conservative.

A lie that pleases your ear is still a lie.

[lastchance]

You should just go ahead and delete my post. That way you don’t have to sit there and lose more hair on my account.

[samiam1972]

I’d settle for it being a tagline. Ha!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Just because the leftist press criticizes Palin and Bush, it does not therefore follow that everyone the liberal press criticizes is wrongly-accused.

The vast majority of the press Ratzinger has gotten is glowing. John Allen, Ratzinger's biographer, also works for CNN. And no one has given a pass to Ratzinger like Allen has.

Several years ago discriminating articles were easier to find. These days the web has been nearly swept clean of the uncomfortable truth and all that's left is treacly revisionism. Here's an interesting article, until it's pulled...

ANALYSIS: THE POPE AND HITLER YOUTH

...But one man who knows some of the hidden truths in the pope's hometown of Traunstein is Father Rupert Berger, and his story deserves telling.

Berger, now 81, was ordained a Catholic priest alongside Joseph Ratzinger and his brother, Georg, in 1951 in the beautiful church in the center of the town where they all grew up together.

But there was something that set their two families apart.

Berger's family sympathized with the Catholic resistance to Nazism in the town. Rupert was the same age as Joseph Ratzinger and at 14 years old he refused to join Hitler Youth. His family suffered as a result. He told me in an interview in 2005 that his father was sent to Dachau. He returned after the war and became the mayor.

Ratzinger's father was a policeman. The family was never affiliated with the Nazi party. But the Ratzingers chose to go with the vast majority of Germany and acquiesce to the regulations requiring 14 year olds to join Hitler Youth. They wanted to survive and allow their two sons to focus on academics in the seminary. So Ratzinger and his brother joined at 14 and went through with the parades and the salutes to the Fuehrer. Ratzinger also served briefly with a German army anti-aircraft unit just before the end of the war.

When I interviewed Berger in April 2005, just after Ratzinger had been elevated to the papacy, he spoke well of Ratzinger's intellect and discipline as a young man. But he said he couldn't understand why Ratzinger had insisted for so long in so many public statements that no one had a choice but to join Hitler Youth.

"It was a hard time to live, and there were hard choices to make," Berger said.

He was too modest or polite, or perhaps uncertain about what to tell a reporter who landed on his doorstep, to state his opinion about the new pope's choices any more clearly.

But what I took away from the interview and my research in the town was that the pope's repeated assertion that he had no choice but to join Hitler Youth was simply not true.

In fact, the statement is an insult to the memory and the lives of those who did resist Nazism and those who did refuse to join the organizations that were formed to perpetuate its power...

[metmom]

I see how Dr. E misread the post.

What the liberals were objecting to was a conservative being a pope. They were saying that now it’s time for a liberal to be a pope, instead of cheering that YEA! Now a liberal is a pope.

[cva66snipe]

Mean while in other news today former RNC chairman supports gay marriages. Gay activist further their agenda of blasphemy by going before the altar of what was once a church and a false prophet in the pulpit declaring them man and man or whatever. As well other false prophets using the name of Christ plan a trip to North Carolina to disrupt a family's mourning and a sacred service to announce to the world a falsehood God hates fags calling themselves Christians while doing so.. Have they not yet learned hate the sin love the sinner?

Our rights as free Americans and Christians are every day one step closer to being revoked by an organization hiding behind a church using Christ name {Not being mentioned in this thread} and several false prophet ministers we see on TV almost daily.

People The Pope is not your enemy at least not Ratzinger. He is not in opposition to Christ nor is most conservative preachers of the Gospel of any church.. The next Pope or your next preacher? GOD only knows and the Lucifer's angels are just as likely to show up at any ones church next in the form of Preacher, Priest, Deacon, or Sunday School teacher.

I like a good discussion as much as anyone about matters of The Gospel and religion. This thread has gone far past it and I include myself in some of the behavior not in step with that the Lord demands toward our brothers and sisters in Christ.

This thread at this point reminds me of visiting the monkey exhibit at the zoo. They act like monkeys because they are just that. We are brothers and sisters in Christ responsible for what we say BECAUSE OTHERS OF LESSER FAITH may not understand and me harmed. By being harmed I mean saying if is bickering is the following of Christ I don't need it. I don't think anyone in the thread wants to do that to anyone. Stop, take a deep breath, and think.

A bigger problem and enemy is upon us and the enemies leader is laughing at us one and all this moment. I can disagree with someones beliefs as them not being mine and walk the path GOD put me on.

Christ didn't tell us to make anyone converts to our churches. He told us to go and teach the Gospel and help make believers.

Please leave it to GOD to put the person in the church HE wants them in. If they are in the wrong one He'll let them know in His time.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

anyone trying to connect Hitler with the Catholic Church

He was born, baptized and raised RC. He never renounced his church and he spoke often about his Christian faith. And he's never been excommunicated, although you and I, as Protestants, and all those who have confidence in their salvation by Christ, have been excommunicated, according to the Council of Trent.

The uncomfortable fact is that Rome made a devil's pack with Hitler and both sides profited from it.

Don't fall for the Discovery Channel's view of history (owned by Disney, btw) that tried to palm off Hitler's religious leanings as New Age. Granted, Hitler infused National Socialism with all sorts of volkish symbolism, but at his core he was a papist who belonged to the church as long as that church did not rebuke him.

Which it didn't.

Read "Hitler's Pope." And try to ignore all the lies thrown at its Roman Catholic author who set out to defend the papacy during WWII and was so shocked by what he found he ended up condemning it.

[Natural Law]

"RCs just make things up."

That's rich coming from someone with no apparent regard for the truth. Joseph Ratzinger was a career officer in the Landespolezi, a civilian police force run by the State of Bavaria that not unlike any municipal police force today. The order to integrate the forces was given in June 1936 and integration was completed the following spring. Ratzinger submitted his retirement papers upon the issuance of the absorption and was mustered out soon after its completion in 1937. To listen to you he was a stoker in the furnaces of Auschwitz and not a civil servant.

[narses]

The unbalanced nutcases want soooo badly to make Catholics look bad they rewrite history and make up stories that are just false. It is sad, but the heretical, rabid anti Catholic few make up in volume for their minority status.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You’re still not making any sense.

Try harder to write clearly and accurately.

Good luck.

[lastchance]

Was Josef Ratzinger ever a sympathetic member of the Hitler youth, as some reports imply? Berger sits forward in his chair and waves his arms. “Nein, nein, nein — no, no, no.”

“We were not Nazis! Quite the opposite!” Berger’s father, also named Rupert, had been a leader in the Nazi resistance from the early days of Hitler’s regime and spent six months in Dachau for his work in the Bavarian People’s Party. Afterward, the family was banished from Traunstein

[narses]

Heretics and nutcases are not bound by truth. Lies abound among them. It just is the way heretics are.

[lastchance]

Hitler’s Pope has been debunked many times over by reputable scholars and historians. The author did not set out to defend the Papacy during WWII as he is a well known dissident.

Try to remember that Hitler was excommunicated by his own actions. I know that is very hard for you to understand. Requiring you to indulge in logic and facts but do try.

You continue to shame the name Christian. God will Judge.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's true that children should not be held to the same measure as adults. But the sad and questionable thing about Ratzinger's ascent to pope is that in all the world Rome could find no man "worthy" of the office other than a man who had belonged to the Hitler Youth, who shot at Allied planes during his time in a German anti-aircraft unit and who was an Allied prisoner of war.

Not one man.

[metmom]

It’s telling.....

[Grizzled Bear]

While stationed in Germany, I met a couple who lived through WWII and the American Occuptation. The man had been a young (teenaged) soldier and the woman had been a child living near a concentration camp.

The old man told me he spent most of his time trying to get captured by the allies. His treatment at the hands of the British was little better than life in the German Army (he was later “rescued”) but he raved about his treatment by the Americans (he had been recaptured soon after his “liberation” by his fellow Germans).

He commented about how his wife had no idea about what happened at the death camp about a mile from her house. Her parents suspected and stayed “quiet and inoffensive” for the sake of the family.

Keep in mind, when the NAZIs suspected someone of resistance, a truck would pull up to their house in the middle of the night. The next day, neighbors would act as if the family never existed.

Some of the people disagreed with the evil going on around them, but ignored it to protect their families. I believe this sort far out numbered those who actively collaborated.

Don’t misunderstand me. Failure to intervene makes the family complicit in the evil. However, how many of us would ignore evil to protect our children and loved ones?

I hope, in such circumstances, I would do what’s right and trust my Lord with my loved ones safety. I can’t say, I’ve only experienced such while my family was safe back in the U.S.

War zones are strange places, my FRiend. I’ve been to two, once to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. The mentality needed to survive in such places cannot be understood second hand.

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

I once asked my dead grand dad to front me $350. He declined.

I don't blame him!

[Grizzled Bear]

You’re not deceased. Front me three-fiddy?