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.
Have you read Ratzinger's recent "global authority" encyclical? It's online, but it is also for sale for $7. It is well worth the investment in order to understand what the RCC is actually shooting for.
Here is paragraph 67. Please read it and tell me if you think it is compatible with this free republic.
"67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations."
Devil's in the details. You're military. Is this part of what you expect from this republic? As I wrote earlier...
If this weren't written by a Roman Catholic priest, I doubt you would have even one Roman Catholic "conservative" agreeing with it. It is pure communistic, anti-free market, anti-capitalism.
Ratzinger wants this "global authority" to control the United States' policies on polities, immigration, food distribution, finance, health, taxation, property rights and justice systems. "Conservatives" should be outraged at this blatant power grab.
And since I'm anticipating the usual "yeah, but that's not all he said," here's my earlier response to that deflection...
Ratzinger's words say what they say. He's not stupid; just dangerous. He hedges his bet and surrounds his insidious communism with treacly platitudes in order to misdirect those who would prefer NOT to actually read the total of what he wrote.
As I said, even "Das Kapital" contained occasional simplistic sentiments you and I might agree with regarding the welfare of humanity.
It is in the details as well as the over-all intention of a written work that its raison d'etre lies...and the "reason for this encyclical to exist" is to persuade the people of this world that a "global authority" "with the power of enforcement" "on the order of a strengthened U.N." is necessary for world peace. And this "global authority" is to have the power to regulate THIS COUNTRY'S politics, social structure, tax system, food distribution, employment, immigration, judicial system and defense!
The fact that supposed "conservatives" applaud this communistic blueprint is nauseating.
Is it the "lie" that Mary is our mediator and co-redeemer?
Or the "lie" that Jesus is parceled out into flour and wine and re-sacrificed on the papist altar?
Or is it because they do not bow down to statues and pray to dead people?
Or is it because they do not believe RC priests are "another Christ?"
Or is it because they ask for forgiveness and receive it from Christ alone and not an intermediary "alter Christus?"
I'm not familiar with your OPC, but this is what I know.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Go ahead and run with the big crowd down that highway through the wide gate. I'll stick with the few on the small dirt track and pass through that narrow gate.
Ironic that you would ask what is the lie of Calvin and then repeat five of them. Whether the damage done to you by Calvin's lies is irreparable is between you and God. Open your heart and eyes and receive the entire Revealed Word. Say but the Word and you shall be healed.
Thank YOU for your support.
No matter how confident he was that he kept the Law, it's meaningless. That's not what the Law was put into effect to do, to save someone. It was put into effect to lead us to Christ.
God is a God of love. Christ's death on the cross proves that.
Romans 5:7-8 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Galatians 3:10- 14 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
As is typical of most RCAs, you continue to show your commitment to Rome by continuing to assert refuted arguments, here it the being that 382 settled the canon, even though the historical value of the document it depends upon is highly suspect, as i showed you, while i also showed you that it was not exactly the same as Trent’s, which it must be if the canon was authoritatively settled in 382, and it is only of Divinely inspired writings.
I wish I had more time to do your posts justice, but I have to work for a living!
And since you could not your efforts only made a negative contention for Rome. Other have had more time and could not establish an infallible or an identical canon from 382, or that dissent did not continue right into Trent. Thus many often resort to name calling and misrepresentation as a substitute for an argument I also think many of them wish they could regain Rome’s unScriptural secular power and her sanctioned Inquisitions.
As for life and labor, i have both by the grace of God, and hope it all counts for him.
1Jn. 4:9: In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Gal. 4:11: I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
> “What would you call a group of persons who all lived in one area, owned no property or possessions among themselves, and shared everything? The people let’s say sold their houses and gave to a common treasury for the common good as needed? What type of persons would do such? Could it work?”
.
It could only work if each and every member of the group were a true believer in Jesus Christ.
The Plymouth colony proved that in spades, when it quickly failed for them, even though the great majority of them were true believers, the handful of tares doomed the effort.
II Thes 3:
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
.
> “go to fhu.com where the Be Still exercise will put you on the path to true freedom from sin.”
.
Balderdash!
That is a humanist site that leads away from Christ, and into Earthly endeavors.
I had never actually read that before, and it is is amazing and alarming, though it does have some qualifying speech (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2288664/posts) against an autocratic world ruler, which would be in contrast to Rome’s gov. under an infallible magisterium, which defies heresy and so cannot never be convicted of it.
Actually, while evangelicals as a whole manifest steadfast commitment to such core essentials that we agree with Catholics on, such as articulated in the Nicene Creed, and contend against those who deny them, and are more unified in core moral values and other truths than Catholics in general*, what Rome has in common with groups which deny these core essentials is that they both hold to objective authority that is effectively superior to the Scriptures. And must we contend against certain doctrines and practices which rely upon them for their real authority.
*http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4
I’ve listened to perhaps hundreds of Joyce Meyers’ programs, not out of a desire to follor her, but because she was on a station that I listen to while I’m driving.
Joyce’s preaching is very self-agrandising. She constantly speaks about this new car, or that new airplane, or how many new accountants she has to hire for her misistery.
She is clearly an adherent to the Prosperity Gospel, which has less to do with Christ than personal aglomeration.
.
You're still hawking that Roy Masters "Way of the Master" stuff?
It's great to hear from you again, Dr E.
Ratzinger's globalist and socialist leanings are very similar to attitudes displayed by the elitists in both of our major political parties. Consider George Bush senior.
But back to your comments, there seems to be much of the Catholic church that leans left (just my humble observation). Some time back, a church leader (a Cardinal, if I'm not mistaken) finally denied communion to certain proabortion politicians, including Pelosi. It seemed like too little too late...
As you stated, Ratzinger expressed his opinion about what our policy should be. He's gone so far as to endorse some UN ambitions. However, his authority does not seem to be much of a threat. Catholics aren't really that fanatical. Catholic fathers tend not to murder their daughters for having premarital sex. When I turned away from Catholicism, my parish Priest didn't issue a Fatwah.
The bigger threat comes from politicians and activist judges who are trying to foist Sharia and militant homosexual policy onto us against our will.
Unfortunately, the elite of both parties demonstrate a tendency to placate the diabolical god of political correctiveness. I've clashed with many RINO loving FReepers who mindlessly push quislings because, "they're the only ones who can win."
The socialists in our own country have shown that they despise the doctrine of the church in Rome, this includes those who call themselves "Catholic."
Instead of targetting the Roman Church, we should focus on crushing socialism and communism in our own house.
She's a bit less annoying than Joel Osteen. Joel is a lot less annoying than Victoria.
metmom. Not only in the Catholic mind but in the practices and teachings of the early Church. You don’t offer sacrifice so you don’t have Latria. We do. Stp trying to tell me what Catholic’s believe and practice.
Well you’d look kind of silly trying to wear a T shirt when ya got no head. The neckline would keep slipping out of place.
“..an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147”
What do you think the above means?
We call it Bingo.
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.