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.
I'm stepping away from these threads for awhile. There's a dark spirit afoot here...
Satan never sleeps, tis true.
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, o prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen!
You are right. I keep getting drawn back in. I promise I don’t rubber neck traffic accidents so my behavior is just foreign to my general nature.
But I praise the Lord I am not eaten up with the malice of some people. It must be a great burden to always look for a reason to be hateful.
To Christ The Victory.
According to Rome, that’s the Good News of Mary.
What is the Good News Christ preached?
Thanks for providing the many Presbyterian denominations where Christians can find the word of God preached in truth and love.
Every one of them is more faithful to the Scriptures than the church of Rome which follows “another Christ” and preaches “another gospel” and worships the creature instead of the Creator alone while boasting of its own good works.
So you still haven’t answered the question. Do you consider Presbyterians members of a “cult?”
According to Rome, that’s the Good News of Mary.ROTFLMAO!What is the Good News Christ preached?
That is the Gospel according to Saint Luke!
The Magnificat [Latin: magnifies], also called the Canticle of Mary, is recorded in the Gospel of Luke (1:46-55).
Is the GOSPEL according to Saint Luke not "Gospel" in the apostate and heretic cult you cling to? The Odd Presbyterians, right "Doctor"?
“Every one of them is more faithful to the Scriptures than the church of Rome ...”
BWAHAHAhahahahaha.......
Right. Heretical deniers of Christ, at least by your demonstrated posts here tonight.
However, if you had been on these many threads for the last few months you would have read countless Roman Catholic FReepers calling for a return to the Inquisition.
"The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks" -- 328 posted on 08/01/2008 4:59:56 PM PDT by annalex
Protestants do not call for the murder of RCs. Yet the media is silent when it comes to recent RC slaughters. How many times have you read the fact that the 1994 Rwandan genocide was committed by the predominantly Roman Catholic Hutus who slaughtered 800,000 predominantly Protestant Tutsis?
The liberal media protects the liberal church of Rome. Over $700 million dollars paid out by the RCC to settle pederast priest lawsuits on one day in one city and it's a one-day story below the fold.
Rome likes to complain about the bad press it gets but the fact is most news outlets bend over backwards to report the RCC in a positive light.
More's the pity.
Where have I “denied Christ?”
I actually have met one — in Bahrain, but a secret convert as he was terrified of what his former congregation would think (yes, an ex-muezzein). incidently, he was first engaged by a Baptist preacher who drew him to Christ, though he became Chaldean Catholic (he hails both of these branches of Christianity with equal favor) - Baptists do exemplary work here and the rest of us would do well to emulate them.
Apparently the question is just too difficult for RC apologists to answer.
What is the good news Jesus Christ preached?
Luke talks about Christ preaching the gospel. What was this gospel that we are called to believe?
What is the good news, Narses? How do you believe it if you don’t even know what it is?
My posts aren’t the ones being deleted for breaking the FR RF rules.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a very conservative denomination. The OPC does not believe it is infallible, as the RCC believes of itself. The OPC, as all historic Protestant and Baptist Christian churches do, believes the inspired word of God to be our only rule of faith and practice.
Thank you, God, from whom all blessings flow. Thank you, Jesus Christ, our only mediator between God and men. Thank you, Holy Spirit, for guiding our study of the Scriptures wherein we may learn of our salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for God’s glory alone.
Roman Catholics, you included, have yet to tell us what the Gospel is. What is the Good News Christ preached, Cronos?
And once again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to post its website where anyone can read for themselves the OPC’s Scriptural beliefs and practices...
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.