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.
Good point.
While many people associate prosperity with worldly wealth, in His Plan and logistical providence, there might be many testings of how faith or doctrine is being applied by our mind to our heart when we exercise volition and act.
Those testings are part of our continuing sanctification, required prior to our advancement to the next stage of learning and sanctification.
The prosperity may indeed include physical wealth, but also those predetermined rewards awaiting us at the bema seat, which depend upon our winning the race prior to the first death, for their just reward.
The wages of sin is death. Jesus was free from sin, so He paid the wages for us with his blood.
That is the single, most important tenet of Christianity.
Thank you.
Does a person have to be aware of what one is doing to commit a sin? Is a baby capable of that?
I think a person does have to be aware of what one is doing to commit a sin, and that a baby is not capable of that.
I also believe that Jesus has a human nature, which would include Him in “all”, but I also believe He did not sin.
Therefore, I think when Paul says “all have sinned”, he is making a generalization.
That is not your interpretation, I understand that, but one that is more than reasonable to me.
We agree! Jesus did NOT sin, yet He willingly died!
Therefore, just because someone dies (in my argument a baby) does not mean they committed personal sin!
There is a theory that the two witnesses will be Moses and Elijah. Maybe that's what you heard. :-)
Sounds like Chuck Missler to me.
maryz:
I don’t think self-deception would stand up to death by torture.
Ferraro’s collection of hideous idolatries, blasphemies, heresies re Mary
are the most brazen, flaming set of self-deceptions I know of on FR.
Agreed.
Thx for your kind reply.
Several of the soi-disant Protestants on this thread seem curiously reluctant to come right out and say that they believe Christ is God. I don't know whether you share this reluctance or whether you believe Christ is God.
And I still think you have a very stunted notion of what God is. I know you disagree, but I can't help that.
If you have a point about death by torture and its connection to Ferraro (who AFAIK is not a martyr), it would help understanding if you actually make it instead of letting mere juxtaposition substitute.
I consider the OPC a cult. It has as much to do with mainstream Presbyterianism as Santeria has to do with Catholicism.
Pelagius had a list of biblical personalities (including Mary) who were without sin. Enoch who rather than dying, was translated was included. Of course that got in the way of Augustine’s followers who thought that mankind was a lump of sin, so Pelagius was excommunicated.
As usual in such things, it was projection. Augustine was indeed a sinner, (”G-d make me pure, but not yet.”)who sold off his Roman citizenship as a tax dodge, while Pelagius was an inoffensive and austere monk.
More duplicitous claptrap! Every time you or any other anti-Catholic crackpot demands that the Church excommunicate a pro-abortion politician or a homosexual or anyone you don't like you are participating in an Inquisition. Every time you harp on about the blasphemies of "Rome" you are participating in an Inquisition. Every time you question the sincerity or the religious practices of another FReeper you are participating in an Inquisition. Everytime your demand answers from another FReeper about their beliefs you are participating in an Inquisition. Every time you complain about the scourge of Islam you justify the initial Inquisitions.
“All” does not mean all. Rather it means all those who are responsible, and for Jews, those who are uniquely responsible to keep the Torah. Dogs, cats have not reason, and thus can not sin. Neither do babies. Nor do Gentiles have to keep the Torah. That is why coming of age is at age 13, a time to put away childish things. That is also the reason for different legal systems, to include the Noahide law, which Gentiles are to keep.
And if there is one thing I can’t stand it is an Inquisition, and hipocracy. Two! Two things I can’t stand are Inquisition, Hipocracy, and self righteousness! Three, three things I can’t stand are Inquisition, Hipocracy, Self Righteousness, and pride. Four! Four things I can’t stand are...
With apologies to Monty Python...
Are you now claiming that you have never had posts removed? If so that would be another monumental lie.
I figure that every aborted baby is a sinless offering to the Most High, to forgive our sins...
If the Most High needs sinless offerings, they are offered in plentitude.
They can’t stop with the word games. There’s nothing substantive to say, just attack, attack, and attack. They’ll be here ten, twenty years from now playing the same silly game of “GOTCHA!”. A very strange animus moves them.
I sometimes wonder if anyone is actually reading these threads. I don’t even know why I come back here to look. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion, hard to turn away and get back to real life.
It's amazing that some do not find Christ's sacrifice sufficient for the cleansing away of sins.
They have to go to some celestial torture chamber to be "purged."
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.