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’ve persistently demonstrated not only a willingness to work together with mutually respectful RC’s . . . even those formerly or occasionally very hostile to me
WHEN they decide to behave in a mutually respectful way.
I have no compulsion to molly coddle outrageously fiercely hostile, mean-spirited, personally assaultive RC Rabid Clique jerks.
A reasonable question is Why, why would Mary’s image or vision be seen vs. all the other “saints” given the prayers offered to them.
Probably.
However, it was adequate for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
It seems obvious most RCs have NEVER read Hebrews. If they had, they would understand that Christ is the only "sinless" person and the only priest and the only mediator and the only one to whom men should bend their knee or pray or venerate or adore or emulate.
Yeah, I originally typed in “abortion and persecution”, but figured those issues were understood, in addition to the God given Liberties threatened by the Left and its fanatical partners in crime.
Onward Christian Brothers and Sisters...
Some act like it’s a special commission from Gracious Mary to be nasty . . . probably sent engraved in brown on a white hanky sealed in black wax.
“Mary, the Mother of My Lord and My God, is Blessed!”
Council of Ephesus (431 A. D.)
‘We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her’ (Formula of Union [431 A.D.]).
>>By your own admission, twice now at last count, you are not a Catholic.
What are you doing on this thread? It doesn’t appear that it’s any thing more than stirring the pot and provoking hard feelings against Protestants.<<
Just because I am not a Catholic it doesn’t mean I can;t defend their beliefs. I spent many years of study in a sort of Jesuit pursuit of knowledge and ecumenical scholarship.
And the hard feelings here are NOT “against” Protestants.
Unless you are on a parallel thread of which I am unaware.
Yes RnMomof7, what was your point of posting this article?
“Nowhere is there an example of people praying to the dead in the Bible. Zip. Nada. Nowhere!”
Arise, Lazarus.
Satan maquarades as an angel of light. Do these apparitions point towards Jesus, "the narrow gate," for salvation?
Even if the message seems "spiritual," anything that distracts from the true source of salvation is not of God.
At least on odd days.
Or is it even days?
Or is it when Nurse Rachett is in seclusion?
Proddys are accused of “. . . blaspheming the ‘Blessed Virgin . . .’”
Obviously they must have forgotten that
IN BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY,
one can only BLASPHEME
GOD!
They didn’t forget it, they don’t know it. God’s Word is just a tool they wrap their deception in. So according to their counterfeit religion with it’s doctrine and traditions - they probably instituted another rule - it’s a sin to blaspheme their idol Mary. Like the Muslims, they have their own set of requirements, like death to the Jews and Christians. Different religions have their own set of rules and do’s and don’t s.
It’s has nothing to do with Christians who follow The Truth - His Word that He gave us, His Church.
> “...be it the King James (considered by scholars to be the worst translation ever)”
.
Accidental mistake, or deliberate falsehood?
Actually, by true scholars analysis, it is among the best, but not to be considered a complete treatise either.
The basic doctrines are the same in all the major translations. The important issues that are popping up now are due to the failure of the basic Greek to pass the meaning of the hebraic idioms through. This failure affects all of the commercially prodeced versions, including the KJV, Geneva, NASB, NIV, RSV, and the Douay.
She had an Angle appear to her and say you are going to have a child the son of God.
Yep, I think your right she expected some really interesting things were going to happen.
Just had to through that in /s
As I commented above the usuals suspects who declare Professional Virginity are the ones reading minds & assigning motives and engage in potty language.
Proverbs 16:27
A scoundrel plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.
Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.
Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”
James 3: 6
And the tongue is a flame of fire
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness......
INDEED.
I’m wondering . . . what is all this finger frothing from so many RC’s recently?
And newcomers?
Is it because of all the Nativity scenes
jerking all their Maryolatry buttons to the extreme?
Is it something in the gingerbread?
The missletoe?
Some subliminal messages in the Roman Catholic version of the carols?
Maybe it’s a specially polluted brand of sugar?
Too much eggnog?
Mystifying.
I’d thought we were actually beginning to . . . as most of two groups . . . act more like Christians on the FR forum toward one another.
Leave it to the Rabid Clique RC’s to blow that budding tree out of the water.
>>Even if the message seems “spiritual,” anything that distracts from the true source of salvation is not of God<<
The Mother of Jesus appearing to a simple country farmer — speaking of the Love of God and resulting in the conversion of an entire hemisphere of the world from paganism to Christianity — is hardly a “distraction.”
Ignorance is a menace to those who would respect God’s word.
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.