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.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
Here's the title:
And it carries the official sanctions of:
ni•hil ob•stat
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
WITH RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR
Let me track down the brief portion of quotes upthread . . .
Here they are:
However, as we've seen through a variety of sources--a pile of them in Ferraro's manual about the Rosary--the Roman Catholic et al/Vatican Edifice disagrees with a lot of the claims of RC's hereon to the contrary.
p.32
.
[Quixicated emphases below]
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . .
p32
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls.
5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties.
6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power.
"Just as a rock extracted from earth will precipitate into the abyss, so will man, left without Mary's help, quickly slide toward hell." --Richard of St Victor
p37
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come; Thy kingdom come through Mary! --Partial Indulgence
p41
"Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast." --Prov. 3:18
p43
1 - "Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!"
p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, 'that she might vanquish sin in every respect.'
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's vanquishing sin was unnecessary--or ineffectual without Mary's assistance?]
p46
7 - "Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue."
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's conquering on The Cross and HIS conquering trip to hell were unncessary?]
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. 'No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.'
.
[Qx: I guess Holy Spirit has been relegated to a 'Walter Mitty' role as spouse of Mary? That's SOME POWER to cancel & take over HOLY SPIRIT'S role to draw men to God!]
p47
4 - "Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.'
.
[Qx: Evidently, she beat Christ to the job of vanquishing sin!]
5 - "She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought."
.
[QX: What an unnecessary waste of precious Blood and suffering on THE CROSS!!!/sar]
p47
10 - "As Noah's Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care."
p50
8 - "If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between HIm and us?"
p50
4 - "By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God."
If that is true, then why are the people in Purgatory called "The Church Suffering"? Why have many Catholic theologians spoken of suffering equal to the suffering of hell itself? Why do Catholics believe that "The Church Militant" (those still in this life on Earth) should pray for those in Purgatory to speed up their time there? Do Catholics have the liberty to believe and profess whatever they want regarding this subject?
I agree with you about this. Paul said it very well:
"Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:11-13)
And one of my favorite passages on the subject, that I learned first hand in college:
Hebrews 13:5-6
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,
“Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”
It would sure be nice if we can move on from the very personal and abundant attacks on Dr.Eckleburg. My understanding is that the Religion Forum and Free Republic, in general, is not supposed to be about other Freepers. Why it has been allowed for the last few days is beyond me, but please stop. Y’all are on a tear about her, we get it. You do not like what she says about your religion, got it. She has been pretty good about not making her posts ABOUT you individually. So why not at least try it for a change?
I thought you might get a kick out of that link; I just scanned it quickly- quicker than you, I'm sure; he had several in depth links there; much deeper than I want to get into it at this stage of my life!
Cyril's list was from 345 from what I could see- even that predates the (mythical or unhistorical in your opinion) council of Rome in 382. The Church does not claim that Cyril was infallible!
At the risk of opening another an of worms, I do believe that scripture is the word of God and is truth. As Peter said there are things that are difficult to understand, that some distort to their own destruction. Not everyone interprets scripture the same, so when you say it is infallible, there should be only one interpretation of it- we can't even agree on what books belong in it!
The Dr. is always their primary target for insult and injury. Same with Quix. I believe were this is real time and face to face they would shed blood if they thought they could get away with it. I say this because the insults are so diabolical and far beyond Christian conduct...no matter what one’s church affiliation...this goes beyond the behavior of the body of Christ....more as that one would hear in an enemies camp.
I see the bullies are on the playground.....some know where they stand.
How about expressing that in your own words.
The Gospel is a specific message: The good news that Jesus Christ paid the price for us with His blood, if we only accept Him as our Lord and Savior. See John 3:16, which is the Gospel message in a nutshell.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Would my words do better than the Word does in Holy Writ?
Indeed I prefer to be pinged when I am quoted, and even better, the link to the actual thread to be present.
The reason Dr. Eckleburg likes to quote me on that is because the Protestnts have a knew-jerk reaction to the Inquisition as something where big bad church sets the Protestants on fire. The funny thing is, I explained all that to her a few times by now, but the perceived propaganda value is too important for her to give up quoting me, and I don't really mind.
Last time we had a discussion of what the Inquisition is and isn't was on "In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)" thread. That is how I got dragged into it, by the good doctor's identical maneuver: Link
Anyone interested why the Holy Inquisition is a good idea and anyone, not just the Catholics should support it, go to the indicated thread and read my posts starting with 234. I made a lot of posts there worht reading, and the thread is still going strong.
Although I'm not a Catholic, I've gotten into heated exchanges with Dr E. However, I've also gotten into the same with Cronos.
It's possible to remain civil and cordial with someone, even if you have philosophical differences. Look at it this way, how many converts are won with insults and brow beating?
Generally, I try to remain reasonable; all bets are off if the other party chooses to be unreasonable. In those situations, I try to have fun.
I believe that there have been sufficient, very personal attacks from both sides, not only on this particular thread, but on many, many others as well.
It should be evident to all of us that no thread should devolve into being all about one (or two) posters. However, I certainly have seen posters who have a genuine antipathy towards Catholicism who have definitely made frequent and pointed comments about individual Catholic posters. Such posts are often finessed with such words as “loony”, “loopy”, and other similar adjectives (and worse)and are directed towards an individual. It doesn’t take much gray matter to discern that the real message is “you’re loopy”, you’re loony”.
I can plainly see that there is enough accountability about this sort of thing to fit BOTH “sides”.
I also am weary of the gifs—no matter who is posting them.
If we were all sitting in the same room and having an honest exchange, it wouldn’t be at all likely that someone would hold up a gif card for everyone to see, rather than having something substantial to say.
I also think that it’s counter-productive for certain posts to be re-posted and re-posted and re-posted—supposedly for the benefit of some new lurker who just might have ventured onto the site.
I also am tired of this kind of so-called “debate” being driven more by endless questions being posed-—post after post, question after question after question. That’s something else that would be highly unlikely to be effective or useful in an honest debate held in person-to-person format. I have to say that I do believe that when so many posts are peppered with questions and with demands for answers, that is does take on the aspect of a gotcha game, whether intended or not.
It isn’t a good thing when people descend into ridicule and condescension and contempt towards another person in any “debate”. ( I still don’t call this genre of thread a bona fide debate) It is just as painful for me to see a Catholic descend into that as it to see those with antipathy towards Catholicism to do the same.
“Brothers, you are among those called. Consider your situation” 1Cor.2:26
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, endurance, kindness, generosity, faith, mildness and chastity. Against these there is no law” Gal. 5: 22-23
There are definite advantages to cyberspace, but there are definite disadvantages, too, and one significant one is the anonimity on threads like this. “In real face to face encounters, you stand before me as a real person in your own right, invested with value that does not originate in me. But in the cyberworld I am the determiner of all values and therefore am free from the demands of the face to face encounter. Through online communication, the only value you have in my eyes are the values I permit you to have in my own small world.” Quote from Fr. Michael Warren, parochial vicar of a thriving parish in downtown Denver. He goes on say that “a person becomes habituated to living this way (the cyberworld way) and that it can spill over into one’s spiritual life.”
I spend much less time here in recent months because of the frequent devolution into the sort of thing that Fr. Warren points out.
And I certainly don’t think that all the blame lies on just one side of the aisle.
Ping
ping
I respect Quix. I disagree with him but I have a strong feeling he is quite a decent chap beneath his anti Catholic bluster. I don’t take his postings seriously.
I’ll refrain on saying anything about Dr. E, as the mods have enough work.
The above should be I don’t take what Quix posts personally7.
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.