Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[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.

[Grizzled Bear]

Good for you. There are times to hit back and there are (more often) times to take a step back and consider what the other poster meant.

Quix is a decent fellow.

Unfortunately, I've seen certain posters throughout FR who will hyper analyze a post and look for even the smallest grammatical error to refute a point and (more often) mock the poster.

They've no interest in honest discourse.

[Al Hitan]

You shouldn’t rely on the convicted criminal Ian Paisley as your sole source. The genocide was due to ethnics, not religion.

If you are looking for atrocities due to religion, look no further than massacre at Drogheda, Ireland.

[daniel1212]

If earlier lists are better, than it works against your case for the apoc. as Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

"At the risk of opening another an of worms,...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!"

Yep, that is a can of worms. That is because Divine truth, as is the Kingdom of God, established by power, (1Cor. 4:2) as Jesus kingdom is not of this world. (Jn. 18:36) Thus inquisitions etc. that were part of theocracies (includes Calvin,etc.) directing the sword of men to fight her battles have left a negative testimony, as unlike Israel of old, the NT church is not constituted to rule over them that are without or use physical violence against her enemies or in ecclesiastical discipline.Nor is lineage the real basis for authenticity. Rather it is demonstrable Abrahamic type faith with the attestation that results, which the flesh can only mimic or seek to compel. And while one can have unity by implicit trust in an infallible authority, and the so-called Jehovah's Witness surpass Catholics on that, division because of the truth would better than the unity in error, while the unity of the Spirit, resulting from heart surrender in salvific core essentials, though more rare, is of a greater quality. But comprehensive doctrinal unity in all that can be discerned has ever been a goal not realized.

As for interpretation, it is generally understood by RCAs that very few things and verses (only about 7) have been infallibly defined, and which correspond to unity in the core essential that one must hold to be a pastor in an evangelical SS type church (S. Baptist, Calvary Chapels, Assemblies of God, etc.). And which is also shown by their common rejection of cults who deviate from them. In this regard Rome's official paper unity may not necessarily be greater than that of one single evang. denomination's required beliefs, while her "laity" evidence more unity in certain core teachings ("did Jesus sin", etc) than Catholic, despite being in many bodies.

Moreover, while they can disagree about many things, they show a remarkable transdenominational unity in different ways.

But which differing opinions relate to the varying disagreements among Catholics, as they are allowed varying degrees of disagreement in non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisterium (besides dissent about official teaching being openly tolerated)

And thus, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist)

And even concerning infallible declarations there is often a degree of disagreement, besides not knowing for certain the number of infallible teachings (not just directly from the Pope), which can vary widely.

The big difference is that rather than going to or starting a new church because one has become liberal, or dead, or because of doctrinal disagreements, Catholics tend to stay within the church of their birth, their very identity as Catholics being a core unity, while born again evangelicals feel more free to move around to church of common core faith, as their spiritual life began with a transformitive encounter with Christ, which and who is their primary bond with other evangelicals. But all Christian type faiths are in a overall decline in the superficial West, for which cause i must pray and seek the Lord better.

[daniel1212]

Yes, but do you think anyone wants to mess with a Grizzled Bear?!

[Grizzled Bear]

Yes, they do. Because everybody loves Bear Claws.

[caww]

It's possible to remain civil and cordial with someone, even if you have philosophical differences.

Normally I would agree and that most posters can and do just that. But the vile insults are just getting so bad anymore...and frequency of...that the debates cease to be instructive or anything resembling a debate. You can scroll on and on before anythings spoken which might be of interest. I have no problem with passionate debate and even when things get tense as people air some of their frustrations...that's to be expected and sometimes even healthy to continue the debate. But that's not what has been flooding these posts...they have gone beyond unreasonable...and become senseless gribble. Maybe I'm just voicing my own frustrations for I use to learn much from the debates.

[Al Hitan]

Do you have a reason to talk like that?

Authors can write whatever they want. Not every book is true.

[metmom]

You don’t have to keep announcing it.

We know that you are.

You’ve made that blindingly obvious.

[metmom]

You do not believe the Church was created by Jesus with the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide it in all Truth; I do.

Not the Catholic church.

Jesus said He would BUILD His church. He didn't say He was instituting it and He didn't give others instructions to institute an organization.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide individual believers into truth, not an organization.

The Catholic church taking on itself the promises Jesus made to individual believers does not justify its existence and authoritarian position.

Jesus made provision for us as individuals to be able to connect directly with God. What with the way He condemned the tradition of the pharisees, it's inconceivable that He'd turn around and immediately institute another pharisaical system of legalism.

The body of Christ, which is called the church, is composed of all true believers everywhere who are built up into it as living stones.

He didn't tell us to JOIN a church headquartered in Rome. He said that by believing we all become the church.

[Grizzled Bear]

Do you have a reason to talk like that?

Oh please good Mr Hitan, I beg your forgiveness. Spending over half my life in the Armed Forces may have left a rough edge to my demeanor. I had not intended to offend your delicate sensibilities. (self censoring further remarks...)

Authors can write whatever they want. Not every book is true.

Based on my own knowledge, the General's book is accurate. Do you have any valid reason to disparage this man's word; or do you risk your soul for bearing false witness?

[metmom]

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.

That's because it was. Do you deny the historical record of what the church decreed and did?

If you think the last Inquisitions weren't like that, you're living in denial, and if you think that it wouldn't happen again, you're a far poorer judge of human nature than anyone could have ever imagined.

[daniel1212]

Church discipline is clearly Biblical, and in the N.T. can correspond to the O.T. "cutting off," and disallows "laity" and leaders from remaining as members who continue impenitently in manifest works of the flesh, (1Cor. 5:11; 1Tim. 6:5; Rev. 2:20) or teaching heresy (Titus 3:10) and promoting wrong sectarian doctrines (Rm. 16:17; Rev. 1:2), though there are different degrees of unfaithfulness which require differing degree of discipline. (2Thes. 3:14,15)

But in application what you will not see is the use of physical force to effect ecclesiastical discipline, either directly or by employing the state to effect such on church members. The church is so constituted that it must rely upon spiritual power to do so, and thus the apostolic example, beside passive disfellowship, was to deliver one over to the devil (as manifestation of the power to "bind") in order to bring one to repentance. (1Cor. 5:5; 1Tim. 5:20) Of course, there are some sins unto death, (Acts 5:1-10; Rev. 2:23) which one need not pray about.

[daniel1212]

Right now, i can “bearly” keep my eyes open. Where’s the guy with the bear pictures?

[Grizzled Bear]

I don’t know; but I could use a beer right now!

[xone]

ph

[Al Hitan]

You are forgiven, but don't blame your language on your service. There are plenty of servicemen who have been in the heat of battle and served years who don't find the need to talk like that. Objections to bad language on the RF can certainly be blamed on "delicate sensibilities" if it helps justify your actions and makes you feel better about yourself. Self censoring is a good thing.

Do you have any valid reason to disparage this man's word; or do you risk your soul for bearing false witness?

I didn't disparage this man's word. I didn't bear false witness.

[Quix]

ONCE AGAIN,
just a small part of
THE EVIDENCE: .
.
.

Here's the title:

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Meditations-Mysteries-Rosary-Ferraro/dp/0819801577/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272938246&sr=1-2

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."

[Quix]

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?

---

INDEED.

[Quix]

Of course, I agree.

Thanks.

However, the RC’s don’t seem to have much capacity to discrimminate between such distinctions.

They cast us as devils incarnate rather smugly, usually.

Sigh.