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.
That's right, which by her action we know she understood herself to be a sinner........also in Luke 1:46-47...in her praise to God she says...."God my Savior"...she recognized she needed a Savior.
Mary was all about Submission to God...."Let it be unto me according to your word". Mary's life teaches submission in the face of circumstances she did not understand,.... She would have a child without a man,...her heart would be pierced...etc..... She was humble and walked behind Jesus all the way to the cross and then to the tomb.
Additionally we see her later in the upper room.... and noteworthy listed last on the list of those there. Which was the last we hear of her from then on out.
Yes, she needed a Savior...as all mankind does.
Christ was true God and true man.
Why are you saying that he was not human.
It's all the hideous claptrap, lies from hell, blasphemies, idolatries, fantasies about the caricature the RCC has made of her that needs
confessed, repented of, apologized for sending folks to hell via.
the FACTS are easy enough to see below
for anyone with
more discernment than a gnat's.
.
.
.
Those reading this with any consciousness above comotose
no longer have any excuse.
.
.
.
Holy Spirit will be nudging, urging, forsaking of all such
--ALL HINT OF SUCH--
IGNORING HIS LEADING, NUDGING, URGING
in such matters can be spiritually deadly.
Very spiritually deadly.
.
.
.
ONCE AGAIN,
just a small part of
THE EVIDENCE: .
.
.
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."
Have you ever been taught what that gospel he refers to is, in your Mass? It's pretty important, being that Paul's gospel will be the one used to judge men.
(Shaking the dust from my sandals....though I will continue to request the Blessed Mother’s special intercession for you, Dear Mr. Quiz.)
;-))))
May our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, bless you richly this day and in the future.
Anyone or anything that fosters
worship
of anyone but God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit
originates in hell.
A lack of grace produces anxiety and an unhappy disposition.
WELL PUT.
And who appointed him the patron of sailors?
May the same Lord, Jesus, bless you as well.
;-)))
The unwarranted, UNBIBLICAL insulting to her Mary worshipping claptrap is from the pit of hell.Quix, of UFO idolotry fame, equates the veneration of Mary to "claptrap ... from the pit of hell"
claptrap is from the pit of hell.
Truedat
;-)
“Mary was a virgin Jewish girl who happened to be of the correct lineage, who lived in the right time and place where circumstances would enable all the prophecy about Jesus (sic) birth and childhood to be fulfilled”
You know, I just can’t comprehend how someone believing all that is Scriptural can pose an hypothesis like this.
If God is the truly all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God that we should believe He is, then a virgin Jewish girl doesn’t just happen to be of the correct lineage, at the right time, in the right place for fulfillment of prophecy.
The all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God knew from all eternity that He would CREATE Mary, that He would create her for the purpose of giving birth to his Only-Begotten Son, that He would bring her into the world at the time and place of his choosing for the miracle of the Virgin Birth of His Son—He willed this from all eternity. It was not just a random series of people, places and times. She existed in God’s eternal Now.
Christ is not a "door," even though He refers to Himself as such.
It really doesn't take all that much discernment to deny the cannibalism that Rome foists off on its indiscriminate members. We "feed" on Christ because He provides our spiritual nourishment and everything else we need, for that matter. In this case, calories really don't count.
Regarding the "whore of Babylon," if it walks like a whore of Babylon and it talks like a whore of Babylon, it would be wise to clean up its act.
claptrap is from the pit of hell.
Yet again the outrageousness of the Rabid Clique RC mentalities, strategies and modus operandi rise to the fore:
1. WHENEVER they are losing the Biblical, logical, intellectual battle--GET THE THREAD LOCKED AT ALL COSTS BY ANY AND ALL MEANS.
2. Distort, bear false witness about, falsify every way to the nth degree possible simple plain Proddy statements all out of whack.
3. For example, NO WHERE did I say that Mary--the MOTHER OF JESUS NOR the Scriptures about the authentic Mary, came from hell. Do these characters know how to read 1st grade English? Sheesh.
4. And such a mentality has the cluelessness to pretend that folks should respect such hideousness in theology, in logic, in basic reading comprehension, in outrageous deceptivness.
5. I'm beginning to think they have not a shred of a clue about how they look to rational humans.
I am not familiar with this passage. Please advise the reference (book, chapter, and verse if possible).
Who said Jesus wasn't human? Only Jesus was without sin. Everyone else is/was human, thus imperfect.
Are you saying He isn't God?
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.