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.
Agreed, 100%. And thank you for reminding posters that Dr. E. is just another poster, nobody special, and definitely not a moderator. We have the mod’s word on that. Telling other posters how to behave is arrogating authority to herself that she will never have.
That one string banjo act is getting old. I suppose you are going to claim that the centuries old traditions of tribal warfare, animist religion and superstition that permeates the Hutu and Tutsi cultures was not in any way responsible. I suppose that since the Catholic Church is active on every continent and in every country you can point to similar atrocities from the "decades of racist preaching" in locations other than Rwanda. How about we discuss the fate of the predominantly Catholic Igbo peoples of Nigeria who were slaughtered in similar numbers by the majority Islamic and Protestant Nigerians during the Biafra War in the 1960s?
If a person posts an outrageous statement as fact even though the research does not support that statement and even debunks it, it is hard to sugar coat the practice. What has been done goes way beyond a difference of opinion or innocently relying on an unreliable source. I am stymied that such practice is within forum rules. But in my ignorance I am forced to accept statements such as this
“All the Aborigines were slaughtered. And who was responsible for the massacre? Look to London.
(some words changed to avoid making it personal)”
As having no ill intent and showing at most a robust difference in opinion over facts we can agree upon. If the statement was rephrased as such
“Many Aborigines numbered amongst those slaughtered. I believe the responsiblity for the massacre can be traced to policies encouraged and even established by London. It is my opinion that we need only to look to British history to find the root cause of this slaughter.”
Then I would certainly agree the post was a robust difference of opinion with no personal ill will behind it.
The other. Not so much.
1. The Catholic Church is active on every continent, in every country.
2. People are doing bad things on every continent, in every country.
3. The Church is responsible for people doing bad things all over the world.
Sounds logical to me.
Don’t make this thread about individual FReepers, Judith. It’s against the rules.
The inclusion of the word "Judith" made this post about an individual poster. It appears that some Freepers are too pretentious, stubborn, stupid or arrogant to believe that the rules apply to everyone equally. Perhaps the Religion Moderator can provide more definitive guidelines on what constitutes a posting about a Freeper and differentiates it from a post to a freeper.
~~”How about we discuss the fate of the predominantly Catholic Igbo peoples of Nigeria who were slaughtered in similar numbers by the majority Islamic and Protestant Nigerians during the Biafra War in the 1960s?”~~
lol. You sure of that? What history book is that from? “How Rome Rewrites History - Part Deux?”
Nigeria is 50% Muslim, 15% Protestant, 13.7% Catholic, and 19.6% other Christian.
During the Biafran War, violence was committed by Muslims from the North on all Christians in the south. Nothing about Protestants against Roman Catholics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War
And please note the Igbo people are both Protestant and Roman Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_people
Some days it’s just exhausting keeping RCs honest.
ad hominem (Webster's Dictionary)
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Ad hominem arguments are also logical fallacies:
Fallacies (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.
Example:
If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.
The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone.
Absolutely, positively, 100% sure. I had the misfortune to live in Nigeria for most of 1962. My father was a contractor at the Project Mercury tracking station in Kano, Nigeria and our family was evacuated at the outset of the Nigerian Civil (Biafran) War. Our nanny was Igbo. For that reason I have always kept tabs on the goings on in Nigeria. And yes, it is exhausting keeping the "RCs" (Raving Calvinists) honest.
"The Igbo (or Ibo) are the largest ethnic group in the southeast of Nigeria. They comprise approximately 18 percent of the population and are predominantly Catholic. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/portraits/nigeria.html)
"The predominantly Catholic Igbo are the largest ethnic group in the southeast,... "(http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2836.htm)
Today, the majority of the Igbo people are Christian, well over half of whom are Roman Catholics.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_people)
The predominantly Christian Igbo are the largest ethnic group in the southeast. Roman Catholics are the largest denomination (http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/demographics_of_nigeria.html)
Concentrated in the southeast, the Igbos, who are predominantly Catholic (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575492382253507788.html)
Thank you
I thought this thread had become so dense and compact that it collapsed upon itself forming a singularity within the time space continuum. Wait a minute, that was your Christmas wish...
Thanks for dealing with our poor behavior. God knows you don’t deserve it.
LOL
Thanks for your conspiracy theory that the Presbyterians and Baptists are now under Vatican control. So, Michel Twagirayezu, who was President of the Presbyterian Church of Rwanda, and incited and supervised the Genocide and worked closely with the killers, is now a Vatican agent. What other weird theories do you have to tell us? You might as well get them all on the table now.
LOL!
Aha! Your clever ruse to get everyone to "walk away" and thus avoid a flame war has now become apparent to me! Genius!
just those wacky southern mid-western anecdotal ones Catholics all seem to know someone who knows someone who heard about one
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Too many anti-Catholics actually start a flame war and then walk away when they get spanked and publically humiliated. It seems that when too many lies are refuted they jump to another Catholic topic, like a 10 year old hitting the reset button on their X-Box and begin the same flame war believing that others will forget that Igbos are predominantly Catholic and Tusti's were never predominantly Anglican. Unfortunately they never learned Ben Franklin's quote: "The best thing about always telling the truth is that you don't have to have such a good memory".
Read some history books. The Igbos are both Roman Catholic AND Protestant.
RC apologists just make things up.
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.