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.

[Religion Moderator]

Posters may condemn dieties, religious authorities, beliefs, groups of believers, authors, etc. on "open" Religion Forum threads.

But they must not "make it personal" - e.g. reading minds, attributing motives, making the thread "about" individual Freepers, etc.

Thick skin is required for the town square format of "open" Religion Forum threads.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

claptrap is from the pit of hell.

Are you trying to get this thread locked, too? If so, don't expect people to trade ugly personal remarks with you, as you've spewed out all day long.

The good thing about stupid personal comments like so many you've made today which have nothing to do with the thread or the discussion is that lurkers can can read them for what they are -- a pathetic lack of a solid defense of the Roman Catholic system.

[narses]

So posting pictures of an ASS are OK?

[freedumb2003]

Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.

IOW you have no response other than ad hominem.

If you tread into theology, much less in diminishing a very ancient religion, it is best to at least have at least a modicum of scholarship.

Even a tiny bit would help.

[narses]

claptrap is from the pit of hell.

said ufo quix.

[narses]

Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.Sheesh what duplicitous jerks populate the other side.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Only Jesus was without sin. Everyone else is/was human, thus imperfect.

Amen!

To believe otherwise is a type of paganism.

[Religion Moderator]

They are pictures of braying or laughing donkeys and he has been posting them for a very, very, very long time in lieu of words. If they were pictures of the animal’s rear ends, they would be pulled.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Do you really think all the large colored type you use in your rants is going to bring anyone over to your opinion?

Looks fearful to me. What are you so afraid of? That you may learn something? That you may actually have to act as if you are a Christian?

That you could be WRONG?

[Grizzled Bear]

You are talking about the Mother ofJesus Christ, both man and God, I don’t think it originates in hell.

While wandering the desert, the Israelites were often disobedient. During one such event, God allowed poisonous snakes to bite and sicken them. Then God directed them to place a bronze (?) snake on a pole. When someone was bit, they could look up at the snake and be healed.

Some of the Israelites began to worship the bronze snake so God had it destroyed.

The bronze snake did not originate in hell. The Israelites worship of it certainly was diabolically influenced.

[metmom]

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.

We all do....

Acts 17:22-27 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

In this case I actually like the way the NIV reads.....

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Actually, the older NIV said, *From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.*

[presently no screen name]

For example, NO WHERE did I say that Mary--the MOTHER OF JESUS NOR the Scriptures about the authentic Mary, came from hell.

EVERYONE knows you didn't say it nor imply it.

Do these characters know how to read 1st grade English?

I'd say, yes, but their major is in twisting what is said, like they do with Scripture, to suite their agenda and their deceptive traditions/doctrines.

Quix, you are in good company. They, also, twist God's Word. IF they do it to HIM, it's a given they will do it to you/us.

[Quix]

Do you REALLY

have trouble

telling the difference

BETWEEN

an ill-defined group of uncertain members

vs

an individual, personal thing?

It's not REALLY ROCKET SCIENCE.

When did it become the RC style to demonstrate such deplorable reading comprehension?

BTW, it's SUCH an impressive argument tactic to chronically run to wail to the RM. Very very impressive.

It is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo intellectual, erudite, lofty, learned, magnanimous, gracious, mature . . .

NOT! LOL.

It's more like a 2 year old with a runny nose tugging on mummy's apron strings.

[Judith Anne]

The good thing about stupid personal comments like so many you've made today which have nothing to do with the thread or the discussion ..."

Please don't make this thread about individual FReepers.

[narses]

Got it.Some rude behavior is acceptable.

[narses]

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sounds like you’re bringing one thread’s argumentative discussion over onto this one which is against the rules.

[narses]

[narses]

[presently no screen name]

Looks fearful to me. What are you so afraid of?

Your fears belong to you. No one else.