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.
Follow the rules, Judith. One closed thread is enough for the day.
((Sigh))...so much precious time and energy wasted on attacking the true Church of Jesus Christ.
How do you guys know what long dead saints looked like and whose image it is you're seeing?
Don't forget....
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
Yes, indeed, and God willing, Rome will stop doing that right now.
Grow some skin or leave the thread.
By the way, the previous thread was restored.
Hey, quix set the standard.
I wasn’t posting to you.
What brazen balderdash.
Such attitudes help me understand the Inquisition and burnings at the stake much more clearly.
1. As I’ve noted recently, I came into such frays because nastily harsh RC’s assaulted MetMom and RNMomO7 most unwarrantedly, most personally assaultively etc.
2. I have posted well within the rules IN CONTRAST TO A LIST OF RC’S PERSONALLY ATTACKING AND WAILING RELENTLESSLY TO THE MODS AND NOW JIMROB.
3. Yet I get accused of all manner of untrue stuff.
4. What an example of untrue mangling of reality just as they mangle Scripture and history.
5. However, except for possibly some loose ends sorts of closing posts, This is bothersome enough, distasteful enough and wearying enough, I’ll attend to some other priorities at least for a while.
6. Y’all could let such things die away by going to 7/11 and buying a case of clues or just growing up a dozen years or so. I won’t hold my breath.
7. You might think twice next time if you’d like to avoid having your trashy theology and low brow intellectual clocks adjusted. Don’t dish it out if you can’t stand it. Get out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat. Quit causing, triggering, initiating such brickbats if you can’t handle the results with maturity and sanity . . . not to mention basic honesty.
8. Sheesh.
True -- it is really quite fascinating. The Monks who traveled to Latin America had to build a conceptual bridge to the paganism. After attempting to (frustratingly) instill the idea of One God and His Son and what the Saints were, they eventually sort of gave up.
The result was a veneration of the Saints as a substitute for the previously-venerated gods. Thus even to this day, Catholic churches have altars to the different saints and people place "offerings" to them. The difference is that today, these are done as a token of love and respect.
The story of the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe has some serious historical legs. The Manta is there for all to see (I have seen it) and there are other artifacts (such as the bent cross that threw itself in the way of a mad bomber many years ago).
I believe Mary came to St. Diego to bring God's word to Latin America and I am not alone.
How anyone could say that a message of love from God and veneration of Jesus (John 3:16) is anything less than a message from God is bad is beyond me.
But FR has its haters and they pop out when least desired.
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.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
Tough night, eh RM?? :) ;)
Thanks for showing restraint.
Lots of rude behavior is acceptable. Proddies seem happiest when they can make Catholics angry, therefore....I vote we all laugh at all of them.
The more vicious the slander against the Blessed Virgin Mary, the happier they are, particularly when we defend the Holy Mother of God.
Years ago, I thought the Religion Forum might be a great place to hang out, here on FR. What a joke! The RF is the sewer of the site.
Good. Now the nasty posy about the Virgin Mary can again be seen.
Get over it...
The mature poster would realize that two wrongs do not make a right.
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.