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.
I nominate Deuteronomy 6.2 for the reference to the Trinity.
If G-d was a Trinity, or was not a Trinity, how would you act differently?
“The things of G-d are unknown, and unknowable, so why argue?” The Buddha
Care to post the evidence supporting THOSE accusations?
Metmom,
Freedumb pulled a Willie Green. When Willie called me an "anti urban/anti rail bigot," it was supposed to shut down the arguement.
Freedumb,
This is a question. I'm asking a question because I can't read your mind and certainly won't try to.
Is your arguement so weak and without merit that you must resort to the race card?
How "progressive."
As you may know, m-mom, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, who certainly take no back seat to the Latins when it comes to veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos, do not subscribe to the innovative and modern Latin Church dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This is a doctrine whose dogmatic status was declared by no Ecumenical Council but rather by a 19th century pope, not to fight a heresy as all the other real dogmas to that point were, but for other reasons apparently sufficient to him.
While no Orthodox Christian accepts this doctrine, some of us believe that it is positively heretical as a denial of the dual nature of Christ (True God and True Man)as declared by the 4th Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon in 451 AD. If the Most Holy Theotokos was ontologically different from all the rest of mankind by being born without the tendencies to sinfulness we all carry as a result of the Sin of Adam, then she was not a human being, she was a "goddess" and her Son was not True Man.
This whole notion that she had to be "pure" or "without the stain (Macula) of Original Sin" is, it has been argued, driven by the fundamentally flawed Manichean notions of Blessed Augustine (whose Greek was not good at all and so he was cut off from the writings of the Greek Fathers) about "Original Sin". That whole concept is outside the consensus of The Fathers and is rejected by Eastern Christians, but this flawed doctrine probably lies at the base of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
A number of the Fathers rejected this idea of the Immaculate Conception and some of the greatest theologians of the Latin Church did too. No less a figure than +Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, denied it. It was essentially a doctrine developed by "Schoolmen" like Duns Scotus.
It is my understanding that many Protestants accept the Augustinian idea that man is utterly depraved. If so, then it stands to reason that such Protestants should immediately accept the Immaculate Conception doctrine since it strains credulity that God would be born out of depravity.
Once the West, including Protestants, accepted Blessed Augustine's non-patristic concept of Original Sin, all sorts of theological aberrations developed.
bashing Mary by telling the truth about her.To which I replied
oh and of course your group, 2000 years later has some secret knowledge that is contrary to what Early Christians believed, I guess?Does your group have some gnostic knowledge to doubt that Mary was sinless?
Ann. If you say my mom isn't a virgin, you're dissing her. Why are you dissing my mom?
Others’ posts.
I didn’t mean to imply that it was yours.
Since the Catholic church accepts *trinity* on proof texts without the word actually appearing in Scripture, why do they have such a problem accepting *sola Scriptura* from proof texts as well without the word actually appearing in Scripture?
Gotta go shovel. We’re getting buried.
Later.....
WHAT sins did she commit?? LIES?? CHEATING??? CURSING?? MURDER??? Please tell me what sins she committed.....please tell us
Romans ch 3
23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
We can learn from real believing Protestant groups and, sadly enough, from the mainstream Protestant groups mistakes (ECUSA, ELCA etc). For instance, to learn how the LCMS has been cautious in welcoming “refugees” from the ELCA by rigourously ensuring that these completely agree to the doctrines of the LCMS and don’t bring in ELCA’s liberal policies is something we should all take heed of.
Where?
Not only is there no papacy in the NT church, there is not priesthood, no sacrifices..bloody or unbloody
The Scripture outlines what the NT church should look like, and the God given outline looks nothing like the Roman church
Good taste - and rules for posting on Free Republic - prohibit me from saying what I really think about that post.
I am a convert to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The Holy Spirit led me to the true church, the one that Christ Himself founded.
That is what James said..do you have a problem with James?
Where is that in the bible?
Actually, in the very last section of Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pius IX wrote this about what he hoped for with his declaration of the dogma:
...[I]n her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign "from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth," and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.
So, in a sense, Blessed Pius was invoking her to fight all heresies.
Reference — yes, there is plenty to prove it, however, our friend here the met may seem to wish for explicit quotation of a term for it to be viable.
btw, isn’t that quote by Baha’ullah not Buddha?
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.