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.
GOod point — so you agree that we Christians accept the term *trinity* on proof texts without the word actually appearing in Scripture, correct?
Let's go straight to the source, Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).It is a circular reasoning which leaves the door open for rival interpretations of scripture to arise -- leading us even to theories of the Great Apostasy and other heresies.
1. “All have sinned...” — now of course a young child has not yet sinned, right? Yet they are tainted with the stain of Adam, the tendency to sin. Like all other descendants of Adam, Mary too was subject to the contracting of original sin. But God saved her, preserved her from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation. Christ was her Savior nonetheless.
The teaching of your church is that Jesus was the only one that ever kept the law perfectly. That would make Him the only sinless person ever born
Mary was the tool, the ark for holding God. This ark had to be purified, pure, clean, filled with grace to be able to bear God.
The OT is all about Christ , not Mary.. The ark was a type of Christ, not Mary . To assign to man (or woman ) anything that is Gods alone is blasphemy
Just as the Ark of the First Covenant was so powerful that even priests who were uncleansed and men who aimed to prevent it from falling could get filled by one touch, so even more so the Ark of the second, greater, covenant had to be pure, filled utterly with grace.
What do you do with the fact that the ark was touched and carried by pagans without them dying? The death of Uzzah was because of his (and Davids) disobedience to Gods commands, not actually "touching" the ark.. catholics have so romanticized Mary that they have built all manner of false teaching about her as tradition
All for God, all by God -- Mary did NOT save herself, she needed salvation and got that from her God, her Son, her Savior. Jesus saved Mary, He was her savior. He saved her, protected her from sin.
Why would one think that was necessary?? Jesus came to walk in a sin filled world, to eat with sinners, and have sinners as his apostles.. If in deed mary was sinless than Christ did not come for her or save her.. because he says He did not come for the righteous..
The Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of mary are both false, non biblical doctrines.
because of that error mary has become the focus of faith for many if not most Catholics.. thus a tool of Satan
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.
The problem then occurs of how Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin from her parents when she even had a human father. Whatever God could do to preserve HER from sin and have her immaculately conceived and sinless, He could do for Jesus without the necessity of her being sinless.
That's where the whole immaculate conception idea falls apart.
Since sin is inherited through the father, Jesus was free of that corruption, no matter how contaminated the world around Him was.
Sin is not greater than Jesus and that is, in effect, what Catholicism is inadvertently saying when they insist, even demand, that Mary have been sinless to keep Jesus sinless (or unstained or uncorrupted or however they want to put it).
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.
+++What is JAM???+++
Awww Ann, Do you own a Bible??? If not please consider buying one, it will so enrich your life..
“Jam” is the abbreviation for the Book of James
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=2&t=ASV
Was Mohammed sinless?
Muslims insist that he (above Jesus Christ whom they recognize in their own unholy book) is “the perfect man”.
The challenges to Christianity always seem to come around Christmas and Easter. Not so much Islam. Why is that?
That's not what the doctrine says. Read my #542. After all these years of debating this, you should be at least aware what it actually says, instead of giving a false impression.
The Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of mary are both false, non biblical doctrines. because of that error mary has become the focus of faith for many if not most Catholics.. thus a tool of Satan
Who or what are you calling a "tool of Satan" here?
Where there any heresies in the early church?
Catholics are told what they Must believe, they are not allowed to question the CHURH ...
Aren't you reading Ann Archy's mind?
Looks like Pio Nono (fascinating character) was trying to bribe Panagia, otherwise, what could the IM possibly have to do with anything he calls on her to do?
Bribe her? LOL! If you want to put it THAT way. ;-)
I agree with you that Blessed Pius IX is a fascinating character. I became immensely fascinated by him after someone gave me a book about his papacy. After reading it, I ended up getting a fuller biography about him, and since then, I've purchased two antique items with his image - a holy card-sized photograph and a metal, both from the 19th century. He's become my favorite pope of the modern era.
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.