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.
How many times do we have to post Scripture to support that?
Luke 1: 46-47 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
SHE knew she needed a savior....
Romans 3:21-26 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
1 John 1:8-10 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Mary died? She sinned. That's the proof.
Or does your Gnostic group believe it has esoteric knowledge denied to the rest of us?
*sigh* We refer continually to Scripture and are even castigated for the concept of *sola scriptura* and now you ask if we have some knowledge denied to the rest of you? No, we don't. The Bible is available to all, but it doesn't do anybody any good is it's not read and studied.
Isn't your group's caste-system a little too wacked out?
What *caste-system*? Whose group? Who are you categorizing as what?
Rom.3
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
That's not what the doctrine says
I do not much care what your doctrine says..I care what Jesus said
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
If Mary was sinless he did not come for her or die for her..
Who or what are you calling a "tool of Satan" here?
The doctrine is from the pit of hell...it causes men to take their eyes off of Christ and steals glory from God..just what satan loves
I don't think anybody has denied that.
I don't see that Scripture alone contradicts that passage. (Eph 4:11-15)
Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
The word is all we need to be fully equipped. It's all Jesus ever appealed to as testimony of Himself. It all points to Him...
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
It seems from Rn’s post that her group may be teaching her that her cult says Mary is/was a tool of Satan. Which is not surprising that her group propagates a lot of gnostic errors
Well, if you're going to argue against it, you should know what it actually says, not one of the many straw men against it.
If Mary was sinless he did not come for her or die for her..
That is the doctrine of man, and not of God. God can do with the merits of His Passion, Death, and Resurrection what He sees fit (they happened in time, but their effects exist outside of time), and He decided to apply them to His own mother. So His shedding of His Blood on the Cross did save her. After all, once He expired on the Cross, "the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many" (Matthew 27: 52-53). His redemptive act applied to those people who had died before He came into the world.
The doctrine is from the pit of hell...it causes men to take their eyes off of Christ and steals glory from God..just what satan loves
Again, the doctrine of man: the attention on Mary doesn't detract from Christ, but honors Him.
“Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”
See, right here in Ephesians 5:27, you see the Catholic Church.
I guess it is too much to expect Catholics to have bible literacy
Old Testament
Genesis (Gen) Exodus (Exd) Leviticus (Lev) Numbers (Num) Deuteronomy (Deu) Joshua (Jos) Judges (Jdg) Ruth (Rth) 1 Samuel (1Sa) 2 Samuel (2Sa) 1 Kings (1Ki) 2 Kings (2Ki) 1 Chronicles (1Ch) 2 Chronicles (2Ch) Ezra (Ezr) Nehemiah (Neh) Esther (Est) Job (Job) Psalms (Psa) Proverbs (Pro) Ecclesiastes (Ecc) Solomon (Sgs) Isaiah (Isa) Jeremiah (Jer) Lamentations (Lam) Ezekiel (Eze) Daniel (Dan) Hosea (Hsa) Joel (Joe) Amos (Amo) Obadiah (Oba) Jonah (Jon) Micah (Mic) Nahum (Nah) Habakkuk (Hab) Zephaniah (Zep) Haggai (Hag) Zechariah (Zec) Malachi (Mal)
New Testament
Matthew (Mat) Mark (Mar) Luke (Luk) John (Jhn) Acts (Act) Romans (Rom) 1 Corinthians (1Cr) 2 Corinthians (2Cr) Galatians (Gal) Ephesians (Eph) Philippians (Phl) Colossians (Col) 1 Thessalonians (1Th) 2 Thessalonians (2Th) 1 Timothy (1Ti) 2 Timothy (2Ti) Titus (Tts) Philemon (Phm) Hebrews (Hbr) James (Jam) 1 Peter (1Pe) 2 Peter (2Pe) 1 John (1Jo) 2 John (2Jo) 3 John (3Jo) Jude (Jud) Revelation (Rev)
Hope this helps you in the future
You can ask them WHAT they teach, but you can not question what they teach and still be a catholic
Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith
That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."where the verb hierourgeo (to act as a priest) is used.
When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.Catholic priests (also called presbyters which is usually translated as "elders" in most English Bibles) guide the Church under the authority of the bishops (called episkopoi in the New Testament). This is as in scripture
Did you not see geologist post above about James’s abbreviation being Jas., not Jam.? Nice trying to conflate a confusion about abbreviations into making a slam about Catholics’ apparent lack of biblical literacy- very charitable.
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.