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.
Help yourself to my home page.
However, you’ve been around long enough to have read the answer dozens of times.
No slam intended , I did not and have not read the article or the thread. It was simple a response appearing on the top of the front page ... tacky response, indeed. So I made a statement of truth.
Sit created an uproar.
To each his own church and belief.
Hey....she answered ME that Mary did those sins I named and FAR WORSE! Good freaking grief!! What kind of Christian thinks this about Mary?
Went there, skimmed that.
Mostly posts cut and pasted from Alamo Girl.
Perhaps I missed the part where you wrote what denomination you are and if you go to church.
I have not read every post you have ever put here on this site so if you have addressed this before I have not read it.
Is this a problem for you? You seem to have lots of time and energy to post disrespectful pictures, perhaps you could take just a few seconds to answer my questions.
In case you don’t remember them:
What denomination are you? Do you go to church?
You are mixing apples and oranges here. The issue isn't that Panagia is rendered a goddess by the IC so much as it is that the doctrine makes her ontologically different from all the rest of mankind, She is thus not "human". If she is not "human", then her Son is not True Man...and that is heresy. Differing concepts of what exactly the Sin of Adam is or does to us is the other problem. Blessed Augustine's notion of Original Sin as being a "macula" on the soul of all mankind leads inevitably to the IM because, as I said earlier, the idea is that Christ cannot be contained in a "defective" vessel, borne by a human mother...and we are back to the heresy which the doctrine mandates.
"Several fathers suggest she was wholly without sin, personal or original."
So far as I know, no Eastern Father ever held that the Most Holy Theotokos was free from the effects of the Sin of Adam or Original Sin however denominated. A number felt that she was sinless through her lifetime while others disagreed, but those beliefs had nothing to do with her being ontologically different from the rest of us. In fact, it is precisely because she like all the rest of us was subject to the effects of the Sin of Adam that she is so great an example for all of us. Why should we care about a woman whom God made from conception perfect and unable to sin...unless she is a goddess whom we are supposed to worship?
Yeah.
I could.
I’ve been in China a lot of years . . .
Many people there don’t think that someone they meet on the street deserves their name, much less their religion.
Most Freepers are keenly aware, however, that I’m a Trinitarian Pentecostal Dispy.
If you expect responses to your trashing that in the least . . . dream on.
That is simply a lie. She did NOT say that.
“The bible says if you break ONE of the commandments you have broken them all (Jam 2:10)... so if she every talked back to her mother, she would be an adulterer and murder and a thief.. just as we all are.. “
Just ANSWER the simple question please....what religion are you? freepers have asked you.
armydoc said it...sorry.
Jesus said that to hate in your heart equaled murder.
To look on a woman with lust was equal to adultery.
Mary perhaps could have been perfect enough to not act out sin, but if the thoughts and intents of her heart were not completely pure, she sinned those sins.
Sin isn’t just outward actions.
God looks at all of sin the same. All it takes is the breaking of one commandment to be guilty of them all.
James 2:10-11 “ For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. “
Mary sinned otherwise she wouldn’t have needed a savior.
Thanks. I misunderstood one sentence in your comment and based my reply on that. I don’t want to take this thread too far off course so I think I’ll leave this discussion behind. I do appreciate that the EO honor and venerate the BVM even though they consider the Catholic Church’s formulation of the IC as heresy. I know that disagreement does not arise out of EO disparging or slandering the Virgin Mary.
I do believe that the Catholic view of original sin may be too much influenced by Augustine but the Eastern teaching is gaining more and more understanding and acceptance as seen in that passage of the Catechism. It remains though that we do not believe man to have been totally depraved as a result of the fall.
May the Lord who gives all life ever watch over you and bless you.
“Most Freepers are keenly aware, however, that I’m a Trinitarian Pentecostal Dispy.
If you expect responses to your trashing that in the least . . . dream on.”
I would not even think about trashing your beliefs. Just because you trash mine.
I was just curious because I wasn’t sure where your beliefs originate.
Feel free to trash away.
Beliefs that can’t stand the heat of the kitchen aren’t worth much.
Just don’t expect compliant responses.
The events in Genesis were written down by Moses. Did he receive these in writing? If not how can we know that the oral telling were not changed over time? How can we trust them? We can trust them because in cultures that rely on oral transmission of their sacred doctrines the exact telling is most painstakingly preserved so as to not corrupt the teachings.
Remember 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter”
What was taught by the Apostles is to be held firm no matter the instrument of the teaching. Those that followed the Apostles followed this admonishment and it is from this we have the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.
You like many others try to put a contemporary mind on that of an early Christian. It does not make sense. You may have no trust in oral teachings they did not hold to that view. Remember they did not have the tools of mass communication we have now and they had to deal with a populace that did not have access to written materials.
Why on earth would I want to trash your beliefs? I can’t even find anything about your denomination on the web.
Guess it doesn’t have a web presence. Which is a shame since there is no way to learn more.
Thank-you.
May Christ our true God who rose from the dead, as a good, loving, and merciful God, have mercy upon you, through the intercessions of His most pure and Holy Mother; the power of the precious and life-giving Cross; the protection of the honorable, bodiless powers of heaven; the supplications of the honorable, glorious, prophet, and forerunner John the Baptist; of the holy, glorious, and praiseworthy apostles; of the holy, glorious, and triumphant martyrs; of our saintly and God inspired Fathers; of the holy and righteous ancestors of God Joachim and Anna; of Saint Nicholas whose memory we commemorate today, and all the saints, and save you for He is gracious and loves mankind.
Excuse me, but do not make this argument about me. Second of all, RnMomof7 was the one who made the issue out of the abbreviation. When Ann Archy asked her what she meant by “Jam.,” RN asked her if she had read the Bible, and in a follow-up to Cronos, posted the names of all the books in the Protestant/Reformed canon of the Bible and their apparent abbreviations and claimed that their unfamiliarity with her abbreviation was an example of Catholic’s “biblical illiteracy.” All I did was correct her.
Can you imagine ANY child (except Jesus, of course) who never committed a willful act? The whole idea is preposterous! :)
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.