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 didn’t say you were using it as a put down, nor did I suppose your intent. I merely stated plainly that you were the one to point that out. I wrote, “It wasn’t any of the identified Catholics who first corrected her about the abbreviation of James, but geologist.”
Not only did they not have the tools, but most were illiterate, anyway.
In this time of instant, global communication we simply forget that illiteracy was the state of the common man for many centuries.
It would have been most awkward for anyone to tote a hand-scripted Bible to church on Sunday, let alone being able to read it—such was the case until the phasing out of the feudal system, and the arrival of the printing press.
You must be ASHAMED of what religion you are or else you would answer the question!! You silence says it all.
Correct .... on both sides of this discussion.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23)
Either all means ALL, or it doesn't.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. - Hebrews 10:10
Again, either the sacrifice is for all, or it is not. This verse also denies the existence of any kind of purgatory. Christ's sacrifice was perfect and enough to save all (even Mary) from sin.
Mary refers to herself as the 'handmaid of the Lord' (Luke 1:38). Were Mary sinless, she would not be the Lord's handmaid; she would be His equal. Being human, that is not possible.
The Bible does not list Mary's sins. That does not mean she is sinless. In fact, Paul's words indict the entire human race.
This is the ping and comment I did not deserve because it is not true what you write. On more than one point.
OK...you know WAY more than ANY Saint that has ever lived!! Bowing to your holy intellect.
I was addressing posts #552 and #573, and pointing to what you pointed out.
Sorry, at 2AM i missed that, and it is true that while a body was prepared for Jesus, He was “not a container, not [essentially] a man or man-thing containing God,” but typologies use earthly things which correspond to spiritual things, and while Jesus was God, the Father dwelled “in” Him, and thus Jesus was the temple made without hands. (Jn. 14:10) And i can see how the Ark can be seen as typological of Chris, more comprehensively than Mary though i can see aspects which are analogous there. Read thru http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Ark_of_the_Covenant.htm.
The purpose of the Tabernacle was to house the Ark in which the unbroken two tablets of the Ten Commandments were placed, (Ex. 40:18) as well as the golden pot of manna from heaven (Ex. 16:34) and Aaron’s rod that budded. (Num. 17:10; Heb. 9:4) The Ark was a 2 ½ x 1½ cubit rectangular chest made of shittim (acacia, from its scourging thorns) wood, with pure gold overlay, (Ex. 25:10,11) with its lid (propitiatory) being the Mercy Seat with the Cherubim of glory facing one another with wings outstretched. It was here that the blood of a goat was sprinkled by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, to appease God’s righteous anger (propitiate) for the sins of the people of Israel. (Lv. 16)
“And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony.” (Ex., 25:22)
New Advent, “ Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, states:
Catholic tradition, led by the Fathers of the Church, has considered the Ark of the Covenant as one of the purest and richest symbols of the realities of the New Law. It signifies, in the first place, the Incarnate Word of God. “Christ himself”, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “was signified by the Ark. For in the same manner as the Ark was made of setim wood, so also was the body of Christ composed of the most pure human substance. The Ark was entirely overlaid with gold, because Christ was filled with wisdom and charity, which gold symbolizes. In the Ark there was a golden vase: this represents Jesus’ most holy soul containing the fulness of sanctity and the godhead, figured by the manna. There was also Aaron’s rod, to indicate the sacerdotal of Jesus Christ priest forever. Finally the stone tables of the Law were likewise contained in the Ark, to mean that Jesus Christ is the author of the Law”. To these point touched by the Angel of the Schools, it might be added that the Ascension of Christ to heaven after His victory over death and sin is figured by the coming up of the Ark to Sion. St. Bonaventure has also seen in the Ark a mystical representation of the Holy Eucharist. In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant” — Faederis Arca.
Do you believe in the Trinity? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Quix, is your church the same as this?
THE ONENESS PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT
Do you believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons? Or merely three manifestations of the one uni-personal God.
Above is taken from this link:
This is pretty much all there is that seems to come close to Trinitarian Pentecostal Dipsy. There is nothing under your exact title of your denomination that I can find.
It would have been most awkward for anyone to tote a hand-scripted Bible to church on Sunday, let alone being able to read it—such was the case until the phasing out of the feudal system, and the arrival of the printing press.
Not just that, it's important to realize that the hand-scribed Bibles cost more money than the average person could be expected to earn in a lifetime.
This remained true until about the time of the Reformation; Gutenberg's Vulgate Bible was much less than a hand-scribed Bible, but still quite pricey (of those printed, only one is thought to have been owned by a private individual, though wealthy patrons did purchase some for churches, monasteries and universities ). But, like with all technology, the price dropped within a few decades and by the early 16th century Bibles were affordable for much of the emerging middle class.
It is important to realize that Protestantism is predicated upon the assumption that God is so cruel that He allowed FIFTEEN CENTURIES to elapse between the Resurrection and the development of the technology necessary for "sola scriptura" which Protestantism claims is critical for salvation.
Where do you get the idea that "sinless" equals "divine"? Adam and Eve were created sinless and remained so until the Fall -- does this mean they were equal to God until then and only then became human?
Respectfully, as stated by Colonel Flagg, the words he posted were scriptural from the Apostle Paul.
Having come from the Biblical scriptures it is God-breathed and it is truth.
God Bless
But of Christ alone it is written, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)
Therefore, the Bible teaches us that Mary was a sinner like you and me.
Here's a good one...
Tertullian, died around 220 AD – Carthage, North Africa, wrote five books against Marcion and other works against Gnostics and other heresies. Tertullian understood that Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship within marriage after Jesus was born and so the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is biblical and historical, but the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” are truly the children of Mary of Joseph. (see “On the Flesh of Christ”, chapter 23; On Monogamy, 8; and Against Marcion, 4:19)... Origen (254 AD), Basil (379 AD), and Chrysostom (407 AD) all denied that Mary was sinless.Irenaeus did not believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary, as demonstrated in Against Heresies, 3:21:10 and 3:22:4.
Rome just makes things up.
Meant to ping you.
Yes, but the Ark contained the written word that Moses received from God and some of the manna. Mary bore THE WORD and the Bread that came down from Heaven. You see the typology now?
It’s interesting that you cite those authorities, but then you tout “sola scriptura.” Which is is it?
AMEN!
RCs never seem to read the New Testament. Why would they know anything about the Old Testament?
But this is one more excellent example showing Rome infuses Mary with god-like essence and puts her right up there with Christ on the cross as "co-redeemer."
Now they've got Mary pre-dating Christ. Pagan worship with a woman at its center.
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.