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.
the Ark was kept inside a tabernacle, so Mary can be seen as one not made with human hands, just as all other believers are, but she is not the Ark.
God's glory, His Holy Spirit rested on the Ark, it never filled it. After Pentecost, His Holy Spirit, rests inside the other tabernacles -- us, and none of us are the Ark. Christ is the Ark, and even debating that He isn't is a disturbing belief that is unChristian and unbiblical
Actually Catholics generally respond with the “traditions from the church” when scripture is cited.
So if you refuse to look at the scriptures for truth, possibly you will look at the people who you say formed the infallible Roman Catholic Church
No disrespect intended but there really is ample evidence both from scripture and the original leaders of the church to realize Mary was blessed, but Jesus was the blessor. Mary was a sinful human just like you and me.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
God Bless
And that's why Catholics keep on saying that your interpretation is faulty and that veneration of saints doesn't take away from the glory due to God, but honors Him, who created them.
No one is denying that Most Blessed Trinity is the blesser of Mary, but the argument is over whether she sinned and there is some disagreement over that. I trust the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, whose authority is derived from the authority of God Himself.
We believe God, not man, Catholics believe men, not God
And that’s where the difference of opinion lies. That is the standard “Reformed/Protestant/post-Reformation” interpretation, and it’s not necessarily the truth.
Mary told them in the bible to do just one thing (Do as christ says) and they refuse to do it, so their “worship” of her is even pathologically disobedient.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
There is no exclusion for Mary and God would not say "all" without meaning all,
Mary is not Christ or the Holy Spirit. Nor is she “the mother of God”, the firstborn of all creation and the person who died for our sins. Christ is and Christ alone.
They haven't changed since they were put in writing.
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”
And just what were the oral traditions that you are sure THEY received that were passed down? We have the NT epistles for the letters part.
If what has been written down is suspect, everything the RCC claims as oral tradition is more so.
Then we're at the place where nothing is sure and we might as well throw the whole thing out.
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.
Except the letters they wrote.....
Colossians 4:16And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
Ephesians 3:3-5 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
They were not illiterate and not without materials to read. Letters were written to others and used as a form of communication in those days.
The only use *Holy Tradition* has is to authenticate doctrine or teachings which have no support from Scripture.
The Jews recognizes the OT as Scripture long before it was canonized. Jesus called it Scripture and quoted from a great deal of the books in reference to Himself. His teachings validate the OT.
If that's not good enough, then nothing is.
Excellent question with a simple answer.
Only the word of God is "authoritative," inspired by God, God-breathed and God-ordained, and as such, Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Therefore, where men's opinions are in harmony with the word of God, they are correct. When men's opinions differ from the word of God, they are in error.
Like here, from the link I just cited...
After listing the 27 books of the NT in his famous Easter Letter of 367 AD, Athanasius writes, “These are the fountains of salvation that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.” (Festal Letter 39) Notice the word "alone" here.Athanasius (died 373) (deacon at the Council of Nicea in 325 and bishop of Alexandria from 328 – 373, when he died) He was exiled 5 times in his defense of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity against the Arian heretics who had taken over the churches. (Dr. White/ Webster/King all demonstrate he, along with many of the other early church writers, had a closer view of Scripture as the final authority - closer to Protestantism than the RCC view of Scripture and tradition; without claiming that he was a full blow Protestant.)
"ALONE."
Anthanasius continues...
“For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” (Against the Gentiles, 1:3)“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6) (On the Councils, 6)
Did you catch that? Councils can err, but where they reiterate "the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture," they are correct.
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel.) See also: (NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, The Books of Samuel and Kings, pp. 489-490). Basil of Caesarea (379 AD) on Scripture as the final infallible authority over customs/traditions: “What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189, 3)Jerome (347-420 AD) (his view on the Apocrypha is the right view).
Rome has strayed so far from Scripture as to be nearly unrecognizable as a church of Christ. Instead, it is a church of Mary and a church of John Newman and a church of Joseph Ratzinger and a church of Pacelli, etc.
Repent. God no longer winks at such ignorance.
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:12
And what is that "armour of light?"
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" -- Ephesians 6:13-17 "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
"...and having done all, to stand."
AMEN! In a nutshell.
Seems simple enough, doesn't it?
Your tag is blindingly accurate.
Good grief, is nothing good enough for Catholics?????
They reject sola scriptura and so any use of Scripture alone to support a point, and then when a non-Catholic uses something besides Scripture, they're castigated. Which is it?
Non-Catholics are condemned if they do and condemned if they don't.
Will Catholics make up their collective mind on which they want?
Do you not recognize the using of historical references to disprove the false claims that the RCC always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and her sinlessness as opposed to using it as evidence in and of itself as proof against the perpetual virginity of and sinlessness of Mary?
They are two different things.
John ch 1 1In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. 5The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.
No church can boast of being the author or authoritarian of GOD's Word as GOD's Word does not rely on man for existence. GOD gave us The Holy Spirit to dwell among us as individuals to lead us and teach us all truths. That was done so we not be mislead and to also enhance our One On One relationship with Jesus Christ himself which is what it is all about. Anyone/Everyone who believes and is in fellowship with Christ has the same access to Christ directly. Preacher Smith has the same access as the church janitor as does the Roman Catholic Church Pope. Why do we need anyone elses help when Christ said plainly no one comes to The Father but through him? Praying to the dead is useless and senseless. The Bible shows us in this verse as to why. Notice that this is the dead asking favor of the dead.
Luke ch 16 24“The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in these flames.’ 25“But Abraham said to him, ‘son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. 26And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. Anyone who wanted to cross over to you from here is stopped at its edge, and no one there can cross over to us.’ 27“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, send him to my father’s home. 28For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them about this place of torment so they won’t have to come here when they die.’ 29“But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read their writings anytime they want to.’ 30“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins.’ 31“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Verse 26 says "And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. Anyone who wanted to cross over to you from here is stopped at its edge, and no one there can cross over to us.’
So who was the only one living able to actually talk to the dead? The One who lives meaning Christ Himself. He and He alone of who has lived on earth holds the power to overcome death, hell, and the grave.
So where is Christ? He's at the Throne of the Father. If we plea in despair of face a tribulation He is their as well. A special ritual is not need but rather the Plea of Peter who while walking on water toward Christ began to sink reached out to Christ. Christ was there. Christ was there when Stephen was being stoned The Bible tells us. He was there on the Road to Damascus to talk to Paul. He says It is I whom you persecute. He was there even before being born from Mary. He was there when the three studends of Daniel were tossed in the furnace. HE WAS THERE.
So is He there at communion as well? Yes He was there before the first glass was filled or the bread even baked or dispensed. The wafer, the wine is in remembrance of HIM. The wine and bread is not Him because He is dwelling in us and with us through The Holy Spirit. The Lamb has done been excepted by GOD for our sins. It was finished 2000 years ago on a cross.
Communion like The Passover is a time appointed to reflect upon our sins deeply before we dare take a sip or a bite in rememberance of Christ sacrifice for us. The Bible teaches us that as well. We remember Him we remember our sins He has forgiven of us through His flesh and blood. We seek forgiveness from Him and we forgive others as well. That is The Lords Supper. "Do this in rememberance of Me" just as the Passover was done in rememberance of deliverance out of Egypt and their lives spared.
Christ through The Holy Spirit dwells in all who believe and are His Own. He is there alive and well and does not need an earthly being as His replacement or substitute amongst us.
Christ came to this world to save us. To establish an everlasting Covenant with us and fulfill GOD's Promise. He came so we meaning me, you, the disciples, the apostles, the Bible Thumping pew walking preacher The Pope can all once and for all FINALLY have a One on One relationship with Him. So why try and bring back a failed system? Failed system meaning man having once again to go through the Priest to talk to GOD. Doing so will not take your salvation but it does make things many times over more complicated than The Lord ever intended.
I can go to a room in my home and lock the door and pray in secret alone To GOD through Christ and be just as forgiven as a person going into a booth with a Priest in another side of the booth listening. I can say the same prayer walking a quiet river bank alone and it works just the same. Why? Because Christ established a One on One relationship with us. We don't need a departed middleman. But you know and understand this :>}
Time spent in prayer to them is time not spent in prayer to God, to whom we are commanded to pray by Jesus Himself.
The whole reasoning is twisted
“Rome has strayed so far from Scripture as to be nearly unrecognizable as a church of Christ. Instead, it is a church of Mary and a church of John Newman and a church of Joseph Ratzinger and a church of Pacelli, etc.”
Are you just jealous because you have no intellectual curiosity? Or because your church has no history?
Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is a towering intellect who is a world respected theologian.
During his papacy, Benedict XVI has advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of many developed countries. He views relativism’s denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. He teaches the importance of both the Catholic Church and an understanding of God’s redemptive love. He has reaffirmed the “importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work.”
Pope Benedict is the founder and patron of the Ratzinger Foundation, a charitable organisation, which makes money from the sale of his books and essays in order to fund scholarships and bursaries for students across the world.
Blessed John Henry Newman, was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.[4]
Originally an evangelical Oxford academic and clergyman in the Church of England, Newman was a leader in the Oxford Movement. This influential grouping of Anglicans wished to return the Church of England to many Catholic beliefs and forms of worship. He eventually converted to Roman Catholicism (1845) and rose to become a cardinal.
The Venerable Pope Pius XII (Latin: Pius PP. XII; Italian: Pio XII), born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli
His magisterium includes almost 1,000 addresses and radio broadcasts. His forty-one encyclicals include Mystici Corporis, the Church as the Body of Christ; Mediator Dei on liturgy reform; Humani Generis on the Church’s position on theology and evolution.
The descriptions here are taken from various sources.
The church was wrong about men being killed for touching it..why does one assume they are right about the type??
The Ark was a type of Christ..
The ark of the Covenant was a picture of Jesus Christ. The Acacia wood speaks of the indestructible humanity of Jesus. He was 100% man. God Himself became flesh and suffered the agonies of the human experience. He was tempted, He was weary, He thirsted, He had to learn the Scriptures and learn obedience and to hear God's voice and be led by the Spirit as a man.
Not only does the Acacia wood tell us that He was 100% man but the pure gold that overlayed the wood teaches us that He was 100% God.
Jesus said "unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins." He used the same words (Heb. eheyay asher aheyay) as when the Lord spoke to Moses at the burning bush.
The Jewish Messiah was none other than Jehovah Himself visiting His people and becoming their savior by dying for the sins of the world and that is the etymology of the name Jesus (Heb. Y'shua 'Yaweh has become salvation'). Jesus condemned the religious leaders for not recognizing "the day of their visitation."
The crown of gold around the top of the ark speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus overcame the onslaught of opposition that was set against Him His whole life by the religious leaders, the wealthy Jewish aristocracy, Rome itself, and even all the power of the enemy. He overcame even death itself and rose triumphantly and was given a crown, and glory, and honor, because He is the King. According to John it was Jesus who Isaiah saw seated on the throne of glory with the angels crying 'holy, holy, holy.'
The Ark of the Covenant' (Ex 25:10-22) Only once per year on Yom Kippur could man enter beyond the veil. The veil separated man from the holy of holies. It was behind this veil and in the 10 cubit squared room called the holy of holies that the most sacred piece of furniture in the whole tabernacle structure was found. This was the Ark of the Covenant which was mentioned first before all the other furniture in the tabernacle. The lid on top of the ark was traditionally known as the Mercy Seat which was considered a separate piece of furniture but one with the ark. The ark was right in the center of the camp and the glory cloud was seen above the mercy seat and above the back portion of the tabernacle.
The Ark of the Covenant was where Gods justice and judgement toward sin was satisfied. It is referred to almost 200 times in the Old Testament.
Ex 25:22 "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.
Exod 25:8-9 "And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show you, that is, the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings, just so you shall make it."
The Mercy Seat was where the blood was sprinkled.
In the New Testament this Mercy Seat or atonement cover is spoken of twice.
Heb 9:2-5 "For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle, which is, called the Holiest of All, which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail."
AMEN
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.