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.
lol. Rome bizarrely chose as its leader an ex-Hitler Youth who wrote the most communistic drivel since the Communist Manifesto.
I paid $7 for Ratzinger's recent "global authority" encyclical and it is sooo far beyond socialism as to be pure communism.
Do yourself a favor and buy a copy, read it and get back to us.
Newman did his best to subvert the church of England. He worshiped relics and then, POOF! He became one...
Pacelli was in bed with the Nazis. Without his acquiescence to the Enabling Act of 1933, Hitler would not have been given absolute power.
You idolize the wrong end of creation.
You are so wrong.
AMEN!
Do you have a source for that opinion? Because I don't find it validated online.
Waaaaaaaay back in post #8, RnMomof7 posted:
“so if she every talked back to her mother, she would be an adulterer and murder and a thief.. just as we all are..”
In short, she said without equivocation that Mary had murdered. This is a fascinating incite on early church history, so I enquired who she murdered. RnMomof7 would not answer directly, instead weakly attributing this claim to James.
I searched James and did not any reference to Mary's murderous past, but I did reflect on the fourth chapter.
I also am reminded of Exodus 20:16.
A question regarding “all have sinned”...
Do babies sin?
Learn how to read. That’s not what that said.
Babies are sinners, from the moment they’re alive. Babies are sinners because they’re our babies, and we’re sinners.
“Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
In short, she said without equivocation that Mary had murdered. This is a fascinating incite on early church history, so I enquired who she murdered. RnMomof7 would not answer directly, instead weakly attributing this claim to James.
I'm sorry you do not appear to understand RnMomof7's accurate post. Here it is for discussion...
"ANN ARCHY: WHAT sins did she commit?? LIES?? CHEATING??? CURSING?? MURDER??? Please tell me what sins she committed.....please tell us all..yeah.....SO MANY you can't name them, I guess. Yeah...MAry was a HUGE sinner!
RNMOMOF7: 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..
My question was does the state of HER soul affect our salvation??
8 posted on Sunday, December 05, 2010 6:26:15 PM by RnMomof7
RnMomof7 is correct. All men are fallen; all men are sinners. And as James teaches us, if we break a single commandment, it is the same as if we break every commandment.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with James. Would it help if I printed James 2:10-11 for you? Here it is...
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." -- James 2:10-11"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Scripture tells us no man is sinless but Christ. Therefore, all sins are an abomination to the perfect Lord and all men are equally fallen.
Thus, as far as breaking God's commandments goes, the pederast priest who rapes children under his care is no better and no worse than the rest of us sinners.
The difference is whether or not he has been given repentance to acknowledging the truth about himself and Christ's sacrifice on his behalf.
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?
~*not* Mary~
Can't you see how the Roman typology is so typically short-sighted, shallow and blasphemous?
The Ark of God's Covenant(s) is Yeshua the Messiah, and it has always been so.
Mariology is like the kid who receives a wonderful gift, but casts it aside to play with the box it came in.
lol. Keep looking.
Do your own research. Start by reading the Bible on your own, praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
I would agree that we inherit “original sin” as part of our fallen human nature, but that is not something we do ourselves. Can a baby commit an actual sin? Can a baby break one of the ten commandments?
I have, and I’ve looked far enough that if there were any truth to your statement, it would be clear.
If you have found some allegation on some obscure website, haul it out here so we can all take a look. Otherwise, I consider the statement to be false.
So, going to the barber and kiddy-diddling (your reference to pederasts) are equal in the eyes of the Lord? I think not.
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.