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.
What a beautiful prayer. God bless you.
But on the other hand we have a constant litany from non-Catholics that the Church is too lenient with its excommunication policies. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Did you read James? What do you think those verses mean?
The ceremonial laws have passed away with the advent of Jesus Christ. The commandments of God are eternal.
Babies die, right? Then babies are sinners.
"In him you were also circumcised... having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God" (Colossians 2:11,12).
Baby boys in Old Testament Israel were circumcised at a young age too--eight days old. The Bible compares baptism with circumcision.
We are born sinful.
God Bless
Horse hockey that you paid anything for what is obtainable for free from numerous on line sources and double horse hockey that you actually read it and arrived at that conclusion.
There is no doubt that many will conclude the worst of all possible contents of anything written by the pope or any pope without even bothering to read it. I seriously doubt, based upon your highly biased posting history that you are any not among them.
We’ve been through this before, Judith. The internet is filled with factual information regarding Pacelli’s coziness with Hitler and his approval of the Enabling Act which destroyed the Catholic Centre Party, thereby erasing any protesting voice to Hitler’s complete take-over of Germany.
Read Cromwell’s book. Learn for yourself.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlerspope.html
I do recall your fondness for Dalin, the Jewish professor who defends Pacelli and is employed by a Roman Catholic university, so here’s another link which illustrates how Rome says one thing but does another...
http://www.archelaos.com/popes/details.aspx?id=299
I was making the point that amongst ancient Jews and Christians both the written and oral teachings were trusted. Not that one was superior to the other or that the presence of one suggests the absence of the other. What was important was not the method of communication but the source. In regards to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles this includes oral Tradition.
The Jews were indeed literate but the expansion of Christianity did not rely on the written word only. For an example of the place of Apostolic Tradition we have this from Irenaeus:
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
I'm not sure that Frau Doktor Reichbishop wants any proper discussion of the direct religious support the Nazi Party and Third Reich received from the German Christian (Protestant) Church. Its one thing to sling mud, its another thing to sling it at a fan.
No, but lying about it would be way too tough for Him. That's how we can discern God's Church from a very large poser.
lol. I bought it and I read it. The internet is great for a lot of things, but they've got this new invention where you can actually underline words and highlight passages. And it's portable and requires no electricity nor wii fi. It fits in your pocket and it never changes. What it says one day is the same thing it says the next day. It can't be re-edited or redacted or erased on someone's whim or deceit. It is set in stone for all time. It says what it says.
And it only cost $7.
I would encourage you to do the same thing. You say you are a conservative. Let's see what you think about Ratzinger's appeal for a "global authority" to run everything in our lives, including our government.
Where is that in the bible?
Between Genesis 1:1 and the end.
I heart you.
You’re making a fool of yourself...
Is it possible you really can not understand the scripture?
There once was a pastor that said he had enough sin in his prayers for God to send him to hell...
Men spend so much time comparing themselves to other men, they forget the standard is not men but a Holy , Perfect , God
Scripture does not teach that there are venial sins and mortal sin..ALL sin is an offense to a Holy God.. Even a pencil taken as a child is an abomination to God and enough to condemn one to hell ..
The scripture is clear to those of us that study it.. committing one sin is as offensive to God as violating all of them..
Isaiah was a priest that loved God.. yet when God revealed Himself to him..what was Isaiah response ?
Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
THAT my friend is the response of men that have met God.. a knowledge they are filthy before a holy God and deserve the fires of hell...
Even talking back to your parents, is as offensive to God as murder .. the laws are the laws.. there is no "good time" there is only hell.
Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John 5:24)
Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. (Act 8:22)
ROTFL! I was among the first FReepers to read (in full), and post direct excerpts from, the official Vatican.va-hosted English translation of Caritas in veritate. The initial Catholic reaction to my posts was that I was using a suspect/poor/faulty translation, because the Catholics identified it as socialism, too. They later changed their tune when they saw that it came from the Pope, and now they only claim that atheistic socialism is bad.
You should be able to discern that “oneness” is opposite of “trinitarian.”
Nice try..But I have read the bible several times..and it is not there..no where is Mary the “new Eve “ ..a lie made up out of whole cloth
I am afraid it did
1Cr 2:14
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.