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 asked my self the same of you and your ilk. Reading your posts is as much much as reading “Ask The Imam” (www.askimam.org). Reading as you twist scripture to represent your worldview is fun and funny.
You speak of abominations...and I go back to Leviticus...next time you hit the hairdresser you are, by your own words, condemning yourself to hell. For Leviticus tells us cutting hair is an abomination. So is eating pork or lobster. Puts an extra meaning into the phrase “a damned good meal.”
You are no doubt a fine imam (imama?) at your madrasa. You wrote, “committing one sin is as offensive to God as violating all of them..” (capitalization and punctuation are important). But frankly, no, a child stealing a pencil and Josef Stalin are not condemned equally to eternal damnation. In your cult, perhaps, but then again that is your cult and your business.
Someone Freepmailed me a quote that I think is appropriate for people just like you: “Scaring old white people for fun and profit.”
They do not know ...sad huh?
Your whole premise is that if one chooses, they can be sinless. You have just placed any human equal to God.
You deny the words of the Bible that state “all have sinned” as not to be taken as literal...all I can say is these are the words of God and to deny them is to deny God.
I use scripture quotes because the Bible is God-breathed and the only absolute truth there is.
Honestly you seem to not be disputing me personally but disputing God and for that I will pray for the Holy Spirit to open your ears and your eyes.
God Bless
Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Cain, Abel, Seth.....
What entered the world through Mary?
Jesus
What is the whole Bible the history of? (what is it the history of the loss of and re-acquisition of)? I feel like I am not asking you anything too difficult - honestly, if you have read the Bible and do not see what I am saying, I feel like an English teacher who has the following conversation with a student:
How condescending .....
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Romans 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
If you're thinking that sin entered the world through Mary, you're wrong. Scripture is clear that sin entered through the man.
Eve did not do anything that it was Mary's responsibility to rectify.
Jesus is the one responsible for taking care of redeeming the world from sin, not Mary.
I know, I’ve told them that the Catholic bible is one where they scratch out the name of Christ and write in Mary, none of them really ever dispute it, they know it’s true
In spite of our often heated banter I believe you because I believe you are sincere (even if wrong) and that you do live the greatest commandment.
Me, I just hope I am forgiven.
Forfeited the debate, I see.
I invoke Godwin's Law for comparison to islam.
It's the religious equivalent of comparing someone to nazis.
I am not a Catholic, but was under the belief that Catholics practice infantile baptisms?
From all your quizzing I would ask why does the Catholic church practice it? Or possibly I am wrong on this point.
I would like to suggest a bible study to you on the laws of israel ..there were civil laws, ceremonial law and moral law..
Perhaps a study would help sort out your confusion .
I just googles this up for you.. you can start here, because you are very confused .
http://shogiwar.webs.com/Xian_Is_True/3_Types_of_Law.html
The commandments are moral law, they reflect the character of God, and are impossible to keep . The purpose of then is to show us our need for a Savior..because no one can keep them...
It was James ( a catholic favorite) that said breaking one is the same as breaking them all. Not me
God can not stand in the presence of ANY sin, Until men understand how Holy and righteous He is, they will see themselves as good enough ..worthy enough
Maybe in YOUR mind a child stealing a pencil is not equal to stalin...but then we do not have the mind of God ..we do not see things from a spotless holy perspective ...we see sin as it relates to us, not God
How does God look at a lie? Is a lie damning? read Acts 5 1-11
God punishes what we would call a mistake or trivial ...
Uzzah was struck dead for steading the ark.... two priests were struck dead for using the wrong fire...
Until we see our lives as God sees them, we will never really repent..
You know we should be frightened . white or black , or brown.. we should all stand in fear and awe of a holy God that is also a just judge..no one will get probation my friend..
Paul said “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:16).
All sin is wickedness to God
Mark 1:14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Luke 13:3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all peris
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
LOL....
meant to say ‘without the HS’, obviously.
“Maybe in YOUR mind a child stealing a pencil is not equal to stalin...but then we do not have the mind of God ..we do not see things from a spotless holy perspective ...we see sin as it relates to us, not God...”
The commandments are even harder to keep than not stealing a pencil as Jesus clarified. Where He explained that even if you don’t ACT on stealing it, but “only” coveting it is a sin. And of course men don’t see it as “equal”, nor should we in our laws, etc. But both keep us apart from God.
I find it interesting that so many get personally vested in proving/disproving points of theological debate that have raged for centuries. I presented my understanding of the reasoning behind the RC teaching, and was soundly castigated for it.
Feel free “blow more holes” if it makes you feel better.
A woman must learn 18 quietly with all submissiveness. 2:12 But I do not allow 19 a woman to teach or exercise authority 20 over a man. She must remain quiet. 21 2:13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, 22 fell into transgression. 23 2:15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, 24 if she 25 continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
>>Again, it’s not a certain language you need to be better equipped, it’s the Holy Spirit. <<
Ah, I see.
If someone knowledgeable in an original language reads a passage in the language it is written in arrives at a different opinion on the meaning of the passage than you do, yours wins due to self-ascribed superior spirituality.
Pretty good system you have there. No need for facts nor analysis.
>>meant to say ‘without the HS’, obviously.<<
That was understood. I don’t go after typos.
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.