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.
“...and he who says to his brother ‘thou fool’.....”
You've already been corrected about Leviticus. Maybe you missed it...
DR.E: There is a difference between the Commandments of God and the ceremonial laws of the Jews. The ceremonial laws have passed away with the advent of Jesus Christ. The commandments of God are eternal.
And I asked you what you thought James meant by his remarks in James 2:10-11.
So far, you're without an answer.
No surprise there.
I'll give you the verses again, ever hopeful for your discernment...
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.
>>No. But you interpreted that I have self-ascribed superior spirituality. So much for your interpretation skills or understanding what I was saying. <<
I suggest you reread your own post. You clearly state that the Holy Spirit is the interpretive medium, irrespective of the knowledge base of the reader.
Since you raised it in argument to why you do not need to know the original languages, you imply that you have such an interpretive medium — the Holy Spirit — and therefore do not need silly things like theological scholarship. You therefore attempt to take the spiritual high ground and thus, ascribe unto yourself spiritual superiority.
And, of course, I didn’t even have to bring up the obvious flaw in your post: what if 2 people imbued with the Holy Spirit come to diametrically opposed interpretations of fundamental passages? The one with the “best” Holy Spirit wins and should therefore be taken as the authority for such passages?
Enoch and Elijah, in my understanding, will be the Two Witnesses so despised by all the world in the Tribulation. That they were taken up and out of time does not mean that they will never die. They will. And yet they will rise again on the third day, and the world will know.
Going back to your commentary regarding sin, revisit the book of Romans, chapter 8 for a better understanding. Animals were subjected to futility because of the sin of Adam, therefore they and all Creation groans and travails, in anticipation of the coming of the Son of God.
Jesus Christ came to earth as a man in order to atone for the sin of Adam and all his subsequent descendants. He died as a sin offering, the final atonement for those who accept Him.
As far as infants, they are the children of Adam as well, and inherit a sin state, a propensity. They are flawed and fallen, as are we all. They are, as you note, incapable of consciously deciding to sin and are therefore innocents to a degree, but they are certainly subject to death, and the wage of sin is death. I have difficulty with this myself, but do know what scripture says upon the matter. I have a hope that consideration is made, and knowing that my God, our God, is fair and just and merciful, that babes who never had a conscious choice to sin will be accounted as forgiven in Christ Jesus. This I hope and pray in faith.
Does this make sense? Many believe as I do, it's not just my own personal interpretation of scripture.
>>I read God’s Word as Truth. I don’t read/study/meditate on IT to see if it is Truth<<
Like I said — nice system there. Your truth trumps all others.
>>Enoch and Elijah, in my understanding, will be the Two Witnesses so despised by all the world in the Tribulation. That they were taken up and out of time does not mean that they will never die. <<
How long? That extra plate is sometimes a bit of a hassle... ;)
At the very least, Mary was the most blessed woman who ever lived. She got to be the mother of Jesus, the Son of God. That we can all agree on.
The Immaculate Conception is a problem however. The Orthodox (who also don't have the doctrine of Original Sin) view the IC (for short, no disrespect) as another western innovation. The Early Church Father's don't really talk about her that much.
And some of the justifications for the IC are a bit gnostic IMO. Saying that Jesus could not have been surrounded by a sinful mother implies that He could also not have been really present on the earth. For whatever Mary was, the pagan Roman world made Vegas look like a Sunday School picnic.
There are much bigger things to debate, but this is something that is a real barrier between for instance the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics. Not to mention the Lutherans in most synods.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a silly thing to fight over though. Most Lutheran synods have taught that she did not have any more kids, and that Jesus’s brothers were more likely half brothers from an earlier marriage of Joseph's. The angel told Joseph who his adoptive son really was, and who was the Father. It isn't that big of a stretch to see that he would not want to lay with her after that!
>>I’ve made it mine and so can you. I don’t have anything that hasn’t been granted to you, also.<<
Yet I have it and disagree with your perspective. His Truth in my heart requires active investigation and introspection, not just passive spoon-feeding.
We all have an appointment with death. Unless we are alive at the rapture. Enoch and Elijah are no exceptions, their appointments were just made FAR into the future. But die they must.
Hi smvoice!
What about Moses?
He died on his birthday, the first day of the 11th month (Feb. 1) (Deut. 1:3), and was buried by God in the land of Moab.
>>Had to kill some sacred cows when I left and renew my mind with God’s Word which is on going. <<
Like i said — nice system you got there.
And you are saying that one has no choice but to sin? I would say that it is practically impossible for most of us not to sin- at least for those who have attained the age of reason. For those who have not attained the age of reason (babies, small children) it is impossible for them to sin.
Again, sin requires consent on the part of a sinner. I do not understand how sinlessness makes one equal to God? There is only one God, none equal Him. Again I'll use the case of babies; you still have not explained what sin they committed. Let's throw in angels while we're at it- they're biblical; did all angels sin or just the bad ones? If they all did not sin, are the sinless ones equal to God?
If you interpret "all have sinned" literally, who is to say that your interpretation is right? I agree that Scripture is God breathed- but not the only absolute truth there is. Where does it say that in the Bible? Technically, Jesus is the absolute Truth. He is THE Word, the Truth and the Life.
I would never dispute God; I am disputing your interpretation of God's word. How do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? In all humility, I agree with G.K. Chesterton who said "a Catholic is a person who has plucked up courage to face the incredible and inconceivable idea that something else may be wiser than he is."
I am not a Catholic, but was under the belief that Catholics practice infantile baptisms?
Some on this thread have accused Catholics of being infantile, and have posted pictures in an attempt to prove it; I won't waste the keystrokes to comment on that, but Catholics certainly do have their infants baptised. You partly answered your own question about baptism being the "new circumcision" in an earlier post. Circumcision was done 8 days after birth, if I remember correctly.
Baptism is the sacrament whereby that "original sin" inherited from Adam (inherited, NOT committed) is washed away, and we are made children of God. John 3:5 "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
The only thing we can be sure of in this life is that we are not going to get out of it alive; knowing not the day nor the hour, we have our children baptised.
It’s
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
for 98% of the frequently posting RC’s on FR.
The Vineyard is probably as close to my nondenominational current congregation as any label.
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.