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.
Well done yet again.
thx.
INDEED.
VERY EXCELLENT ABOUT GOD’S SOVEREIGN POWER TO
DRAW
ALL THOSE WHO TRULY SEEK HIM—TO HIMSELF.
“Nowhere is there an example of people praying to the dead in the Bible. Zip. Nada. Nowhere!”
“Arise, Lazarus.”
-—WRONG! That was a Command, not a prayer.
Seriously. You’ll have to try harder than that.
You don’t know what a prayer is and you also don’t know your Bible. The word “pray” comes from the Latin word precari, which simply means to entreat or ask. A prayer is a form of communicating a request,, typically of a spiritual nature. Also, Jesus would never have commanded Lazurus, given their relationship. That would have been highly disrespectful.
Excellent! Lots of info, it’s marked for more reading. thank you!
Actually, only sinners (i.e., all mortals) have any need of grace. Someone without sin would have no need of grace.
“Where does he teach the importance of God’s word?”
In his wonderful book “Jesus of Nazareth”. I understand that the second in this series is due out soon.
“You don’t know what a prayer is and you also don’t know your Bible. The word “pray” comes from the Latin word precari, which simply means to entreat or ask. A prayer is a form of communicating a request,, typically of a spiritual nature. Also, Jesus would never have commanded Lazurus, given their relationship. That would have been highly disrespectful.”
***********************************************************************************
The word for how Jesus spoke to Lazarus is not “precari” - “pray”, it’s “eipon” - “having said”
John 11:43
When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.”
http://biblos.com/john/11-43.htm
The word in the Greek is to command.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2036.htm
answer, bid, bring word, command
A primary verb (used only in the definite past tense, the others being borrowed from ereo, rheo, and phemi); to speak or say (by word or writing) — answer, bid, bring word, call, command, grant, say (on), speak, tell. Compare lego.
*******************************************************************************
Jesus didn’t request Lazarus to come out. He didn’t pray to him to come out. He didn’t beg him, *Lazarus, would you please come out of that tomb.*
He commanded him in a loud voice - come forth.
Honestly, you need to work on your reading comprehension if you can’t tell the difference between a command and a request.
And that last bit about Jesus not telling Lazarus what to do because of it being disrespectful is pathetically laughable. They weren’t so namby-pamby gushy that people are today thinking that TELLING someone to do something is “disrespectful”.
That’s ludicrous. It reminds me of all these parents in the store begging their two year old to behave. *Johnny, that’s not nice. Please stop hitting your sister.*
Here’s a link to some grammar that explains what imperatives are.
http://www.englishlanguageguide.com/english/grammar/imperative.asp
You would consider that God’s Word? A book written by a Pope? I guess Catholics do see him higher than the Almighty.
“You don’t know what a prayer is and you also don’t know your Bible. The word “pray” comes from the Latin word precari, which simply means to entreat or ask. A prayer is a form of communicating a request,, typically of a spiritual nature. Also, Jesus would never have commanded Lazurus, given their relationship. That would have been highly disrespectful.”
***********************************************************************************
IOW, Jesus did not pray to dead people when He commanded Lazarus to come forth.
What a joke. Jesus, God Himself come in the flesh, PRAYING to a mere man????
There is no end to the absurdities that Catholics come up with trying to justify their unscriptural doctrines. You just can’t make this stuff up.
It was in Deut. 34:5, actually, where the Bible speaks about Moses dying and being buried by the hand of God. Just FYI, carry on. ;o)
You asked “where does he teach the importance of God’s word?”
He teaches it in this wonderful book, which is all about Jesus in the Sacred Scriptures.
There is no need for you antagonism about this.
you=your
Here's my question though: Moses and Elijah were both at the Transfiguration. But not Enoch. Elijah and Enoch will be the two witnesses in Revelation. Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. So we know why Moses was there, as a witness. Elijah. And why Elijah and not Enoch. Both were prophets of the end times. Both will be the two witnesses of Rev. So it seems Elijah is the link between Christ's first coming, the fulfilling of the law, and the Transfiguration of Moses, Elijah, and Christ, and the link between himself and Enoch and the second advent.
I'm thinking there must be some very interesting Bible study here.
“I know that many people say Moses and Elijah, but I agree with the thought that it’s Enoch and Elijah.”
That certainly is something believers can disagree on. In contrast,
the imaginative deceiver Joseph Smith, who read the Greek rendering Elias in the KJV, reported that he and Rigdon received priesthood keys from three angelic messengers: Moses, Elijah and Elias (see DC 110:1-16) Besides being visited by more Biblical notables than even Swedenborg i think (God, the Father.
Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Peter, James & John, Moses, and maybe Adam & Noah)
Which, like many other fantasies, is a result of a mortal men presuming to be assuredly infallible and the supreme doctrinal authority, versus the established Scriptures. Which were established as Divine due to their enduring qualities and accompanying supernatural Divine attestation.
Do you believe in the Trinity? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Quix, is your church the same as this?
THE ONENESS PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT
Do you believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons? Or merely three manifestations of the one uni-personal God.
Above is taken from this link:
I spoke to the Trinitarian issue very early on in responding to you.
You are welcome to go suck rocks.
Larger than life, as usual:)
It is a worthy site, thank God, with more depth and responses than some others.
Just as he has prepared the different churches? :>} and I mean different as in by name and denomination from Gospel Preaching Protestant to Roman Catholic. Much like the jealousy of Jews and Gentiles for our sakes and the sake of The Gospel. The difference of opinion causes discussion. Discussion cause reading. Discussions others may not even hear or worse may never hear The Gospel except by a happenstance hearing or reading a discussion to get them thinking and seeking the one the Shepherd they are lost from.
Post 839 is a reply to you as well.
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.