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.
Most of the BIBLE BELIEVING (even though you don't have the complete set of books) ones here are just pathetic.
Do any of you hear yourselves? Is this how you talk to people in your personal life? If so, I would be amazed if you ever convinced someone who was searching for Christ that you had even the faintest clue.
I’ve long been of a similar opinion about that.
Blessings,
Maybe they were plucked from one point in time and place and immediately placed in another.Similar to Phillip?
Imagine being on the temple mount and all of a sudden a mighty rush of wind and some big hairy looking dude on a chariot comes crashing in! A whole 'nother slant on reaping the whirlwind.
Enoch simply "was not for God took him".Maybe Enoch was describing not so much a vision but was actually there! It's enough to fry your brain.
The religion forum open threads have been like this for years.
Hey freedumb. What's up? You played the race card and then went silent. Are you a one trick pony?
I don't want you to accuse me of assigning motives or reading your mind. You failed to respond to my last post. Are you conceding that your accusation was merely projection?
Do a google search on me and Willie "Obsessive Train Disorder" Green and see how I handled his Race Baiting.
Dane also played the race card. Have you noticed? It doesn't quite work very well on FR.
Stay classy, Baby.
And that came from Post #666! LOL!!
Hey, if you're going to imply that my post is demonic, then drum up the courage to say it to my face!
Now THAT is funny! lol
I've seen it in my own family. Some are RC including a cousin who is a Priest. I also have cousins who are Baptist Preachers on another side of my family. We understand we serve one Savior Jesus Christ. My Priest Cousin has given the funeral service for several of us Protestant family members. It makes more sense family do it than a stranger.
Unless a church completely rejects The Gospel I see them as being under Grace for GOD's Divine purpose. The fact Protestant Churches as well have withstood the test of time meets the standards Christ set in these verses.
Luke Ch 9 36Then he put a little child among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37“Anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes my Father who sent me.” 38John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw a man using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn’t one of our group.” 39“Don’t stop him!” Jesus said. “No one who performs miracles in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me. 40Anyone who is not against us is for us. 41If anyone gives you even a cup of water because you belong to the Messiah, I assure you, that person will be rewarded.
Verse 39, 40, and 41 apply to ALL churches as well.
Which, my response or what I was responding to?
LOL! Are you Post #666?
Demanding a poster say something to your FACE. This IS a message board w/folks from all over the globe. I dunno, just cracked me up! No offense.
Well, my contributions to thread have been a bit more than just #666, but I certainly didn’t appreciate the implication there.
Well, my digital self. ;-)
Judith Anne, no place has to be a free for all. There are many forums I visit where people can disagree on major religious issues and yet are respectful of others.
There is no learning here. No listening to others. It sounds like a bar fight. Thank God no one has weapons handy. I can just imagine what it would be like then.
Obviously my mistake, I am used to civility. Hell, I’m used to civilization.
See you.
And you know what? That’s what these uncivilized almost primates want.
LOL It’s all good. I knew what you meant but had to laugh. :)
Their superiority excuses them from common decency.
Thick skin is required on "open" RF threads.
If you are not comfortable with this town square style of debate, then IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to threads labeled "caucus" "ecumenical" "prayer" or "devotional."
Why would Jesus talk to a man who was dead? Lazarus could not hear! Lazurus had already passed and was totally incapable of raising himself from the dead any more than you or I could. So what was going on here? Jesus was not issuing a command. Jesus loved and respected Lazarus and would never issue a “command” to him. No, Jesus would have made a heartfelt plea to Lazarus to come back to the living, just as you might tell a dying uncle to please not go and to come back. A command? No. Jesus could have simply had the thought and it would have happened. What took place was Jesus praying aloud for everyone to hear for Lazarus to arise from the dead. This is extremely important for us to understand. And to whom did Jesus pray? To Himself? To the Holy Spirit? To God the Father? No. Jesus prayed to Lazarus! Jesus here shows us that yes we can communicate to the dead through prayer! God hears these prayers and intercedes on our behalf.
“What a joke. Jesus, God Himself come in the flesh, PRAYING to a mere man????”
Prayer is communication, it is not adoration, although you certainly can include adoration within your prayers. Many people like yourself don’t understand that prayer goes two ways. God prays to us and for us. Sometimes prayer is not pleasant at all. How many times have people prayed to God and questioned Him or made selfish requests? How many times does God answer with a message we don’t want? Open your mind to the power of prayer and you will be closer to God.
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.