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.
Her virginity before the birth of our Savior is important. After-wards, not so much. Look at it this way; Joseph married a cute young wife, chosen by God to carry Himself into the world as the path to salvation. What purpose would be served for God denying Joseph marital discourse with his cute young wife after Jesus' birth. Would her abstinence give her mystical powers, like the Lancelot myths?
RnMomof7, thank you for making a stand.
Incidentally, I believe Mary, the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph could not transform into a giant battle robot. If certain individuals think this belief is blasphemous, I don't want to be right.
For the sake of Judith ann, I'll explain. Ridiculous statements invite reticule.
And to Freedumb2003, it's not the color of the skin, nor the nation of origin, but the content of character. I hope this makes sense to you but I have little hope for your comprehension. This isn't personal, but you seem to be a total and utter smeg head.
Very well argued sir. Thanks.
Why before birth and not afterwards? Doesn’t that make the Virgin Birth a mere “sign” of Jesus’ divinity? Actually half-divinity, like Heracles or Achilles?
Awww Ann, Do you own a Bible??? If not please consider buying one, it will so enrich your life..Do you think this is an adequate sign of being "grown up"? And do you think this was NOT "throwing the first stone"?
Do you offer sacrifices to zeus?
God is God. Jesus is Jesus. Mary is Mary. Joseph is Joseph.
Jesus is God in the flesh.
Why do you cite pagan examples when I post about Jesus?
Stop parsing words. God is the creator and king of everything, including the master you serve. Jesus does not need to ask anyone anything. He's coming back to establish his millennial reign.
Here's a crazy idea. Shake your fist at him and demand him to reveal himself. I dare ya!
The Catholic Church does not follow Augustine strictly. For this reason the Calvinists accuse theologians such as St.Thomas of being semi-Pelegians. There are, of course, Catholics are are closer to the Calvinists in this, to the point of being also Jansenists. The Irish Church got infected by this heresy, hence their puritanism.
I am talking about your logic. It places Mary in a role like the Greeks assigned the mother of Heracles.
Why should we believe anything you say?
Does the Catholic Church follow the pantheon of Greece? You cited Heracles and Achilles in an earlier post to me. Do you believe either possessed, in your words, "half devinity?"
RobbyS, you'd do well to abandon your pagan beliefs and embrace Christ. Just sayin...
Stand up.
Seriously. Stand up.
I really mean it.
Are you standing up?
If the answer is no, go back to the top.P> So, you're standing up? Good for you.
Slowly turn around.
Do you see where you are?
That's good.
Do you know why?
Where ever you go, that's where you are.
I hope this helps.
Oh, Robby... Take that back to your master.
And try to stay classy, baby. If you really luv that pagan thing you should explore the roots of islam. Just sayin...
Read the Gospel. Jesus said that if the children did not declare him, the rocks would. Are you familiar with the Gospel?
Now it's your turn. You cite pagan beliefs. What would the heroes of the Greek pantheon say about this subject? I only phrased that question based on your earlier post.
Please, entertain us. I can't speak for the rest; however, I'm waiting.
Do you really want to have fun? Shake your fist at God.
Seriously
I used to be wise in the world, just like you.
One day, I raged against the creator. I called him by that title. I knew who he was all along. I played around with the classics, just like you.
So have you got the guts. Go for it. I did.
Be a little crazy. Shake your fist at Him.
I bet 100,000,000 bottle caps that you haven't got the guts.
“You really should not post a small portion of an entire encyclical “ —> half-truths are standard tools in the arsenal of the OPC.
During his papacy, Benedict XVI has advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of many developed countries. He views relativism’s denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. He teaches the importance of both the Catholic Church and an understanding of God’s redemptive love. He has reaffirmed the “importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work.”you asked in #805
This giant in the religious community....where does he teach of the importance of - God's Word? #1 in importance.to which ROE said in #826
In his wonderful book “Jesus of Nazareth”. I understand that the second in this series is due out soon.How do you get this to mean
You would consider that God’s Word?How do you jump to such conclusions? That is just sola interpretura.
It is certainly useful, and in some circumstances imperative, to launch financial initiatives in which the humanitarian dimension predominates. However, this must not obscure the fact that the entire financial system has to be aimed at sustaining true development. Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods.or
Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of the experience of credit unions.or
Both the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard weaker parties and discourage scandalous speculation, and experimentation with new forms of finance, designed to support development projects, are positive experiences that should be further explored and encouraged, highlighting the responsibility of the investor.or
However, certain conditions need to be met: the market should be genuinely transparent; the producers, as well as increasing their profit margins, should also receive improved formation in professional skills and technology; and finally, trade of this kind must not become hostage to partisan ideologies. A more incisive role for consumers, as long as they themselves are not manipulated by associations that do not truly represent them, is a desirable element for building economic democracy.
well, actually it’s a strawman. Because The Church considers Mary a created being. If RnMom’s group considers “mom was a goddess and we know his Father is a Holy and Righteous God”, then she and her group are free to believe that, but it’s not correct to ascribe them to The Church
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.