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.
Thanks for your honest kind reply.
For the sake of Judith ann, I’ll explain. Ridiculous statements invite ridicule.
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 . . .
How completely unshocked I am to find that that simple request had no replies....
I agree.
However, it’s
NOT
the most loving thing to do to bother JimRob.
He’s typically rather beseiged with pings and emails and fighting off DOS attacks and legal attacks etc.
Besides that, it’s rather self-defeating. It doesn’t earn one anything and tends to be irritating to the busy folks. Proddys don’t need to be irritating. That’s the Rabid Clique RC’s job.
He has assigned an excellent RM that he evidently has extreme, utmost faith and confidence in and obviously approves of the RM’s management and style greatly.
So, it’s kind of insulting to his judgment to ping him over the RM’s head anyway.
Besides, that’s what the Rabid RC’s chronically do.
Leave them to it. They don’t know when to stop digging.
As you know . . . I fiercely disagree.
I don’t think any authentic Christian argues about what
HOLY SPIRIT
*COULD* DO
*COULD* HAVE DONE!
You are the first Catholic that has publically admitted that its OK to pray TO dead people. At least we have clarity on that point.
Please cite scripture which says everything should be in (as opposed to “should not contradict”) scripture.What is astounding is that the proponents of sola mio forget that we in The Church say that everything we believe should be tested against scripture -- that is the God Standard.
1) If no one is admitting to it, did it ever occur that checking your assumptions might be called for? and 2) the poster clearly defined prayer in his context as a type of spiritual conversation, a two-way steet.
I agree with you that Jesus died to atone for our sins, and that infants are born with that propensity to sin- Catholics call it original sin. It is a state in which we are born, not an act we commit ourselves. I interpret Paul's “all have sinned” as all having committed personal sin themselves; “sinned” suggests action, at least to me; original sin requires no action; you are born with it!
Again, I do not see the logical connection that because babies sometimes die, and the wages of sin is death, that babies are therefore sinners.
The Catholic Church also hopes that unbaptized babies are saved, and entrusts them to the mercy of our loving Father.
The Church knows and teaches that Mary being sinless or not had no impact on Christ's sinlessness -- don't you know that?or
Christ's sacrifice is what won us our salvation, not Mary's sinlessness?
We like to believe that the Holy Spirit is all-powerful and He protected Mary from sin. Mary did nothing great, all of it was from God and by God, all Mary did was say yes, everything else was from God and is for the greater glory of God.If you believe that the Holy Spirit can do this and that this has nothing to do with our salvation (which came from Christ and His sacrifice) and if this doesn't contradict scripture, then quite frankly this is not an argument but just dancing around.
To Rn and Met: Do you think it impossible for the Holy Spirit to preserve a created being like Mary from sin?
I'll take it a step further and say that the Bible says the EXACT OPPOSITE:
[30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.[31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
-- John 20:31-31___________________________________________________________
[24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
-- John 21:24-25
And keep in mind that the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother are things that JESUS DID, not Mary.
the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother are things that JESUS DID, not Mary.God did all of this, Mary's Savior, Our Lord, did this.
I can not speak to the issue of hyper-calvinism at all. If we throw the kitchen against the wall, I pray you seek the face of YHvH in His Holy Word. I know of no one on this board that believes in
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
british-israelism or any of its variants.
may be just may be some thing will stick.
Do they believe that God COULDN'T protect Mary from sin at the moment of conception? He created Adam and Eve free from sin. The third chapter of Genesis and the first chapter of Luke are very important. To be blessed among women MUST mean that the mother of God is superior to the mother of Cain.
Do they believe that God COULDN'T assume Mary into Heaven, the Bible itself shows where others are assumed.
"It is written" When Yah'shua rebuked the Pharisees he said:
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Not really, usually the contortions that a Catholic goes through to justify some of their beliefs through certain Biblical texts leaves me frustrated. I simply meant that it was refreshing to see someone clearly state what I knew all along. I have more respect for this individual than most who merely "beat around the bush."
the poster clearly defined prayer in his context as a type of spiritual conversation, a two-way steet.
When you invent your own definitions, you can slip any side issues in comfortably. By defining prayer as mere 'two-way conversation' without specifying that that person is actually God ... you can justify praying to anyone.
My point is that the poster gets no details of "Jesus wouldn't have commanded Lazarus", or "Jesus prayed to Lazarus" etc. from anything in the text; but rather has imposed his own preunderstanding and his own definition of prayer ONTO the text to make it mean what it does not. Its the classic example of Pauls warning not to exceed what is written.
Many Catholics on these forums claim that they don't actually pray TO dead saints ... but rather ask them to pray for them like you would ask a friend across town to pray for them. We non-Catholics have never seen the distinction in its practical aspects ... and its refreshing to see at least one honest Catholic admit it.
Yes, thank you, I seek God in His Word each Sunday and oftener as I can. Do you?
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.