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.
Please cite scripture which says everything should be in (as opposed to “should not contradict”) scripture. And a god-complex on your group’s part is kind of silly.
It doesn't say that, it says in so many words that they were removed from the world and did not die. The Bible also say it's appointed to man once to die, and so they will. I realize the Catholic Church does not put much emphasis upon the book of Revelation, and what emphasis there is, is something with which I most frequently disagree, but the reference I made was to that book.
Many have studied the matter, it's a very striking chapter in a very striking book. The "two witnesses"... ponder the meaning of the word "witness" in matters both temporal and spiritual. Reading this, it's evident that there are no longer believers in the world, and these two witnesses are despised and feared.
Candidates for the two have been Moses, Elijah and Enoch, in the estimation of every theologian or speculating layperson I've encountered. Elijah appears to be almost universally accepted among those who have studied it, as one of the two. Moses, we are told in the Bible, died. To me, this means Moses cannot be one of the two. I do not believe in reincarnation; it's not scriptural. So, we have Elijah and Enoch as the two witnesses of Revelation. This I was taught by the numerous Protestant denominations to which I have been exposed.
According to the Bible, these two are physical men, witnesses, both literal witnesses testifying and spiritual witnesses, to the world without the Church, the body of believers having been removed, taken up, just as Elijah and Enoch were. This is a reasonable interpretation of what has been written there. Elijah and Enoch are also recorded as prophets, I believe once and future as well, fearsome ones with much power granted them in the world for that short time.
So, they didn't/wont die in heaven, they'll die their appointed death as all men are appointed once to die, here on Earth. And yet, they will be resurrected after the third day, so the hostile, unbelieving world will know. They will know, just who they are and just who sent them.
The remainder of your reply, I really don't see anything substantial enough as far as disagreement to hash out to any great extent. The wages of Adam's sin were death and all his descendants have been subject to it without exception. Infant baptism, in my view, is certainly a harmless act of faith taken in and of itself, but misguided since baptism is clearly a conscious act entered into by believers and infants are not capable. Later in life, I'd be concerned about the matter for those baptised without assent or even understanding. There's potential harm there. That is the reason I take issue with infant baptism.
Under the Law, they are...
If only you had a shred of evidence to support that fantasy...
LOL LOL
For what purpose???
Do you think it impossible for the Holy Spirit to preserve a created being like Mary from sin?
No more impossible than the Holy Spirit living within all born again Christians...
The catch is; the Holy Spirit told us he would indwell Christians...He did not however, tell us Mary would be sinless, and didn't give any reason why Mary should be sinless...
It's a fabrication outside of the scripture...
I trust you're trying for 8x oftener? Because you're only getting 12.7% of the Bible in your Sunday Mass.
What is not understood is that it is not "negative" to demand a correct reading of the word of God. It is not negative to demand that ALL GLORY for salvation go to God ALONE..there no co redeemers ...It is not negative to ask people to turn from their idolatry, repent and turn to Christ and Christ alone as the full propitiation of their sins, not to seek to buy themselves back from the slavery of sin , not to go to His mother to ask nice for them,.
Catholics say the words that Christ saved them at the same time the bath tub Mary is still looked at as a way to clean up
I know catholics really do not THINK they worship mary and therefore are guilty of breaking the 1st commandment .. but we witness daily here and in our lives a devotion to her that is greater than the love of Christ.. There is NO PRACTICAL or BEHAVIORAL difference between "worship and veneration" because they are really the same..
As a saved child of God and sister to Christ the magnification of glory of God is primary in my life..
The love of God demands that the truth of the gospel be spoken, men hate it because they want to build their own god and their own way to salvation.. but the warning rings in my ears..
Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.
***So is eating pork or lobster. Puts an extra meaning into the phrase “a damned good meal.”***
Except the New Testament did away with dietary laws, just like circumcision.
No Protestant says everything has to be in scripture...But as you say, nothing can contradict scripture...
When your popes claim that one must go thru Mary to receive salvation, it's a lie...
When your religion says to drink blood and the scriptures says don't drink blood, your religion is wrong...
When the scripture says to call no man father, and you call your priests father, and your pope Holy Father, your religion is flat out wrong...
When Jesus shows you how to pray, to God, and you pray to Mary or others, you are wrong...
Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved
One thing I have observed over the years is that Catholics don't talk about Jesus...It's always Christ this or Christ that...Bible tells us there are many anti-Christs...
Do you guys talk to Jesus??? Do you even know Jesus???
Then why do you demand that Mary had to be sinless???
Yup.
Interesting link. Shows the percentage used in Sunday and Major Feast Day Masses WITHOUT the Psalms, and apparently without the four gospels.
Also interesting is the designation “deutero-Pauline” epistles (iirc). LOL! Wonder what that means? Anyway, I don’t know wehre you get the 12.7% of the Bible, when it shows that 40% of the NT is used in the Sunday and Major Feast Day masses.
Why would he??? He didn't preserve Adam and Eve from sin...
Amen ... When I heard the quote from that preacher that" there is enough sin in my prayer to damn me " I realized how often even our prayer is selfish, self centered, self glorifying, demanding .. etc.. even our prayer reflects our inability and sinfulness
There's a reason John didn't tell us the other signs that Jesus performed...And that's because they were nothing that we needed to know for our salvation...
If there was an Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, Jesus would have told us...And since He didn't, your religion is just making it up...
(1) Mary called Jesus “my Savior”. She wouldn’t have needed a savior if she had been sinless.
(2) “For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Every human inherited Adam’s sin, including Mary.
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.