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.
Definition of SAVIOR
1 : one that saves from danger or destruction
2 : one who brings salvation; specifically capitalized : jesus 1
(2) “For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Every human inherited Adam’s sin, including Mary.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
If that's true about your prayers, what would that mean about your posts on the internet? LOL!
They seem to think that Jesus couldn't be near anything remotely "unclean." Including the filthy stable where He was born.
;-)
***God did not have physical intercourse with Mary. Would anybody disagree with my last statement?***
Mormons?
***God did not have physical intercourse with Mary. Would anybody disagree with my last statement?***
Mormons?
Hey! I resemble that remark!
;-)
Personally, I really enjoy poking the race baiters in the eye.
Catholics dismiss most of Scripture to cherrypick a few passages that support their false doctrines.
Again, Jesus said he was the gate. Do you have splinters in your teeth after communion?
The problem Cronos it is probably 10 verses taken out of context ..perhaps you listen to what is read, but most do not..the homily is rarely an expositional teaching with application.. it usually is far afield from the actual context of the scripture.
When you dated your spouse, and were madly in love.. if you received a letter would you only have a few lines of it read to you at a time by a friend? Or would you want to hold it in your hands.. see each word.. to have full understanding of every words? Would you reread it over and over just seeing them in every word
Here God, the perfect and holy creator and savior of this world has words written to show His heart and His plan ... He wants to show us who He is so we know Him ... but the letter lays unopened if it is even in the house ..
Once a week??? How well can we know our spouse until we live together, hear each other daily , sleep in the same bed, have intimate relations ?
Once a week for 3 or 4 minutes?
However, there's nothing outside of man made traditions that claims she remained a virgin after his birth.
Some seem to believe that Jesus' devinity is tied to Mary's virginity.
If this were true, would He really be God?
Christians can easily see the Immaculate Conception in Scripture (especially if the third chapter of Genesis and the first chapter of Luke are read together).
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother comes from sacred tradition, it was witnessed by the Apostles and it is also alluded to in Scripture. The anti-Catholic statement that it was "made up" in the 20th century requires the complete denial of historical facts that show that it has been celebrated since the 4th century.
There must be times when Jim sits at his computer, his head in his hands, mumbling, "What the hell was I thinking when I created Free Republic???!!!"
Thank you Jim for putting up with us.
It was witnessed by the Apostles but they didn't tell anyone...LoL...Which apostles saw Mary rise to heaven??? LoL...Like I said, your religion made it up and there is no hint of it any where in scripture...
I don't think Jesus passed out gates at the last supper.
Oh great; now this tread is really gonna get ugly!
;-)
Well there you go...Your religion made up the assumption of Mary 400 years after she died...Now we're gettin' somewhere...
He said he was a gate.
You have a problem with that take it up with him.
< /sarc>
He never said to eat the gate.
Unless I'm mistaken, sin can be covered with an animal sacrifice but only Jesus' (God's) blood could cleanse sin.
If God could simply separate Mary from sin, He wouldn't have needed to die in our place.
As far as the assumption of Mary, what scripture states that it happened? Is there anything, outside of man made tradition that claims this?
Of course the Blessed Virgin Mary needed and had a Savior, the Church has NEVER suggested otherwise.
The Immaculate Conception WAS her salvation. In the Magnificat she says that she rejoices in her Savior. The difference is that her salvation had already taken place BEFORE the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Every human inherited Adam’s sin, including Mary.
So, are you saying that:
A. Jesus Christ inherited Adam's sin?
or
B. That Jesus Christ was not human?
You can't have it both ways.
What? THis is something I've never read before.. WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN HOW? We already know WHY.
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.