Replies

Your comment: “ If it was as clear as catholics contend, this would have been put to bed very, very early in the life of the church. That is wasn’t speaks volumes. “

So do you just make up your opinion without facts? The Immaculate Conception of Mary has been with the Catholic Church since the beginning:

It is you who must make up your opinion without facts if you will contend that the matter was put to bed very, very early in the life of the church, as in fact it was not.

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Testimony.html The Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary was immaculately conceived (that is, she was born free of original sin) and that the Fathers likewise held to this teaching. This teaching should not be a dogma of the faith. It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius34 and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1550 J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493). In any case, Ott asserts on the same page that the first explicit assertion of the doctrine as believed today is found in the British monk Eadmer at the beginning of the 12th century! Even then, he notes it ran into much opposition, including the rejection of Bernard of Clairvaux. Certainly, it’s a doctrine absent from the early 4th century and the Church of Nicea.

A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the Saints, more particularly for the blessed Virgin Mary... The first Orthodox writer to give her theological prominence was Ignatius of Antioch. While the other apostolic fathers made no mention of her, he was emphatic that Jesus had by God's design been carried in Mary's womb, stressed the reality ever childbearing, and made the cryptic remark that both it and her virginity, like the Savior's death, had escaped the notice of the prince of this world..

The apocryphal literature (late first and early second century) on the fringe of the 'great church' eloquently attest the preoccupation of certain circles with the blessed virgin. Thus in the Ascension of Isaiah refine the earliest affirmation of the belief that she was a virgin. Not only in conceiving Jesus but also in bearing him (virginity in partu): 'her womb was found as it was before she became pregnant'. The same idea of the supernatural birth involving no physical travail occurs in the odes of Solomon.

But the work which most richly embroidered the gospel narratives and was destined to exert a tremendous influence on later Mariology was the proto-evangelium of James. Written for Mary's clarification, this described her divinely ordered birth, when her parents, Joachim and Anna, were advanced in years, her miraculous infancy and childhood, and her dedication to the Temple, where her parents had prayed that God would give her 'a name renowned for ever. Among all generations'. It made the point that when she was engaged to Joseph [page 492] he was already an elderly widower with sons of his own; and it accumulated evidence that both she had conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse and that her physical nature had remained intact when she bore him.

These ideas were far from being immediately accepted in the church at large. Irenaeus, it is true held that marriage, childbearing was exempt from physical travail, as did Clement of Alexandria (appealing to the proto-evangelism of James). Tertullian, however, refuted the suggestion, finding the opening of her womb prophesied in Exodus 13:2,in Origen followed him and argued that she needed the purification prescribed by the Law.... While Tertullian assumed that she had normal conjugal relations with Joseph after Jesus birth, the "brethren of the Lord" being his true brothers, Origen maintained that she had remained a virgin for the rest of her life (virginity pot partum), and that Jesus so-called brothers were sons of Joseph but not by her.

In contrast to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection. None of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her son's rebuke, and Origen and insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular he interpreted Simon's prophecy in 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. (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian doctrines, pp. 490,492, 493)

The Fathers of the Church taught that

Tertullian 215 AD “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3

Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) “ It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.”(Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

“If the Scriptures be duly considered, and the saying of the doctors ancient and modern, who have been most devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is plain from their words that she was conceived in sin,” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Loc TheoI. parts c. 2.)

Schaff lists seven Roman bishops who rejected her sinlessness (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123).

“It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.” (Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).

Of course if one is to take nothing as belonging to the Christian faith but what is plainly or unquestionably stated in the Bible, on will not believe or accept it [the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception]. (George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 85)- http://www.letusreason.org/RC1.htm

And as regards being perpetual sinless, Chrysostom faults Mary in his comments on Matthew 12:46-49 and John 2:3-4:

For while He yet talked to the people," it is said, "one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son , imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach .

See at all events both her self- confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude ; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, "While He yet talked to the people;" as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private? (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44; emp. mine)

Regarding John 2:3-4,

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 occassion....And so this was a reason why 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 for the salvation of her soul. (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21; emp. mine)

Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception: People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? ... (emp. mine)

She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception .

Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself , both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence?http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/bernard-of-clairvaux-on-the-immaculate-conception/

Justin Martyr

The Odes of Solomon

Which is not Scripture, but The Odes of Solomon is a collection of 42 odes attributed to Solomon. Various scholars have dated the composition of these religious poems to anywhere in the range of the first three centuries AD. The original language of the Odes is thought to have been either Greek or Syriac, and to be generally Christian in background. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon

And it only infers being sinless by being preserved from pain in childbirth, but which God could do in any case. Moreover, it is contrary to the RC assertion that the women of Rv. 12, Jeremiah 4:31 and Micah 4:9-10 is Mary “[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled,

"Undefiled" by sexual relations does not translate into being perpetual sinless.

I am a Catholic and I believe in the teachings of God and the Catholic Church and try to follow them. I truly believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the Truth and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do believe and pray the Nicene Creed.

I believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus delegated to the Apostles and their successors - the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church to go out and Baptize and spread the Good News of our salvation to all nations.

I believe that the Catholic Church and its members have followed the teachings of Jesus and have spread the Good news to all nations, yet it is still a work in progress. The Catholic Church is composed of saints and sinners and in spite of our weaknesses and failures we have made progress. Not all Catholics, including myself are fully informed of all aspects of the Catholic Church.

Obviously, many have left the Catholic Church (and many have never joined the Catholic Church) and by their free will chose to follow their specific religious beliefs. Even some Catholics probably do not accept all of the teachings of the Church. God will be the judge of our faith and adherence to His commandments and our salvation.

I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church about Mary the Mother of God and even if I can’t fully explain them to you, I have complete faith in their truth.

While I was surprised that the Bishop of Rome indicated that he would only interpret the Scriptures in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the church fathers (”nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.”) This may only apply to Pope Pius and may not be the official policy of the Church. With human nature as it is, it would seem difficult for everyone to agree unanimously.

I would encourage anyone who wants to be a follower of Jesus Christ to consider the Catholic Church and the wonderful Sacraments (especially the special gift of His Body and Blood) that were established by Jesus for our salvation.

Peace be with you.