Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[thessalonian]

Wow 27% said that Mary was without sin. People have really been fooled.

Ya, how can 73% be so wrong. :wink:

 

[Gary]

The church fathers who said Mary was NOT sinless...

Wow 27% said that Mary was without sin. People have really been fooled.

Ya, how can 73% be so wrong. :wink:

So were these "Roman Catholics" also wrong?

For hundreds of years, no church father said that Mary was sinless from conception onward. During that same time, many church fathers and Roman bishops said that she was a sinner. Roman Catholics try to counter such widespread evidence by arguing that at least some church fathers did believe in the sinlessness of Mary.

Here is a partial list of those who considered that Mary was NOT sinless her entire life:

• Ambrose
  
  Augustine (After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is the view held by the universal church of his day, a view supported by "the catholic faith")
  
  Basil
  
  Clement of Alexandria
  
  Cyril of Alexandria
  
  Cyril of Jerusalem
  
  Ephraim
  
  Gregory Nazianzen
  
  Hilary of Poitiers
  
  Jerome
  
  John Chrysostom
  
  Justin Martyr
  
  Leo I
  
  Origen
  
  Tertullian
  
  Theodoret

... they all voted NO to the question "Was Mary sinless?"

.

 

[thessalonian]

How do you think they feel about the question of whether she was born sinless Gary. It's the immaculate conception we are talking about. Let's start there. Then I will answer your loaded question that has alot more historical background than you will put forth.

 

[Gary]

NO = 35, YES = 8

.... and that makes the score:

No: 8
YES: (19+16)=35 i.e 81.39%

 

[thessalonian]

I don't go by the poles or individual opinions. It is the Church that is the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[CatholicXian]

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote"

 

[Gary]

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote"

....then why does the Roman Catholic "church" appeal to majority opinion so often? Many of its dogma (when promulgated by your popes) refers to majority opinion of the church fathers but it is often not the case!

:-?

 

[CatholicXian]

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote"

....then why does the Roman Catholic "church" appeal to majority opinion so often? Many of its dogma (when promulgated by your popes) refers to majority opinion of the church fathers but it is often not the case!

:-?

No dogma was ever determined by mere "majority opinion". There is MUCH, much more to determining doctrine and dogma than majority agreement.

Yes, we look to the Church fathers, though not exclusively, as we look to Scripture, and the whole of the Church as well. Doctrines are not merely based on one or other, nor do they rest upon gaining the majority.

 

[Gary]

Majority church fathers? Valid or not?

Either the weight of the evidence from the church fathers has a bearing or it does not.

The unfortunate evidence is that popes have promulgated new dogma in spite of views which were not unanimous at all.

For instance, “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.†Further, Roman Catholic theologians acknowledge that “these are apocryphal.†In fact, the bodily assumption of Mary was not held by most of the early church fathers.

So does/did the pope ignore the early church fathers? The Roman Catholic theologian Ott admits that belief in this dogma did not appear until nearly the seventh century. Noted Catholic theologian Karl Rahner acknowledged that “at best it can only be considered as evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensible historical account.†He adds, “there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.â€Â

There is that word again.... see where these "apocryphal" works get you... more man-made dogma!

:-?

 

[CatholicXian]

Re: Majority church fathers? Valid or not?

Either the weight of the evidence from the church fathers has a bearing or it does not.

The unfortunate evidence is that popes have promulgated new dogma in spite of views which were not unanimous at all.

The ECFs do have SOME significant bearing, but they are not the be all, end all for theological discussion, and they never have been.

Nothing has to be unanimous, so I'm not sure why that's a concern. No dogma has been promulgated that was just made up willy-nilly. All dogmas have at least implicit evidence in both Scripture and Tradition and have been carefully thought through by the Magisterium.

 

[thessalonian]

Re: Majority church fathers? Valid or not?

Either the weight of the evidence from the church fathers has a bearing or it does not.

The unfortunate evidence is that popes have promulgated new dogma in spite of views which were not unanimous at all.

For instance, “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.†Further, Roman Catholic theologians acknowledge that “these are apocryphal.†In fact, the bodily assumption of Mary was not held by most of the early church fathers.

So does/did the pope ignore the early church fathers? The Roman Catholic theologian Ott admits that belief in this dogma did not appear until nearly the seventh century. Noted Catholic theologian Karl Rahner acknowledged that “at best it can only be considered as evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensible historical account.†He adds, “there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.â€Â

There is that word again.... see where these "apocryphal" works get you... more man-made dogma!

:-?

Gary, you are supposed to site your sources. A link her would help. I got basically the exact same text from D46 a week ago. There is little evidence one way or another that the very earliest Church fathers rejected the assumption. Your arguement is one of silence. Where are your quotes? Augustine and some others illude to it with there opinions of psalm 132:8. The widespread celebration of the feast of the assumption east and west by the 6th century shows that it had considerable support much earlier than that.

As for the transistus narriative you speak. We do not have the text. We have a title of a document in a list of condemned writings. Nothing says it was condemned specifically because of the doctrine of the assumption. Such logic makes Pelagius doceument "On Grace and Free Will" orthodox because of the title. The title proves nothing and is simply an arguement from silence.

Now Ludwig Ott agrees with Protestatants. I have his book and have read it. I doudt you have read it. I will try get time to post what he says in context tommorrow. Its not as damning as you make it out.

 

[CatholicXian]

Re: Majority church fathers? Valid or not?

Now Ludwig Ott agrees with Protestatants. I have his book and have read it. I doudt you have read it. I will try get time to post what he says in context tommorrow. Its not as damning as you make it out.

Dude, it's super long! lol. I pulled it out to reference and was surprised by the length.

I don't know if you meant to type that he agrees with Protestants, but Ludwig Ott most certainly does not--just to clarify.


But, the testimony of the patristics is sufficient, even in this area, because the evidence for the assumption of Mary does not rest merely on their testimony, but on Scripture and Church practice as well... There are 2 "tombs of Mary" that are recognized, but, as was common practice in the early Church, no one every claimed to have the bones of the Mother of God, nor were her bones associated with either tomb (one is in Ephesus, and the other is in Jerusalem, I think). Now, considering all the other relics/bones of early Saints, I find it odd that there is never mention of Mary's bones.

 

[Gary]

Now you want Augustine and the other church fathers to say "... Mary was NOT assumpted!"

That is ridiculous! By their silence on the issue and by the words of your own theologians, we know they knew of nothing like the assumption.... which would have been big news for Christians at the time (or very shortly afterwards).

P.S. I have already sited my sources several times. I notice you very seldom site sources. Why?

:wink:

 

[Gary]

Pope Pius XII, in his decree Munificentissimus Deus, refers to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as "a matter of such great moment and of such importance". He says to people who oppose the doctrine, "let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith". The Pope refers to the Assumption doctrine as "this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times".

In contrast, the Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes:

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll explains that Epiphanius, a church father of the fourth century, lived near where Mary had lived, yet he denies that anybody has any apostolic tradition regarding the end of Mary's life:

"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'...A Palestinian with opportunity for some research, Epiphanius does not speak of a bodily resurrection and remains noncommittal on the way Mary's life ended. He nowhere denies the Assumption, or admits the possibility of Assumption without death, for he has found no sign of death or burial. He suggests several different hypotheses and draws no firm conclusion." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135)

:o

 

[CatholicXian]

"remote" does not mean "recent"...

6th century recognition isn't early enough for you? Do you think they just magically imagined this new doctrine and decided to start believing in it?

It seems in this case, silence is a stronger argument for an unusual death experience (perhaps something like an assumption), since it was common practice to keep and venerate the bones/relics of early Christians. Yet, as I mentioned above, no one ever legitimately claimed to have the bones of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Why? We have the bones of Peter under the Vatican, the finger of Thomas in another Church in Rome, and numerous other relics, yet there is nothing regarding Mary... that doesn't seem curious to you?

 

[gingercat]

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote"

You are right, Catholics are majority of Christianity, too. :wink:

 

[gingercat]

But not the duty to pass judgment on another.

I disagree with you. I dont believe what I am doing is unbiblical. Let's take that to the Lord. I will not take you word or judgment.

I am just making things very simple and clearer. You dont like what I am showing you clearly. :wink:

"Judge not, that ye be judged..." (Matthew 7:1-2)

Your judgment is pointless because it is nothing. Christ is Judge.

St. Paul had some wise words in reminding us not to focus on judgment, but rather in keeping our own selves in accord with Christ that we might not cause a brother in Christ to stumble (Romans 14:13).

You can continue to pass judgment if that's what you so desire, but it adds nothing to the discussions of the forum, except to incite anger and malice (look at the direction this thread has taken... overflowing into the other threads of this board).

You are repeating yourself, dear. You cannot keep my mouth shut with your accusation. :wink:

BTW, I hope you read my thread "Satan's best tactics". What you are doing to me is one of the satan's tactic to keep your opposers mouth shut.

We better watch out not being used by satan.

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not interested in "keeping [your] mouth shut". I'm interested in charitable and honest Christian discussion. Condemning judgment is unnecessary and childish.

 

[Heidi]

I'm not interested in "keeping [your] mouth shut". I'm interested in charitable and honest Christian discussion. Condemning judgment is unnecessary and childish.

Honest? :o Turning :"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" into, "He had no union with her for the rest of her life" is anything but honest! So you need to practice what you preach, catholic.

I couldn't resist reading one more of your contradictory statements. ;-)

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not interested in "keeping [your] mouth shut". I'm interested in charitable and honest Christian discussion. Condemning judgment is unnecessary and childish.

Honest? :o Turning :"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" into, "He had no union with her for the rest of her life" is anything but honest! So you need to practice what you preach, catholic.

I couldn't resist reading one more of your contradictory statements. ;-)

Again, Heidi, find a Greek dictionary or lexicon.

"until" ("heos" in the Greek) does not always mean, "and then it happend" as I've evidenced for you in this very thread.

Otherwise, you'd better start keeping track of how many times you forgive someone, since , according to Matthew 18:22 you only forgive someone "heos" (/"until") seventy times seven.