Follow
Readers who have been following this blog are familiar with our position that Roman Catholicism as a religion originated in the latter part of the 4th century A.D. The religion of Rome is not of apostolic origin. As we explained in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, distinctively Roman Catholic dogma can be traced to the late 300s A.D., no earlier. In that article, we touched briefly on the late development of the immaculacy of Mary in the imagination of Rome. This week, we explore the magnitude of Rome’s historical revisionism in its attempt to prove the apostolicity of the dogma of her “Immaculate Conception.”
When Pope Pius IX issued the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus on December 8, 1854, the purpose was to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. The Immaculate Conception is the Roman Catholic belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, “in the first instance of her conception … was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” In grand papal style, Pius IX declared that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had “always existed in the Church.” The Roman Catholic Church, he assured the flock, “never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them,” but merely passes on what she heard from the apostles:
“And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely.” (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,1854)
Technically that is all true, unless words have meaning. It can be taken as historically factual as long as we throw out the dictionary, suspend all disbelief, and place our unwavering trust in the words of the skilled propagandist that Pius IX was. If the term ‘forcibly testify’ is understood to mean, “emphatically deny,” and the word ‘always’ is taken to mean “since the end of fourth century and no earlier, and even then not without controversy” and the words ‘never diminishes anything’ are understood to mean, “we reject facts that are unseemly,” and the phrase ‘never adds anything’ is rendered in its intended meaning of “we add whatever we please,” then Pius IX’s statement is absolutely true—the Roman Catholic church has always taught the Immaculate Conception, neither adding nor subtracting from the faith once received from the Apostles, whose disciples forcibly testified of it. <Wink, wink.>
On the other hand, if words have meaning, then Pius IX’s claims in Ineffabilis Deus are an intentional misrepresentation of a history with which he was embarrassingly familiar, but compelled to deny. That Pius IX fabricated an imaginary history in order to represent the antiquity of the Immaculate Conception dogma is no surprise to us. His seat and his power and his authority are from the devil (Revelation 13:2), and, as they say, “like father, like son”:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)
In Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX simply did what comes naturally to him. He may have been a liar, but at least he “came by it honestly.”
Our evidence for Pius IX’s intentional misrepresentation of history comes not from the annals of Protestant critiques of the papacy or from the pens of the great Reformers but from Rome’s own historians. Roman Catholic historians—at least those who want to be taken seriously—do not have the prerogative of dogmatizing falsehood at will through the charism of infallibility, and therefore they must deal with facts as they find them, rather than reconstructing a history to fit their preferences. We do not agree with the religion of these historians, but some of them displayed at least a modicum of respect for their field of study, and for that reason, we tip our hat, even if we cannot bend the knee.
We turn now to the Evangelical Catholic Apologetics (ECA) archives and their very helpful summary of the historical works of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M (1911 – 1990), and William Bernard Ullathorne, O.S.B. (1806 – 1889). Carol was the founder of the Mariological Society of America, and for his exhaustive work on Mariology was in 1957 awarded the Marian Library Medal. He also published a three volume set, Mariology (1955 – 1961), which is the focus of the ECA ministry’s summary on the Immaculate Conception. Ullathorne was a Roman Catholic archbishop, “an English prelate who held high offices in the Roman Catholic Church during the nineteenth-century,” and was the first Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Birmingham. ECA focuses on his work, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (1855). The ECA provides a remarkably candid summary of their research under the title, “The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: from Juniper Carol’s Mariology and Ullathorne’s Immaculate Conception.” Our citations below are marked “ECA” to refer to this title.
The first hint of the chasm of discontinuity that exists between Rome’s teaching on Mary’s immaculacy on the one hand, and the Early Church’s teaching on her abject sinfulness on the other, is found in a very frank concession from the ECA at the outset. As it turns out, the Ante-Nicene church in the West was completely oblivious to the “problem” of Mary’s holiness:
“One of the most perplexing problems in patristic Mariology revolves about Mary’s holiness. The issue becomes complex in that it involves an aspect of Mary’s sanctity acute for the contemporary Christian: the state of Mary’s soul at the moment of her conception. From the close of the Apostolic Age to the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) the literary heritage of Western Christianity contains so remarkably little on the theme of Our Lady’s holiness that a pointed question is inevitable. Was the pre-Nicene West even conscious of the problem?” (ECA)
What was true in the West was also manifest in the East. The Christians there seemed blindingly unaware of Mary’s sinlessness, almost disrespectfully so:
“Between Nicaea and Ephesus, Marian theology makes scant progress in the East. … Before [the council of] Ephesus [in 431 A.D.], Oriental theology is apparently unaware of a problem in this regard. Where the literature touches the sanctity of Mary, it does so for the most part obliquely, in passing, with a disinterest which is disconcerting and at times a familiarity which borders on discourtesy.” (ECA)
This phraseology is quite telling. Notice that the status of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in the Early Church is a “problem” and not a “dogma.” The problem, as it turns out, is that the nobody in the Early Church seems to have been aware of the dogma. The only reason the complete lack of evidence for the immaculacy of Mary is “remarkable” at all is that Rome, in her shameful attempt to convince the world of it, has almost convinced herself of its antiquity. Rome’s historians were expecting to find in the Early Church evidence of Mary’s sinlessness. Finding none, they should have concluded that Pius IX’s claims were “remarkable” for their historical revisionism, but instead considered the historical data “remarkable” for its lack of support of Pius IX! Let us watch as our historians wrestle with how to fit their adverse findings into a theological system that abhors both facts and correction.
First they consider Irenæus (early 2nd century – 202 A.D.). Does Irenæaus see in Scripture an Eve-Mary parallel? Yes, it appears that he does in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 19.1. But earlier in Book V, Irenæaus had plainly stated that Jesus had come at the end of a long line of continuous corruption from Adam through Mary, exempting only Himself from that corruption “at the end,” and insisting that it was necessary for Him to take flesh and blood from that which was in a position to be saved:
“For if the flesh were not in a position to be saved, the Word of God would in no wise have become flesh. And if the blood of the righteous were not to be inquired after, the Lord would certainly not have had blood… He thus points out the recapitulation that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from the beginning, of all the righteous men and of the prophets, and that by means of Himself there should be a requisition of their blood. Now this [blood] could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the Lord have summed up these things in Himself, unless He had Himself been made flesh and blood after the way of the original formation [of man], saving in his own person at the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 14.1)
“But the thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 14.2)
“If, then, any one allege that in this respect the flesh of the Lord was different from ours, because it indeed did not commit sin, neither was deceit found in His soul, while we, on the other hand, are sinners, he says what is the fact.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 14.3)
Thus does Irenæus include Mary in that long line of corruption since Adam, Christ Himself being the only exception, for it was necessary that He take His flesh and blood from “the thing which had perished.” To Irenæus, it was Jesus’ conception, not Mary’s, that was the immaculate one. Then in Book V, Chapter 21, Irenæus so links Mary to fallen Adam—”that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned”—that our honest Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that they cannot see in Irenæus’ Eve-Mary parallel any insight into the sinlessness later imputed to Mary. :
“Regrettably, Irenaeus’ insight into the Second or New Eve is not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the state of her soul prior to her fiat. Did the ante-Nicene Fathers glimpse a further consequence from the analogy, an indication of Mary’s sanctity? Le Bachelet, for one, surrenders such investigation: ‘Who could possibly give a certain answer, one way or the other?’ ” (ECA)
Next they consider Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D.). Does Hippolytus refer to Mary as “the holy [hagios] Virgin”? Yes, he does, in Against Noetus, Chapter 17. But what does this mean? Our honest historians do not know:
“Does Hippolytus use hagios as a rather vague laudatory epithet, or as a title of dignity, or to imply moral excellence, or to signify the respect reserved for one who is segregated from profane things and belongs to God by some sort of consecration? The answer must, in the state of the evidence, be a confession of ignorance.” (ECA)
Notably, Hippolytus saw Jesus, not Mary, symbolized as the Ark of the New Covenant made of imperishable wood, which imperishable wood signified “Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin”:
“And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. … But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.” (Hippolytus, on The Lord is My Shepherd)
In what can only be seen as a gratuitous lapse of scholarship, our historians infer from this simile that perhaps Hippolytus meant that the imperishable wood referred to the flesh of Mary, even though Hippolytus is emphatic in his repetition of the fact that the “imperishable wood” was “Himself” for “the Lord was without sin,” and “the imperishable ark” is “His own body,” (Hippolytus, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 5), and again “the ark of imperishable wood,” is “His own body” (Hippolytus, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6). We call this a gratuitous lapse because Pius IX had claimed in Ineffabilis Deus that the Early Church Fathers identified Mary, not Jesus, “as the ark and house of holiness … entirely perfect … and never stained.” But Hippolytus clearly identifies Jesus, not Mary, as the Ark. Thus, in order to try to support Pius IX’s arguments for Mary’s immaculacy, these historians had to rely on a Church Father who rejected Pius IX’s arguments for Mary’s immaculacy.
Despite this lapse, our historians nonetheless agree that even when Hippolytus is so pressed into service—disproving Pius IX’s hypothesis in order to support his thesis—”what fails to emerge is the precise nature of her purity, her incorruptibility.” In other words, even when they wanted to find the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church—and were in fact eager to do so—the task was too great, and the data too little, for such an endeavor. The Immaculate Conception simply and stubbornly “fails to emerge” in the Early Church.
What does not “fail to emerge,” however, are the abundant attributions of sins, sinfulness, doubt, unbelief, vainglory, faults, concupiscence and offenses of Mary as she is seen standing between Christ and His people, not as a “Mediatress,” but as an interrupting obstructionist, needing from Jesus not only “healing” of her sins, but “salvation” for her lost soul. To their credit, our Catholic historians are compelled by academic rigor to weigh this countervailing evidence and acknowledge it.
Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.), commenting on John 7:5, acknowledges that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” and includes Mary with them in their unbelief. Even though Martha and other Marys were in constant attendance upon Him, “there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him.” This is evidence of unbelief, for which reason Mary is not a figure of the Church which received Him, but of the Synagogue which rejected him:
“In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. … while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. … but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. … When denying one’s parents in indignation, one [Jesus] does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. … in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7)
Commenting on Matthew 12:46, in which “His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him,” Tertullian says that Jesus was “justly indignant” that “they wanted to call Him away from [His] solemn work,” and for this reason “He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith,” names withheld from those “whom He refused because of their offense” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 19). Tertullian clearly believed he had this on the authority of the “apostles [who] poured forth all their doctrine” to the Church (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36)
Origen (185 – 254 A.D.), the first Church Father to expound Luke 2:35, understood that the sword that “shall pierce through thy own soul also” was the sword of doubt and unbelief piercing the soul of Mary. He is explicit on this point, citing Romans 3:23 as proof, claiming that Mary, like the rest of us, had sinned in unbelief, and that Jesus must have died for Mary’s sins:
“If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)
Origen did not provide this as his personal opinion. Rather, he was convinced that he held this “as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day” (De Principiis, Preface, chapter 2).
Basil (329-379 A.D.), too, concluded that even Mary, “shall some doubt reach,” and using Origen’s words, concludes that Jesus propitiated Mary’s sins on the cross:
“The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man— to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword.” (Basil, Letter 260.8-9)
Contrary to what Pius IX would define, Basil has Mary healed of her sins after Jesus’ death on the cross, not “in the first instance of her conception.” As Basil has it, only “after the offense at the Cross of Christ” did “a certain swift healing … come from the Lord … to Mary herself” (Basil, Letter 260.8-9). Basil clearly believed Jesus died to cleanse Mary of her sins, and that he had this “by the tradition of the apostles” (Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 27)
John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.), commenting on John 2:1-11, has Jesus rebuking Mary, reproving her for her unseasonable question, “correcting her weakness,” by which rebuke, “He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3). Commenting on the same passage, as well as John 17:4 and Matthew 12:48, Chrysostom has Mary attempting “to render herself more conspicuous,” and “desiring to gain credit from His miracles,” wrongly believing according to custom that it was hers “to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.2). When He corrected her error, “instructing her for the future not to do the like,” He still showed her respect, yet nevertheless “He cared much more for the salvation of her soul” than for her feelings (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.3). Commenting on why the Angel advised Joseph after Mary had conceived, but addressed Mary before she had conceived, Chrysostom has a simple, yet stunning answer: because if Mary had not been advised in advance, she might have committed suicide, a double murder of both herself, and her Son yet in the womb:
“Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin’s case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace. … Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception.” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 4.9)
Suicide, as Catholics well know, is considered by the Church to be a grave moral offense—in some cases, a mortal sin. The significance of Chrysostom’s characterization of Mary here is that if she were sinless, and completely free of concupiscence, then there should have been no danger of suicide, and Gabriel would have had no need “to prevent” Mary from “devising something amiss.” Yet as written, Chrysostom’s words show that he believed that if Gabriel had not taken countermeasures, Mary may well have murdered herself, and Christ with her! Chrysostom clearly believed he had this on the authority of the Apostles, whose “teaching is one,” and therefore on the authority of the Holy Spirit, “since the artificer is one, I mean the Holy Spirit” (Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter 2).
Even Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – 360 A.D.), the historians reluctantly acknowledge, has Mary “destined to undergo the scrutiny of God’s judgment, of faults that are slight” (see Hilary of Portiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; Patrologia Latina Volume 9 p. 523). This is the same Hilary who taught that Christ was unique in that His conception alone was the immaculate one:
“For Christ had indeed a body, but unique, as befitted His origin. He did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception: He came into the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our collective humanity in the form of a servant, but He was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and yet our faults might not be in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man but not born under the defects of human conception. … though He was formed in fashion as a man, He knew not what sin was. For His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book X, chapter 25).
Elsewhere, Hilary writes that Mary’s womb was hallowed by the Spirit at Jesus’ conception (not at Mary’s), and that by His conception, Jesus took on human flesh, “that through this commingling there might come into being a hallowed Body of all humanity” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book II, chapters 24 – 26). It was Jesus’ body, as it turns out, not Mary’s, that enjoyed the first and only immaculate conception and was the first “hallowed Body” in history. Hilary clearly believed he had this information regarding “the reality of the Divine birth” on the authority “of these texts” and “in the language of Apostles” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book I, chapter 28)
In the face of this avalanche of evidence against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia simply decides that such teachings are “stray” and “private” opinions, not at all to be considered a belief derived from the Scriptures at all:
“But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception).
Not one of the Church Fathers cited above made any indication that he was conveying his “private opinion.” In fact, they all based their conclusions on Scripture and insisted that their understanding was Apostolic. “Progressive science” is a Roman Catholic euphemism intended to cloak the novelty of Rome’s doctrines when she cannot find evidence for them in the Early Church. Our more honest Roman Catholic historians concede as self-evident the very thing that Pius IX denied in Ineffabilis Deus—that the scant evidence from the Early Church Fathers can in no way be interpreted as if they were “carriers of an historical tradition”:
“If it is unjustifiable to conclude that Tertullian (or slightly later Origen in the east) is representative of a widespread tradition, it remains true that in Africa at the outset of the third century moral deficiencies were apparently not regarded as incompatible with the dignity of God’s Mother.” (ECA)
In other words, Pius IX had gone way beyond harmless exaggeration when he claimed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception “always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors.” Pius IX’s conclusions, ECA writes, were completely unjustified:
“The extant evidence, therefore, if meager, indicates sufficiently that for some of the ante-Nicene writers in the West the idea of holiness and purity did attach to the person of Mary. It does not justify us in concluding with certainty to the nature of this holiness [as Pius IX did], or in picturing them as carriers of an historical tradition [as Pius IX did], or in attributing to them a formal belief in an Immaculate Conception [as Pius IX did].” (ECA)
Pius IX, therefore, had lied when he said the Immaculate Conception dogma “always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors.” Honest Roman Catholic historians can hardly come to any other conclusion, although they are constrained by their vows to abide by his fabrication, even as they document the impossibility of it.
But if the origin of the Immaculate Conception cannot be traced to the Scriptures or the Early Church, then what was the origin of the dogma? Or more importantly, when was the origin of the dogma? Our historians breathe a sigh of relief as they finally find evidence for Mary’s immaculate purity—late in the 4th century.
“A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377, with the publication of St. Ambrose’s three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature.” (ECA)
In the East, the “turning point” is even later:
“[W]ith respect to Our Lady’s holiness, the year 431 marks a turning point for Eastern patristic thought.”
Contrast this data with the words of Pius IX: “Illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify [of] this doctrine.” What is abundantly clear is that an honest quest for the Immaculate Conception dogma in the Early Church leaves Rome’s apologists completely empty-handed. There is simply nothing there, except a respectful but honest confession of Mary’s sinfulness, error, fallen human nature and the need for healing, saving, forgiving and correction by her Son—even as she received the superlative privilege of receiving Him in her womb.
What we hope our readers can see—as one Roman dogma after another is found to originate in the late 4th century (or in the case of Eucharistic Adoration, in the late 11th)—is that Roman Catholicism itself is the “falling away” of which Paul warned us:
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5)
The Roman Papacy is that “Man of Sin” who arose at the latter part of the 4th century, and with him, the abominable doctrines of a religion that “shut[s] up the kingdom of heaven against men” and cannot, and will not suffer “them that are entering” (Matthew 23:13).
This is why Protestants are so unpalatable to Roman Catholics. Rome cannot find her doctrines in the Early Church, and therefore she ends up condemning the Early Church, and we Christians with it. The “problem” with the Early Church, is that it was full of Protestants. To this Rome’s apologists publicly testify without realizing it.
We read above that the Early Church considered Mary to be a sinner based in no small part on what they knew of her from the Annunciation (Luke 1), the Presentation (Luke 2:35), the Wedding at Cana (John 2), Jesus’ teaching ministry (John 7:5, Matthew 12:46), the Crucifixion (John 19:25) and Romans 3:23. As one Roman Catholic participant on this blog recently noted in response to the very same arguments from a Protestant,
“I know what verses you mean, and as is typical with anti-Mary Protestants, you read far too much into it. The way you read [those verses], one would think that Christ was guilty of dishonoring his mother, which would make Him a sinner.”
We recognize that such name-calling is merely conversational and not malicious, and so we can overlook it to see what he was really saying. Roman Catholics are forced inadvertently to describe the Early Church—which read those verses the same way we do—as being full of “anti-Mary Protestants,” because it was so obviously bereft of “pro-Immaculate Conception” Roman Catholics!
Likewise, last week in Novel Antiquity, we showed that Roman apologist Mark Shea, unable to justify his allegedly “incarnational” Roman Catholic worship from the Church Fathers, was left inadvertently grouping modern Protestants together with the Early Church. We suffer today, as they apparently did back then, from the so-called “incarnational heebie jeebies.” Thus did Shea describe the Early Church as suffering from the same Protestant “heebie jeebies,” because it was completely bereft of so-called “incarnational” Roman Catholics!
Likewise, in “It’s Complicated…” we showed that Pope Benedict XVI, in an attempt to trace his current liturgy to the Early Church, ended up condemning Nicæan liturgy as “sick at the core” because it did not include kneeling (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 194). Thus, when Catholic Answers condemned Protestants because they do not kneel on Sundays, Catholic Answers was actually condemning the Early Church, because it was apparently full of non-kneeling Protestants, and bereft of kneeling Roman Catholics!
There is a reason, of course, that the Early Church was so bereft of Roman Catholics: there was simply no such thing as Roman Catholicism for the first 300 years of Christianity. If Rome must conceal that fact with her fabricated testimony, revisionist history and “infallible” but easily falsifiable claims of continuity, then we will let her. It is in her nature to do so.
In the meantime, true believers in the testimony of Scripture to the incarnation of our Savior through a sinful Jewish maiden—who herself was cleansed of her sins, being justified by her Son through faith alone in Him alone—are welcome to join the Church He established, which today is apparently full of the same allegedly “anti-Mary” Protestants that populated the Early Church.
“Come out of her, my people … “ (Revelation 18:4)
Tim wrote:
“That Pius IX fabricated an imaginary history in order to represent the antiquity of the Immaculate Conception dogma is no surprise to us. His seat and his power and his authority are from the devil (Revelation 13:2), and, as they say, “like father, like son”:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)
————-
So true. This is the core of the problem of their religion. They do not see Satan having a hand in ANY of the evil that Rome has produced (even those they repented of when they admitted Luther was right in many ways to protest against the “excesses” of the church at that time). My dad used to impress upon me that at Notre Dame they taught him that Luther was right to bring to attention the church abuses and the selling of indulgences to raise funds for the church was not right…thus even though Luther was considered a heretic by Rome, at least some of their “apologists” did admit something he did was helpful for Rome to reform its practices on forgiving a murder for a little blood money, or dismissing rape of a virgin for a little of cash, or a priest keeping a Mistress for a few shekels paid to the mother of all harlots.
Just incredible how people defend the blind leading the blind.
Walt said ” their apologists did admit that something he did was helpful for Rome to reform” exactly Walt. But the problem is Rome cant reform, its impossible, they are infallible. False churches cant deal with their own sin. Thats why its al revisionism, right. The church leadership should be the example of confession and humility, but its unable. Look how they dealt with the filth of homosexuality and pedophila rampant in their Priesthood. Rushed it aside. Rome is more Pelagian today than anytime in history.. we need look no further than the words of JP2 who saif trinity hating muslims go to heaven by living a good life. Thats the new Evangelization in Rome, the universal call to stay where you are and do your best. Babylon indeed. K hope you are well.
Can you direct me to the dogmatic definition of infallibility which says that infallibility means that Church leaders can’t sin?
Tim wrote:
“We turn now to the Evangelical Catholic Apologetics (ECA) archives and their very helpful summary of the historical works of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M (1911 – 1990), and William Bernard Ullathorne, O.S.B. (1806 – 1889). Carol was the founder of the Mariological Society of America, and for his exhaustive work on Mariology was in 1957 awarded the Marian Library Medal. He also published a three volume set, Mariology (1955 – 1961), which is the focus of the ECA ministry’s summary on the Immaculate Conception. Ullathorne was a Roman Catholic archbishop, “an English prelate who held high offices in the Roman Catholic Church during the nineteenth-century,” and was the first Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Birmingham. ECA focuses on his work, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (1855). The ECA provides a remarkably candid summary of their research under the title, “The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: from Juniper Carol’s Mariology and Ullathorne’s Immaculate Conception.” Our citations below are marked “ECA” to refer to this title.”
————
This is just incredible. I cannot wait to see the spin coming from our Romish brethren soon to follow. Circular logic is about to be another couple hundred comments over the coming week, and the spin doctors will be saying…you got it all wrong. All these reports were tainted as all Catholics are all unified as one church, and one voice and there is no conflicting doctrines, dogmas, forms of worship, degrees of idolatry, levels of mass confusion on any issues in Rome. They are all just one big happy family, and all just misunderstood.
Makes my stomach ache reading the circles this morning by the best and brightest Rome sends over to this blog to apologize and define what the Pope means by what he says, and what Rome teaches (all in perfect harmony) with what she says…just misunderstood due to poor protestant logic.
Golly, Tim wrote:
“Let us watch as our historians wrestle with how to fit their adverse findings into a theological system that abhors both facts and correction.”
It seems a little bit harsh on our Romish brethren. From what I learned this morning in an extensive debate is that it is all just a misunderstanding and us Protestants don’t understand what the Romish mean by what they say. It is all just our presuppositions are all fundamentally flawed as we don’t look at the facts, but we only judge everything by our emotions as former hurt or damaged Roman Catholics.
Their point: If we would just let bygones by bygones, and return to the Romish mass and worship, and march through the streets with the Virgin Mary statute leading the way as good (non)idol worshipers, and kiss the statute and cry, weep and beg for Mary to help us and protect us, everything would be just fine. We could be like them and follow our “conscience” or our “heart” to the Queen of Heaven, and Our Mother here on earth.
I cannot wait to read the rest of Tim’s rebuttal to this sad presupposition by the typical Romish adherent and apologist.
It cant be said any better. These Fathers appealed to Scripture. To the law and to the Testimony!
Tim wrote:
“Origen (185 – 254 A.D.), the first Church Father to expound Luke 2:35, understood that the sword that “shall pierce through thy own soul also” was the sword of doubt and unbelief piercing the soul of Mary. He is explicit on this point, citing Romans 3:23 as proof, claiming that Mary, like the rest of us, had sinned in unbelief, and that Jesus must have died for Mary’s sins:
“If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)
Origen did not provide this as his personal opinion. Rather, he was convinced that he held this “as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day” (De Principiis, Preface, chapter 2).”
————
What? Does this not close the case with evidence that clearly the Romish church is in error that the dogma on Mary being sinless and innocent is a lie?
I’m not sure how much clearer it can be, and do you mean all the hundreds and hundreds of “Hail Mary” prayers I offered as incense to her morning mass after morning mass was a lie?
All the times I went to confession, and the Priest absolved me of my sins, and out of penance sent me back to the pew, to get on my knees and pray 20 “Our Fathers” and 50 “Hail Mary’s” was a lie?
Here come the answers next. “No Walt, it is not a lie. You are just misunderstanding the unified, purified and perfect dogma on Mary the Roman Church has taught for 2,000 years. Don’t let Tim’s facts and evidence cause you more confusion. Believe us and the Pope…we FEEL good. Come back to Mother church, and return to us so we can comfort you and bring you tidings of great joy this holiday season!”
Well, it might not be like that…toss in a few curse words, and derogatory name calling about me, my mommy and daddy growing up, and how I have an ax to grind…then see if that works to get me back into the fold. If that does not work, there is always an “invisible inquisition” being planned to silence any of Rome’s detractors…but that is something for the future. Let’s try brain washing in the universities first after the bibles got removed from the middle school and high school…and permitted ONLY in the Catholic schools.
2 Thessalonians 2 : 9-11 ” that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because the did not recieve the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send on them a deluding influence so that they may believe what is false.” I would like to call our Catholic interlocutors, Jim, Bob, CK, Scott, all to notice he says ” they did not receive the love of the truth as to be saved” You often crticize us for sola scriptura and holding tight to bible only, but Paul says that no being saved is a lack of love for the truth, not a lack of love for the church, the Bishop, or tradition. Jesus said He was the truth. For you all as you and your families ” move deeper into the bosom of the Catholic Church” you must be told according to Scripture your souls are in peril. God bless
For those lurkers who find yesterdays debate persuading you to the Romish adherent Scott, let me share with you some warnings from Scripture that should give you pause to jump right into the Romish dogma on Mary and the Real Presence he so poorly articulated yesterday.
BEWARE I TELL YOU ALL. Read and mediate on the following:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. – 2 Cor. 5:11 (KJV)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matt. 10:28 (KJV)
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night… – Rev. 14:11 (KJV)
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. – Rev. 14:10 (KJV)
Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of men? – Proverbs 15:11 (KJV)
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments… – Luke 16:23 (KJV)
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? – Matt. 8:29 (KJV)
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast intohell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. – Luke 12:5 (KJV)
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. – Luke 16:24 (KJV)
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. – Rev. 20:10 (KJV)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. – Rev. 20:14
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. – Luke 16:25 (KJV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. – Matt. 7:21 (KJV)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
Tim wrote:
“Pius IX, therefore, had lied when he said the Immaculate Conception dogma “always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors.” Honest Roman Catholic historians can hardly come to any other conclusion, although they are constrained by their vows to abide by his fabrication, even as they document the impossibility of it.”
———–
Let’s see the flood of responses this week to defend Rome. Stay tuned to more circular logic to avoid the facts.
Great. Some brilliant qualifications to become a Bishop. In the reformed churches, the standards were so high, Ambrose would not have been accepted in any ministerial capacity, and with his qualifications would have been responsible for cleaning the church due to his ignorance.
Tim wrote and quoted:
““A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377, with the publication of St. Ambrose’s three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature.” (ECA)”
————–
Let’s see who this man was who introduced such doctrine:
“Bishop of Milan
The body of Ambrose (with white vestments) in the crypt of Sant’Ambrogio basilica.
In the late 4th century there was a deep conflict in the diocese of Milan between the Catholics and Arians.[7][8] In 374 the bishop of Milan, Auxentius, an Arian, died, and the Arians challenged the succession. Ambrose went to the church where the election was to take place, to prevent an uproar, which was probable in this crisis. His address was interrupted by a call “Ambrose, bishop!”, which was taken up by the whole assembly.[8]
Ambrose was known to be Catholic in belief, but also acceptable to Arians due to the charity shown in theological matters in this regard. At first he energetically refused the office, for which he was in no way prepared: Ambrose was neither baptized nor formally trained in theology.[1] Upon his appointment, Ambrose fled to a colleague’s home seeking to hide. Upon receiving a letter from the Emperor Gratian praising the appropriateness of Rome appointing individuals evidently worthy of holy positions, Ambrose’s host gave him up. Within a week, he was baptized, ordained and duly consecrated bishop of Milan.
As bishop, he immediately adopted an ascetic lifestyle, apportioned his money to the poor, donating all of his land, making only provision for his sister Marcellina (who later became a nun),[2] and committed the care of his family to his brother. This raised his popularity even further, giving him considerable political leverage over even the emperor. Ambrose also wrote a treatise by the name of “The Goodness of Death”.”
——————
Ambrose ranks with Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, as one of the Latin Doctors of the Church. Theologians compare him with Hilary, who they claim fell short of Ambrose’s administrative excellence but demonstrated greater theological ability. He succeeded as a theologian despite his juridical training and his comparatively late handling of Biblical and doctrinal subjects.
Ambrose’s intense episcopal consciousness furthered the growing doctrine of the Church and its sacerdotal ministry, while the prevalent asceticism of the day, continuing the Stoic and Ciceronian training of his youth, enabled him to promulgate a lofty standard of Christian ethics. Thus we have the De officiis ministrorum, De viduis, De virginitate and De paenitentia.
Ambrose displayed a kind of liturgical flexibility that kept in mind that liturgy was a tool to serve people in worshiping God, and ought not to become a rigid entity that is invariable from place to place. His advice to Augustine of Hippo on this point was to follow local liturgical custom. “When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the church where you are.”[25][26] Thus Ambrose refused to be drawn into a false conflict over which particular local church had the “right” liturgical form where there was no substantial problem. His advice has remained in the English language as the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
One interpretation of Ambrose’s writings is that he was a Christian universalist.[27] It has been noted that Ambrose’s theology was significantly influenced by that of Origen and Didymus the Blind, two other early Christian universalists.[27] One quotation cited in favor of this belief:
Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,’ for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.[28]
One could interpret this passage as being another example of the mainstream Christian belief in a general resurrection (both for those in heaven and for those in hell). Several other works by Ambrose clearly teach the mainstream view of salvation. For example:
The Jews feared to believe in manhood taken up into God, and therefore have lost the grace of redemption, because they reject that on which salvation depends.[29]
————
Enough said for me.
Tim wrote:
“In the meantime, true believers in the testimony of Scripture to the incarnation of our Savior through a sinful Jewish maiden—who herself was cleansed of her sins, being justified by her Son through faith alone in Him alone—are welcome to join the Church He established, which today is apparently full of the same allegedly “anti-Mary” Protestants that populated the Early Church.
“Come out of her, my people … “ (Revelation 18:4)”
Excellent factual testimony in today’s blog post, and more importantly. a call to readers of the true gospel of Christ.
Tim, I feel so blessed to be part of the and the few Protestants who are willing to call Roman Atholicism what it is, apostate, a false Christianity, and a front for the kingdom of Satan. And even though the brethren here have our differences, we are united on so much around the gospel of our Lord and the burning desire to not let the Reformation die in ecumenical hand holding with Satan’s church. We have to much love for its people. We have to pray as God wills that instead of looking for the similarities, we conitnue to expose the errors, Tolerance is tolerant of evrrything but intolerance. Rome seeks for ecuminism sucking us into the Beast. We have to be Paul Revere who instead singing kumbaya with them, warn the Lord is coming, holding up the sign ” save the Catholics” K
You sure know how to plagiarize John MacArthur, don’t you?
Do any of you believe that our Lord Jesus will tolerate such disdain for his Blessed Mother on the last day? Viperous, blasphemous attitudes towards the Mother of our Savior will be punished, without a doubt.
To use your God given talents and intelligence in this way, is sickening. In all of the Fathers from antiquity you quote, one thing still lacks. None confess Mary as a sinner. Not once! All of your underlined “evidence” shows not one sinful deed. Doubt, concupicence, the need of salvation and redemption, none are sinful. The Church teaches us that Mary, like us was in need of redemption and the saving Grace of God. This grace was given to her as a gift, just as grace is given to us. She, however received this grace at the moment of her Immaculate Conception. If you are going to attack the church’s teaching, at least maintain the integrity not to attack a straw man. Nobody ever said that Mary did not have to be redeemed
Christian, can I suggest an article to you by John Piper called ” Bless the mother of Jesus, but mainly be the mother of Jesus.” She is only seen once in Acts where in 1:14 it says Mary mother of Jesus and her sons James and Joseph. 2 other references of her with her other sons, Mat. 27:55,56, and 13:55. It will help you with the right perspective on Mary.
Christian–
Here are the references Kevin sites:
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Mat 27:55ff And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And I’ve added a couple more:
Mar 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where He was laid.
Jhn 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Notice in John there are three named Mary at the foot of the cross. And two of them are sisters with the same name.
Most likely they are not blood sisters but sister’s in law–Cleophas being the blood brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. So Jesus had an extended family through Aunt Mary. Simon is the son of Cleophas and the brother of James, Joses, and Judas. Simon was named the successor to James as the bishop of Jerusalem after James was killed by the Romans. The Romans were exterminating all of the lineage of King David and the Roman governor Atticus had Simon crucified as well (Joseph and Cleophas were direct descendants of David–Mat1:1-16)
Just a little more historical info to put things in perspective.
Christian,
The irony of your post is two-fold.
First, you never once identified a “sin” for which I will be punished on the last day. When the early church fathers identify Mary’s doubt, vainglory, self-seeking, faults and offenses against Jesus as things for which Jesus had to die in order to save her soul, you claim that none of these are “sins”. Yet you accuse me of “viperous blasphemy” and “disdain,” for which I must be punished, without identifying a single “sin” in what I did. May I assume that since you have not explicitly stated the “viperous blasphemy” and “disdain for His blessed mother” are sinful, that therefore they are not sins in your opinion? Would it have been a sin if I had posted my blog entry “vaingloriously” or with self-seeking motives? If not, why not? If so, why is it a sin for me to behave vaingloriously, but not for Mary to do so?
Second, when you accuse me of attacking a straw man because “Nobody ever said that Mary did not have to be redeemed,” the irony is particularly rich because your response is itself a straw man. I did not claim that Pius IX was wrong because he denied that Mary needed to be redeemed. I said Pius IX was wrong because he claimed “with certainty” that the Early Church, both east and west, “forcibly” testified to the apostolicity of Mary’s immaculacy at her conception. The Roman Catholic historians plainly disagree with his claim:
At no point did I argue that Roman Catholicism or Pius IX denied Mary’s need for redemption.
Thank you very much for your comment,
Tim
Christian, maybe you missed in Mary’s magnificat she I said I rejoice in God my savior. You said ” do any of you think that the Lord Jesus will put up with such disdain for his blessed mother. We actually dont think that the Lord will put up with the worship of anyone but His son. Praing to Mary is a serious thing. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. It is your salvation that depends on your worship of someone He addressed as woman, and a woman who considered herself a sinner and slave to her Lord, and a sinner. And until you are willing to cease from all effort to earn the love and forgiveness of God, and trust in Christ alone for your salvation your attitude about sister Mary wont matter. K
Tim, have you ever seen the show on ewtn with blond lady host. I have never seen a person with the fixation on the mother of Jesus. Except maybe here. Do you think it would be fair to think that since we know those who are drawn to the death wafer have an insatiable appetite for more and to the point of stigmattas, that Satan leads these Catholics into this blind detailed fixation on Mary? Were you this steeped in it Tim? Thanks K
Not sure why I haven’t gotten my stigmata yet. I’m starting to feel left out.
Kevin, I’m not sure which blond lady you are talking about. Can you give me the name of the show she hosts?
Thanks,
Tim
I think its called women of grace, its kind of a paige cut. K
He’s talking about Johnette Benkovic.
Tim, once again, thank you. May the Lord bless you for your diligence and faithfulness to your ministry. The Lord called me out of darkness and transferred me into His Kingdom years ago, and confirmed all of this in me more recently. Former Catholics (and others) need this kind of teaching to understand all of this and to be equipped to help others,
Maria
Thank you, Maria,
I am glad that this information has been helpful to you. I’ve enjoyed your blog as well.
In Christ alone,
Tim
Tim,
Your site is such a mess. I just found this stuff.
For starters, all of your quotes from the fathers about Mary pose no problem as they were free to speculate on undefined issues. None of them dissent from anything taught by the Church.
No saint, no matter how holy or brilliant is infallible.
Doctrine develops. The Bible says so itself. What was vague at first becomes more defined over time. Think of how the understanding of the Messiah, first mentioned in Gen 3 became more and more specific and time went on.
What point was the father making when he said the things you quote? Was he stressing the unique sinlessness of Jesus or the sinfulness of Mary at the moment?
Was the father stressing how much of a sinner Mary was or was he trying to say if the gruff fisherman Peter was scandalized or troubled by Jesus’ death, could one expect more from the fair sex.
If a father says Mary had doubts or vainglory, does he go against any official teaching AT THE TIME?
Jesus did not give the Keys to any particular Father.
Irenaeus calls Mary the “Advocate of Eve”. The actual word was “Paraklete”, a fitting name for the woman who would later be called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit eh?
The Church reflecting on what a saint says, decides what to retain and build on an what to jettison.
A good example is that of Augustine who said unbaptized babies go to hell. The Church canonized his teachings on the absolute necessity of grace but never did adopt his views on babies.
You mention Tertullian ( who was to fall away ) as a source against the Church’s teaching on Mary.
Who was he writing about? Who was he writing against? Was he opposing a gnostic sect who denied the very fleshy birth of Jesus? He certainly wasn’t your average Protestant of today in his understanding of the Bible and its “brothers of Jesus”.
Mary’s sinlessness is implicit in the doctrine of her Perpetual Virginity, whether a Father put 2 and 2 together or not.
Aquinas himself got the Immaculate Conception wrong, against the tradition of his own Dominican order. But ask yourself, was Mary his focus? Or the necessity of salvation in Jesus?
Tim, you have lost your faith in the Church. You see the Church as a collection of member only.
Jim,
When you write, “None of them dissent from anything taught by the Church” or “any official teaching AT THE TIME,” it is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that the Church was not teaching Mary’s sinlessness at the time. Which is precisely the point I was making about Pius IX’s fraudulent claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception “always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors.” Pius IX’s claim, even though it was “infallible,” was plainly false.
All of the men I quote also believed they were teaching what they had received from the Apostles.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, you wrote,
Yes, Tertullian is said to have fallen away. That is why the Roman Catholic Church,
never,
never,
never,
ever,
cites Tertullian authoritatively.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Do you support Montanism too?
Jim, you wrote,
Yes, and this is why when EWTN writes of Mary’s perpetual virginity, they can only cite Fathers as early as the late 4th century to prove it:
Also notable is this concession from Fr. Juniper Carol that Irenæus cannot be used in support of Mary’s perpetual virginity:
You continued, saying that the Gospel of James proves that Mary’s perpetual virginity was actively taught prior to the latter part of the 4th century:
But Fr. Carol goes on, and pulls this out from under you:
Tim,
Could Fr. Juniper be mistaken? Could he be unaware of the lists of early Fathers Jerome claimed to have taught Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in his letter to Helvidius ? ( By the way, Helvidius did not challenge Jerome on this list ).
Fr Most, who you like to quote, would concur with what I told you last night about the Church, and no particular Father, determines what Catholics believe.
By the way, those** POST** 350 Fathers you like to quote about Mary’s imperfection, namely Basil and Chrysostom, said she was a Perpetual Virgin.
Tim, would you like to recalibrate your dating? Think about it; the post 350 Church gave us some councils, Augustine, and some other things you might not want to jettison.
Tim,
Here is that quote you think proves your case;
“His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother’s very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: “I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How |633 was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind. And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended, when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, so that he impetuously exclaimed: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What wonder, then, if a woman’s frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? ” Cyrill of Alexandria Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12; 25 But there were standing by the Cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_12_book12.htm
Jim, I am not clear on your intent in providing this citation. I didn’t use that quote in this blog entry, so I am not clear what you mean when you say, “Here is that quote you think proves your case;”
Can you clarify?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Is there something i am missing? Haven’t you been posting quotes by the Fathers about defects in Mary?
Yes. I am unclear on what you meant by “Here is that quote you think proves your case”. Please clarify what you meant by that so I can understand your comment.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Why are you using POST 350 A.D. Fathers to make your case?
Can I too?
Tim,
You have done some cherry picking to select some very specific verses from some Fathers on Mary.
I was wondering, did those same Father happen to have anything else to say on the subject of Mary?
Yes?
I thought so. You just forgot to mention the other things they said.
Anyway, you deny the Popes ever existing before 350 A.D. but I have shown you to be wrong. On the papacy issue alone, we Catholics win on the Eucharist and Mary too. Same with Kevin’s dumb assertion that Clement was a Protestant on Justification. Your entire 350 theory goes down to hell in smoke with the Papacy.
Jim,
I merely pointed out several cases where Mary’s abject sinfulness was not only known to the Early Church but was freely acknowledged. It is not I, but the Catholic scholars, who stated that a significant turning point occurred in 377 A.D. with regard to the “holiness” of Mary. Do you suppose that Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M and William Bernard Ullathorne, O.S.B. were “cherry picking” when they came to that conclusion? Did they “forgot to mention the other things” the Early Church Fathers said about Mary?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Rather than suggest anything, let me explain something.
We Catholics don’t recite the Rosary or wear the scapular because of a private revelation that may or not have been given to St. Dominic or St. Simon Stock.
We do so because the Popes say devotion to Mary is based on the ( public ) revelation by God of her intercession.
You like to refer to to Fatima, Lourdes, and other apparitions, right? Do Popes require us to submit to them? Or does the Church merely say they are worthy of belief or permitted?
If a pope like, say, JPII likes Czestechowa, the Rosary or DeMontfort devotion, are the faithful required to do so also? As none of these ( approved )devotions or apparitions add to or contradict revelation, it really always goes back to that right?
What is the Church/Pope says to stay away from a claimed apparition?
Let’s move the discussion on the Papacy over to this thread okay? Just so we don’t lose each other’s comments what with the other discussions going on, okay?
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity can be demonstrated from good old common sense and the perspicuous passages of the Bible. And from the Fathers, Even your own Reformers.
But since you have this weird 350 A.D. theory about the Church, why don’t we just talk about the Papacy? Anything Catholics believe about Mary as to jive with the Pope and the Church’s official teaching anyway, right?
Now, I think I have established Roman primacy well before your date. So far your only rebuttal has been some silliness about Linus and not Peter being the first Bishop of Rome.
Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Cyprian, the Council of Sardica, are a string of names before 350.
Your turn.
Jim says:
The threaded comments actually make lines of conversation difficult to follow, because there’s anarchy of how people use them.
That’s why I like Called to Communion’s method of eschewing threaded replies and just going with a numbering system. That way you can simply reference the number of the comment that you’re replying to. I use this method on my own blog; I simply found a plugin that works in the background to automatically number the comments.
Tim,
Henceforth I will not click on “reply”. Instead I will post at the bottom of the column.
I have a copy of Juniper Carol’s “Fundamentals of Mariology” at hand.
On page 149 he says Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, ( all pre 350 ) believed in the Virgin Birth.
Then on page 153, he lists the Fathers who said she remained a Virgin, some of them pre-350.
So much for quoting Fr. Carol, eh?
Anyway, how about that Pope Victor wanting the entire Church to have one date for Easter? Although he backed off making an issue of it, he was right as the Church was later to discipline the dissenters from the date he had wanted.
And what about that Ignatius? While chiding certain churches, when it came to Rome, he took another tone altogether.
As for documentation, remember, the first 27 out of 30 popes were martyrs. The Church was being persecuted until Constantine’s time. How much physical evidence do you need?
Still, we have enough.
Sure looks like the Romish Church was up and running well before 350, huh?
Jim, you wrote,
Please feel free to provide their names.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Here are those names;
Origin, Ephraim, Hilary, Zeno, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and ‘many others”.
Scott,
You have a blog? I will check it out.
Tim,
Just so we stay on target, let me remind you and others of what you have repeatedly asserted in your articles, including this one,
“There is a reason, of course, that the Early Church was so bereft of Roman Catholics: there was simply no such thing as Roman Catholicism for the first 300 years of Christianity. If Rome must conceal that fact with her fabricated testimony, revisionist history and “infallible” but easily falsifiable claims of continuity, then we will let her. It is in her nature to do so.
Thanks, Jim. It’s a true statement.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Since Fr. Carol “pulled the rug out from under me” on the Gospel of James, could you tell me exactly what he had to say on that book?
Tim,
Well?
I have been drumming my fingers and twiddling my thumbs waiting for you to explain how the Church didn’t exists but the Roman bishop was exercising his office well before that date.
Jim said ” how the Church didn’t exist but the Roman bishop was exercising his office well before that.” Jim, if you have read Tim’s stuff you’ll notice that he doesn’t deny the existence of the true church, nor of the bishop of Rome, but the RISE of the apostasy from within the church that stared late 4th century with wholesale doctrinal changes. Namely the monarchial Papacy and the play for power, Marian doctrines, penance, changing the meaning of to declare righteous to make righteous, mistakes in the vulgate, forbidding of marriage among the bishops, relics, Transubstantiation, sacrifice of the Mass. In fact Tim has meticulously documented these changes that has brought a vividness to them. The fact Jim that you can site the shadow of this to come before the full blown documents only gives credence to Paul’s warning that it was already at work ( brewing) in the church. Jim, you can’t fail Tim, or nay of us for fulfilling our biblical responsibility to look for these things and to warn others. We are commanded to keep ourselves from idols, beware of the antichrist, and shout it from the roof tops. Tim is just carrying the Reformation warnings on where all the weak knee Protestants aren’t willing to do that. In fact they want to censor the warnings in our confessions about your church being antichrist. None of our confessions missed it Jim, and we aren’t going to either. What you do for Christmas? Hope you and your wife are doing well. K
Tim,
Once again, I see our chat has come to an end. Kevin Falloni has started butting in with his prattle so you get to escape once more. Twice now over the past few weeks he has come to your rescue on this issue of the papacy existing before 350.
I won’t bother bringing it up again as I see it is hopeless. You have had sufficient time to address it but haven’t ( although you just posted above ).
As I say good bye, let me leave you with this info I just gave Swan. I know you like Mark Shea.
“Perhaps the earliest explicit testimony we have is the sepulcher of the 18 martyrs of Zaragossa, Spain, which dates back to A.D. 312 and contains a relief sculpture of the Assumption of Our Lady. Spain is at the opposite end of the Mediterranean from the events of the Assumption suggesting this article of faith was already ancient by the time it was incorporated into the art of Spanish Christianity”.
Mark Shea page 157, Mary, Mother of the Son, vol. 2
Jim,
When I looked up the Sepulchre of the 18 martyrs, all I could find was this:
I don’t understand how its existence disproves my contention that Roman Catholicism and her particular doctrines came into existence in the late 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Kevin,
4 times now, I have asked Tim how the Church of Rome could have been operating full steam before his date of an apostasy.
I am going back to Swan’s. Tim is playing cat and mouse games with me and we both know it.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Jim, First of all Jim, i have not butted in on your conversation with Tim. I simply gave you my take,once. Now you made a statement to me and I will kindly reply James. Your objection isn’t valid IMHO because citing previous strains of such false doctrine only supports Tim’s position. Why? Because Paul gives us an important piece in 2 Thessalonians when he says its already stirring in the church, as he was present. So obviously Jim there will be things that we can point to when these doctrines blew up in the 4th century. All I said is that as you find strains of Catholic Marian doctrines, or Papacy citing. this would give credence to these doctrines barging on the scene 380. But here is the important thing. These were foreign to the practice of the early church and the Scripture, in fact Tim has shown that the opposite was the teaching. So therefore they are easy to cite when compared to the teaching of Scripture and the early church. Apostasy doesn’t come out and say here I am, I m letting everyone know now that we are changing the biblical gospel and the practices of the early church. Jim, you do realize the antichrist is a man who puts himself up in the church as God. If he is in the church, it it wasn’t obvious. But the advantage we have over the early church fathers who worried they would not notice it, is we can look back and see clearly, not as in a mirror. Thanks for the well wishes Jim. God bless.
Hi Jim, I read today Schaff cited that 7 Popes believed Mary was conceived in sin, Leo 1, Gregory 2, Innocent 3, Gelasius 1, Innocent 5, John xxii, Clement 6. Do you agree with these Popes? Thanks Kevin
Tim and Jim wrote:
Jim, I am not clear on your intent in providing this citation. I didn’t use that quote in this blog entry, so I am not clear what you mean when you say, “Here is that quote you think proves your case;”
Can you clarify?
Thanks,
Tim
Reply
Jim
December 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Tim,
Is there something i am missing? Haven’t you been posting quotes by the Fathers about defects in Mary?
—————
Tim, is it not clear by now that Jim posts things that unfortunately have zero to do with the defense of his position. I just read his posts today from Southeast Asia as it is Sunday morning here. It gives me a stomach ache to wake up, read his commentaries, and realize that he could care less what you are saying…only hoping to twist and turn and play to his peanut gallery on this blog. I hope my turned stomach will improve soon!
Tim wrote:
”
Jim,
When I looked up the Sepulchre of the 18 martyrs, all I could find was this:
“Colonia Caesaraugusta. (in Tarraconensis; modern Saragossa;) … Eighteen martyrs (at least fourteen known by name) are commemorated in a basilica of the late Fourth Century”…”
I don’t understand how its existence disproves my contention that Roman Catholicism and her particular doctrines came into existence in the late 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim”
Just when I thought I was getting better this morning, Jim says Tim is playing cat and mouse, but fails to understand that due to his self admitted claim he does not really ever read the blog of Tim, is it any wonder he continues to reach the same conclusion while ignoring the evidence provided by Tim.
While Bob makes it clear above he really remains a Methodist as that is where his family and friends are located, I remember my dad saying the same thing while he was nearing his death. He made it clear that he was never going to leave the Romish church as it did not matter what the Scriptures said or taught as for him it was a sense of comfort and community since he left Notre Dame. The whole system of gambling each Sunday on sports, and all his Romish friends who loved to gamble each Saturday and Sunday was the sense of community he wanted. Morning mass on Sundays, or if it was a big sports day on Sunday going to Saturday mass, was the key to his salvation. As long as he took communion he was going to heaven.
So very very sad. Bob gives a great testimony why he remains a Methodist and Jim obviously stays a Catholic because he is unable to comprehend the evidence using basic reading skills, and he is so deep in the religion that nothing would pull him away. It is so sad to watch his commentary knowing he just ignores 99% of what Tim documents with evidence, and just sits back pounding on the keyboard to prove this or that.
Jim,
By the way, in another post on this blog Tim put a list together of the questions he is working on answering from several who have posted here. You are on the list of questions he is working on to answer for you. I forget where this is located in his blog, but I feel so saddened knowing that even if Tim does respond you will fail to read it, and likely as the same question over and over in the future showing such disrespect for all the work going into these answers for you.
Tim,
You, a Calvinist, are a big fan of the fathers, right?
Look what I found;
“…Campion mentions John Calvin’s dislike of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 A.D.). Calvin’s position, essentially, was that Ignatius’ epistles were too Catholic to be authentic. In fairness, some of the letters presented as being from Ignatian were forgeries. Calvin threw out the whole Ignatian corpus:
Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration.”
Cool huh?
Thank you, Jim. I mentioned Calvin’s view on Ignatius in Eating Ignatius last year.
Enjoy.
Tim
Tim,
You are to be commended.
Did you mention any of the other juicy morsels found in this yummy article?
http://shamelesspopery.com/reason-5-to-reject-the-reformation-the-church-fathers/
I’m the farthest you can be from a Catholic apologist and still be called a decent protestant but what you have written here–what you have Proclaimed is that you are essentially a Prophet
So lil ole you are now bold and proud enough to name the “Man of Sin”? Is that how important you are to the God’s Church now? So sure of yourself that you’re not at all worried about the warnings about being a false prophet–or blasphemy against God’s Spirit? So sure you’re not the false Accuser here?
All I can say is just how many bad decisions does one have make in a row before he starts thinking he has the right to name the Man of Sin personally?
Wow. This kind of wannabe apostleship rampant on the internet, where everyone and their mother is an apostle boasting as if they’ve spoken God personally and he gave them the OK to make biblical proclaimations is disgusting.
John,
Thank you for your comment.
Let’s assume for the sake of conversation that I have made a series of bad decisions and I am indeed as bold and proud as you say I am, and as a wannabe apostle I have concluded that God has spoken to me personally and given me His ok to make biblical proclamations. I’m willing to stipulate all of that solely for the sake of conversation.
Now, having so stipulated, on what basis do you condemn me for it?
Thank you again for your contribution here.
Tim
Isnt the same irenaeus who said that all churches need to agree with the church of rome? I guess that doesnt fit protestant theory of church history
As you surely must know, there’s more to the story than you have said. Not only did Irenæus himself disagree with Rome…
…but Irenæus also lauded other men who disagreed with Rome…
That definitely doesn’t fit the Roman Catholic view of church history.
Besides, the section of Against Heresies that you think you’re quoting (III.3.2) is not available in Irenæus’s native greek, and comes down to us from a “barbarous” latin translation that scholars know very well to be inaccurate. Enjoy your studies.
“That definitely doesn’t fit the Roman Catholic view of church history.”
Sure it does. It just doesn’t fit the Protestant view of what they think the papacy should be. You are straw manning.
Mark, this is an excellent opportunity for you to address the matter at hand. romasliv said Irenæus’ belief that “all churches need to agree with the church of rome” doesn’t fit protestant theory of church history. Since you are against straw man arguments, why don’t you provide a viable Roman Catholic theory of Church history that can reconcile the barbarous latin of Against Heresies III.3.2 with other more reliable evidence from Irenæaus that suggests he did not believe what the barbarous latin appears to imply?
Thank you in advance for your insights.
Spurgeon” of all the dreams that ever deluded men, and probably all the blasphemoes that were ever uttered, there has never been one which is more absurd and which is more fruitful for all manner of mischief, then the idea that the Bishop of Rome can be the head of the church of Jesus Christ. No, these popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead? The true head lives, and the church ever lives in Him”
” it just doesn’t fit the Protestant view of church history” It seems to me the Protestant view of the Papacy is in line with Iranaeus in his disagreeing with the bishop of Rome too .Protestants disagree with the bishop of Rome on many things also. Iranaeus seems to provide great history for the reformers/Protestants in that he did not hesitate to disagree with the ” Pope” when it was right to do so. The reformers did the same. ” what it really doesnt fit is the Roman Catholic view of history. Barbourous translation of a historical document, who would ever think Roman Catholicism would accept that. K