Critics of Roman Catholicism's Mariology often point out that,
notwithstanding Rome's claims that the Immaculate Conception (dogmatised in
1854) and Bodily Assumption (1950) were "apostolic traditions,"
history and Scripture prove otherwise. On the Immaculate Conception, see, for
example:
This can be seen with crystal-clear clarity in an exchange that took
place on Robert
Sungenis’ facebook page. A Catholic asked Sungenis the following question:
Dr. Robert Sungenis
I was hoping you could respond to this
being that it is the day we celebrate the solemnity of the immaculate
conception.
There were three early views concerning
Mary’s condition in the patristic period:
1) Mary sinned at times
• This view forfeits an immaculate
conception
• Those teaching this doctrine include
Tertullian, Irenaeus, Basil, John Chrysostom, Origen, Justin Martyr, and Cyril
of Alexandria
2) Mary was purified from sin around the
time of the birth of Christ
• This is not an immaculate conception
• This view was held by such fathers as
Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem (who wrote the Catechetical Lectures).
The “Lectures”, Cyril said, contained everything needed for salvation – yet
neither the “immaculate conception” nor the “bodily assumption” of Mary is
mentioned in this extensive writing.
3) Mary was fully sanctified sometime
while in her mother’s womb, though not at the first instance of conception.
• This is not an immaculate conception
• This view was embraced by the likes of
Augustine and Ambrose, who affirmed that only Christ was conceived without the
stain of original sin.
All of these views are contrary to the
modern Roman claim that Mary was preserved from any stain of original sin in
the first instance of conception, never contracting it in the first place.
As I have said before, this doctrine was
first introduced to the Church in the 5th century by heretics, at which time it
was universally rejected by the Church. According to Ludwig Ott, it was not
re-introduced to the church until the 12th century, when it continued to be
rejected by the leading theologians of the 12th and 13th centuries – such as
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Petrus Lombardus, St. Alexander of Hales, St.
Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Roman Catholic historian Juniper Carol
admits, “Theologically, we must face up to an evolution. From the extant
philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her
Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the
patristic West” (Mariology, vol. I, p. 147).
This is a direct denial to the claim of
Pope Pius IX who stated that this teaching “always existed in the Church as a
doctrine that has been received from our ancestors”.
And, even worse, church historian Phillip
Schaff has identified at least 7 different popes who rejected the idea that
Mary was born free of original sin: Leo I, Gelasius I, Gregory I, Innocent III,
Innocent V, John XXII, and Clement VI.
Let me know if you would like the quotes
from these popes. The question is, though, how can one “infallible” pope make a
declaration that was rejected by previous “infallible” popes?
In any event, the teaching of the
Immaculate Conception of Mary cannot be supported by Church tradition.
Sungenis’ response to the following (excellent) query reveals that there
is indeed no biblical or apostolic tradition supporting the Immaculate
Conception; while one appreciates Sungenis’ honesty and integrity, it does show
the problematic nature of Rome’s claims that such a dogma is apostolic in
origin:
Myles, the real question here is: does the
Church have the authority to declare something as dogma that is not taught in
Scripture (but certainly not denied in Scripture) and has scant and/or
polemical testimony in the tradition? The answer is yes. That answer was given
at the first council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. The apostles and bishops
were arguing about whether the Gentiles should be circumcised. Scripture gave
no help. In fact, it would seem that Scripture in the OT would be in favor of
circumcision. Tradition gave little help, since the issue was never brought up
before. Even the apostles were arguing with one another, yet the apostles were
supposed to be the originators, after Jesus, of church doctrine. So, in the
end, there really is no precedent to rescind circumcision. But that is what
Peter does, as the first pope, and the doctrine has never changed since, and it
won’t change. I use this as the basis to argue for the doctrine of The
Assumption of Mary in my debate against James White.
You’ll find that the same is true with a
number of doctrines. The doctrine of the Eucharist, for example, had evolved
over time. All the Fathers knew there was a change from the bread and wine to
some kind of presence of Jesus, but they had many different concepts about how
that change occurred. The eastern church had about a half dozen different words
from various Fathers it used to describe the change, and the Latin church had
at least three, but no one had thought of “transubstantiation” until the
Lateran Council of 1215, which was when the Church finally dogmatized it. The
Church was forced into this decision because Berengarius had protested the Real
Presence (and he was allowed to do so because they Church had not settled the
issue prior to Berengarius). So, one of the Church’s most important doctrines,
wasn’t settled until 1200 years after Christ. (See my book Not By Bread Alone
for the details on this history and the various words used by East and West to
describe the Eucharist prior to 1215).
The same was true with the Canon of
Scripture. The Fathers debated the canon for quite a while. And although the
Church ended up with the same canon that was finally proposed in 382 at the
Council of Rome, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that the canon
was infallibly dogmatized and no more discussion on it was allowed. Prior to
that there were a few debates, one of them being from Cardinal Cajetan who,
like Luther, wanted to eject the OT apocrapha and seven books in the NT. He was
allowed to reject these books without ecclesiastical discipline since the
Church had not yet made an infallible decision on the canon. But once the
Church made its final decision in 1563, no more debate was allowed.
So the same is true with the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception. Like the issue of the Eucharist, there were many
ideas floating around both in the patristics and the medieval period, but most
of the Fathers and medievals knew that something was different about Mary in
regard to sin. Like the issue of circumcision, there was no Scripture to
consult and very little tradition. Like the canon issue, debates were allowed
right up until the Church dogmatized the canon.
As such, this is when the pope has to step
in and make the final decision, just as Peter did in Acts 15 with the issue of
circumcision.
