Sunday, April 23, 2017

Robert Sungenis on the Immaculate Conception

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.