Another Question For Protestants

[Le_Cracquere]

MariaG:

…the implication for Catholic Christians is not that it is disrespectful of Mary to deny the Immaculate Conception, but it belittles the Holiness of Christ to deny it. Not saying that is what You mean, but that is the implication to Catholic Christians.

Fair enough. However, even the most ardent Catholics concede that Christ, the Holy One and Saviour, at least had sinful grandparents, no? If that doesn’t belittle Him, and no Christian I know of believes it would, why would original sin in Mary do so?

MariaG:

It all comes back to Christ, not Mary.

Amen to that. I think every serious Catholic would assent to that proposition, but they dislike seeming to cede ground to Protestantism. As a result, too many Ps acquire the mistaken idea that for Cs, it doesn’t come down to Christ at all. And the fear of ceding ground to Catholicism sometimes leads Protestants to refute the IC and other ideas about Mary in a manner that one oughtn’t tolerate with reference to anyone’s mother, much less Christ’s. The debate is worth pursuing, but the battle lines have been drawn in a most unfortunate way.

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Le Cracquere

Fair enough. However, even the most ardent Catholics concede that Christ, the Holy One and Saviour, at least had sinful grandparents, no? If that doesn’t belittle Him, and no Christian I know of believes it would, why would original sin in Mary do so?

Mary carried Christ in her body. The grandparents did not.

I can give some very emotional reasons that resonate with me, but I will give Biblical ones instead.

The Ark of the Covenant: Men who carried it had to be sanctified. One man who accidently stumbled and fell and touched it, was struck dead. The Ark carried the Word of God. Mary, carried the Word. Mary had to be sanctified in order to carry Christ in her womb.

Scripture Catholic has many, many more scriptures listed.

Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Amen to that. I think every serious Catholic would assent to that proposition, but they dislike seeming to cede ground to Protestantism. As a result, too many Ps acquire the mistaken idea that for Cs, it doesn’t come down to Christ at all. And the fear of ceding ground to Catholicism sometimes leads Protestants to refute the IC and other ideas about Mary in a manner that one oughtn’t tolerate with reference to anyone’s mother, much less Christ’s. The debate is worth pursuing, but the battle lines have been drawn in a most unfortunate way

I think it is more than just battle lines and conceding ground, although I do feel that is a part of it. I think a bigger part is use of the same words, without understanding what each other really means. There is a “cultural” divide that is difficult to overcome. Scott Hahn is one who is able to bridge the divide and explain Catholic beliefs in Protestant words.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Contarini]

All, especially Brian,

I believe the real question, is not why the IC is rejected, but why the Trinity is accepted when it only has the same “proof” as the Immaculate Conception, implicit scripture and Sacred Tradition?

But I’ve addressed this. The evidence is far stronger for the Trinity in every possible way.

For the OP as well as many others, the Immaculate Conception is so clearly scriptural, in the same way the Trinity is scriptural, it is hard to understand that others can not see it so clearly also.

Well, that’s what dialogue is for–learning to understand why people see things the way they do.

It is also hard for many non-Catholic Christians to understand that for Catholic Christians, to tear down Mary and her Immaculate Conception is tearing down Christ and His divinity, because Mary’s IC was not because Mary was special, **but neccessary because of the absolute Holiness of God. To say Mary did not need the Immaculate Conception seems to the Catholic Christian to reduce the Holiness of Christ, to try to make Him less than divine. **

Well, I find it funny to think that St. Thomas Aquinas was making Christ less than divine! Furthermore, others on this thread have argued that the IC is not necessary but rather fitting, and my understanding is that this is the common Catholic teaching. Either you’re being careless with your language, or you are going beyond what your fellow Catholics would affirm.

Just how does the “Absolute Holiness of God” require the Immaculate Conception? Jesus came into a sinful world. That was the point. You can make a case that it was *fitting *that someone as closely connected with the Incarnation as Mary should be preserved from all sin. (My problem with that argument is that it’s way too speculative to rest a dogma on, not that it lacks all probability.) But I don’t see how on earth you can argue that it was necessary. If preservation from contact with sinners was necessary, Jesus’ work of salvation would have been impossible. This is one of those Catholic arguments that to Protestants really does seem to contradict the very essence of the Gospel.

The OP and others (I included) see that the IC is so completely scriptural, as the trinity is, yet both are not clearly spelled out with those words. For Protestants to claim that the Trinity is **clearly **scriptural is to ignore the Jehovah Witness’ and Oneness Pentecostals as well as Mormon who have a completely different definition of the Trinity.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by “clearly.” All it means when I use it is “it seems clear to me.” I don’t try to rest much on that word, so it isn’t worth arguing about (and I’m not sure I’d say the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture anyway).

But you and the OP both miss an important point. Showing that the Trinity and the IC both rest on the same kind of evidence doesn’t show that one is as soundly based as the other. Suppose two scientists both come up with theories that are based on experiments done in the lab. That doesn’t tell you which theory is correct, and it certainly doesn’t require you to accept or reject both theories together. Implicit argument from Scripture backed up by Christian tradition and rational extrapolation is a method. The fact that defenders of both doctrines employ the same method tells us nothing about their truth or falsehood, except that neither is as certain as a doctrine explicitly taught in Scripture and clear to all (such as that there is one God, or that Jesus is the Son of God), and both have more credibility than a doctrine with no implicit support from Scripture, etc.

**

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.**

These are allegorical arguments. It is a basic principle of Christian exegesis (accepted by the later Fathers and all the medieval theologians of whom I’m aware) that you can’t base a doctrine on allegory (and Henri de Lubac argued to my satisfaction that there’s no meaningful distinction between typology and allegory). You can only use allegory for devotional purposes, not to prove doctrines.

**Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

**

This doesn’t say anything about the Immaculate Conception.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Erich:

I don’t think it “somehow” assumes anything… there’s a lot we already know just from Freshman Bio. For example, there are plenty of diseases, drug addictions, noxious influences, etc. that can be transmitted across the placenta to a developing fetus, or via breast milk to a newborn infant.

Couldn’t original sin work the same way?

But this is where you get the “infinite regress.” If God could cause immaculate Mary to be born from sinful parents, God could cause a sinless Christ to be born from a holy woman who was conceived with the same sinful nature the rest of us are.

Edwin

 

[Veritas41]

Le Cracquere:

What puzzles me about IC is the infinite regress it implies. If it was somehow necessary or fitting that Christ be born of a sinless vessel, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that a being as naturally wonderful and sinless as Mary ought, herself, to have been born of a sinless vessel? "

No, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception doesn’t require infinite regress. The formal definition of the dogma goes as follows: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” Mary was infused with sanctifying grace by a sovereign act of God at the moment of her conception. It wasn’t necessary for her mother to have been free from original sin herself in order for Mary to be created without original sin. In God’s plan of redemption, it was necessary only for Mary to be created without original sin. At the Fall there was a man (Adam), a woman (Eve) and an angel (fallen–Satan). In Catholic teaching, the Redemption began at the *incarnation, *when Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary, and was finished at the Cross. Thus, at the Redemption, we have a man (Jesus), a woman (Mary) and an angel (Gabriel, at the Annunciation). The first three sinned, the second three didn’t. Mary wouldn’t quite fit into the picture of redemption if she herself were a sinner.

 

[Contarini]

Tigerhawk:

While I know you do not acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church, regardless, the Church has stated infallibly that Mary the Mother of God was immaculately conceived. Therefore, it is the Truth. The basis for the dogma in scripture and tradition has been well established here and weight behind the argument is considerable.

But to a non-Catholic you need to make the point, not simply assume it.

However, I don’t think it is accurate to say the argument doesn’t have a lot of weight behind it.

I don’t think the argument does. The argument and the doctrine are not the same thing. As I see it, popular piety led to the definition in the 1850s. That isn’t a put-down–I think that centuries of devotion to the Mother of God may be a better way of discerning the Truth than abstract argument. (In the same way, as a Protestant I’m a lot more committed to preserving the *experience *behind justification by faith than I am to any particular formulation.)

While you may not agree that the church is infallible, you must acknowledge that the Church takes it very seriously and would not have done so if the argument was as speculative and light as you claim.

I’m not sure about that. Your tendency to define things too lightly is one of the main things keeping Catholics and Protestants apart.

I do take the judgment of the Roman Communion very seriously. That’s the only reason why I give the IC any time at all. But I understand something about Scotus and how his theology proceeded, and I think it was usually wrong-headed. Scotus was brilliant (perhaps the most brilliant of all the scholastics–he was probably smarter even than Aquinas but a lot less sane and balanced), but that doesn’t make his methodology a good one.

However, as I said, I don’t think Scotus’s argument is the primary reason the doctrine was defined. Scotus helped put the Franciscans solidly on the side of the IC, and the Franciscans did a lot to shape late medieval piety, and hence all later Catholicism. Centuries of Catholic piety are weighty–far more so than a speculative argument based on what is “fitting.”

I said that a problem is not a prerequiste for the Truth. I didn’t say dotrinal definition. My point was and is that the Truth is the Truth. Whether a dogma was defined in the first century or last week they are both equally true. The age of every dogma is eternal as they are statements of the Truth which is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Fine, but that’s begging the question. Obviously Protestants and Orthodox don’t think the IC is the Truth. And, more to the point, lots of things are believed without being defined as dogmas (actually I think some would argue that the Orthodox do implicitly believe in the IC but don’t define it–that of course depends on how you define the IC with regard to original sin).

If we were talking about piety and liturgy–which are the primary expressions of the Truth–then you would have a stronger point. I.e., if I were challenging the inclusion of the IC in the Divine Praises (I did question this when my Anglican rector used them, I admit!), then saying “what problem does the IC solve” would be less than relevant.

But we are specifically talking about a defined dogma, so the point is relevant.

I also disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception along with the other Marian doctrines are unnecessary.

But we aren’t talking about the other Marian doctrines. The IC wasn’t defined at the time of the Reformation. The Council of Trent very deliberately backed away from repeating the definition of the schismatic Council of Basle. The IC was defined in the 19th century, as a response to popular piety and (most problematic from my perspective) as an affirmation of a resurgent Catholicism based on a more radical doctrine of papal authority than had previously been generally accepted.

Do you deny that there is a wide gulf between the Catholic understanding of the position and role of Mary and the understanding of most protestants? Given the Catholic Church’s veneration of the Blessed Virgin it is necessary that the Church defend her. Therefore, the Marian doctrines are far from unnecessary.

Again, this begs the question. Asserting unnecessary or even false things about the Virgin is a strange way of defending her.

However, I see your point that the Marian doctrines are points of controversy just as the Real Presence is. One can argue that the IC is just a further definition of the Virgin’s holiness, which is a point of controversy between Catholics and Protestants historically. But I think that the history of the definition works against this argument. The IC rode the wave of a resurgent Marian piety rather than addressing a real controversy. I continue to think that the Council of Trent was wiser on this one.

Edwin

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by Contarini

But I’ve addressed this. The evidence is far stronger for the Trinity in every possible way.

Hi Edwin,

But Brian apparently has not even read the scripture Catholics attribute to the Immaculate Conception.

And while you feel the evidence is stronger for the Trinity, others would disagree completely with the evidence of the Trinity at all from Scripture. (JW, Oneness, Islam, etc.)

You disagree with the implicit evidence for the Immaculate Conception, yet there is scriptural evidence for it. So for the Catholic view, it seems hypocritical to accept the Trinity yet reject the Immaculate Conception when both, from the Catholic interpretation are equally and strongly implicit in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. It seems like one can pick and choose which Traditions one chooses to believe.

Well, that’s what dialogue is for–learning to understand why people see things the way they do.

:yup:

Well, I find it funny to think that St. Thomas Aquinas was making Christ less than divine! Furthermore, others on this thread have argued that the IC is not necessary but rather fitting, and my understanding is that this is the common Catholic teaching. Either you’re being careless with your language, or you are going beyond what your fellow Catholics would affirm.

Early writings of Augustine would seem to imply that he did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ but that does not mean it was ever a teaching of the Catholic Church.

As for whether or not it was necessary or fitting, I think that goes into was it “necessary” for Christ to die for us? No, and Yes. God could have chosen for us to be saved any way He wanted, but He chose and had His prophets tell us how it would be done.

Am I going too far by saying it was necessary? Actually, I don’t know the “Catholic Answer” to that. But my understanding, (which can be faulty ) is that in foreshadowing of Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it was necessary for Mary to be Immaculate, just as God required those who would touch the Ark to be sanctified.

Just how does the “Absolute Holiness of God” require the Immaculate Conception? Jesus came into a sinful world. That was the point. You can make a case that it was *fitting *that someone as closely connected with the Incarnation as Mary should be preserved from all sin. (My problem with that argument is that it’s way too speculative to rest a dogma on, not that it lacks all probability.) But I don’t see how on earth you can argue that it was necessary. If preservation from contact with sinners was necessary, Jesus’ work of salvation would have been impossible. This is one of those Catholic arguments that to Protestants really does seem to contradict the very essence of the Gospel.

The necessary part refers back to the foreshadowing.

I found this article
Ark of the new covenant

from CA Library
We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

So it was necessary for Mary to be sinless for Scripture to be 100% true, not just fitting, but necessary according to my understanding.

(Continued)

 

[MariaG]

(continued)

origninally posted by Contarini
Well, it all depends on what you mean by “clearly.” All it means when I use it is “it seems clear to me.” I don’t try to rest much on that word, so it isn’t worth arguing about (and I’m not sure I’d say the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture anyway).

But you and the OP both miss an important point. Showing that the Trinity and the IC both rest on the same kind of evidence doesn’t show that one is as soundly based as the other. Suppose two scientists both come up with theories that are based on experiments done in the lab. That doesn’t tell you which theory is correct, and it certainly doesn’t require you to accept or reject both theories together. Implicit argument from Scripture backed up by Christian tradition and rational extrapolation is a method. The fact that defenders of both doctrines employ the same method tells us nothing about their truth or falsehood, except that neither is as certain as a doctrine explicitly taught in Scripture and clear to all (such as that there is one God, or that Jesus is the Son of God), and both have more credibility than a doctrine with no implicit support from Scripture, etc.

Ah, then we get into, okay, well whose interpretation of Scripture do I believe? Another thread although an interesting one.

These are allegorical arguments. It is a basic principle of Christian exegesis (accepted by the later Fathers and all the medieval theologians of whom I’m aware) that you can’t base a doctrine on allegory (and Henri de Lubac argued to my satisfaction that there’s no meaningful distinction between typology and allegory). You can only use allegory for devotional purposes, not to prove doctrines.

But the Catholic point is that if you wish to say the scripture about the IC is only allegorical, so is the Trinity. Why is one Sacred Tradition accepted and one rejected by most Protestants.

Which comes back to the question, of why the double standard for which Sacred Tradition will be accepted and which will be rejected?

We can see from the JW’s and such that the Trinity is only “clear” in scripture when the Holy Spirit reveals it to people. The agrument for the Trinity is in Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

Hence the pointing out of hypocrisy from Catholics to those who try to say the Trinity is from Scripture alone. I do believe you said that it does rest also on Tradition? But the question is why can you accept one Tradition and not the other and how do you know you are right? (Where is the all truth? oops, also another thread )

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
**
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.**

refering specifically to Luke 1:43/ 2Sam6:16 originally posted by Contarini

This doesn’t say anything about the Immaculate Conception.

It is using the exact same language about Mary as David used with the Ark. Along with the many other verses found on Scripture Catholic along with the few posted here, they do in fact show a case for the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Using implicit Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

But probably need to be discussed at length on another thread since the specifics of this were not the intent of the Op but the question of why one Sacred Tradition is accepted yet the other rejected when both have only implicit Scripture to go along with that Sacred Tradition.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[BrianH]

MariaG:

Hi Edwin,

But Brian apparently has not even read the scripture Catholics attribute to the Immaculate Conception.

What have I said that would make you think that?

I said this;

"The Immaculate Conception is not even hinted at in scripture except for one phrase…“full of grace” Luke 1:28 of which the meaning of is greatly debated(of course Catholics disagree thus the whole second Eve…Ark of Covenant argument). It is also a later developing Christian tradition based upon my reserach."

This clearly shows that I am familiar with your guys theology…how many non-Catholics even know about the second Eve and Ark of Covenant Catholic argument?

I said this in response to if i have read Mr. Hahns book:

"Nope have not read it. I have read the Bible enough to know that many people will see all manners of foreshadowing and ignore everything else around it."

This is laughable:
“Brian apparently has not even read the scripture”

There is no way I can say this without sounding prideful Maria…so get my drift…I have read the whole book…a lot. That is precisly why I do not believe the Immaculate Conception is there
I understand your argument. I do not agree with it.
Thanks
Respectfully
Brian

 

[Contarini]

MariaG:

Hi Edwin,

But Brian apparently has not even read the scripture Catholics attribute to the Immaculate Conception.

And while you feel the evidence is stronger for the Trinity, others would disagree completely with the evidence of the Trinity at all from Scripture. (JW, Oneness, Islam, etc.)

None of those people believe in the Immaculate Conception either (OK, in Islam there’s no idea of original sin, so there’s no analogy). I don’t know of anyone who thinks that the Biblical evidence is stronger for the IC than for the Trinity. I think that would be a truly bizarre opinion.

Furthermore, you can’t refute an opinion by simply pointing out that people disagree. That’s a silly relativistic dodge–common in our society, but Catholics should know better. (It’s no different than the claim “no one religion can be true because many religions claim to be.”)

You disagree with the implicit evidence for the Immaculate Conception, yet there is scriptural evidence for it. So for the Catholic view, it seems hypocritical to accept the Trinity yet reject the Immaculate Conception when both, from the Catholic interpretation are equally and strongly implicit in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. It seems like one can pick and choose which Traditions one chooses to believe.

This makes no sense at all. The fact that you can make this argument just shows how much people in our society have lost any conception of what a sound argument is. You’re saying that it’s somehow “hypocritical” to accept evidence one finds convincing and reject evidence one doesn’t? That’s the weirdest definition of hypocrisy I’ve ever heard of.

Very few Catholics would make a silly argument like this. You have no right to claim that Catholics as a whole are behind this nonsense.

Of course we pick and choose what to believe. Everyone does it. Catholics do it. You choose to accept the authority of the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church.

The problem with this whole line of argument is that certain Catholic apologists are trying to get around the necessity for having a real argument at all. So you try to come up with some methodological short-cut that will excuse you from actually examining the evidence. This is (thank God) not typical of Catholicism as a whole. But it’s all too typical of “internet apologetics.”

Please understand that I’m not attacking Catholicism or even the IC. I’m attacking this particular invalid and rather insulting line of argument, which suggests that examining two similar arguments and accepting one while rejecting the other is somehow “hypocritical” (even if one can give reasons why one is valid and the other isn’t).

Early writings of Augustine would seem to imply that he did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ but that does not mean it was ever a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Well, that’s another example of the kind of contorted thinking that overly orthodox Catholicism falls into. Augustine clearly did not think of the Real Presence in quite the same way post-Tridentine (or even post-Lateran IV) Catholics do. However, one can certainly argue that he didn’t reject the Real Presence in the “metabolic” (i.e., somewhat undefined version of transubstantiation) sense, because St. Anselm clearly spoke of the Eucharist in a metabolic sense and Augustine never suggests that Anselm was in error. Indeed, my (Methodist) advisor David Steinmetz says that there are passages where Augustine speaks in a metabolic way as well. I don’t think I’ve come across those passages myself, but Steinmetz knows what he is talking about.

What the example of Augustine does show is that there was a broad range of patristic explanations of the Real Presence, including some more characteristic of Protestantism today and others that more closely resemble the Catholic/Orthodox view. The fact that your dogmatic commitments make that hard for you to recognize (though more liberal Catholics like Gary Macy have no problem with it) is a problem with your understanding of Catholicism, and it gives the lie to the claim that your faith is fully in accord with that of the Fathers.

 

[Contarini]

As for whether or not it was necessary or fitting, I think that goes into was it “necessary” for Christ to die for us? No, and Yes. God could have chosen for us to be saved any way He wanted, but He chose and had His prophets tell us how it would be done.

Exactly. I have no problem with the fact that Catholics believe that God has revealed to the Church that Mary was immaculately conceived. If I believed in papal infallibility or if I accepted the *sensus fidelium *of the Roman Communion as uniquely valid (in contrast to the *sensus fidelium *of Protestants and Orthodox), I’d accept the IC as well. And *then *“fittingness” arguments would have their place. But such arguments have no force in the absence of special revelation revealing that God *has *done what our arguments indicate would be fitting. I believe in Christ’s atoning death not primarily because of arguments showing that it was “fitting” but because of the positive, specific testimony of the apostles that Christ *did *die for our sins.

So it was necessary for Mary to be sinless for Scripture to be 100% true,

But as I said, the Ark of the Covenant argument has no probative force, and I don’t think good Catholic theologians would say that it does. It’s a fine argument to show, after the fact, that the idea has foreshadowings in Scripture. But it’s not the primary reason to accept it.

                           from CA Library

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

This, like the “kecharitomene” argument, simply isn’t convincing to me. It doesn’t say “complete enmity.” It simply says “enmity.” There’s no reasonable way to get a necessary inference of the Immaculate Conception from this.

Again, I have no problem with the idea that the Catholic Church looks back to these passages as pointing toward the Immaculate Conception. But they are not enough on their own to establish it.

quote=MariaG
Ah, then we get into, okay, well whose interpretation of Scripture do I believe?
[/quote]

And I think that this is another example of the way Catholic apologists have appropriated a cynical despair about substantive theological inquiry in order to validate an unthinking submission to external authority. (Again, I say “Catholic apologists” not “Catholics” in general or “Catholic theologians.”)

But the Catholic point is that if you wish to say the scripture about the IC is only allegorical, so is the Trinity.

No, that is not the Catholic point. Indeed, I think you’re skirting close to heresy here. There are allegorical Scriptural arguments for the Trinity (just about anything in the Bible that comes in threes). And I’m sure that if we looked at the literature of the Arian controversy we could find plenty of spurious linguistic arguments for the Trinity along the lines of the “complete enmity” and “kecharitomene” arguments. But the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on arguments of this type. I’ve sketched the Biblical case for the Trinity in my post #23. It doesn’t depend either on allegory or on overstretched grammar. (But for the record, my faith in the Trinity does not rest on Scripture alone. I do not believe in “sola scriptura” in any but a highly modified sense, which we could indeed discuss in another thread!)

Why is one Sacred Tradition accepted and one rejected by most Protestants.

And I keep repeating this–because there is stronger reason for the one than for the other. I’ve been specific about what those reasons are. You keep repeating the “double standard” charge like a broken record. But it has no force until you can convince me that the Biblical *and *traditional *and *rational evidence for the Trinity is as weak as that for the IC.

and how do you know you are right?

Why do I need to?

(Where is the all truth?

Still in progress.

Edwin

 

[seabird3579]

I do wonder why some have such trouble believing that God would create Mary sinless if He desired to. After all, he created Adam and Eve sinless, and that is never agrued like Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

I do think it has everything to do with a “cultural divide” and not the fact that it is undoubtly true and completely supported by Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church.

To this Day, Our Lady of Lourdes (who first announced to Saint Bernadette – “I am the Immaculate Conception”) leaves behind a miraculous spring in France, as a reminder of her visit.

Pray the Lord to soften your heart, that you may hear what the Spirit is saying regarding the Mother of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus.

 

[tdandh26]

I think we need to use common sense and an understanding of the old testament. In the old testament anything and everything that was consecrated to God was holy and without blemish, beautiful, etc. Thus,
Gods mercy and love are the wonder of wonders. It is this mercy and love which drew forth the Son from His eternal dwelling in the Father, to this sinful world, that He might redeem that which had fallen. God, in His divine nature is incorruptible and therefore incapable of being touched by sin. It was for this reason that the Eternal Wisdom created a vessel through which His incorruptible nature could take on human flesh. This vessel itself had to be free from all sin, for if even the slightest hint of sin was in her, the moment the divine nature entered into her she would have died. For inevitably that all powerful incorrupt nature would have, by its very essence, repelled sin with such force as to destroy the vessel which contained sin. For this very reason God created the Immaculate Conception. Thus at her proper age the son of the most High entered into her through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through her He took on flesh, so as to be able to take on the sins of the world, from beginning to end, and suffer Himself as payment for those sins.
We honor the most perfect of Gods creation, through whom our salvation came into the world. In paying honor to her we give God the greatest glory. For what human does not enjoy it when someone recognizes the great achievements he has done or made.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

But to a non-Catholic you need to make the point, not simply assume it.

I am not trying to convince you of the validity of doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. So I assume nothing. I stated the fact. You can choose to do what you want with it. In this case, you reject that it is a fact. That is your choice.

Contarini:

I don’t think the argument does. The argument and the doctrine are not the same thing. As I see it, popular piety led to the definition in the 1850s. That isn’t a put-down–I think that centuries of devotion to the Mother of God may be a better way of discerning the Truth than abstract argument. (In the same way, as a Protestant I’m a lot more committed to preserving the *experience *behind justification by faith than I am to any particular formulation.)

There is much more behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception than just popular piety. You are probably familiar with more of the arguments supporting the Immaculate Conception than I am. Therefore, I believe it is a little disingenous on your part to characterize it the way you have. I apologize I am not trying to offend, but that is the way it appears to me.

Contarini:

I’m not sure about that. Your tendency to define things too lightly is one of the main things keeping Catholics and Protestants apart.

I do take the judgment of the Roman Communion very seriously. That’s the only reason why I give the IC any time at all. But I understand something about Scotus and how his theology proceeded, and I think it was usually wrong-headed. Scotus was brilliant (perhaps the most brilliant of all the scholastics–he was probably smarter even than Aquinas but a lot less sane and balanced), but that doesn’t make his methodology a good one.

However, as I said, I don’t think Scotus’s argument is the primary reason the doctrine was defined. Scotus helped put the Franciscans solidly on the side of the IC, and the Franciscans did a lot to shape late medieval piety, and hence all later Catholicism. Centuries of Catholic piety are weighty–far more so than a speculative argument based on what is “fitting.”

I am not trying to put words in your mouth or deliberately twist your argument to win a debate. I am only interested in the Truth. But…

It seems to me that you have some sort of points system. X number of points per biblical reference that I agree with. X number of points for how many years ago the doctrine was defined. X number of points based on my opinion of the first theologian who is documented in connection with the doctrine. Etc.

Something is either the Truth or it isn’t. There is no minimum score for the Truth. The mental health of Scotus, the year the doctrine was defined, the number of Biblical passages relative to other doctrines and our opinions on the matter do not define the Truth.

Again I apologize, but I find statements like “Your tendency to define things too lightly”, to be highly offensive. The Church does not take its authority lightly. The Church has historically moved very slowly and deliberately. Many would argue too slowly and too deliberately too often. The Church you describe taking doctrine lightly is not the Catholic Church.

Apparently, we are far too long winded. I have to break this into two.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Part Two

Contarini:

Fine, but that’s begging the question. Obviously Protestants and Orthodox don’t think the IC is the Truth. And, more to the point, lots of things are believed without being defined as dogmas (actually I think some would argue that the Orthodox do implicitly believe in the IC but don’t define it–that of course depends on how you define the IC with regard to original sin).

And Roman Catholics do. Another attribute of the Truth is that it is not subject to a popular vote. (That reads a little snippy. I don’t mean to be.) If everyone sees something the same way (or is at least not in contradiction to the Truth) there is no need to define a dogma. This is obviously not the case with the Immaculate Conception.

Contarini:

If we were talking about piety and liturgy–which are the primary expressions of the Truth–then you would have a stronger point. I.e., if I were challenging the inclusion of the IC in the Divine Praises (I did question this when my Anglican rector used them, I admit!), then saying “what problem does the IC solve” would be less than relevant.

But we are specifically talking about a defined dogma, so the point is relevant.

But, the problem being solved wasn’t the problem you stated which was that Mary must have been immaculate or somehow Jesus would have been tainted.

Contarini:

But we aren’t talking about the other Marian doctrines. The IC wasn’t defined at the time of the Reformation. The Council of Trent very deliberately backed away from repeating the definition of the schismatic Council of Basle. The IC was defined in the 19th century, as a response to popular piety and (most problematic from my perspective) as an affirmation of a resurgent Catholicism based on a more radical doctrine of papal authority than had previously been generally accepted.

The misunderstanding of Mary’s role and position did not end after the Council of Trent. There are Protestants to this day that believe Mary isn’t all that significant.

The “radical doctrine of papal authority” is again simply the Truth. (As before, this is a statement. No assumptions, you can accept or reject it.)

Contarini:

Again, this begs the question. Asserting unnecessary or even false things about the Virgin is a strange way of defending her.

However, I see your point that the Marian doctrines are points of controversy just as the Real Presence is. One can argue that the IC is just a further definition of the Virgin’s holiness, which is a point of controversy between Catholics and Protestants historically. But I think that the history of the definition works against this argument. The IC rode the wave of a resurgent Marian piety rather than addressing a real controversy. I continue to think that the Council of Trent was wiser on this one.

Edwin

And yet again, I apologize, but the argument that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined primarily to satisfy a “resurgent Marian piety” is ridiculous. And the fact that it causes such a stir, discounts the notion that it was unnecessary.

However, I assume, you do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus spoke of in the Gospel. The Church he gifted with the Holy Spirit to lead it into all Truth, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail and led by the Successor of Peter to whom the Key was given.

Your cynical view of the Church is therefore understandable.

I don’t know if either of us will make much sense to other so I will thank you for your time.

God Bless

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

Of course we pick and choose what to believe. Everyone does it. Catholics do it. You choose to accept the authority of the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church.

This statement really gets to the heart of what I have been discussing with you in our thread in a thread.

Yes, I choose to follow the Catholic Church but that is where my picking and choosing ends. I don’t scrutinize every teaching to determine if in my limited, fallible and frequently wrong opinion the teaching is correct. I only try to understand the teaching.

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

There is much more behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception than just popular piety.

I don’t dispute that. But I think it was popular piety that led the doctrine to triumph. This is not a put-down, as I said earlier. I have a lot more respect for “popular piety” than you seem to, or than you attribute to me.

You are probably familiar with more of the arguments supporting the Immaculate Conception than I am. Therefore, I believe it is a little disingenous on your part to characterize it the way you have.

I’m not being disingenuous. I’m being as fair as I can be. I know there are other arguments, but I don’t find them convincing. I think the growth of Marian piety seems to be the primary factor. I don’t know why you would accuse me of being “disingenuous.” I’ve made it clear that I am familiar with the arguments, and that I find them lacking. But I understand how a deep piety directed toward the Mother of God would come to find it improper to imagine her tainted with any kind of sin.

It seems to me that you have some sort of points system. X number of points per biblical reference that I agree with. X number of points for how many years ago the doctrine was defined. X number of points based on my opinion of the first theologian who is documented in connection with the doctrine. Etc.

Something is either the Truth or it isn’t. There is no minimum score for the Truth. The mental health of Scotus, the year the doctrine was defined, the number of Biblical passages relative to other doctrines and our opinions on the matter do not define the Truth.

I see your point, but from my perspective you’re confusing the Truth with our knowledge of the Truth. And this is the problem I have with a lot of modern conservative Catholicism. There is a deep preoccupation with epistemology and a conflation of certainty with Truth. I don’t believe that the existence of the Truth necessarily implies that we have some kind of absolute, infallible knowledge of the Truth. I don’t think the prime object of Christian faith is to give such knowledge. So yes, I think that all our decisions about theological truth or falsehood involve weighing a number of different factors–both purely “intellectual” ones and more subjective, emotional ones. This is the normal way human beings come to a knowledge of truth.

The ecclesial dimension of the process (of coming to a knowledge of the Truth) is vitally important, but not because the authority of the Church somehow short-circuits the messiness of the normal process.

Again I apologize, but I find statements like “Your tendency to define things too lightly”, to be highly offensive. The Church does not take its authority lightly. The Church has historically moved very slowly and deliberately. Many would argue too slowly and too deliberately too often. The Church you describe taking doctrine lightly is not the Catholic Church.

I didn’t say that it took doctrine lightly. I said that it defines doctrine too lightly. Part of the Church’s conservatism, especially in the modern world, has been shown by defiant definitions thrown in the teeth of contemporary trends–so what you observe and what I describe do not necessarily conflict.

I think that the slow movement of the Church is a good thing, and I tend to agree with the Orthodox that the “Latin” Church moves too fast rather than too slowly, at least with regard to definitions. I can see how this might offend you, but after all I am a Protestant. Obviously I’m not going to agree with all your definitions, or I’d be a Catholic. My way of putting it is really quite polite. I could have used words like “arrogant” and “blasphemous.” Many Protestants would have in the past, and some still would today.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Tigerhawk:

Part Two

But, the problem being solved wasn’t the problem you stated which was that Mary must have been immaculate or somehow Jesus would have been tainted.

OK, but this is clearly the problem in the minds of a lot of people on this board.

The misunderstanding of Mary’s role and position did not end after the Council of Trent. There are Protestants to this day that believe Mary isn’t all that significant.

Very true–in fact the original Protestants were generally more traditional in this regard (most of them believed in the Perpetual Virginity, as you probably know). But as far as I know that was not the context for the definition in the 19th century.

The “radical doctrine of papal authority” is again simply the Truth.

Well, that’s hard to see historically without a very generous account of development. I can’t imagine any of the Popes in the early Church imagining that they had the authority to appoint bishops, for instance–or getting away with it if they tried to do such a thing.

And yet again, I apologize, but the argument that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined primarily to satisfy a “resurgent Marian piety” is ridiculous.

OK, why was it defined then, instead of at any point in the five centuries between Scotus and Pius IX?

And the fact that it causes such a stir, discounts the notion that it was unnecessary.

First of all, by “unnecessary” I mean that one can speak adequately of the Virgin Mary without it. I was making a critique from the point of view of an Anglican, so obviously I wasn’t claiming that everyone believed it anyway. However, within the Roman Communion it does look as if most people believed it–as far as I know the stir came from the idea of a non-conciliar definition, not from the doctrine itself.

However, I assume, you do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus spoke of in the Gospel.

I don’t believe that the Church is to be identified solely with the body of churches in communion with the See of Rome, no. Of course, since Vatican II that statement has been qualified quite a bit. This is not the place to discuss the meaning of the claim that the Church “subsists” in the Roman Communion.

Your cynical view of the Church is therefore understandable.

I hardly think it’s fair to call me cynical. My interpretation of the reason behind the definition is the *non-cynical *version! The cynical view is that the Pope simply defined it as a way of demonstrating his authority–that it marked the beginning of an era where Popes tried to govern the Church by fiat in a way they had never done before.

You seem to have a lot of contempt for popular piety, if you think that ascribing a definition to it is somehow “cynical.”

IN Christ,

Edwin

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

I don’t dispute that. But I think it was popular piety that led the doctrine to triumph. This is not a put-down, as I said earlier. I have a lot more respect for “popular piety” than you seem to, or than you attribute to me.

I understand that you have a lot of respect for popular piety. Popular piety is just not a sound basis for defining doctrine. There is much more to it.

Contarini:

I’m not being disingenuous. I’m being as fair as I can be. I know there are other arguments, but I don’t find them convincing. I think the growth of Marian piety seems to be the primary factor. I don’t know why you would accuse me of being “disingenuous.” I’ve made it clear that I am familiar with the arguments, and that I find them lacking. But I understand how a deep piety directed toward the Mother of God would come to find it improper to imagine her tainted with any kind of sin.

You have made several statements that I have taken to mean that in your opinion each of the arguments is baseless. If that is not your position I apologize. I can see how one would not be convinced but what bothers me is the lack of acknowledgement I perceive on your part that one could find these arguments convincing.

Contarini:

I see your point, but from my perspective you’re confusing the Truth with our knowledge of the Truth. And this is the problem I have with a lot of modern conservative Catholicism. There is a deep preoccupation with epistemology and a conflation of certainty with Truth. I don’t believe that the existence of the Truth necessarily implies that we have some kind of absolute, infallible knowledge of the Truth. I don’t think the prime object of Christian faith is to give such knowledge. So yes, I think that all our decisions about theological truth or falsehood involve weighing a number of different factors–both purely “intellectual” ones and more subjective, emotional ones. This is the normal way human beings come to a knowledge of truth.

Jesus tells us that the Truth will set us free. If there is nowhere we can go get the Truth, how can we be free?

I don’t claim that I know the Truth infallibly. I don’t claim that any of the individuals that make up the Church infallibly know the Truth. However, the Church itself does because the Holy Spirit ensures it. I realize this is where I lose you. Note: When the Pope makes a statement invoking his infallible authority it is the Holy Spirit not the man that ensures the infalliblity. The Pope and the Church are prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Contarini:

The ecclesial dimension of the process (of coming to a knowledge of the Truth) is vitally important, but not because the authority of the Church somehow short-circuits the messiness of the normal process.

No, but it ensures the results.

Contarini:

I didn’t say that it took doctrine lightly. I said that it defines doctrine too lightly.

I apologize this distinction is lost on me.

Contarini:

Part of the Church’s conservatism, especially in the modern world, has been shown by defiant definitions thrown in the teeth of contemporary trends–so what you observe and what I describe do not necessarily conflict.

If you are referring to things such as Humane Vitea than I couldn’t disagree more strongly. It is the mission of the Church to proclaim the Truth especially in the teeth of contemporary trends that are leading people astray. If that is not an example of what you mean could you give one?

Contarini:

I think that the slow movement of the Church is a good thing, and I tend to agree with the Orthodox that the “Latin” Church moves too fast rather than too slowly, at least with regard to definitions. I can see how this might offend you, but after all I am a Protestant. Obviously I’m not going to agree with all your definitions, or I’d be a Catholic. My way of putting it is really quite polite. I could have used words like “arrogant” and “blasphemous.” Many Protestants would have in the past, and some still would today.

Edwin

I could use those words as well but let’s keep playing nicely.

God Bless