Conception of the Theotokos

[dvdjs]

Dogma should be those things required for salvation. Whether something is “truth” or not isn’t reason for dogma. Should the Church be dogmatizing all the scientific theories found to be truth? Should the existance of Black Holes, Gravity, or anything like that be made into dogma? You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides.

… nothing worse than someone embracing heresy in the name of explaining away another tradition. ]

Perhaps, but your comment above, in which you appear to defend scientific error, is a close runner up. And revisionist history in the name of explaining away another tradition doens’t have much going for it either.

The real story of Galileo (or Copernicus for that matters) has been rather twisted for is use in polemics. For all of his great contributions to science, he was wrong in his theory of the tides, and was resistant to the plain empirical evidence that revealed the error of his theory. He was wrong in defending the circular orbits against the elliptical ones proposed by Kepler, and was wrong in his theories on the nature of comets. There was much pushing and shoving in the scientific arena, especially because Galileo was a bit of a hot dog in promoting his ideas and putting down those of his opponents - an approach that comes back to haunt when one is wrong. That combat no doubt had some influence on Galileo treatment in the ecclesiastical court - the Vatican astronomers that Galileo ridiculed probably worked against him. But the finding, IIRC, was against his teaching that his scientific theory required a new hermeneutic for understanding the scripture. And while he may have been right about that (although not because of his theories in particular) that was not his call.

 

[dvdjs]

Dogma should be those things required for salvation.

What dogma is required for salvation?

I have heard an Orthodox priest proclaim, at the burial of a still born child, that Orthodoxy teaches that this child is in heaven. Obviously this child knew nothing of dogma. Is salvation outside the reach of those who cannot rationally assent to dogmatic teachings? Is it outside of the reach everyone except those who assent to Orthodox dogma?

ISTM that Orthodoxy is silent on whether those outside of the Orthodox church have the possibility of salvation. It follows that it cannot say that any dogmatic teaching is required for salvation. And yet there is dogma. Apparently “dogma” is not restricted to those things required for salvation.

 

[Cecilianus]

It’s just that it’s silly to Dogmatize something that is a simple fact and not a serious ground of dispute. Now the Immaculate Conception is a bit of a gray area because there are some Protestant heresies about the human condition that it addresses indirectly, but the Assumption is clearly not a Dogmatic issue.

Because the Pope is thereby solemnly confirming and ratifying piety of the faith. The Assumption and Immaculate Conception were defined in part for pastoral reasons - to reassure and strengthen the faithful. To quote Bernard Lonergan,

“In closing this brief section, I note Professor Geiselmann’s view that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption of Our Lady differ from those defined in ecumenical councils. The latter settle controverted issues. The former repeat what was already taught and celebrated in the whole Catholic Church. Accordingly they are named by him “cultic”. Their sole effect was that the solemn teaching office now proclaims what formerly was proclaimed by the ordinary teaching office.”

 

[Cecilianus]

Dogma should be those things required for salvation. Whether something is “truth” or not isn’t reason for dogma. Should the Church be dogmatizing all the scientific theories found to be truth? Should the existance of Black Holes, Gravity, or anything like that be made into dogma? You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides.

The Church should only be defining those dogmas that she knows as the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church qua Herself has no knowledge of science.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not required for salvation. Salvation is possible regardless of whether one adheres to those teachings.

Excuse me??? To deny the teaching of the Church, clearly and solemnly defined as dogma, is heresy, which is a mortal sin. An infant who doesn’t know the dogma isn’t committing a sin, but an adult who denies it and knows that he is rejecting the teaching of the Church is.

 

[Nine_Two]

Incorrect, Dogma’s are about addressing the problem of heresy. It’s not about defining what is necessary for salvation.

And yet the two dogma’s in question were proclaimed without an accompanying heresy. Are you saying the Catholic Church erred in defining them?

 

[crazzeto]

And yet the two dogma’s in question were proclaimed without an accompanying heresy. Are you saying the Catholic Church erred in defining them?

Do you really beleive what you just posted about there being no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age?

 

[Azurestone]

There are a lot of unsubstantiated and contradictory Catholic opinions here. To start off, here is a relevant section from ineffabilis deus that declared the dogma of the immaculate conception.

From Ineffabilis Deus:

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

If you are Catholic, and are ignorant enough to think dogma isn’t a required belief, reread the second paragraph and research “dogma”.

 

[Nine_Two]

Do you really beleive what you just posted about there being no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age?

I never said there was no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age. I said those two dogmas were proclaimed in the absence of opposing belief in the Catholic Church. In essence they were defined because everyone agreed, not because anyone was teaching otherwise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I never said there was no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age. I said those two dogmas were proclaimed in the absence of opposing belief in the Catholic Church. In essence they were defined because everyone agreed, not because anyone was teaching otherwise.

Weren’t the dogmas to combat Protestant heresies? Perhaps its to secure the faith of Catholics being proselytized by Protestants.

 

[dvdjs]

I never said there was no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age. I said those two dogmas were proclaimed in the absence of opposing belief in the Catholic Church.

You’ve said all sorts of things on this thread.

… in the Orthodox Church the Assumption isn’t required belief, although … the vast majority of Orthodox Christians accept it

the IC is necessary to tie up loose ends within the Augustinian view of Original Sin. … it takes away from Mary’s humanity, and therefore takes away from the humanity of Christ

You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides

if the Church only teaches authoritatively on faith and morals, why has it tried to teach on science in the past? Did it overstep its bounds?

the two dogma’s in question were proclaimed without an accompanying heresy. Are you saying the Catholic Church erred in defining them?

Some are wrong, some erroneously beg the question, some build straw men, and some are rather shocking - such as the suggestion the there are EOs who deny the assumption of the Theotokos.

But one thing you simply hadn’t said was that the " those two dogmas were proclaimed in the absence of opposing belief in the Catholic Church". This new claim is interesting, however, as I often read EO polemics that point to opposing beliefs within the CC as though they somehow tainted the promulgation of the doctrine ( eg google “Bernard of Clairvaux”) . Here you suggest that such opposition is necessary. Interesting.

 

[Nine_Two]

You’ve said all sorts of things on this thread.

I know you have it out for me, but seriously, while you’re stalking after me at least read what you’re arguing against. I said in the Catholic Church had no decenting opinions. I know this might be hard for an ultramontanist such as yourself to understand, but not everyone is under Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Do you really beleive what you just posted about there being no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age?

What heresies have there been in the modern age (other than perhaps co-redemptrix)?

 

[crazzeto]

I never said there was no heresy regarding Mary in the modern age. I said those two dogmas were proclaimed in the absence of opposing belief in the Catholic Church. In essence they were defined because everyone agreed, not because anyone was teaching otherwise.

They were proclaimed because they needed to be proclaimed, in the same sense that the Canon of the Bible was made dogma because it needed to be proclaimed. The body of Christ isn’t so narrow that we can only worry about error and heresy from with in Holy Mother Church strictly speaking, look around. How many orthodox believers are being affected by protestant beliefs. How many are buying into things like Left Behind (a theology condemed officially by the Church, not necessarly because it came from within).

Trying to limit the declaration of dogma strictly to senario’s where there is a named heresy from within the Church is too narrow and would leave too many of the flock exposed. The basic fact is this, you can’t love truth it’s self, if you aren’t willing, when necessary to clearly define certain aspects of it, and draw the proverbial line in the sand. It just doesn’t work. One can’t say I love the Christ Jesus, truth it’s self, and accept untruth and lies merely because “well it doesn’t come from with in the Church strictly speaking”.

Gnosticism didn’t necessarly come from within the church stricktly speaking either, heresies derived there from were still addressed.

 

[dvdjs]

I know you have it out for me, but seriously, while you’re stalking after me at least read what you’re arguing against. I said in the Catholic Church had no decenting opinions.

I am sorry that you adopt this posture of being stalked. The simple fact is that you frequently write stuff that demands correction.

The series of quotes in my previous post includes misstatements of and straw man arguments on Catholic teaching. It also contains, IMO, misstatements of Orthodox teaching: I have never heard anyone refer to the Assumption - so clearly articulated in the services of the EO church - as being optional for Orthodoxy. I am sorry that you don’t like the it, but when you post stuff like this, why would you expect it to go without criticism?

I know this might be hard for an ultramontanist such as yourself to understand, but not everyone is under Rome.

You lose me here - apart from teh name-calling. What are you trying to say?

 

[Vince1022]

For a Roman Catholic, if we hear someone say that they don’t need a doctrine of Original Sin, we hear that you are espousing Pelagianism.

That may be your understanding or interpretation, but it’s not simply the Roman Catholic one.

 

[Aramis]

Although the further point is raised, if the Church only teaches authoritatively on faith and morals, why has it tried to teach on science in the past? Did it overstep its bounds?

Science and Faith didn’t actually diverge clearly until the 1400’s; prior most science was part of philosophy, as was religion, and the two were seen as part of how one comes to understand God’s immanence in the world.

Galileo, for example, wasn’t punished for teaching the Earth goes around the sun, but for being a disobedient minor cleric who, when ordered by his bishop not to publish, published anyway.

A surprising number of the great minds of science were clerics or religious. the most recognizable names include Gregor Mendel and Galileo Gallilei.

 

[Cecilianus]

A surprising number of the great minds of science were clerics or religious. the most recognizable names include Gregor Mendel and Galileo Gallilei.

Or Canon Copernicus, or Abbe Lemaitre (who formulated the Big Bang Theory), or Father Kircher. There are over 50 craters on the Moon named after Jesuit astronomers alone, which is really unfair since a lot of what they discovered had already been catalogued by Benedictine astronomers.

 

[Vince1022]

This is WAY off-topic, but in the interest of fairness let’s keep in mind that Galileo was challenging the authority of Scripture, so the Church was dealing with theology when it got involved in his controversy. Also, Galileo was indeed wrong in his proofs of the Copernican theory; the rotation of the Earth does not cause the tides.

That doesn’t justify the Roman Inquisition ruling on scientific matters in its defense of Sacred Scripture, however.

Peace and God bless!

Galileo was challenging the idea that Scripture teaches scientific fact. Galileo was right. Unfortunately, the Church took this, in the end, as a challenge to the authority of the Church.

Galileo may have been wrong about some science, but he was right about much as well. Which the Church unfortunately denied and persecuted him for.

 

[Vince1022]

Excuse me??? To deny the teaching of the Church, clearly and solemnly defined as dogma, is heresy, which is a mortal sin. An infant who doesn’t know the dogma isn’t committing a sin, but an adult who denies it and knows that he is rejecting the teaching of the Church is.

No, denying the teachings of the Church is not heresy in and of itself.

See the Catechism para 2089. Only those who are baptized can commit heresy.

See Canon Law 751:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So, again, only those who are baptized can commit heresy. So, those who are not baptized who deny dogmatic Catholic teachings are not committing heresy.

Also, as Canon Law notes, heresy requires “obstinate” denial. Which means there may be some baptized Christians who reject Catholic dogmatic teachings, but not obstinately, and so are not necessarily heretical.

Hope this helps.