the Immaculate Conception,…was pronounced and defined in 1854 by Pius IX.
It also states “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture”.
That is correct, but the scriptural basis for concluding it is there in the doctrine of original sin, the need for the unborn Lord to dwell in a Holy Temple, and the angelic declaration that Mary was blessed among women even before she conceived – as she had not yet given consent to fill this role before that declaration was made
It also states: "In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter. ". And then immediately afterwards it states: “But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.”
A progressive science? I was under the assumption that Jesus ended all progression of theology as He fulfilled all revelation and nothing was left to be revealed.
Do NOT twist my words. I said he was the ultimate and greatest revelation of God, I did not say that it ended the progression of theology. In fact, at least in my second post, that would describe how I said that future revelation would come, Theology involving the study of existing scripture, not the creation of new scripture.
If I made a statement that seemed to mean there would never be any revelation at all I apologize for lacking specificity. I dislike pseudo-pharisaic legalistic approaches to theology. In other posts I clearly specify that the Dogma is that no new doctrines will be revealed that lack foundation in scripture or tradition, the revalatory mode which produced the canon of scripture to begin with.
When the Vatican considers things like St Maria Faustina’s revelations on Divine Mercy the Magisterium considers if it is consistent with existing scripture. When it is deemed worthy of belief, that does not make it scripture.
Back to considering Mary,The Rosary is a good example of what Catholics believe about revelation on all levels. The Rosary is something very important to Catholics, not mentioned in scripture at all, but embodying much of scripture in its history and practice. It developed from a tradition in religious life (meaning monasteries, etc) of praying all the Psalms every day. While there is a story of St. Dominic getting the Rosary revealed to him, it was in practice before then. Since praying all 150 Psalms can be very time consuming, a practice for more common use developed of substituting a Hail Mry prayer for each psalm. This also got broken down into sets of 50 regarding specific features in the Lives of Jesus and Mary, with subsets of 5 events to consider with each of 10 prayers in the cycle.
Catholics believe that Mary herself appeared to some children and emphasized the importance of this prayer, and consistently emphasizes it in her manifestations. A practice also emerged of adding a fourth set of 50 prayers around events that had not been included, and evenutally Pope John Paul the Great officially declared it a formal part of praying the Rosary.
These practices and changes encompass more than 1,000 years, but no part of them introduces anything that did not exist in scripture or tradition – and mostly scripture – in the Early Church. Theology is a progressive science. The scripture remains intact and our understanding of it expands. New revelations remain consistent with that.
This may be confusing, as your definition of continuing revelation includes original 1830 Book of Mormon being changed as soon as 1840, and as recently as 1980. Your definition of continuing revelation is that a prophet can even alter what scriptures from thousands of years before say, with no supporticve documents, having received a revelation that it should say something different – as with Joseph Smith’s transliteration of the Bible.
Catholics beleive in personal revelation for things in our own lives – and that this can come through reading scripture or exercising tradition, or can come separately. It will not countermand established Dogma, just as Mormons believe personal revelation will not contradict established doctrine.
We differ in believing the scope of personal revelation. LDS beleive that if God has a message for the world he will send it through the Prophet. I expect you have been taught that Catholics do not believe in person revelation, but we do. Says so in the Catechism, and in the scriptures.
Catholics accept that God can contact whom he wishes – hence a Polish nun, or children in France or Portugal, or a 16th Century Mexican farmer can receive messages intended for the whole world. These will not count as scripture, they will be consistent with existing scripture, and the Church will have to acknowledge them as worthy of belief, through the Pontiff, in the exercise of the Progressive science of Theology, not by creating new scripture.
So if we need to readdress this topic, the first thing we should do is define terms, though I think I have explained my definitions thoroughly here. There is no new revelation inconsistent with existing scripture and tradition, there is no new revelation without some basis is scripture or the early church’s traditions, and no new revelation constitutes scripture. No personal revelation is considered worhty of belief for the Church in general without the Church’s guiding approval.
The belief in the Immacualte Conception developed over centuries from seeking to understand how Mary could have been prepared as a holy temple for the Lord, by being protected from Original Sin. The scriptural basis is the doctrine of original sin, and the Angelic decalration that Mary was blessed among women before she conceived. Many Catholics beleived it before 1854, but it was not officially considered a Dogma until ratified by Rome. It is not new scripture.
