Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[rad314]

I wasn’t saying why the Church teaches as it does. I was saying what the Apostle Paul taught (and why, in my opinion) and what the Fathers taught and why (according to the Fathers’ own arguments).

You weren’t saying why the Church teaches as she does? Indeed? Here’s your quote:

Thus, the only legitimate use of human sexuality in marriage, in the eyes of the Fathers, is to procreate, which is why there exists the prohibition against artificial, non-abortive contraception in the Church.

 

[mpartyka]

Peter was married, and Paul had perhaps been at one time. To be a Pharisee in good standing …one needed to be married. So, I think Paul knew the norm was to be married, and his ability to stay celibate was the exception.

The norm at the time may have been the married state, but even Paul knew that times had changed:

1 Cor 7:8-9, 25-26, 28-29, 32-35 – I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn…Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, , that [it is] good for a man so to be…But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none…But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife. There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

As for the Apostle Peter, it’s directly concerning him that one of the earliest comments by the Fathers about the purpose of marriage is made:

Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity. Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.

–St. Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, Chap. IV

Another comment on marriage by an early Father:

But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.

–Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap. XXIX

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

He says … “I wish to have ABSOLUTELY no question when treating [considering] of [Mary’s] sins” …

That’s not what he says. He first says:

[Pelagius] then enumerates those “who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.” And he adds the names of some women,—“Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,” he says, “we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.”

So, Pelagius has made a list of all the saints whom he believes led sinless lives (i.e., had no personal sins), the Virgin Mary included. To which Augustine replies:

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.

I think you’re right that Augustine was arguing for Mary’s personal sinlessness here. However, he did not argue this because it was a hard-and-fast teaching of the Church. Only Chirst is “undoubtedly” without sin. Augustine derives Mary’s sinlessness from her having been chosen to conceive and bear the Son of God, which in his mind is something only a woman devoid of personal sins could have merited. Therefore, God must have conferred protection from personal sins upon Mary. But protection from original sin he does not thereby imply, because earlier in the same document he says:

For how is He to save where there is no malady?

Mary therefore had to have contracted original sin for Jesus to have saved her from its effects.

And, by the way, isn’t that exactly what the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception says?

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.

In fact, if someone were to tell me that all the dogma of the Immaculate Conception means is that Mary was preserved not from original sin itself but from all the effects of original sin, I’d perhaps be inclined to agree that Augustine was a believer in the Immaculate Conception.

But to say that Augustine believed that Mary was utterly prevented from ever having original sin in the first place…this I do not believe, based on his own words: “we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her”. He speaks here of Mary’s having received grace to overcome sin, but not her having received grace such that she never contracted it to begin with.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

Mary therefore had to have contracted original sin for Jesus to have saved her from its effects.

And, by the way, isn’t that exactly what the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception says?

In fact, if someone were to tell me that all the dogma of the Immaculate Conception means is that Mary was preserved not from original sin itself but from all the effects of original sin, I’d perhaps be inclined to agree that Augustine was a believer in the Immaculate Conception.

But to say that Augustine believed that Mary was utterly prevented from ever having original sin in the first place…this I do not believe, based on his own words: “we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her”. He speaks here of Mary’s having received grace to overcome sin, but not her having received grace such that she never contracted it to begin with.

Mike …

I used to think Mary was just ordinary … until she was blessed by H.S. at the Annunciation. Perfected at that moment, when she gave her consent, and ever thereafter.

IMO, as long as she was sinless when H.S. implanted Christ within … that is the key factor.

However, I have been instructed by Catholics to believe in a deeper concept. Namely that God did for her something akin to what was done for John the Baptizer. Filled with the H.S. ‘from the womb’.

Does this mean it happened at the very instant of John’s fertilization, later at implantation, on Day #8, or before birth ? Again, in the larger scheme of things … whenever Original Sin gets instilled in a conceptus … that would be the time it probably happened.

If the Catholic Church wants to believe Mary was filled in that first nano-instant … I’m not gonna make an issue over it. Its really a supernatural faith issue … which our basic science laws will never be able to answer.

However, IMO … whatever ‘timing method’ God used in case of John B. … thats probably what was used for Mary. So, I now doubt my old Protestant idea of it happening at time of Annunciation is correct.

So I’d guess it happened in that first nanosecond … both for Mary & John.

 

[mpartyka]

You weren’t saying why the Church teaches as she does? Indeed? Here’s your quote:

Thus, the only legitimate use of human sexuality in marriage, in the eyes of the Fathers, is to procreate, which is why there exists the prohibition against artificial, non-abortive contraception in the Church.

Well, c’mon, isn’t it obvious that, had the Fathers not taken such a dim view of human sexuality, there’d be no such prohibition? To the Fathers, there was no such thing as legitimate sexual desire in or out of marriage. You either had sex to have children, or you had sex to satisfy your lust (which was sinful).

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I used to think Mary was just ordinary … until she was blessed by H.S. at the Annunciation. Perfected at that moment, when she gave her consent, and ever thereafter. IMO, as long as she was sinless when H.S. implanted Christ within … that is the key factor.

Personally, I never thought it was necessary to think of Mary as perfectly sinless either before, during, or after, or at any point in her life, to be the Mother of God. To me, the idea that God would bless a sinner just like you or me with the honor of being the Mother of God was the inspiring thing. Same with John the Baptist – “filled with the Holy Spirit” has never meant “totally sinless” to me.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Well, c’mon, isn’t it obvious that, had the Fathers not taken such a dim view of human sexuality, there’d be no such prohibition?

Not obvious to me. But maybe that’s just because I’ve made the effort to understand the explanation the Church offers for what she teaches. I’ve read Humanae Vitae, for instance.

BTW, so you’re contradicting yourself again and now admitting that you do claim to know why the Church teaches what she does – without listening to what she has to say about it. So we’re back to that ‘humility and justice’ thing.

 

[mpartyka]

Not obvious to me.

Well, perhaps you haven’t studied the Fathers as I have.

But maybe that’s just because I’ve made the effort to understand the explanation the Church offers for what she teaches. I’ve read Humanae Vitae, for instance.

I read Humanae Vitae before my last post, thanks.

BTW, so you’re contradicting yourself again and now admitting that you do claim to know why the Church teaches what she does – without listening to what she has to say about it. So we’re back to that ‘humility and justice’ thing.

I simply don’t believe everything that comes out of the Church’s (or pope’s) mouth, especially when it comes to birth control. The council appointed by the pope studied the same evidence and came to the conclusion by a more than 2/3 majority that birth control is A-OK. The pope overruled them, and why? Because the vocal minority report said, “What, are we supposed to admit that the Anglicans are right and we’re wrong?” Read Vatican II by Fr. Xavier Rynne. Very interesting and honest report of everything that went on at Vatican II.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

came to the conclusion by a more than 2/3 majority that birth control is A-OK. The pope overruled them, and why? Because the vocal minority report said, “What, are we supposed to admit that the Anglicans are right and we’re wrong?” Read Vatican II by Fr. Xavier Rynne. Very interesting and honest report of everything that went on at Vatican II.

See … proves why Christ gave Peter, and his successors, the primacy

Can’t always depend on councils to see their way to the truth.

Bible is very clear on B.C. as being wrong. Its tantamount to infanticide … and the Pope is to be applauded on making the right call, knowing full well the Anglicans are wrong.

Infallible on issues of faith & morals … at least so far …

 

[BRB]

To me, the idea that God would bless a sinner just like you or me with the honor of being the Mother of God was the inspiring thing. Same with John the Baptist – “filled with the Holy Spirit” has never meant “totally sinless” to me.

–Mike

Well, he does bless sinners all the time … that is inspiring indeed. Except Mary was no ordinary Jewish girl. She is the new Eve, and our Mother.

Perhaps God blessed her with I.C., as much for our needs as for Christ. That is a really inspiring thing to meditate on. Christ gave his mother to John … and John teaches she is Mother of all Christians.

It is doubtful that John the Baptizer sinned. He came to earth for a singular purpose and no one ever accused him of err. There has never been another like him [except for perhaps Elijah], chosen to institute Baptism, perform the sacrament on Christ, and likely the very first Christian martyr.

Make him your own patron saint.

 

[mpartyka]

Bible is very clear on B.C. as being wrong. Its tantamount to infanticide…

Preventing a sperm from making it to an embryo (whether by using a condom or by surgical sterilization) is not “infanticide” any more than having our pets spayed or neutered is a “puppy & kitty holocaust”.

Here’s the deal: The Church says a couple can exercise their own judgment to determine when to have kids and/or how many kids to have, but it doesn’t allow them to do so via certain methods because it says the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual intercourse cannot be separated even though that’s precisely what married people want and what they are trying to accomplish via natural birth control. That is what makes no sense to most Catholics, I would imagine.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

It is doubtful that John the Baptizer sinned. He came to earth for a singular purpose and no one ever accused him of err.

Now you’re going beyond even Augustine, who was willing to except only the Virgin Mary. And keep in mind that we have a ton of info on Joseph compared to all we know of John the Baptist, yet the Bible never mentions any sins on his part, either. Still, Augustine did not hestitate to include both Joseph and John the Baptist in the “sinners” category.

…likely the very first Christian martyr.

I think that honor is reserved to Stephen.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

The Church says a couple can exercise their own judgment to determine when to have kids and/or how many kids to have, but it doesn’t allow them to do so via certain methods because it says the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual intercourse cannot be separated even though that’s precisely what married people want and what they are trying to accomplish via natural birth control. That is what makes no sense to most Catholics, I would imagine.

I doubt that ‘most Catholics’ (so-called) have given it that much thought. But if they have, they’re probably intelligent enough to see the difference between artificial and natural means.

It’s not ‘natural birth control’; it’s ‘natural family planning’. There’s an inherent openness to life and that’s crucial. Artificial means try to eliminate the possibility of conception; on the other hand, NFP recognizes and accepts the possibility, The couple does nothing actively to interfere with it. As for what they ‘want and what they are trying to accomplish’ . . . do you imagine that we’re required to ‘want’ conception every time we have intercourse? Is it sinful, then, to have intercourse at any time other than the most fertile days?

 

[rad314]

Read Vatican II by Fr. Xavier Rynne. Very interesting and honest report of everything that went on at Vatican II.

Be honest now. You’ve actually read this? All four volumes? Or the one-volume revision?

I haven’t, but I’ve heard and read enough about it over the last 30 years to know not to waste any time on it. ‘Interesting’? Yes, I can easily imagine that. ‘Honest’? It’s curious . . . only dissenters characterize it that way.

 

[mpartyka]

As for what they ‘want and what they are trying to accomplish’ . . . do you imagine that we’re required to ‘want’ conception every time we have intercourse? Is it sinful, then, to have intercourse at any time other than the most fertile days?

I don’t think so, and I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches so today, but the early Fathers taught that having sex for the sake of gratifying lust rather than for the sake of procreation was at least a venial sin.

All four volumes? Or the one-volume revision?

The second edition, which was one volume. I didn’t know the earlier edition was so lengthy, but I would be glad to read it given the chance and the time.

‘Honest’? It’s curious . . . only dissenters characterize it that way.

It’s “honest” in the sense that most “official” Catholic sources I’ve seen don’t bother to mention the fact that Pope Paul VI overruled the judgment of the council appointed by Pope John XXIII on birth control. Humanae Vitae does itself mention this, though in a way that is a bit skewed:

The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for.

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Pope Paul VI was correct that “within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed”. Considering how the final tally was 65 to 7 in favor of permitting birth control to the faithful, one must wonder how much more agreement would have satisfied him.

I think the following exchange between two members of the Papal Birth Control Commission is quite amusing:

Should the Church change its position that artificial contraception is intrisically evil and therefore forbidden in all forms and under all circumstances?

Marcelino Zalba, a Spanish Jesuit and recognized expert on Church authority, especially regarding family limitation, viewed the proposed change with undisguised horror – as if the very pillars of creation would topple.

ZALBA: “What then with the millions we have sent to hell, if these norms were not valid?”

Patty Crowley, an American woman, wife, mother, and organizer, saw the change as obvious and necessary – as self-evident as the Church’s need to learn from its mistakes.

CROWLEY: “Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?”

Zalba did not respond.

–Excerpted from the book Turning Point by Robert McClory, pp 1-2

–Mike

 

[rad314]

I don’t think so, and I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches so today, but the early Fathers taught that having sex for the sake of gratifying lust rather than for the sake of procreation was at least a venial sin.

Three things.

1.) I’m sure it’s been mentioned here before that what an ECF taught or what several ECFs taught isn’t necessarily the same as what the Church taught, either then or now.

2.) I was hoping for an answer along the lines of ‘Of course not. And now I see that in order to be licit an act of intercourse doesn’t need to have conception as its intent, so long as nothing active is done to thwart the possibility of conception.’ Oh, well . . .

3.) But all of this is off-topic. I have a hunch that one of the very first forums was set up for the topic of birth control. You should take all of this there, where it can be gone over for probably the 88th time.

 

[rad314]

A few final thoughts. I have no intention of or interest in following this topic to the other forum.

It’s “honest” in the sense that most “official” Catholic sources I’ve seen don’t bother to mention the fact that Pope Paul VI overruled the judgment of the council appointed by Pope John XXIII on birth control. Humanae Vitae does itself mention this, though in a way that is a bit skewed

Right, right, right. Never mind the axe that Rynne is so obviously grinding. He’s ‘honest’ because he points out that the majority of the commission favored allowing contraception, whereas the Church is somehow dishonest because she points out – in Humanae Vitae itself, no less! – that the majority of the commission favored allowing contraception.

Pope Paul VI was correct that “within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed”. Considering how the final tally was 65 to 7 in favor of permitting birth control to the faithful, one must wonder how much more agreement would have satisfied him.

Yes, if only authority resided in commissions instead of in the hierarchy, things would be so different. Or did I somehow miss the part about advisory commissions being infallible?

 

[mpartyka]

1.) I’m sure it’s been mentioned here before that what an ECF taught or what several ECFs taught isn’t necessarily the same as what the Church taught, either then or now.

Oh, I’m well aware of that. The only “objective” standard for “what the Church has always taught” is what the Church teaches today.

2.) I was hoping for an answer along the lines of ‘Of course not. And now I see that in order to be licit an act of intercourse doesn’t need to have conception as its intent, so long as nothing active is done to thwart the possibility of conception.’

Well, you’d then be in disagreement with the Fathers, but like you said, what the Fathers always consistently taught is no criteria for determining what the present teaching of the Church ought to be. (In fact, this whole thread demonstrates that.)

He’s ‘honest’ because he points out that the majority of the commission favored allowing contraception, whereas the Church is somehow dishonest because she points out – in Humanae Vitae itself, no less! – that the majority of the commission favored allowing contraception.

The pope’s words were, “However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain…because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed…” This is just about as “honest” an evaluation of the Commission’s results as Dan Brown’s calling the final tally at the Council of Nicea a “very close vote” (when, in fact, it was 316 to 2) in The Da Vinci Code.

The real reason for the overthrow of the council’s opinion is precisely what the pope acknowledged immediately afterward: “…certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.”

In short, the council’s evaluation was a mere formality that was thrown out the window when it didn’t say what the pope had already predetermined it should say.

Anyone who wants a good recap of the commission’s activities can read about them here. Key quote from the document:

While there was only one “official” report of the commission, the dissenting members prepared what would later be known as a “minority report.”This report basically said that the teaching on contraception could not change—not for any specific reason, but because the Catholic hierarchy could not admit it was wrong: “The Church cannot change her answer, because this answer is true…It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ…could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history.” It went on to say that if the hierarchy was to admit it was wrong on this issue, its authority would be questioned on all “moral matters.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

The real reason for the overthrow of the council’s opinion is precisely what the pope acknowledged immediately afterward: “…certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.”

Are you saying that if the pope had accepted recommendations “which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church”, then you would have respected that?

In short, the council’s evaluation was a mere formality that was thrown out the window when it didn’t say what the pope had already predetermined it should say.

First, it was a commission, not a council. Let’s not make it sound more important than it was.

Perhaps Paul VI and John XXIII should be given credit for having the humility to get other peoples’ opinions, on the chance that they could find a solution that wouldn’t contradict (‘be at variance with’) Church teaching. What that might have been, I don’t know, but neither did they. At least they asked. And the commission failed.

Anyone who wants a good recap of the commission’s activities can read about them here. Key quote from the document:

Ah, yes. I’m sure we’ll get impartial and objective information from a pro-abortion group with the likes of Rosemary Radford Ruether on its board of directors. Waste of time. For a number of reasons, not the least being that it won’t change anything.

 

[mpartyka]

Are you saying that if the pope had accepted recommendations “which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church”, then you would have respected that?

I’ve never been a Catholic myself, but the statistics in the document I cited clearly show that a consideraly large percentage of Catholics lost respect for the Church once it made it clear it would not change its views.

First, it was a commission, not a council. Let’s not make it sound more important than it was.

Agreed, and let’s also recognize that the commission was not initially intended to be an integral part of Vatican II at all. It was formed in secrecy, and its dealings were kept in secrecy until its existence was leaked to the public. Let’s also note that when it became clear that the commission was going to speak in favor of allowing birth control, the pope demoted the commission’s members to “expert” status and appointed 15 bishops to supervise the commission, yet even the majority of these bishops cast their vote in favor of birth control. Again, read the document. It’s quite interesting.

Perhaps Paul VI and John XXIII should be given credit for having the humility to get other peoples’ opinions, on the chance that they could find a solution that wouldn’t contradict (‘be at variance with’) Church teaching. What that might have been, I don’t know, but neither did they. At least they asked. And the commission failed.

Nice. So in your view, the commission was formed with the intention of making the Church’s ban on birth control more palatable to Catholics at large, rather than with the intention that the matter be honestly studied and an honest assessment be given. You know, that’s the kind of closed-minded nonsense that drove many Catholics out of the Church after Vatican II.

Ah, yes. I’m sure we’ll get impartial and objective information from a pro-abortion group with the likes of Rosemary Radford Ruether on its board of directors. Waste of time. For a number of reasons, not the least being that it won’t change anything.

Well, you’re not about to get impartial and objective information from the pro-HV side, that’s for sure.

–Mike