Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[rad314]

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.

Not what I said. But I hasten to add that it doesn’t particularly interest me why the commission was formed.

You know, that’s the kind of closed-minded nonsense that drove many Catholics out of the Church after Vatican II.

Remarks like that always remind me of two things:

1.) “The purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to close on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton

2.) Jn 6: 60, 66-69

I think it’s pretty easy to come up with an alternate explanation for why so many left. Here’s one. Peter Kreeft observed somewhere that the basic conflict in life is between Truth and Will. There are only two ways to resolve it. Either you submit your will to Truth or you bend truth to suit your will.

 

[BRB]

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.

Lost respect for the Church …and left it to become Protesting Protestants or agnostics ?

How would the rest of the Church of felt if the Pope had consented to this commission opinion … in light of past Church teachings ?

You can’t please all the people all the time. So, stick to the moral principles of scripture/traditions … as the Pope was advised to do … by a ‘higher’ council than men.

The Church is not a democracy …

 

[rad314]

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

. . .

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.)

On the one hand you criticize the Church for not teaching what the Church Fathers taught. . . .

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.

And on the other hand you criticize the Church for teaching what the Church Fathers taught.

Mt 11:15-19

 

[mpartyka]

On the one hand you criticize the Church for not teaching what the Church Fathers taught. . . .And on the other hand you criticize the Church for teaching what the Church Fathers taught.

What I’m attempting to demonstrate is that the Church picks and chooses what to believe even as “cafeteria Catholics” are accused of picking and choosing what to believe. And when it came to Humanae Vitae, many Catholics were introduced to the idea that maybe the Church wasn’t qualified to do their picking and choosing for them…

–Mike

 

[rad314]

What I’m attempting to demonstrate is that the Church picks and chooses what to believe . . .

Thanks for brightening my day with a good laugh. So now the Church is to be criticized for deciding what should be believed. You really are hard to please!

. . . even as “cafeteria Catholics” are accused of picking and choosing what to believe.

Every man his own pope. That’s certainly the road to somewhere, but not to Truth.

Someone observed – I’ve seen it attributed to Chesterton, but I question that – that you can be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

(Oops. Forgive me. I didn’t mean to sound critical of dissenters and heretics. It’s only the Church that should be criticized for deciding what to believe.)

And when it came to Humanae Vitae, many Catholics were introduced to the idea that maybe the Church wasn’t qualified to do their picking and choosing for them…

Dissenters and heretics always know best, don’t they?

Which brings to mind another Chesterton quote: ‘The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.’

 

[BRB]

Every man his own pope. That’s certainly the road to somewhere, but not to Truth.

Someone observed – I’ve seen it attributed to Chesterton, but I question that – that you can be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Dissenters and heretics always know best, don’t they?

Which brings to mind another Chesterton quote: ‘The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.’

Can’t rebut that logic … Mike

 

[rad314]

If that’s all these 14 pages of posts – to-date! – are trying to accomplish or impede, I wonder that anyone bothers.

So, doctrines develop. What a surprise. (‘Development’ and ‘change’ are not the same thing. ‘Development’ involves an elaboration of the implications of earlier formal beliefs. ‘Change’ contradicts earlier formal beliefs.)

I like the oblique reference to St. Vincent of Lerins. HIs notion of relying on what has been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’ is, of course, nonsense. If that were the test of orthodoxy, the deposit of faith would be the null set. It doesn’t even pass its own test. If we were to rely on his principle, we would have to repudiate all the teachings of all the ecumenical councils. The councils were convened because of major controversies, so obviously whatever they concluded hadn’t been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’.

I just stumbled upon this and see that I made a big mistake.

“If that were the test of orthodoxy, the deposit of faith would be the null set.”

It’s not the deposit of the faith that would be the null set; it’s our understanding of it. The deposit of the faith would continue to be what it always has been and always will be. It’s only what we understand of it that develops.

 

[mpartyka]

Interesing sidebar (which actually points us back to the original topic):

In 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii, “…the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity…”

–Mike

 

[rad314]

For all I know, St. Ephraim did believe that Mary was free from original sin. But who’s to say that wasn’t simply his private opinion (much as I’ve been told every time I’ve found something in the Fathers which doesn’t jibe with modern Catholic teaching, “That was just his personal opinion”)?

And that’s the point, isn’t it? What some ECFs may have said for or against the IC or the sinfulness of marital intercourse doesn’t of itself make it the teaching of the Church, either then, now, or in the future.

That’s not to say that only those doctrines promulgated by an ecumenical council or a pope are the teachings of the Church.

A good understanding of the magisterium would serve you well.

Here’s a very interesting article that somehow just came to my attention:
ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PAPERR.TXT

(You made a good point. My apologies for not specifically addressing it at the time.)

 

[rad314]

Interesing sidebar (which actually points us back to the original topic):

In 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii, “…the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity…”

Well, yes, and I think people have pointed out that statements like that would only challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception if that dogma meant that Mary didn’t need a savior. The dogma in fact states that she did; the way she was freed from original sin (IC) differs from the way the rest of us are (baptism).

(Reading Casti Connubii. Good for you.)

 

[rad314]

. . . promulgated by an ecumenical council or a pope . . .

Make that ‘. . . promulgated by an ecumenical council or defined ex cathedra . . .’

 

[rad314]

(Reading Casti Connubii. Good for you.)

I think you’ll find this interesting:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

 

[rad314]

In 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii . . .

Until 1930 every Christian ecclesial body condemned artificial birth control. The Lambeth Conference opened the floodgates (as you know).

Well, you got me thinking. (Typical.)

I started wondering what they cited in Scripture and Tradition – or even mere human reasonableness – to justify that break. I spent longer than usual searching the internet for source material and this is the best I could find. Resolution 15 is the most relevant, but the others provide interesting context.

lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-9.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-10.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-11.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-12.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-13.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-14.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-16.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-17.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-18.cfm
lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-19.cfm

Mike, you’re obviously a very intelligent, analytical person and I’m sure you’re a much better researcher than I am. What do you find?

 

[rad314]

I spent longer than usual searching the internet for source material . . .

Still no primary documents, but I gotta throw this in. It features one of my favorite books.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/story2.html

Peter Kreeft says it’s one of the two most important books of the 20th century. The other is The Abolition of Man (C.S. Lewis).

 

[mpartyka]

Here’s a very interesting article that somehow just came to my attention:
ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PAPERR.TXT

From the article:

First of all, is the “Pastoral Rule” an “official” teaching?..The “Pastoral Rule” was merely one of Gregory’s many theological works which he completed shortly before or after becoming Pope. The “Pastoral Rule” then, “was in no way an official teaching” of a Pope.

Nor did I say it was…but it was what that particular Pope believed, and he believed it strongly enough to communicate his belief to his fellow bishops on more than one occasion.

Pope Gregory is actually speaking about sexual pleasure in relation to “immoderate” marital sexual intercourse. Thus Pope Gregory is not criticizing the mere presence of pleasure in moderate marital sexual intercourse, rather he is criticizing the act of making pleasure the “primary” purpose in marital sexual intercourse by means of “immoderate” copulation.

Granted, which is the whole point – the view of the early Fathers was that sex was for procreation, not pleasure, and therefore to indulge in sex beyond what was necessary to have children was considered “immoderate” copulation. The idea that having sex is in any way “good” for the marriage above and beyond the goal of procreation is alien to the Fathers’ thinking. On the contrary, they would consider sex initiated for any purpose other than procreation to be lustful and unseemly, though perhaps not “sinful” per se.

In any case, the article addresses Pope Gregory’s words in his Book of Pastoral Rule, not the letter I actually quoted, which more explicitly details his thoughts concerning married sex:

Nor do we, in saying these things, account wedlock as sin. But, since even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, entrance into a sacred place should be abstained from, because the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin. For he had not been born of adultery or fornication, but of lawful wedlock, who said, Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother brought me forth.

(I read the Book of Pastoral Rule, by the way, and, like the author of the article, I didn’t see anything particularly inflammatory about Pope Gregory’s words there. The letter is another matter, though.)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

…statements like that would only challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception if that dogma meant that Mary didn’t need a savior. The dogma in fact states that she did; the way she was freed from original sin (IC) differs from the way the rest of us are (baptism).

And yet, in every instance in which Pope Leo teaches that no one besides Christ is free from original sin – even in those instances where he also makes mention of the Virgin Mary – he never once sees fit to make the exception for her that today’s Catholics do without blinking. Can you even imagine Pope Benedict teaching:

For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock.

or:

…there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’ David’s Lord was made David’s Son, and from the fruit of the promised branch sprang One without fault…

(Emphasis mine in the above quotes.)

I tend to focus especially on this excerpt from the second quote:

…that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression…was not permitted by natural generation…

Now, obviously, nothing is impossible for God, so on what account could Pope Leo say that freedom from original sin was “not permitted” by natural generation unless God Himself willed that to be so? And if God Himself willed it that natural generation should transmit original sin, how could it possibly be that Mary, who was naturally generated, should have escaped inheriting original sin through this natural generation contrary to the will of the One who determined in the first place that natural generation would transmit the fault? It is as if to say that, in the case of Mary, God acted against His own will, but that certainly cannot be true…can it?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Until 1930 every Christian ecclesial body condemned artificial birth control. The Lambeth Conference opened the floodgates (as you know)…I started wondering what they cited in Scripture and Tradition – or even mere human reasonableness – to justify that break…What do you find?

I haven’t researched the matter myself. I did order a book recently which details the deliberations of the Papal Birth Control Commission of Vatican II – maybe that will have some reference to Lambeth.

As for the resolutions themselves, 13 and 15 are the most pertinent:

1. The Conference emphasises the truth that sexual instinct is a holy thing implanted by God in human nature. It acknowledges that intercourse between husband and wife as the consummation of marriage has a value of its own within that sacrament, and that thereby married love is enhanced and its character strengthened. Further, seeing that the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children, it believes that this purpose as well as the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control should be the governing considerations in that intercourse.

1. Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

I’m not sure that the Fathers would have agreed that “intercourse between husband and wife as the consummation of marriage has a value of its own within that sacrament, and…thereby married love is enhanced and its character strengthened.” Nor do I recall ever reading anything in the Fathers indicating “a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.” The idea that the Fathers considered sex good for anything besides procreation would be news to me.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

The letter is another matter, though.

Then is it your contention that the letter constitutes the ‘official teaching of the Church’? If so, on what basis? If not, why does it deserve so much attention?

 

[rad314]

It is as if to say that, in the case of Mary, God acted against His own will, but that certainly cannot be true…can it?

He fulfilled His will one way with Mary. He fulfills it another way with you and me. She is unique, don’t you think?

 

[rad314]

. . . the Papal Birth Control Commission of Vatican II . . .

It wasn’t part of Vatican II. Again, let’s not make it seem more important than it was.

I’m not sure that the Fathers would have agreed that “intercourse between husband and wife as the consummation of marriage has a value of its own within that sacrament, and…thereby married love is enhanced and its character strengthened.”

Perhaps not. The question, though, is whether the contrary was the official teaching of the Church.

Nor do I recall ever reading anything in the Fathers indicating “a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”

That quote is very strange out of context, but we know what you mean (i.e. a morally sound reason to resort to artificial means of avoiding conception). And the official teaching of the Church is with you on that one!

And while I have the opportunity . . . The joy of Christmas and peace in the New Year to all!