Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[mpartyka]

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?

Because it indicates what Pope Gregory believed and indicates that he was confident enough in this belief that he would communicate it to his fellow bishop, even if he didn’t do so in an “official” document. Granted, this is nothing “earth-shattering” to a person who understands the limitations on papal infallibility, but it is interesting to note just how certain views of history’s “Great” Popes conflict strikingly with what is taught in the Church today.

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

It wasn’t itself part of Vatican II, but Humanae Vitae, which was written to reject the Commission’s repeated recommendation to allow artificial birth control to married Catholics, certainly was, wasn’t it? Which would make the Commission at least an “unofficial” part of Vatican II.

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

I always find this kind of argument amusing: “Never mind what the Popes or the Bishops or the Fathers or the Laity think. What does the Church teach?” As if, once you’ve removed all those components, there is anything remaining 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).

No, I meant precisely what I quoted. The Fathers may have allowed that sex initiated for the sake of satisfying one’s physical urges rather than for procreation was not sinful per se, but that’s not the same as saying they found nothing immoral about it. This is regardless of contraception or lack thereof.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Normally I wouldn’t consider quoting someone like St. Thomas Aquinas since he was not by any means even a near-contemporary of Pope Leo, but in this particular passage from his Summa Theologica he quotes St. Augustine, and in doing so reinforces the understanding held by Pope Leo, St. Augustine, and others – namely, that sexual intercourse always involves the transmission of original sin:

Question 27, Article 2, Reply to Objection 4 – …though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.”

Question 27, Article 3, Answer – For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i.), it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

It wasn’t itself part of Vatican II, but Humanae Vitae, which was written to reject the Commission’s repeated recommendation to allow artificial birth control to married Catholics, certainly was, wasn’t it? Which would make the Commission at least an “unofficial” part of Vatican II.

No, it certainly was not. All that came out of Vatican II is the documents promulgated by the council and approved by the pope. Humanae Vitae is a papal encyclical. Some of its reasoning builds upon Vatican II’s teaching, but HV is in no way part of Vatican II.

Some people might be confused because HV was reprinted in Flannery’s Vatican II: More Postconciliar Documents. Perhaps they just don’t understand the word ‘postconciliar’.

I always find this kind of argument amusing: “Never mind what the Popes or the Bishops or the Fathers or the Laity think. What does the Church teach?” As if, once you’ve removed all those components, there is anything remaining of the Church!

That would be a devastating critique if we had an instance in which EVERY pope and EVERY bishop and EVERY father and ALL the laity thought one thing and yet the Church taught the contrary. But since we don’t (and you know it), it comes down to this: some people believed proposition A, some people believed proposition NOT A and the Church settled the controversy by deciding in favor of one over the other.

As I’ve said before, you need to understand what we mean by the magisterium.

So . . . you either accept a Church with the authority to decide what she teaches or you don’t. If you don’t, then your choices seem to be either ‘every man his own pope’ or a ‘church’ that teaches both proposition A and proposition NOT A or one that determines its teachings based upon opinion polls. Take your pick.

No, I meant precisely what I quoted. The Fathers may have allowed that sex initiated for the sake of satisfying one’s physical urges rather than for procreation was not sinful per se, but that’s not the same as saying they found nothing immoral about it.

“It’s not sinful, but it’s immoral.” Your moral theology is entirely too subtle for me.

 

[rad314]

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.

Sometimes it’s as though we’re reading different Church Fathers.

Here are a few passages I had no trouble locating, but maybe that’s just because I avail myself more of Catholic resources than you do. Or could it be that you see what you expect to see? Apparently, you’ve seen nothing about the mutual help of the spouses, love, or the sacramental nature of marriage. Yet, they are there.

St. Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos, II, 9-10.

St. Augustine of Hippo, The Advantage of Marriage, 3, 3 and 24, 32.

St. Augustine of Hippo, Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 10, 11 and 1, 17, 19.

To say, as Augustine does, that the procreation of children is the primary purpose of marriage is far from saying that it’s the sole purpose.

When he compares consecrated virginity and marriage, he doesn’t say that the former is good and the latter evil; he says the latter is good and the former is better. You seem detemined to understand him to say that one is gold, the other silver – and silver is bad.

Have you read all of Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae?

C.S. Lewis somewhere talks about the difference between looking at and looking along. If you’re in a darkened chamber with a small hole high on one wall, you can look at the myriad of dust particles dancing in the sunbeam. It’s only when you look along the sunbeam that the dust disappears and you see the light. So long as you’re determined to look at Catholicism as a Protestant, you’re not likely to get anywhere. Try to think as a Catholic and see what happens.

 

[BRB]

“Never mind what the Popes or the Bishops or the Fathers or the Laity think. What does the Church teach?” As if, once you’ve removed all those components, there is anything remaining of the Church!

Oh really You think the Church consists of only the ordained and the laity ?

Who inspires and feeds the earthly Church ? Could perhaps Christ / H.S. / the Father not play the chief role in directing/sustaining the Body of Christ.

And, Mary and all the other saints … do they not play a key role in intercession ?

 

[mpartyka]

“It’s not sinful, but it’s immoral.” Your moral theology is entirely too subtle for me.

It’s not my moral theology. It’s Pope Gregory the Great’s:

Nor do we…account wedlock as sin. But…even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh…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. For, knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquities, he groaned for having been born in sin, because the tree bears in its branch the vicious humour which it has drawn from its root. Yet in these words he does not call the intercourse of the wedded iniquity in itself, but in truth only the pleasure of the intercourse. For there are many things which are allowed and legitimate, and yet we are to some extent defiled in the doing of them…And, though what is done is right, yet it is not to be approved that the mind is therein disturbed…Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties…But, when not the love of producing offspring but pleasure dominates in the act of intercourse, married persons have something to mourn over in their intercourse. For holy preaching concedes them this, and yet in the very concession shakes the mind with fear. For, when the Apostle Paul said, Who cannot contain let him have his own wife, he straightway took care to add, But I speak this by way of indulgence, not by way of command. For what is just and right is not indulged: what he spoke of as indulged he shewed to be a fault.

–Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book XI, Epistle LXIV (To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli)

Here are a few passages I had no trouble locating, but maybe that’s just because I avail myself more of Catholic resources than you do.

I’m presently limited to what’s on www.ccel.org, along with what I might have in my personal (i.e., not online) collection at home.

St. Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos, II, 9-10.
St. Augustine of Hippo, The Advantage of Marriage, 3, 3 and 24, 32.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 10, 11 and 1, 17, 19.

I have access to St. Clement of Alexandria’s Paidagogos, but the particular text you cite was left in Latin by its translators because of the sexual content (freakin’ prudes). A side note in the text says, “He lays down the law, that marriage was instituted for the one result of replenishing the earth; and he thinks certain unclean animals of the Mosaic system to be types of the sensuality which is not less forbidden to the married than to others.”

I also have access to St. Augustine’s The Advantage of Marriage. In Section 3, which you cite, he writes, “Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good.” He also says in Section 1 that “the connexion of fellowship in children…is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse.” Later, in Section 6, he says, “For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault,” and, “To pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault.”

As for St. Augustine’s Marriage and Concupiscence, in Section 27 he writes, “…any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure…are venial sins in man and wife…”

So I’m afraid it’s not me who’s being selective in his reading.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

So I’m afraid it’s not me who’s being selective in his reading.

You just did it again. Further, it appears to be you who relies on faulty (or non-existent) translations. Not much point in citing my sources since you’ve already declared that you won’t spend the money on them. (Or apparently the time to visit an adequate library.)

(Has the book that ‘details the deliberations of the Papal Birth Control Commission’ arrived yet? Oh, yes, I can see that that’s a worthwhile expenditure of scarce funds.)

 

[mpartyka]

You just did it again.

I’m not sure how you expect anybody besides yourself to believe that, seeing how you aren’t putting your quotes up against mine.

Further, it appears to be you who relies on faulty (or non-existent) translations.

By all means, feel free to put forth a little effort and put the translations of those passages in your possession online. We’ll see how “your” and “my” translations compare.

Not much point in citing my sources since you’ve already declared that you won’t spend the money on them. (Or apparently the time to visit an adequate library.)

But that’s what I have you for, don’tcha know? So how’s about you start typing?

(Has the book that ‘details the deliberations of the Papal Birth Control Commission’ arrived yet? Oh, yes, I can see that that’s a worthwhile expenditure of scarce funds.)

Actually, it has arrived, and I’m enjoying it. Yes, it’s obviously sympathetic to the pro-ABC side, but it’s nonetheless very informative. It makes mention of another book called The Politics of Sex and Religion which is supposed to be even more detailed, but I haven’t gone around my usual online haunts to see if there’s a cheap copy anywhere. (And I’m not sure I’m really that keen to study the subject in that much more detail.)

–Mike

 

[rad314]

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

No, I meant precisely what I quoted. The Fathers may have allowed that sex initiated for the sake of satisfying one’s physical urges rather than for procreation was not sinful per se, but that’s not the same as saying they found nothing immoral about it. This is regardless of contraception or lack thereof.

I dislike giving the appearance of defending Anglicanism, something I will not do, having made the mistake of being an Anglican at one time.

However, it seems you misunderstand what Lambeth 1930 was saying in Resolution 15. They weren’t addressing the question of whether there is ever a sound moral reason for anyone to avoid complete abstinence. They were discussing those couples who believe they need to limit the number of their children. They said that such couples ideally should resort to complete abstinence, but if such a couple had a sound moral reason not to resort to complete abstinence, they could resort to contraception. (And that’s where they broke with 1900 years of Christian tradition.)

Maybe you understood that. On the chance that you didn’t, I thought it was only fair to put it out there.

You give the impression of favoring the heresy – I don’t remember the name – that taught that marriage and sex are evil. I think some council or other officially condemned it. Maybe not – maybe the Church just let it die out.

Have you ever consulted one of the catechisms on the topic of marriage? You might try the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) (aka the Roman Catechism, aka the Catechism of St. Pius V).
[/QUOTE]

 

[mpartyka]

You give the impression of favoring the heresy – I don’t remember the name – that taught that marriage and sex are evil.

Not at all, nor do I believe that the Fathers ever taught that marriage or sex are evil in and of themselves (though I do recall one Father, not sure which, referring to sex as a method of procreation fit for beasts). What they taught, rather, was that sexual relations, even sexual relations within marriage, always involve sin, not because of the mechanics of the act, but because the invocation of lust and the experience of sensual pleasure are always involved. Moreover, having sex within marriage for the primary purpose of satisfying lust or experiencing sensual pleasure (as opposed to having sex for the primary purpose of procreation) was considered venially sinful, or at the very least it was considered blameworthy (i.e., a choice of a lesser good over a greater good). I don’t think St. Gregory could have been any clearer:

Nor do we…account wedlock as sin. But…even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh…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.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

I just checked ccel.org for the very first of my Augustine passages and the triple ends of marriage (the begetting of children, the mutual help of the spouses, and the provision of a remedy for concupiscence) are there, but to be fair to you the verbiage is so antiquated that I can hardly blame you for missing it.

I use Jurgens (The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols.) as my key into the ECFs because of his outstanding doctrinal index. He makes no claim to being comprehensive; he gives modern translations of about a thousand pages of excerpts. Under the heading ‘The ends of Matrimony are the begetting of offspring, the mutual help of the spouses, and the providing of a remedy against concupiscence.’ he cites the four passages from Augustine and seven more from other authors, all but one even earlier. Under ‘Matrimony is good and lawful, a holy estate.’ he lists 15 references, five of them from Augustine. (Two non-Augustinian passages are repeats from the other topic.)

In the introductory paragraph to the doctrinal index Jurgens notes that occasionally a passage contradicts the doctrinal statement. He continues:

“The Fathers and the early Christian Writers do not agree with each other with a precise mathematical unanimity, nor could it be expected that they would. And in any case we must stress that an isolated patristic text is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and Writers is this: that in the aggregate they demonstrate what the Church did and does yet believe and teach. In the aggregate they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which itself is a vehicle of revelation.”
(Incidentally, none of the 24 passages takes the contrary position.)

But that’s what I have you for, don’tcha know? So how’s about you start typing?

No, you don’t. And no, I won’t. I don’t see that there’s anything to be gained by it. What Augustine said, exactly how he expressed himself, isn’t the issue. Your issue, as it always has been, is the magisterium. Give just one example of the magisterium contradicting itself and then let’s talk.

 

[mpartyka]

I just checked ccel.org for the very first of my Augustine passages and the triple ends of marriage (the begetting of children, the mutual help of the spouses, and the provision of a remedy for concupiscence) are there, but to be fair to you the verbiage is so antiquated that I can hardly blame you for missing it.

First, I never said that marriage didn’t have multiple ends, nor did I say that married sex couldn’t be permitted to couples for the sake of satisfying their physical desires, only that for couples to do so was considered blameworthy (or even venially sinful) because it was deemed a choice of incontinence over continence.

Second, how about a couple of examples of how the verbiage on CCEL differs from that of the Jurgens reference?

I use Jurgens (The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols.) as my key into the ECFs because of his outstanding doctrinal index.

Hey, I hear ya! Why bother quote-mining when Jurgens has already done it for you?

The value of the Fathers and Writers is this: that in the aggregate they demonstrate what the Church did and does yet believe and teach. In the aggregate they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which itself is a vehicle of revelation.

Agreed – which is exactly why I have spent the last few years reading through everything I could find of the Fathers in their entirety, in chronological order, and within their historical context: so that I could discern from their own words and in context their “aggregate opinions” both on moral matters like marital sexual relations and on dogmatic matters like the Immaculate Conception.

Of course, when it comes to St. Leo on the Immaculate Conception, his opinion is clear, and his opinion is shared by other important Fathers such as St. Augustine and St. Gregory: Sexual intercourse is the mechanism by which original sin is transmitted from parents to child, and it was for this reason that Christ was born of a virgin – so that by this supernatural, unique means of incarnation, he could escape the stain of original sin and be a fitting sacrifice for sin.

I don’t see that there’s anything to be gained by it. What Augustine said, exactly how he expressed himself, isn’t the issue. Your issue, as it always has been, is the magisterium. Give just one example of the magisterium contradicting itself and then let’s talk.

I think you’re asking the impossible – not because the magisterium is infallible, but because anything that contradicts the magisterium is automatically set outside the magisterium by its supporters. “What? You say you see a contradiction here? Well, that’s just personal opinion! That’s not the magisterium!” It doesn’t surprise me if the magisterium can produce a self-consistent body of doctrine and mine quotes to “prove” its rectitude, but I argue that anyone who has actually read the works of the Fathers and gotten an understanding of their mindset is not going to see a match between modern Catholic teaching and Patristic teaching, and I think that may be nowhere clearer than in Pope Leo’s comments’ contradicting the Immaculate Conception.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

I argue that anyone who has actually read the works of the Fathers and gotten an understanding of their mindset is not going to see a match between modern Catholic teaching and Patristic teaching, and I think that may be nowhere clearer than in Pope Leo’s comments’ contradicting the Immaculate Conception.

Then are you an adherent of the Church of Augustine? Or is it the Church of Leo? Or could it just be the Church of Pope Mike?

 

[rad314]

I argue that anyone who has actually read the works of the Fathers and gotten an understanding of their mindset is not going to see a match between modern Catholic teaching and Patristic teaching, and I think that may be nowhere clearer than in Pope Leo’s comments’ contradicting the Immaculate Conception.

On the one hand, if I had known months ago how cavalierly you would dismiss the preponderance of patristic and historical evidence for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and how steadfastly you would refuse to try to understand (or, in some cases, even read, apparently) what I’ve written about the development of doctrine and the magisterium, and . . . etc. . . I might have saved myself a lot of time and trouble. On the other hand, since I was blessed with the lack of that insight, all that time and effort have given me a much clearer understanding of what I believe and why.

And, so, in fine . . . thanks.

 

[mpartyka]

Then are you an adherent of the Church of Augustine? Or is it the Church of Leo? Or could it just be the Church of Pope Mike?

Call me “Big Poppa”.

if I had known months ago how cavalierly you would dismiss the preponderance of patristic and historical evidence for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and how steadfastly you would refuse to try to understand (or, in some cases, even read, apparently) what I’ve written about the development of doctrine and the magisterium…

I think you’ve missed the whole point of the thread. This thread isn’t entitled “The Magesterium on the Immaculate Conception,” it’s “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception.” I never said that what Pope Leo believed was in fact the teaching of the Church. I only pointed out that this is what he believed. The reader can determine for himself/herself whether that matters to him/her.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

I never said that what Pope Leo believed was in fact the teaching of the Church. I only pointed out that this is what he believed.

And yet you use what he believed – which was never the teaching of the Church – to attack the concept of the magisterium and the teaching of the Church because her teaching disagrees with his.

 

[BRB]

I never said that what Pope Leo believed was in fact the teaching of the Church. I only pointed out that this is what he believed. The reader can determine for himself/herself whether that matters to him/her.

Mike …

Popes are free to have their personal opinions. Some in the past have made wrong decisions, and were later made aware of their mistakes by the Magi … and when convinced of their error they reversed and made amends for it.

Didn’t Peter make mistakes ? Yet he repented, recovered from mistakes, and Christ was pleased with him in the final analysis.

The Catholic Church is self-correcting, in those rare cases where it’s been needed. It’s a Church you will learn to love and care deaply for.

Come united with her … and lend your talents to Christ.

 

[mpartyka]

And yet you use what he believed – which was never the teaching of the Church – to attack the concept of the magisterium and the teaching of the Church because her teaching disagrees with his.

I just find it interesting that the person ultimately responsible for maintaining the integrity of the faith is the one teaching error to his fellow bishops (though not in an “ex cathedra” way…which makes it all better).

Popes are free to have their personal opinions. Some in the past have made wrong decisions, and were later made aware of their mistakes by the Magi …

The “Magi”? Who are they, and why aren’t we supposed to look to them for infallible teaching, seeing how they apparently are able to correct even erring Popes?

–Mike

 

[rad314]

I just find it interesting that the person ultimately responsible for maintaining the integrity of the faith is the one teaching error to his fellow bishops (though not in an “ex cathedra” way…which makes it all better).

Just what is it you want? You can’t be bothered to understand what we’ve been trying to tell you, so you just keep going back to the same tired, snide, Protestant-inspired wisecracks.

Call me “Big Poppa”.

Speaking of 1984 . . . 2 + 2 = 5. Happy now?

 

[BRB]

The “Magi”? Who are they, and why aren’t we supposed to look to them for infallible teaching, seeing how they apparently are able to correct even erring Popes?

The Magisterial teaching organ of the Church. Think of them as the other 11 Apostles, plus Paul … who were always supporting Peter in the early days. Council of Jerusalem worked very well, and ever since.

There is strength in a unified front. Christ works thru errant humans … but, he gave the Church a system to insure infallible decisions regarding faith & morals.