Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[mpartyka]

Just what is it you want?

Basically, I am arguing that Pope Leo the Great did not himself believe in or teach the Immaculate Conception. Do you agree? (It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question, so try not to be evasive.)

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Basically, I am arguing that Pope Leo the Great did not himself believe in or teach the Immaculate Conception. Do you agree? (It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question, so try not to be evasive.)

I don’t know whether he believed it or not – I know you don’t want to hear that – but for the sake of discussion I’ll allow that he didn’t.

Now, go back and review the outline of the dogma’s history that I sketched a month or so ago, I guess it was. And remember what I’ve said about the development of doctrine and the reasons the Church formalizes some teachings either through a council or an ex cathedra declaration.

And now let me take a crack at putting something before you that I’m not at all sure has been explained to you.

The Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church will not teach error. Everything the Church teaches is true. That doesn’t mean that everything that is true was ever taught by the Church, is now taught by the Church, or ever will be taught by the Church. It means that at no time can the Church teach something that is false. The Church teaches more now than she did 1500 years ago and almost certainly less than she will 1500 years into the future (barring the Second Coming, of course). Note that something doesn’t ‘become true’ when the Church starts to teach it; it was true all along. The magisterium is the Church’s authority to teach infallibly. The Church exercises that authority in two ways, through the ordinary (universal) magisterium and through the extraordinary magisterium. When the pope teaches a matter of faith or morals and all (or substantially all) of the bishops teach the same thing, that is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. There are two forms of the extraordinary magisterium: 1) a formal teaching relating to faith or morals promulgated by an ecumenical council (a council made up of all or substantially all of the bishops in communion with the pope) and confirmed by the pope and 2) an ex cathedra declaration on faith or morals by the pope. (For details you can start with the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II.)

Now, can you see why St. Leo the Great’s personal belief as a theologian, even expressed to other bishops and theologians, doesn’t rise to the level of a teaching of the Church? Consider Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth. Don’t you think he expected every bishop in the world to read that? Not only is it not infallible – he goes out of his way to point out that it’s not infallible. A theologian expressing his views to theologians (among others).

 

[BRB]

Now, can you see why St. Leo the Great’s personal belief as a theologian, even expressed to other bishops and theologians, doesn’t rise to the level of a teaching of the Church? Consider Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth. Don’t you think he expected every bishop in the world to read that? Not only is it not infallible – he goes out of his way to point out that it’s not infallible. A theologian expressing his views to theologians (among others).

Beautiful explanation

 

[mpartyka]

I don’t know whether he believed it or not – I know you don’t want to hear that – but for the sake of discussion I’ll allow that he didn’t.

And that’s all I’m looking for – well, settling for, really. I want people to take note that Pope Leo the Great did not (or at least the probability was high, based on his writings, that he did not) believe or teach the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. What people then do with this little nugget of knowledge is entirely up to them.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

And that’s all I’m looking for – well, settling for, really. I want people to take note that Pope Leo the Great did not (or at least the probability was high, based on his writings, that he did not) believe or teach the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. What people then do with this little nugget of knowledge is entirely up to them.

And those who understand what I presented in #302 will realize that there’s little, if anything, to be done, honestly, with that precious little nugget.

 

[BRB]

I want people to take note that Pope Leo the Great did not (or at least the probability was high, based on his writings, that he did not) believe or teach the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. What people then do with this little nugget of knowledge is entirely up to them.

–Mike

Pope Leo the Great did same as Augustine did, or as You / I need.

We pray the Father, “Not our will, but thine be done” … and we grow in grace to a fuller understanding of Mary’s singular devotion to Christ, and her ability to intercede for us to Him.

Get in touch with your spiritual Mother …

 

[rad314]

I simply don’t believe everything that comes out of the Church’s (or pope’s) mouth, especially when it comes to birth control.

Aha! I was curious at the time, but it just now occurred to me why this is of such interest to you.

You have to convince yourself (‘prove’ would be something altogether different) that the Church is wrong and that the Anglicans were right because otherwise you have to confront Orthodoxy’s innovation of accepting contraception.

 

[mpartyka]

Aha! I was curious at the time, but it just now occurred to me why this is of such interest to you. You have to convince yourself (‘prove’ would be something altogether different) that the Church is wrong and that the Anglicans were right because otherwise you have to confront Orthodoxy’s innovation of accepting contraception.

Actually, I don’t think I was the one who originally brought up the topic of birth control. But, yes, the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial birth control has always stuck in my craw somewhat, which is why I took some time to read that book on the Papal Birth Control Commission. I’d prefer to cover my thoughts on Humanae Vitae and such in another thread, though, and I do intend to start one once I’ve sorted out my thoughts.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

But, yes, the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial birth control has always stuck in my craw somewhat

What did you think of the Papal teaching … Theology of the Body ?

 

[mpartyka]

What did you think of the Papal teaching … Theology of the Body ?

I’ve never heard of it until now. I looked it up on EWTN…129 documents? No thanks. Can you give me the Cliffs’ Notes version?

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Actually, I don’t think I was the one who originally brought up the topic of birth control.

Post #230. Yours. (At least, that’s the first reference I saw.)

And I’ll take the opportunity to make a point I’ve mentioned before and with which you readily agreed, so there’s another of your contradictions. You made two statements in the last paragraph of #230 that have ‘only’ in italics. Change ‘only’ to ‘primarily’ and ‘primary’, respectively, and you’ve got something.

 

[mpartyka]

Post #230. Yours. (At least, that’s the first reference I saw.)

Yeah, but all I did was make an offhand comment linking the attitude of the Fathers toward married relations to the Church’s ban on artificial birth control. You’re the one who seized on that statement and made a whole thing out of it.

And I’ll take the opportunity to make a point I’ve mentioned before and with which you readily agreed, so there’s another of your contradictions. You made two statements in the last paragraph of #230 that have ‘only’ in italics. Change ‘only’ to ‘primarily’ and ‘primary’, respectively, and you’ve got something.

Sure I’d have something – I’d have something that wasn’t reflective of the views of the Fathers. If you go back and read the Fathers, you’ll see that married conjugal love is only – yes, only encouraged for the sake of procreation. Anything beyond that, in the mind of the Fathers, would be considered an immoderate gratification of lust. Sex for pleasure’s sake is not forbidden, granted, but it’s neither encouraged nor viewed favorably by the Fathers. Moreover, even in the case of sex initiated for the sake of procreation, the Fathers are clear that sin is still present in conjugal love due to the lust and pleasure necessarily involved in the performance of the act.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

You’re the one who seized on that statement and made a whole thing out of it.

Well, I certainly agree that things would be much easier for you if the rules allow you to make any outlandish claim you want and it can’t be challenged.

Sure I’d have something – I’d have something that wasn’t reflective of the views of the Fathers. If you go back and read the Fathers, you’ll see that married conjugal love is only – yes, only encouraged for the sake of procreation.

Simply not true and there have been quotes and references here to prove it. Are you forgetting the mutual help of the spouses, the provision of a remedy for concupiscence, the sacramental nature of marriage? You agreed earlier – only a few days ago! – that those are purposes of marriage and that they are good.

 

[mpartyka]

Simply not true and there have been quotes and references here to prove it. Are you forgetting the mutual help of the spouses, the provision of a remedy for concupiscence, the sacramental nature of marriage? You agreed earlier – only a few days ago! – that those are purposes of marriage and that they are good.

I agree that these are purposes of marriage, and I agree that they are good. What I disagree with is the idea that the Fathers ever encouraged or favorably viewed sex within marriage initiated for any of these secondary purposes.

For example, in Protestant circles one pastor encouraged his married parishioners to have sex every day for a week. Something like this would have never crossed the Fathers’ minds. The Fathers, to be frank, were total prudes. Their attitude would have been more like, “Well, if you have to have sex more than once a year, go ahead – the sacrament of marriage covers the venial sin involved – but you really should try to be chaste even in marriage, since chastity (i.e., virginity) is the ideal, after all.”

–Mike

 

[mardukm]

Their attitude would have been more like, “Well, if you have to have sex more than once a year, go ahead – the sacrament of marriage covers the venial sin involved – but you really should try to be chaste even in marriage, since chastity (i.e., virginity) is the ideal, after all.”

I always thought “chastity in marriage” referred to sexual fidelity to one’s wife (aside from the obvious, this includes no masturbation - which is a selfish act - and no porno, which causes your mind to be unfaithful).

I never understood it to mean “have the least amount of sex as possible.” Can some fellow Catholic support or correct my understanding, please?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad314]

I agree that these are purposes of marriage, and I agree that they are good. What I disagree with is the idea that the Fathers ever encouraged or favorably viewed sex within marriage initiated for any of these secondary purposes.

For example, in Protestant circles one pastor encouraged his married parishioners to have sex every day for a week. Something like this would have never crossed the Fathers’ minds. The Fathers, to be frank, were total prudes. Their attitude would have been more like, “Well, if you have to have sex more than once a year, go ahead – the sacrament of marriage covers the venial sin involved – but you really should try to be chaste even in marriage, since chastity (i.e., virginity) is the ideal, after all.”

You don’t say anything about the motives behind the Protestant pastor’s suggestion, so I don’t know whether the ECFs might have found occasion to recommend the same. (Actually, if they could see the miniscule birth rates in 21st-century Western Europe and the US, that might be exactly what they would recommend – without contraception, of course.) Regardless, I think the ECFs (especially Augustine), if taking a somewhat dim view, don’t view things quite as dimly as you suggest. Remember that virginity, celibacy, and chastity are three distinct concepts.

But, in any case, even if their views were exactly as you suggest, nothing of consequence (to the purposes of someone trying to attack the Church) follows, for the reasons I’ve explained.

 

[rad314]

I always thought “chastity in marriage” referred to sexual fidelity to one’s wife (aside from the obvious, this includes no masturbation - which is a selfish act - and no porno, which causes your mind to be unfaithful).

I never understood it to mean “have the least amount of sex as possible.”

And no contraception.

Spot-on, mardukm!

 

[mardukm]

And no contraception.

Thanks! I included that under the statement “aside from the obvious.” I should have known better that such an understanding is not “obvious” in today’s society.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mpartyka]

Just stumbled across this passage from St. Augustine, who, ironically, is often cited (incorrectly) as having supported the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame…Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin, unless, indeed, it be born again in Him whom the Virgin conceived without this concupiscence. Wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in the flesh, He alone was born without sin. – On Marriage and Concupiscence 1:27

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Likewise:

He only was born without sin whom a virgin conceived without the embrace of a husband,—not by the concupiscence of the flesh, but by the chaste submission of her mind. She alone was able to give birth to One who should heal our wound, who brought forth the germ of a pure offspring without the wound of sin. – St. Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1:57

–Mike