Pope Pius IX - Infallible and erroneous- Ineffabilis Deus

[WesleyF]

All of Pope Pius IX’s quotes below are from Ineffabilis Deus.

“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.”

I agree with that. Here’s what I don’t agree with -

“And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine.”

I think this is false.* By the way, this still doesn’t violate papal infallibility, which extends to matters of faith and morals, and not matters of history. * I think the pope is just bluntly wrong to make a claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of venerable antiquity. In fact, Thomas Aquinas, who I am sure had access to most of these documents said in his commentary on the Hail Mary,

“Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin. The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but not born in it.”

So I think this is a case of a misinformed pope, who erroneously thinks that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of antiquity, and then goes on to proclaim it as dogma. However, the Holy Spirit didn’t prevent him from doing so, because although he was wrong in his historical knowledge, he wasn’t theologically wrong. Can we agree to this?

It somehow reminds me of John 11:49-52

“But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

Just as Cai’aphas didn’t know what he was talking about, yet the Holy Spirit used him to proclaim the truth; in the same way, I believe Pope Pius IX was wrong about his historical information about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, yet the Holy Spirit used him to proclaim the truth.

What do you think?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Actually, I believe the reason Aquinas said that was because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was floating around, so he felt he had to examine it logically.

I THINK (Not sure!) that Blessed John Duns Scotus was the one who resolved the logical problems surrounding the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

After some googling, I found that I was right about one thing-it was Blessed John Duns Scotus who solved the logical problems surrounding the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception

christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Hello, Wesley.

Before I comment, I feel I must make a much needed and very important note. That regardless of whether Blessed Pius IX knew what he was speaking of historically, does not detract from the Immaculate Conception in any way. In that same stroke, this lack of historical knowledge likewise does not detract from the saintly life led by Blessed Pius IX and does not stain His Holiness’ good character. That being said, I feel it must be made perfectly clear, that the historical acuracy of Ineffabilis Deus is at question, not the validity of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the intentions, life, and dignity of Blessed Pius IX.

I feel that it is prudent to carefully study the evolution of the belief of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mother of God, within the history of Holy Mother Church. These documents mentioned by Pius IX could be the ones written by men like Eadmer, Iranaeus, Maximus of Turin, St. Ephraem (representing the Syrians), or John Damascene. These great Fathers all wrote of Mary’s illustrious Immaculate Grace. And though, while, they were not mentioned explicitly, they all could be counted amongst these “illustrious documents of venerable antiquity” that Pius IX so cited in Ineffabilis Deus.

Also, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Aquinas does have writings that come out in support of the Immaculate Conception. Apparantly found here: I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3 in his treatises on the Sentences. I have yet to find them and I fear that they may not have been translated yet. (I can’t wait to learn Italian). I have a deep admiration of Aquinas, but this doesn’t change that simply because he was in error concerning the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX was historically inaccurate to say that historically, documents have been in support of the Dogma. From Iranaeus to Duns Scotus and from Justin to Eadmer the large majority of the great theologians have fallen in rank.

I say in full confidence that if Aquinas and the others who can be quoted in opposition to the Immaculate Conception were to understand the Doctrine as put forth by Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus in 1854, they would be in strong support.

I will keep hunting down that treatise on the Sentences by Aquinas that shows him in support for the Immaculate Conception. Furthermore I look forward to a nice discussion on this topic.

 

[anruari]

"And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin,

He never says “Unanimously”. just because you can find documents of venerable antiquity that do not agree with him does not make him historically inaccurate.

The whole point of declaring something to be infallible is that it is only needed if there is genuine disagreement on the point and it therefore needs to be clarified.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the pope is just bluntly wrong to make a claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of venerable antiquity.

But it was. (examples) He didn’t claim complete articulation of the dogma in every work. He claimed it was “more and more splendidly explained.”

 

[Katholish]

A doctrine can only be declared infallible if it is based in the Deposit of Faith–that revelation given to us through our Lord and the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and Evangelists before 100 AD.

If you disagree with Bl. Pius IX that there is historical basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you have to disagree with the doctrine itself. Either something was taught implicitly or explicitly from the beginning of the Church or it was not, if not, it could never be infallibly defined.

Bl. Pius IX was not in error on this matter, and if you want to see some of the historical proof he was talking about, just look at the Catholic encyclopdeia:

Mary as the second Eve

This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt — that is to say, not subject to original sin — and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
•Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),
•Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
•Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
•Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
•Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
•Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
•Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
•Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.
•The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
•Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
•Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
•Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);
•Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
•In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (On Nature and Grace 36).
•Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
•it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
•she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
•she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
•when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
•The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
•To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
•Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I agree with that. Here’s what I don’t agree with -

I think this is false.* By the way, this still doesn’t violate papal infallibility*, which extends to matters of faith and morals, and not matters of history. I think the pope is just bluntly wrong to make a claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of venerable antiquity. In fact, Thomas Aquinas, who I am sure had access to most of these documents said in his commentary on the Hail Mary, Quote:
**“Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin. The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but not born in it.” **

So I think this is a case of a misinformed pope, who erroneously thinks that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of antiquity, and then goes on to proclaim it as dogma. However, the Holy Spirit didn’t prevent him from doing so, because although he was wrong in his historical knowledge, he wasn’t theologically wrong. Can we agree to this?

I don’t read Aquinas’ quote that way. Thomas is comparing Jesus’ sinless birth with Mary’s. What he means is that Mary’s parents had original sin, but that she was prevented from inheriting it from her parents. That is what is meant by conceived in original sin, but not born in it.
Jesus, on the other hand, unlike Mary, had no parent who had original sin! This way Christ’s birth excelled Mary’s.

So in a matter of history the pope was not incorrect.

 

[Katholish]

I don’t read Aquinas’ quote that way. Thomas is comparing Jesus’ sinless birth with Mary’s. What he means is that Mary’s parents had original sin, but that she was prevented from inheriting it from her parents. That is what is meant by conceived in original sin, but not born in it.
Jesus, on the other hand, unlike Mary, had no parent who had original sin! This way Christ’s birth excelled Mary’s.

So in a matter of history the pope was not incorrect.

It is well-known that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception. The OP correctly cites St. Thomas as a source that did not accept it as an inspired teaching. St. Thomas is arguing that Mary had a case like St. John the Baptist, that while not immaculately conceived, Original Sin was removed in utero.

The fact that St. Thomas didn’t accept the IC does not mean that Bl. Pius IX was wrong on the matter of history (which he was not).

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is well-known that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception. The OP correctly cites St. Thomas as a source that did not accept it as an inspired teaching.

I copied this from another poster a while back. But it seems St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception in some places, but accepted it in others:*Here are the texts that Garrigou-Lagrange gives to support his thesis:

In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

In the second period, St. Thomas explicitely denies the Immaculate Conception: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

In the third period, “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica]*

 

[Katholish]

Whatever the case, his opinion was so influential that the Dominican Order, almost as a whole, denied the Immaculate Conception, some even right up until 1854.

 

[WesleyF]

If you disagree with Bl. Pius IX that there is historical basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you have to disagree with the doctrine itself.

In my post, I said that that - “I think the pope is just bluntly wrong to make a claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of venerable antiquity.”

By these, I did not mean the scriptures, but the writings outside the scriptures. In my view the doctrine is found in scripture, but it wasn’t yet understood in history. It wasn’t “splendidly explained” as the pope claims.

 

[WesleyF]

But it was. (examples) He didn’t claim complete articulation of the dogma in every work. He claimed it was “more and more splendidly explained.”

These quotes are good. However, it is hard to verify some of them.

 

[Katholish]

In my post, I said that that - “I think the pope is just bluntly wrong to make a claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was testified to in documents of venerable antiquity.”

By these, I did not mean the scriptures, but the writings outside the scriptures. In my view the doctrine is found in scripture, but it wasn’t yet understood in history. It wasn’t “splendidly explained” as the pope claims.

The Patristic doctrine of Mary as the New Eve, beautifully set forth by St. Irenaeus (one of the earliest Church Fathers) and picked up by many of the later Fathers is more than abundant proof.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Whatever the case, his opinion was so influential that the Dominican Order, almost as a whole, denied the Immaculate Conception, some even right up until 1854.

Yeah, I always heard/read that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception for logical reasons and Duns Scotus solved the logical problems.

But the very fact that both of them felt it had to be addressed meant it was a very well known tradition.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

In my view the doctrine is found in scripture, but it wasn’t yet understood in history. It wasn’t “splendidly explained” as the pope claims.

Hello again Wesley.

As I said before, there are ample amounts of examples showing that not only the Church Fathers, but theologians throughout the Church prior to 1854 defended the belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The Church Fathers and the Upper Clergy of the Church seemed to be very involved in discussing the ever evolving understanding of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, mother of God. I was told by an Augustinian Priest who is now at Villanova (I think) that the struggle many historical figures had was that Mary couldn’t have been conceived without sin because in order for that to be possible, Anne, mother of Mary, would have to be conceived without sin and so on and so on. Naturally this was not the case, but this was a logical understanding of it. It must be stressed that if those figures would certainly concur with Ineffabilis Deus in its contemporary understanding.

In order to understand the evolution of our understanding we should first recognize the figures that had such an impact on it. This is important because this will show that, despite Aquinas and Bonaventure’s opposition to the belief; that it thrived in the hearts and minds of other renowned theologians. For this we should look back to Ineffabilis Deus for the answer. Ineffabilis Deus shows that a previous Pontiff, Alexander VII, put the Immaculate Conception in a prominent:

Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: “Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.”

Alexander VII was Vicar of Christ nearly 200 years before the Immaculate Conception was defined. His Holiness recognizes that the belief in the Immaculate Conception was “ancient”. So to say that Pius IX was historically wrong, is also to say that Alexander VII was wrong in his understanding as well. Now, an argument you could say to that point could be that while the Belief was ancient, the theological defenses were lacking. However, this is not so as previously pointed out with Justin and Iraenaus. The Papal defenses, alone, should be enough as not only were Pius IX and Alexander VII the only Holy Fathers to support the belief, but also Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV. These Pontiffs saw that the tradition the Immaculate Conception had been defended by the Church Fathers and throughout time.

Ineffabilis Deus also notes that the Council of Trent, one of the most defining councils in our history, excluded the Blessed Virgin Mary from their definitions of Original Sin:

Declarat tamen haec ipsa sancta Synodus, non esse suae intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papae IV, sub poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.

This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews. (June 17 1546)

I think that showing the Council of Trent of being in support of Sixtus IV’s previous “constitutions” is telling. While Aquinas lived nearly 300 years before the Council of Trent it can be assumed that Sixtus IV didn’t simply decide to take the side of the believers. As I said previously, I am positive that the evolution of the teaching can be seen from the Early Church Fathers to Sixtus IV, to Trent, and to Ineffabilis Deus. This being said, Pius IX wouldn’t have erred in his historical knowledge.

 

[WesleyF]

Hello again Wesley.

As I said before, there are ample amounts of examples showing that not only the Church Fathers, but theologians throughout the Church prior to 1854 defended the belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The Church Fathers and the Upper Clergy of the Church seemed to be very involved in discussing the ever evolving understanding of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, mother of God. I was told by an Augustinian Priest who is now at Villanova (I think) that the struggle many historical figures had was that Mary couldn’t have been conceived without sin because in order for that to be possible, Anne, mother of Mary, would have to be conceived without sin and so on and so on. Naturally this was not the case, but this was a logical understanding of it. It must be stressed that if those figures would certainly concur with Ineffabilis Deus in its contemporary understanding.

In order to understand the evolution of our understanding we should first recognize the figures that had such an impact on it. This is important because this will show that, despite Aquinas and Bonaventure’s opposition to the belief; that it thrived in the hearts and minds of other renowned theologians. For this we should look back to Ineffabilis Deus for the answer. Ineffabilis Deus shows that a previous Pontiff, Alexander VII, put the Immaculate Conception in a prominent:

Alexander VII was Vicar of Christ nearly 200 years before the Immaculate Conception was defined. His Holiness recognizes that the belief in the Immaculate Conception was “ancient”. So to say that Pius IX was historically wrong, is also to say that Alexander VII was wrong in his understanding as well. Now, an argument you could say to that point could be that while the Belief was ancient, the theological defenses were lacking. However, this is not so as previously pointed out with Justin and Iraenaus. The Papal defenses, alone, should be enough as not only were Pius IX and Alexander VII the only Holy Fathers to support the belief, but also Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV. These Pontiffs saw that the tradition the Immaculate Conception had been defended by the Church Fathers and throughout time.

Ineffabilis Deus also notes that the Council of Trent, one of the most defining councils in our history, excluded the Blessed Virgin Mary from their definitions of Original Sin:

I think that showing the Council of Trent of being in support of Sixtus IV’s previous “constitutions” is telling. While Aquinas lived nearly 300 years before the Council of Trent it can be assumed that Sixtus IV didn’t simply decide to take the side of the believers. As I said previously, I am positive that the evolution of the teaching can be seen from the Early Church Fathers to Sixtus IV, to Trent, and to Ineffabilis Deus. This being said, Pius IX wouldn’t have erred in his historical knowledge.

“Holy Father, now I believe!” - Bishop of Little Rock

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

“Holy Father, now I believe!” - Bishop of Little Rock

Forgive me, I don’t understand what you mean by that.

 

[WesleyF]

Forgive me, I don’t understand what you mean by that.

It is a quote from a bishop who was earlier opposed to the definition of papal infallibility and then later accepted it with the words - “Holy Father, now I believe!”

In the same way, now I believe that Pope Piux IX was not erroneous!

 

[The_Scott]

It is a quote from a bishop who was earlier opposed to the definition of papal infallibility and then later accepted it with the words - “Holy Father, now I believe!”

In the same way, now I believe that Pope Piux IX was not erroneous!

That’s beautiful.