The main source of the Immaculate Conception

[Pai_Nosso]

Where did this dogma come from?
The immediate response from some Catholics is to defend the church from protestant attack. Indeed the relevant articles on this site are written the same way, a defense against an attack.

But what happens when it’s a Catholic asking this question? From experience the defensive arguments used against protestants are ineffective in this situation. The Catholic isn’t attacking your faith, he is expressing his lack of faith so your objective should not be to defend but to help.

In the sources of Catholic dogma by Dengzinger this dogma appears in 1854. Saints and theologians may have debated it for centuries but in the Vatican writing it only appears suddenly in 1854. Why? Besides scripture, divine revelation is an accepted way of producing dogma. But none of the bishops or the pope reported having any revelations.

So where did this dogma come from??? Public Revelation

In 1830 St. Catherine Laboure had several apparition of the Virgin Mary. She said she was commissioned by the Virgin to have the medal of the Immaculate Conception or “Miraculous Medal” made in order to spread devotion to Our Lady.

The Vatican approved this apparition and medallions like these became very popular.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It reads “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee”
They are the words the virgin requested be put on this medallion

And so in 1854 Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the immaculate conception.

In 1858 the virgin appeared to St Bernadette at Lourdes. When asked who she was she replied “I am the Immaculate Conception” which justifies the churches decision a few years prior.

There is a time to defend against protestants and there a time to help your fellow Catholic. Please use this line of reasoning to help your brothers and sisters.
Thank you God Bless

 

[1ke]

So where did this dogma come from??? Public Revelation

Um, nope.

The apparitions to Sts Catherine and Bernadette were private revelations.

Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Immaculate Conception does indeed come from divine revelation, which includes sacred scripture and sacred tradition, just not the way you state.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As 1ke noted, what you describe is all private revelation. No Catholic is required to believe in private revelation. It would be perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to reject the approved apparitions to St. Catherine Laboure and St. Bernadette. And therefore, no non-Catholic would be required to believe in them either. The dogma also didn’t come from these private revelations. Rather, the Immaculate Conception had been discussed within the Church and celebrated in many places for centuries before it was declared dogma.

The Immaculate Conception as a Church teaching dates back to St. Gregory Nazianzen, who lived in the 300s. It was further developed by St. John Damascene (in the 600s) and others. In the 1100s and 1200s it was disputed by St. Bernard of Clairvaux (and hence the Dominicans) and St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, while Blessed John Duns Scotus and other Franciscans, as well as the popular opinion of Catholics, supported it. By the time it was declared a dogma in the mid-1800s, the overwhelming majority of bishops supported it.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Public rev, private rev, my bad.
I did mention the saints had been on it for centuries.

I have one source that says
“Pope Pius IX is thought to have been influenced by the apparitions.”
And another saying
“it paved the way for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception”

It helped me understand anyway. The dogma holds much more worth with Vatican approved revelation supporting it.

And Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and advocate came from another apparition as well.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It helped me understand anyway. The dogma holds much more worth with Vatican approved revelation supporting it.

And Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and advocate came from another apparition as well.

Mary as our mediatrix and advocate did not come from an apparition. Those titles are scripturally based and go back a very long way.
Currently the Church does not teach that Mary is our co-redemptrix.

Once again: no one is required to believe Marian apparitions, even approved ones. If you wish to make a good apologetics argument, you will just leave that stuff entirely out.

Dogmas and doctrines are not given to us via Marian apparitions. It is important that you understand this if you are going to discuss the topic with non-Catholics.

I would strongly suggest that you please do some reading on the history of basic Mariology - you could start with something as simple as Wiki article on the Immaculate Conception for example and look up the sources referenced.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Please use this line of reasoning to help your brothers and sisters.

There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, generally speaking, in order to help a Catholic with their faith. That is to say, that private revelation helps to unfold doctrine and help the faithful. As a matter of fact, at least one approved private revelation has explicitly stated that that was case (St. Faustina).

It is apparent that private revelation helps the Church to unfold and develop doctrine for the faithful (Divine Mercy Sunday).

The Immaculate Conception seems like another example, however I don’t know much about the circumstances surrounding the definition of the IC. It certainly is an interesting subject. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think it was St Iraneus who in the 2nd century first drew the parallel between Eve and Mary where implicitly the New Eve is sinless. Certainly St Augustine in the 4th century explicitly called Mary free from original sin, which implies the Immaculate Conception. I think St Anselm in the 11th century introduced the feast of the conception of Mary to Normandy.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, generally speaking, in order to help a Catholic with their faith.

The problem is that he is posting this as “the MAIN source of the Immaculate Conception”. He made it sound like the Immaculate Conception was just somehow revealed to Catholics in the 1800s. This is wrong.

As several of us have posted, the Immaculate Conception teaching goes back to the early Church. Thanks DanDefender for posting some more references to the early Church fathers.

Private revelation, which as I have said Catholics are not required to believe, can never be the main source of Church dogma, because if the only place you find a dogma is in private revelation, which a Catholic doesn’t have to believe, then the Church can’t logically take that teaching and make it into a dogma that Catholics are required to believe. It also would look very suspect if the Church purported to teach the unchanging truth for 2000 years but were somehow adding dogmas in the 1800s based on somebody having a private revelation - that sounds more like Joseph Smith than the Catholic Church.
Dogma has to have its roots in the public revelation of the early Church - the Scripture and apostolic tradition.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

He made it sound like the Immaculate Conception was just somehow revealed to Catholics in the 1800s.

I didn’t get that impression. Although, I’d agree that the wording in the original post could have been better.

 

[Rau]

Here is a recent thread that led to a similar topic (Marian dogma).

Infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic church Moral Theology

I learnt that the Catholic church has 255 infallible dogmas. (http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/) It s said that a person must know and believe all 255 dogmas to be considered a proper Catholic. One who doesn’t believe in just one of these dogmas should not be taking holy communion. Is this interpretation correct?

 

[Vico]

…

Mediatrix is an ancient title used by St. Ephrem of Edessa (lived 306 – 373 A.D.).

For the dogma, Pope BI. Pius IX in 1854 wrote in Ineffabilis Deus:

So at the instance and request of the bishops mentioned above, with the chapters of the churches, and of King Philip and his kingdoms, we renew the Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, especially Sixtus IV,[8] Paul V,[9] and Gregory XV,[10] in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin; and also in favor of the feast and veneration of the conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as is manifest, was instituted in keeping with that pious belief. So we command this feast to be observed under the censures and penalties contained in the same Constitutions.

8. Apost. Const. Cum Praeexcelsa, February 28, 1476; Grave Nemis, September 4, 1483; Denz., nn. 734, 735.
9. Apost. Const. Sanctissimus, September 12, 1617.
10. Apost. Const. Sanctissimus, June 4, 1622.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

The problem is that he is posting this as “the MAIN source of the Immaculate Conception”. He made it sound like the Immaculate Conception was just somehow revealed to Catholics in the 1800s. This is wrong.

Your claim that I somehow tried to make it sound like it was invented in the 19th century is nothing but a false accusation. Did u even read my post or did u just read the title?

As several of us have posted, the Immaculate Conception teaching goes back to the early Church.

I mentioned this in my opening post, a 2nd time in my last post and again now. Repeating this demonstrates lack of attention to what i’ve said

Once again: no one is required to believe Marian apparitions, even approved ones

You say “once again” but I never suggested otherwise. . . . .

It is important that you understand this if you are going to discuss the topic with non-Catholics.

If you wish to make a good apologetics argument, you will just leave that stuff entirely out.

. . . . Im not trying to build an apologetics argument to use against non-Christians. In fact I made it very clear that this line of reasoning is a better way to help Catholics understand. Presenting the dogma with the support of revelation is a far better approach than presenting it without revelation.

This is my suggestion on how to better help Catholics with their faith. You can continue to present apologetic arguments used on non_Christians if you wish

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You should not even be telling Catholics that a private revelation - which you mistakenly identified as a public revelation and were corrected by another poster - is the source of a dogma.

When you post things that appear to convey misinformation and are likely to confuse other readers, Protestant and Catholic, then we have a duty to post corrections. Sorry if you don’t like it, but the forum is meant to provide correct information. Have a nice day.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

You should not even be telling Catholics that a private revelation - which you mistakenly identified as a public revelation and were corrected by another poster - is the source of a dogma.

Why not? I called it the main source, implying that there is another.

When you post things that appear to convey misinformation and are likely to confuse other readers, Protestant and Catholic, then we have a duty to post corrections. Sorry if you don’t like it, but the forum is meant to provide correct information. Have a nice day.

Calm down and tell me what your not pleased with exactly.
Is it the title “main source”? Just call it “a source”. No sweat
Anything else you’d like to correct?

 

[redal]

Where did this dogma come from?

I’m not sure in any of the responses thus far (although I may have missed it) that your question has actually been answered…here is what I believe you may be looking for:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ , the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin .”

 

[Rau]

That is the last step, not the origins.

 

[redal]

That is the last step, not the origins

I believe the question was what was the origin of the dogma…this was the origin of the dogma. The origin of the fact is the salvation economy authored by God himself.

 

[Rau]

I believe the question was what was the origin of the dogma…this was the origin of the dogma.

With that interpretation, the origin of every dogma is its declaration. That is not what the poster is after as s/he has explained in other threads on the similar topic.

 

[redal]

With that interpretation, the origin of every dogma is its declaration

Yes, it is. The pope is allowed, as the Vicar of Christ, to make such declarations as the Holy Spirit guides him to…not every dogma or doctrine is going to be able to be traced to explicit scriptural passages.

That is not what the poster is after as s/he has explained in other threads on the similar topic.

That claim, until the OP weighs in, might be entirely speculative.

 

[Rau]

That claim, until the OP weighs in, might be entirely speculative.

Or you could look at his/her other thread(s). I posted a link.