What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[rinnie]

Jon,

I really appreciate your taking the time to post your comments from the Lutheran perspective.

I did find, as you said, “that each side tends to portray his mariology to support their side.” I quoted Catholic sources in post #356 that claimed Luther defended the doctrine of IC, until his death----but then found a non-Catholic source (James Swan’s blog) arguing that Luther believed the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified Mary in the “moment of the Virgin’s conception.”

Beliefs in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption would not be a problem for me one way or the other. The deal breaker in regards to the topic of this thread (official infallible declaration of any Pope), is the CC’s claim that these beliefs are necessary for salvation. Catholics, please correct me, if I have misunderstood.

Jon, once again, thanks for your comments,
Anna

Anna Yes it has always been believed and alway been taught.

2 Thess. 2:25 Therefore brothers stand firm and hold fast the traditions that you were taught either by oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Was the Immaculate Conception taught by oral statement. Yes it was.

So what you are asking is can we believe what we want to accept or believe or do we have to believe the entire teachings of the Church.

Well the answer is we must accept and believe everything. We are to hold firm to ALL.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey you read what “Pelikan” stated, you can believe what you choose.

Jaroslav Pelikan commenting on “the Marian doctrines of the immaculate conception in 1854 and the assumption in 1950”:

…to take these traditions and opinions and now elevate them to the status of an official doctrine, binding on the entire church de fide and laying claim to the same authority as the doctrine of the Trinity, seemed to be completely presumptuous and utterly without biblical warrant. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996], p. 205).

 

[Mickey]

How in the world do you come up with that thinking there my friend.

Very simple dear. St Mary was like you or I. Christ received His humanity from his mother. He was completely human and completely divine. St Mary was born with original sin…yet remained sinless by grace. She is our great example.

 

[Mickey]

MIckey, Mary was Gods plan for Christ who else does this in Scripture? Nobody!!! That alone make’s Her an exception.

Everything is God’s plan. Christ exisited from the beginning. He became man at a point in time and was born of the Virgin Mary. God shows us that she was human. She was not an exception. She is our example. We are called to follow her example in our effort to "flee from sin’. She shows us how it is possible to fight and resist the passions.

 

[JonNC]

Jaroslav Pelikan commenting on “the Marian doctrines of the immaculate conception in 1854 and the assumption in 1950”:

…to take these traditions and opinions and now elevate them to the status of an official doctrine, binding on the entire church de fide and laying claim to the same authority as the doctrine of the Trinity, seemed to be completely presumptuous and utterly without biblical warrant. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996], p. 205).

Pelikan states here quite well, at least from my understanding, the Lutheran take (not surprisingly). It is the binding of the conscience of the believer, not the beliefs themselves that
are troublesome for Lutherans. ISTM the IC and Assumption cannot even be compared in importance to the doctrine of Holy Theotokos, as it speaks directly to the Incarnation.
My question, as is usually the case, how do we work through this in a way where the doctrines are not Church dividing?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Gary.

Jon

You know what Jon, I like your thinking, and its not different in this regard than many Catholics. History, scripture and the early church fathers give us all this information, we just need to read it, though reading and accepting are different beasts. Nonetheless…

“The fact that the Blessed Virgin declares her need of a savior isn’t a distinction, IMO, as even if she was immaculately conceived, her sinlessness was by grace, and not by something of her own nature. Therefore, she knew she was in need of a savior.”

This is very in-line with Duns Scotus…as he stated “Its Possible for God”…

1] To preserve Mary from original sin.

2] To preserve Her within an instant of Conception {also taught by Aquinas}

3] Or to purify her at ‘some period’ in time before the conception of Jesus.

Which was done? If it does not contradict scripture or the authority of the Church, its better to err on the side of superabundance that to err on the side of inadequacy by reducing Marys excellence. Since not only was She “Full of Grace”, Mary continue’s to receive Grace through time from God. Never has this mystery stopped. {Nor has it since}

Mary needed Christ as the redeemer more than anyone did, not on the account of the sin that was present in Her, but on account of the Sin that would have been present, if Her Son had not been preserved through Faith. Mary was Immaculately Conceived because what Nature had not given Her, the Grace of God had accomplished in Her. It was by Marys case alone that this method of redemption by preservation was judged the “Most Fitting” and therfore Her restoration was not an act of supplying what had been lost, but an act of increasing what Mary already has…Grace, she is Full of Grace. In Marys case this absence of original sin is a privilege.

Anyway, nice post Jon and I believe you are absolutely right with you take on Luther also.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Mickey]

My question, as is usually the case, how do we work through this in a way where the doctrines are not Church dividing?

Indeed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jaroslav Pelikan commenting on “the Marian doctrines of the immaculate conception in 1854 and the assumption in 1950”:

…to take these traditions and opinions and now elevate them to the status of an official doctrine, binding on the entire church de fide and laying claim to the same authority as the doctrine of the Trinity, seemed to be completely presumptuous and utterly without biblical warrant. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996], p. 205).

Its misrepresented and not the entire context of that conversation. This statement here should give you the FIRST CLUE!

“seemed to be” completely presumptuous and utterly without biblical warrant. DO you read “SEEMED” to be>>>>>>>>Then what did He say???

Now I’m sounding like you Mick with “guilt”?

 

[Mickey]

Then what did He say???

I don’t have the book on hand…you tell me.

 

[rinnie]

Very simple dear. St Mary was like you or I. Christ received His humanity from his mother. He was completely human and completely divine. St Mary was born with original sin…yet remained sinless by grace. She is our great example.

Here is how Bishop Wuerl teaches it, He is actually a Cardinal now.

In the anticipation that she was to bear the Son of God Mary was preserved FROM her CONCEPTION from any STAIN of Original Sin. We call this the Immaculate Conception.

This was a teaching of the Church from the beginning of time.

No TAINT of sin WOULD touch her so that she would be fitting and worthy vessel of the incarnation.

Big fat difference between me and the Blessed Mother Mick.

Even though I am saved from Original SIn at the moment of my Baptism I still have the stain of it on me. I can still fall out of Grace with God and into acutal sin at any time.

Not possible for the Blessed Mother

 

[Mickey]

Here is how Bishop Wuerl teaches it, He is actually a Cardinal now.

Lol! I know how the RCC teaches it.

 

[rinnie]

Everything is God’s plan. Christ exisited from the beginning. He became man at a point in time and was born of the Virgin Mary. God shows us that she was human. She was not an exception. She is our example. We are called to follow her example in our effort to "flee from sin’. She shows us how it is possible to fight and resist the passions.

Sorry Mickey that is not what the teaching of the CC is nor ever was.

Pope Pius IX proclaimed in Ineffabilis Deus that the Most BLessed Virgin Mother was from the moment of her conception by a SINGULAR GRACE and PRIVILEGE of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Human Race preserved IMMUNE for all STAIN of original sin.

Since Mary was freed from Original sin and its CONSEQUENCES death could not claim Mary in the same manner that it takes each of us. It is the teaching and faith of the Church that Mary was suumed bodily into heaven when her earthly days were complete.

Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus.

Being immune from Original sin is quite an exception Mickey.

 

[rinnie]

Lol! I know how the RCC teaches it.

And may I add has the authority to do so

 

[Mickey]

Then what did He say???

Furthermore, Jaroslav was an Orthodox layman…sometimes with a very Ecumenical approach. He had a unique style whereas he liked to write from the perspective of the group that he was referencing. I like many of his writings but…

let us look at some excerpts from Saint John Maximovitch of the Holy Orthodox Church:

The corruption by the Latins, in the newly-invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception,” of the true veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.

When those who censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin had been rebuked, as well as those who denied Her Evervirginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, and those who disdained Her icons-then, when the glory of the Mother of God had illuminated the whole universe, there appeared a teaching which seemingly exalted highly the Virgin Mary, but in reality denied all Her virtues.
This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this- that:
“the All-blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Bull of Pope Pius IX concerning the new dogma).

Christians had not heard of this before the ninth century, **when for the first **time the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Beginning, from the 12th century, this idea begins to spread among the clergy and flock of the Western church, which had already fallen away from the Universal Church and thereby lost the grace of the Holy Spirit.

However, by no means all of the members of the Roman church agreed with the new teaching. There was a difference of among the most renowned theologians of the West, the pillars, so to speak, of the Latin church. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisively censured it, while Duns Scotus defended it. From the teachers this division carried over to their disciples: the Latin Dominican monks, after their teacher Thomas Aquinas, preached against the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, while the followers of Duns Scotus, the Franciscans, strove to implant it everywhere. The battle between these two currents continued for the course of several centuries. Both on the one and on the other side there were those who were considered among the Catholics as the greatest authorities.

Continued…

 

[Mickey]

Thus, neither on the foundation of theological writings, nor on the foundation of miraculous manifestations which contradicted each other, could the Latin flock distinguish for a long time where the truth was. Roman Popes until Sixtus IV (end of the 15th century) remained apart from these disputes, and only this Pope in 1475 approved a service in which the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was clearly expressed; and several years later he forbade a condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception. However, even Sixtus IV did not yet decide to affirm that such was the unwavering teaching of the church; and therefore, having forbidden the condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception, he also did not condemn those who believed otherwise.

Meanwhile, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception obtained more and more partisans among the members of the Roman church. The reason for this was the fact that it seemed more pious and pleasing to the Mother of God to give Her as much glory as possible. The striving of the people to glorify the Heavenly Intercessor, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the deviation of Western theologians into abstract speculations which led only to a seeming truth (Scholasticism), and finally, the patronage of the Roman Popes after Sixtus IV-all this led to the fact that the opinion concerning the Immaculate Conception which had been expressed by Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century was already the general belief of the Latin church in the 19th century. There remained only to proclaim this definitely as the church’s teaching, which was done by the Roman Pope Pius IX during a solemn service on December 8, 1854, when he declared that the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin was a dogma of the Roman church. Thus the Roman church added yet another deviation from the teaching which it had confessed while it was a member of the Catholic, Apostolic Church, which faith has been held up to now unaltered and unchanged by the Orthodox Church. The proclamation of the new dogma satisfied the broad masses of people who belonged to the Roman church, who in simplicity of heart thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in the church would serve for the greater glory of the Mother of God, to Whom by this they were making a gift, as it were. There was also satisfied the vainglory of the Western theologians who defended and worked it out. But most of all the proclamation of the new dogma was profitable for the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new dogma by his own authority, even though he did listen to the opinions of the bishops of the Catholic church, the Roman Pope by this very fact openly appropriated to himself the right to change the teaching of the Roman church and placed his own voice above the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. A direct deduction from this was the fact that the Roman Popes were infallible in matters of faith, which indeed this very same Pope Pius IX likewise proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic church in 1870.
stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm

 

[Mickey]

Sorry Mickey that is not what the teaching of the CC is nor ever was.

Yeah…we know what it is now…but it wasn’t always that way.

Pope Pius IX proclaimed in Ineffabilis Deus …

Good ol’ Pius IX.

Being immune from Original sin is quite an exception Mickey.

That is why she is not an exception…because she was born with original sin…that is the point.

She is our great example.

 

[Mickey]

And may I add has the authority to do so

Yeah…Rome was never afraid to introduce a new doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

Pope Pius IX proclaimed in Ineffabilis Deus that the Most BLessed Virgin Mother was from the moment of her conception by a SINGULAR GRACE and PRIVILEGE of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Human Race preserved IMMUNE for all STAIN of original sin.

rinnie,
Here’s a question pertaining to the thread, that Mickey may also want to chime in on. And I think this is important, it least it is to me.

You say, *“Pope Pius IX proclaimed in Ineffabilis Deus…” *. Without regard to the doctrine of the IC, by what authority, without a truly ecumenical council as exampled in the 1st 7 councils, did Pope Pius IX make this proclamation? And you know me, rinnie, this isn’t a gotcha question.

Jon

 

[Mickey]

I can still fall out of Grace with God and into** acutal sin** at any time.

Not possible for the Blessed Mother

You do know that what you said here is a heresy. The Virgin Mary was capable of sinning…she chose not to sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t have the book on hand…you tell me.

I only have my own notes, I don’t have it either, I was going from memory then searching backwards. Which is why I had the Irenaeus quote wrong from memory.

I remembered that Genesis connection though.

Peace, Gary