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

[Anna_Scott]

Did Martin Luther adhere to those beliefs after he left Rome? Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. He would most certainly have adhered to it as a Roman Catholic out of requirement without question. The IC is not doctrine of the ACNA because it is nowhere supported by Scripture and in the opinion of many Anglican theologians, it is refuted by Mary declaring God as her savior. I believe that the Mary of Scripture and the picture that the Roman Catholic church paints Mary to be are strikingly different.

kylemccloughan,

I did find the blog of James Swan, who argues that Luther may have changed his belief, later in life, from the Immaculate Conception to the belief that the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified Mary in the “moment of the Virgin’s conception.” I didn’t provide a link, because I don’t know whether or not the blog is anti-Catholic (it’s against CAF rules to link an anti-Catholic website), and I really don’t know anything about the author.

There are some very knowledgeable Lutherans on the forums, who could comment better on this issue.

Hope you are enjoying the forums.

Peace,
Anna

**Edited to add P.S.
I sent a PM to JonNC to see if he has time to comment on this issue. **

 

[GaryTaylor]

Did Martin Luther adhere to those beliefs after he left Rome? Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. He would most certainly have adhered to it as a Roman Catholic out of requirement without question. The IC is not doctrine of the ACNA because it is nowhere supported by Scripture and in the opinion of many Anglican theologians, it is refuted by Mary declaring God as her savior. I believe that the Mary of Scripture and the picture that the Roman Catholic church paints Mary to be are strikingly different.

Luther not only adhered to the belief he was in a rare position to promote it and did. You can google and read his sermons which were all after the 95-thesis.

Reformers maintained that Mary was indeed the Theotokos, defended her perpetual virginity, and some even held to her Immaculate status as we see with Luther.

What the Reformers disagreed with were the practices of praying to Mary and the saints, and the view of Mary as a Mediatrix. The Reformers believed that the role of Mediator belonged to Jesus alone, and that all prayer addressed to Mary and the Saints was superfluous and useless. Nonetheless Protestants in Southern Baptist churchs were praying to Mary for Her intercession at the turn of last century in the USA. Today in the CC this is foregone conclusion which isn’t going to change.

Could the links be supplied from the Angelican Theologians? How is the IC refuted by God being Marys savior?

A theologians “opinion” matters little if it is not based on established historical/biblical fact and a very good working theory which cannot be refuted. And excellent example is the case of the “Immaculate Conception” and that working theory was supplied by “Duns Scotus” in 1308. From this period on it has prevailed. In essense he supplied the missing part of the formula which St, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas just didn’t grasp and thus refused to elaborate on.

One technique that proved most useful to the early fathers was reading the Old Testament allegorically instead of literally.

Prof. Pelikan (Lutheran) effectively argued that St. Paul began the process of applying allegory from the Old Testament to Jesus. Thus it is not a stretch for the early fathers to make the connection between Mary and Eve. Irenaeus viewed Mary as the second Eve, in the 2nd century. This gives an idea of how old the theory behind the Immaculate Conception is. Already with Irenaeus in 2-AD we see the connection being correctly processed.

With the IC two points are insisted upon: Marys absolute purity and Marys position as the second Eve.

The very fact that the English Calender maintained the Feast of the Conception as a black letter day before and after the Reformation I’m sure is considered significant by Angelican Catholic’s.

Today we have no new evidence which supports anything contrary to the Immaculate Conception. Very much the opposite. Concluding the IC is not Biblical is an opinion based on exactly who? Thats very much contrary to the Doctrine of the CC in this matter.

God Bless, Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Gary, for the reference to St. Ireneaus in the second century…implying that the common practice of faith held before his time upheld Mary’s immaculate conception.

My pastor stated this was the Church practice from the beginning, but didn’t elaborate.

When I was studying the Summa with a Dominican, he said it was the Franciscans who got it right on Mary’s perpetual virginity…

The modern theology is that Mary’s entire being at her conception in the Holy Spirit said yes to Christ for her salvation. Christ is the same substance of the Father and it was through Christ that all of creation was made.

 

[Mickey]

Irenaeus viewed Mary as the second Eve, in the 2nd century. This gives an idea of how old the theory behind the Immaculate Conception is.

Not at all. St Irenaeus never said anything that resembled the innovative RC doctrine of the IC (1854).

 

[JonNC]

Did Martin Luther adhere to those beliefs after he left Rome? Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. He would most certainly have adhered to it as a Roman Catholic out of requirement without question. The IC is not doctrine of the ACNA because it is nowhere supported by Scripture and in the opinion of many Anglican theologians, it is refuted by Mary declaring God as her savior. I believe that the Mary of Scripture and the picture that the Roman Catholic church paints Mary to be are strikingly different.

One of the quotes listed earlier was from 1527, a while after his excommunication, so it isn’t a matter of him adhering to Catholic teaching simply because he was Catholic.
How Luther’s views of the marian doctrines changed over the years is subject to debate, and my experience is that each side tends to portray his mariology to support their side. ISTM, however, that his main view of the IC and the Assumption (I don’t think there’s any question about sempre virgo - he believed it), the scriptures are not explicit in a way that one should make it an article of faith, but Christians were free to believe them or not. My belief as a Lutheran is that, at least from the Visitation forward, and based on the greeting by the Angel, she was free from sin, original and personal, though I would not discount the possiblity of the IC.

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.

I think it is safe to say that the disagreement Lutherans have with the CC on this is two-fold, the one I mentioned above regarding the relative silence of scripture, and the fact that the councils used to define them were not truly ecumenical, but I would not say that the devotion for her today in the CC is “strikingly different” than that of scripture or the historic Church, east and west.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

Did Martin Luther adhere to those beliefs after he left Rome? Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. He would most certainly have adhered to it as a Roman Catholic out of requirement without question. The IC is not doctrine of the ACNA because it is nowhere supported by Scripture and in the opinion of many Anglican theologians, it is refuted by Mary declaring God as her savior. I believe that the Mary of Scripture and the picture that the Roman Catholic church paints Mary to be are strikingly different.

kylemccloughan,

I did find the blog of James Swan, who argues that Luther may have changed his belief, later in life, from the Immaculate Conception to the belief that the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified Mary in the “moment of the Virgin’s conception.” I didn’t provide a link, because I don’t know whether or not the blog is anti-Catholic (it’s against CAF rules to link an anti-Catholic website), and I really don’t know anything about the author.

There are some very knowledgeable Lutherans on the forums, who could comment better on this issue.

Hope you are enjoying the forums.

Peace,
Anna

**Edited to add P.S.
I sent a PM to JonNC to see if he has time to comment on this issue. **

One of the quotes listed earlier was from 1527, a while after his excommunication, so it isn’t a matter of him adhering to Catholic teaching simply because he was Catholic.
How Luther’s views of the marian doctrines changed over the years is subject to debate, and my experience is that each side tends to portray his mariology to support their side. ISTM, however, that his main view of the IC and the Assumption (I don’t think there’s any question about sempre virgo - he believed it), the scriptures are not explicit in a way that one should make it an article of faith, but Christians were free to believe them or not. My belief as a Lutheran is that, at least from the Visitation forward, and based on the greeting by the Angel, she was free from sin, original and personal, though I would not discount the possiblity of the IC.

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.

I think it is safe to say that the disagreement Lutherans have with the CC on this is two-fold, the one I mentioned above regarding the relative silence of scripture, and the fact that the councils used to define them were not truly ecumenical, but I would not say that the devotion for her today in the CC is “strikingly different” than that of scripture or the historic Church, east and west.

Jon

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

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not at all. St Irenaeus never said anything that resembled the innovative RC doctrine of the IC (1854).

Sure he did Mick, off the top of my head the entire context is in “Mary through the Centurys” by Prof. Pelikan. Nonetheless he compared Marys obedience to Eve’s dis-obedience.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Mickey]

off the top of my head the entire context is in “Mary through the Centurys” by Prof. Pelikan. Nonetheless he compared Marys obedience to Eve’s dis-obedience.

That’s great Gary! But it has nothing to do with the IC doctrine.

Jaroslav Pelikan was a Lutheran pastor who converted to the Holy Orthodox Church. I am certain that he did not interpret St Irenaeus as subscribing to the 19th century RC doctrine of the IC.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Anna let be try to explain this in the simple way.

The Church basing herself on the PROMISES of Christ and HIS authority as stated in Matt, Luke, John has infallibly defined the condtions of salvation.

But CANNOT damn anyone, only God can judge us and knows our heart.

A Non-Catholic CANNOT submit or be Subjected to the Pope if the Person does not seriously believe or have the desire to do so.

ONLY CATHOLIC’S can be subjected to the Pope since one cannot submit to him without being a member of the Visible One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founduned by Christ as necessary for Salvation who the Pope is the visible head.

That is the point which Pope Boniface VIII is making.

There is only OHCAC. It is necessary if you are part of the OHCAC to submit to the Pope for he is the head of that Church.

Its really pretty simple.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s great Gary! But it has nothing to do with the IC doctrine.

Jaroslav Pelikan was a Lutheran pastor who converted to the Holy Orthodox Church. I am certain that he did not interpret St Irenaeus as subscribing to the 19th century RC doctrine of the IC.

Nice job with the quick google search, but…your somewhat mistaken, especially about this mans reverence and enthusiasm with Mary. I’m not sure what kind of mold one must fit in with the EO in regards to Mary. But Pelkan was well read on Mary and found facination in defending her through time and History. Read “Mary through the Centurys” don’t take my word for it. Facinating that you somehow believe a member of the EO wouldn’t say something like this? You would probly be highly upset reading his work on Mary.

His father was the Pastor, he taught at Yale from the 60’s to the 90’s. He received some kind of honorary award by the EO in the later 90’s. Pelikan wrote both ‘Jesus through the Centurys’ and ‘Mary through the Centurys’ while teaching at Yale as I believed I already mentioned. The attention from the EO came after Mary Through the Centurys, though I’m certain his earlier work had much to do with this since “Jesus Through the Centurys” was his intention and focus. But he sounds SO “Catholic” MICKEY SO… Pro Mary How he died in faith? I do not know, but in the 90’s he was Lutheran. He well may have ended up in the EO. Not really my point and I can assure you it wouldn’t have mattered in his reverence or knowledge of Mary.

Nonetheless I shall give you both Irenaeus and Pelikan…

My only problem with Irenaeus is I’m not postive “which” of his works this came out of. I want to say, Against Heresy, but I believe that may be off. Anyway I have the quote in my notes.

Anyway…Heres what Pelikan “states” when talking about the IC…“Irenaeus gives the parallelism of Mary and Eve so matter of factly without having to argue or defend the point, that it is easy to assume readers were already familiar with it” Pelikans conclusion!

Irenaeus- Bishop of Lyons 130-200 “Just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed {EVE} that mankind was stricken and fell and died, so to was it through the Virgin {MARY} who OBEYED the word of God, that mankind resusitated by life, received life, for the Lord” etc.

God Bless, Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

Reiterating Rinnie…Our Lord instituted only one church and one head.

In earliest times, Rome always had the final authority on an issue. The Church in Rome was wealthy and supported the erection and foundation of new churches as the faith expanded.

The office of Peter was developed and expanded just as Christianity expanded and developed.

All the churches had their own jurisdiction and ran their own affairs, but the seat of Peter really was the point of unity and identity of faith in Christ.

As the Christian world grew, so did the issue between temporal power and ecclesial power…who has the final say. Then there was issues about how much power ecclesial or conciliar councils had vs the papacy.

Oftentimes, conciliar councils end up having an antagonistic attitude towards central authority and draw away from the original premise and discipline of faith in Christ.

The primacy of Peter keeps us together and in the same deposit of faith handed us by Christ through His apostles. And our participation in this is at heart mystical…and we experience the unity or communion with the papacy, our bishops and all believers the most at Mass. And it is at Mass, that we most participate in the Word and Body and Blood of Christ…all united as one.

 

[rinnie]

Reiterating Rinnie…Our Lord instituted only one church and one head.

In earliest times, Rome always had the final authority on an issue. The Church in Rome was wealthy and supported the erection and foundation of new churches as the faith expanded.

The office of Peter was developed and expanded just as Christianity expanded and developed.

All the churches had their own jurisdiction and ran their own affairs, but the seat of Peter really was the point of unity and identity of faith in Christ.

As the Christian world grew, so did the issue between temporal power and ecclesial power…who has the final say. Then there was issues about how much power ecclesial or conciliar councils had vs the papacy.

Oftentimes, conciliar councils end up having an antagonistic attitude towards central authority and draw away from the original premise and discipline of faith in Christ.

The primacy of Peter keeps us together and in the same deposit of faith handed us by Christ through His apostles. And our participation in this is at heart mystical…and we experience the unity or communion with the papacy, our bishops and all believers the most at Mass. And it is at Mass, that we most participate in the Word and Body and Blood of Christ…all united as one.

But our main point has to still remain. We cannot Resist a Power Ordained by GOD to do so is to resist God himself.

The same necessity to obtain Salvation that binds all Men without exception to his church imposes submission to the Pope.

Do you see what I am saying? You cannot take the words of Christ You are Peter and to you I give the keys to the kingdom. Where is the KINGDOM here on earth?

IT is in the RCC. You cannot separate Christ from his Church just like you cannot separate The Pope from the Church of Christ.

How can someone say they submit to Christ but they do not submit to the Leader of the RCC who is the Pope the Peter of yesterday?

I am talking to us Catholic’s who believe the words of Christ based on that same Church who had promises from Christ and his authority.

And do you see what I am saying how can a non-catholic be subjected to the Pope without being of member of the visible OHCAC. They can’t!

That is what is trying to be said here.

This statement was meant and is always meant for those of us who are in communion with the RCC. We HAVE TO SUBMIT to the Pope.

You don’t have to agree with everything he says. YOU JUST MUST OBEY!!

 

[KathleenGee]

Correct, Rinnie…it requires obedience…and obedience is a sign of humility…and faith.

Faith is a gift of God.

We need the grace of faith to accept in obedience Christ’s church based on the headship of one, Peter. It has always been here, although the boundaries and parameters in defining Peter evolved to how we now define primacy through the Council of Trent.

We believe in one God…and it is confusing in how one would determine who to follow, Peter or a council of regional bishops.

When in doubt, follow Rome.

 

[Mickey]

Nice job with the quick google search,

Nah, I 've been familiar with Mr Pelikan for quite some time.

I’m not sure what kind of mold one must fit in with the EO in regards to Mary.

Mold?

But Pelkan was well read on Mary and found facination in defending her through time and History.

Yes. But he never defended the IC…as you imply.

Read “Mary through the Centurys” don’t take my word for it. Facinating that you somehow believe a member of the EO wouldn’t say something like this?

He did not defend the IC.

You would probly be highly upset reading his work on Mary.

Not at all. I like most of his writings.

But he sounds SO “Catholic” MICKEY SO… Pro Mary

He was Catholic…Orthodox Catholic. And we are extremely pro St Mary.

How he died in faith? I do not know,

Orthodox. Members of Pelikan’s family remember him saying that he had not as much converted to Orthodoxy as “returned to it.”

Anyway…Heres what Pelikan “states” when talking about the IC…“Irenaeus gives the parallelism of Mary and Eve so matter of factly without having to argue or defend the point, that it is easy to assume readers were already familiar with it” Pelikans conclusion!

LOL! That has nothing to do with the doctrine of the IC.

Irenaeus- Bishop of Lyons 130-200 “Just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed {EVE} that mankind was stricken and fell and died, so to was it through the Virgin {MARY} who OBEYED the word of God, that mankind resusitated by life, received life, for the Lord” etc.

Also has nothing to do with the IC.

 

[rinnie]

Correct, Rinnie…it requires obedience…and obedience is a sign of humility…and faith.

Faith is a gift of God.

We need the grace of faith to accept in obedience Christ’s church based on the headship of one, Peter. It has always been here, although the boundaries and parameters in defining Peter evolved to how we now define primacy through the Council of Trent.

We believe in one God…and it is confusing in how one would determine who to follow, Peter or a council of regional bishops.

When in doubt, follow Rome.

You got it girl.

But back to the statement. What people do not realize is the time and history of the statement.

Back in the days that the statement was made there was no other CHURCH but the Catholic Church. There were no Protestants.

That is what happens they take something that was said, take it totally out of context etc.

Then they try to say the Pope is changing what was said. No he isn’t. At the time of that statement there was only ONE CHURCH that was the Christian Church aka the Catholic Church.

How can a protestant say they are being held to it, when at the time of the Statement there were no protestants

 

[GaryTaylor]

One of the quotes listed earlier was from 1527, a while after his excommunication, so it isn’t a matter of him adhering to Catholic teaching simply because he was Catholic.
How Luther’s views of the marian doctrines changed over the years is subject to debate, and my experience is that each side tends to portray his mariology to support their side. ISTM, however, that his main view of the IC and the Assumption (I don’t think there’s any question about sempre virgo - he believed it), the scriptures are not explicit in a way that one should make it an article of faith, but Christians were free to believe them or not. My belief as a Lutheran is that, at least from the Visitation forward, and based on the greeting by the Angel, she was free from sin, original and personal, though I would not discount the possiblity of the IC.

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.

I think it is safe to say that the disagreement Lutherans have with the CC on this is two-fold, the one I mentioned above regarding the relative silence of scripture, and the fact that the councils used to define them were not truly ecumenical, but I would not say that the devotion for her today in the CC is “strikingly different” than that of scripture or the historic Church, east and west.

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]

its better to err on the side of superabundance that to err on the side of inadequacy by reducing Marys excellence.

I think it reduces St Mary’s excellence to say that she was spared from original sin at the moment of conception.

She was born with original sin and subject to the passions and death like any other human being. But by God’s grace and her cooperation with that grace through her own free will, St Mary remained sinless. She is the greatest of ascetics. She is all holy. She is the great example…not the great exception.

This is St Mary’s excellence!!!

 

[GaryTaylor]

LOL! That has nothing to do with the doctrine of the IC.
Also has nothing to do with the IC.

Mickey you read what “Pelikan” stated, you can believe what you choose. Pelikan makes the connection and relates it to the IC not me. I’m just the messenger with the message that you first insisted “never” existed. Now I suppose its easier just to deny its reality and connection? Nonetheless there it is.

 

[rinnie]

I think it reduces St Mary’s excellence to say that she was spared from original sin at the moment of conception.

She was born with original sin and subject to the passions and death like any other human being. But by God’s grace and her cooperation with that grace through her own free will, St Mary remained sinless. She is the greatest of ascetics. She is all holy. She is the great example…not the great exception.

This is St Mary’s excellence!!!

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

Mary being given that SPECIAL GRACE at the moment of her conception just showed the world that we ALL need Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

She was saved from original sin by the Grace of GOD given to her. How could God saving her from Original sin and giving her a saving Grace like that at the moment of her conception ever reduce her excellence. It anything it had to add to it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it reduces St Mary’s excellence to say that she was spared from original sin at the moment of conception.

She was born with original sin and subject to the passions and death like any other human being. But by God’s grace and her cooperation with that grace through her own free will, St Mary remained sinless. She is the greatest of ascetics. She is all holy. She is the great example…not the great exception.

This is St Mary’s excellence!!!

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