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

[kylemccloughan]

If Mary was created stained with original sin, she would have passed on original sin to Christ.

Instead, God created Mary without sin. Her very conception was ‘yes’ to Christ which was echoed at the Annunciation.

I believe it was Peter Lombard who said the the IC was impossible. And Innocent III said that Mary was brought forth in sin but she brought forth without sin. Those are two important figures in the historical community of faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

The difference here is that we draw on the tradition of faith held by countless believers and sustained by the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years.

Sorry, but I have never heard of Peter Lombard…I am thinking back to the beginnings of Christianity.

 

[kylemccloughan]

The difference here is that we draw on the tradition of faith held by countless believers and sustained by the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years.

Sorry, but I have never heard of Peter Lombard…I am thinking back to the beginnings of Christianity.

how about St. Thomas Aquinas? He had many interesting things to say in denial of the IC too.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Faith is universal, and is not inclined to revolve around just one theologian.

It was was that Thomas’ concern was not to detract from Christ the Redeemer…The charism of the Dominicans is the ascent to Christ, His divinity.

The Franciscans were the ones to draw to Mary and claim she was conceived without sin. The Franciscans take the descent down to Christ’s feet, to His humanity.

This very question of about how long did Catholics believe in the immaculate conception…was brought up to our pastor at Mass. We have small talks right after the homily. He also said that the faithful have always believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity since the beginning of Christianity. And Mary’s intercession began to be known starting around the 2nd century.

So the Church has come to know the spirituality of Christ, and subsequently the spirituality of Mary after much reflection. So when Pope Pius XII made it dogma 1900 years after the event, one could say some thought and deep reflection was given beforehand.

 

[adrift]

If Mary was created stained with original sin, she would have passed on original sin to Christ.

Instead, God created Mary without sin. Her very conception was ‘yes’ to Christ which was echoed at the Annunciation.

You can see why this argument won’t work: It sets up an unworkable, not to mention unbiblical, regression of “immaculate conceptions” from Mary back to Eve (who, as a type of Mary in the Old Testament, was immaculately created by God, free of any stain of sin or corruption [Gen.1:31]). Rather, in view of the merits of Christ’s once-for-all redemptive work on the cross, God saved Mary from all sin (Luke 1:47) even though she was conceived and gestated for nine months in the womb of a woman, Anne, who was subject to original sin (and most probably actual sin).

Don’t use the easily refutable argument of necessity; the argument of fittingness is much better. It was fitting that God willed that Mary was conceived free from all sin, since she was chosen to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the incarnate Word of God. The Father didn’t have to do it that way, but it was fitting that he did. For a more detailed discussion of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception see Bishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1988 ed.) and Patrick Madrid, “Ark of the New Covenant” (This Rock, December 1991).

 

[KathleenGee]

Adrift…excellent references…

Yes, God considered it fitting…a sinless flesh fit for the Savior…

 

[adrift]

how about St. Thomas Aquinas? He had many interesting things to say in denial of the IC too.

The assertion that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception is inaccurate, misleading, and superficial…The following would be far more accurate and less misleading: If the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original sin, then (so thought Aquinas) this would detract from the dignity of Christ, who is the Redeemer of all men, including the Virgin. Aquinas never denied the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Church. He simply did not see how the universality of Christ’s salvation would have been preserved in the case of the Virgin. The so called “immaculate conception” that Aquinas could not accept is an unredeemed immaculate conception, an opinion that all Catholics, not just Aquinas, have to reject, especially after the true meaning of the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church.

…

 

[KathleenGee]

As is in the universal Church, ours is a faith based on a gathering of people, each one having a gift of self to share in our understanding of God…

And this understanding of many gifts are of one body, and one head…

 

[jaspergard]

What has the pope of Rome declared infallibly on morals? The only infallible declarations I am aware of that the RCC teaches is the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Of course there is no infallible list of infallible proclamations, is there?

In Christ,
Andrew

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.

Therefore all papal encyclicals fall under this category as they are “solemnly promulgated.” On moral teaching you might want to check out the encyclicals Veritatis Splendor, Humanae Vitae, and Evangelium Vitae.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do appreciate the friendly dialogue on this Gary. What is problematic to me is that you are pushing without relent to get the 12th century into this and its really a major obstacle to the IC and I suspect that this is why it never became dogma in the RC until way way later. In fact, ECF’s such as Aquinas, Bernard and Ambrose all denied the IC. Secondly, it absolutely is NOT a matter of Scripture. If it is, you must show us chapter and verse. Thank you.

Your saying these Souls denied this and that and we’ve been over the ground. Where’s the proof? Its what can be proven through factual history not what you “assume” someone said? Exactly what did they say?

It is a matter of scripture and I gave you the link with the scripture verse in it to support the IC. I also invited you to read it and let me know WHICH VERSE you disagee with?

Just coming here to say…I disagree proves what? Where are your FACTS??? There is zero confirmation to ANYTHING you said…refer to the Post Number you provided one shread of evidence to support ANYTHING you are saying???

We have been talking scripture in the sense what I am referring to relates to Genisis. Are you following this, are you OK? Or is it your intention to deny, deny deny, and hope it goes away?

To relate to the CC Saints in this thread in a Negative Way is appauling. WHERE IS THE PROOF? WHAT DID they SAY? SO you see how again YOU are in the 12th CENTURY once again???

 

[rinnie]

I don’t get your logic. So you say that Christ could not be born without original sin unless his mother, the blessed Virgin Mary was without original sin, but then you also say that God made the Virgin Mary to be without original sin, despite the fact that her parents were with original sin. Why then could not have Christ just been made Immaculate by God from the moment of the Incarnation? What necessity was there for Mary to be without original sin if God can just wipe away original sin at will at the moment of conception?

Because I am using Mickey’s logic. He said that there is NO WAY that the Blessed Mother could have been saved from original sin because she inherited it from her Mother. And because she was Human it had to be passed on.

SO I showed him that if this is the case and God could not have SAVED her from original sin then she would HAVE to have passed it on to her son also which we know is not possible. The Blessed Mother was HUMAN and Christ was indeed HER Son.

She was the MOTHER of CHRIST and Christ was the SON OF GOD. Do you see what I am saying?

What Mickey is saying is it is not Possible for GOD to save the Blessed Mother from Original Sin. It was not impossible he could and he did.

In order for her to be the PERFECT Mother for the PERFECT Son she had to be made Perfect which is sinless by God and she was.

While I agree with Mickey that she indeed did not sin because of her free will, she still was not even tained with the stain of sin because of the Singular Grace from our Dear Lord.

While we are saved from Original Sin at our baptism we are still tainted with the stain of O S that we got from our Mother Eve.

But because the Blessed Mother was pure which she had to be to make her the Blessed One who was to be human and give live to a HUMAN and DIVINE SON. God is Human and Divine. Because Christ was perfect in everyway Human and Divine.

To say his Mother HAD to be touched with O.S. because of being human would put the same thing on Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

adrift:
adrift those are all good points to reiterate.


Gary

 

[Mickey]

Mick, the connection between Irenaeus with Mary/Eve to Genesis “relates” to the IC. Mary as the second Eve

No way.

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:

Please link to the part where these Fathers say that St Mary was conceived without original sin. Thank you.

 

[Mickey]

It is in the tradition of faith, that Christians have always believed Mary was conceived without sin.

Roman Catholic history…beginning perhaps around the 13th century–and official in 1854.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey if the Blessed Mother was saved from Original sin at the second of her conception how could she be concieved with Original sin?

She was not spared from original sin at conception.

When do you see that that she could have had the stain of original sin.

Some fathers state that She remained sinless her entire life–through grace by her free will. Others say that she was sanctified at the moment of the Anunciation. I believe it was St John Chrysostom who even said that she sinned at least once in her life.

 

[Mickey]

The Blessed Mother was SAVED from original sin at the moment of her Conception.

No. This is not the ancient and apostolic teaching of the Church.

In order for Christ to not be born into ORIGINAL SIN it could not have touched his Mother.

In order for Christ to truly receive the fulness of humanity, His mother had to be completely human…orginal sin and all.

 

[Mickey]

The Franciscans were the ones to draw to Mary and claim she was conceived without sin. The Franciscans take the descent down to Christ’s feet, to His humanity.

I see. The Franciscans were blessed with new knowledge…but the Dominicans were not.

Did you ask him for sources?

 

[Mickey]

What Mickey is saying is it is not Possible for GOD to save the Blessed Mother from Original Sin.

You know I like you rinnie…but please do not put words in my mouth. What Mickey is saying is: There is no Tradition from the early Church which corroborates the late innovation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC. It is not necessary to believe that St Mary was an exception when it comes to original sin. Original sin is a human attribute and St Mary was human…Christ received the fulness of humanity from her. Does this mean that Christ was born with sin…of course not…He is the Son of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Please link to the part where these Fathers say that St Mary was conceived without original sin. Thank you.

I already been there and done this. Its in this thread.

Your into the Original Sin aspect with rinnie, not what I was speaking on? Mick I refered to the second part of the IC. I laid the groundwork for what you are talking about a few pages back with Aquina’s and Duns Scotus. Nevertheless with the thread hovering around “Original Sin” now, then maybe that link would be appropriate. Here’s what you are now on from the “above link” though…

"There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P. Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that “the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased.”
[New-Advent]

Heres’s New Advent and the CC specifically on Original Sin.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7nzBlR1OCUgAwRBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1N2hhc2k2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA3OV8xNDc-/SIG=11udtb85p/EXP=1310583329/**http%3a//www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

I believe you mentioned your opinion of not believeing the connection of the BVM to Gensis with Irenaeus. Nonetheless my point is “IT EXISTS” which your claim is it doesn’t. Its not the point to agee or disagee with it, its an existing reality. Its a foregone conclusion many chose not to believe in the IC and follow another one of Christs “flocks”

Catholic’s grasp this I would assume? Or maybe it would be a good time to link opposing theory?

Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

Mickey…

Really!

St. Paul says we all have different gifts…same goes for theologians…and the fruit is always Jesus Christ!

The Dominicans focus more on the intellect, the Franciscans, humanity. It would be most pausible that the Franciscans would be the ones to draw more light on Christ’s humanity, and subsequently His mother.

Remember, Mary is God’s creation, and in God all things are possible…even providing a sinless womb for God’s Son. As was stated prior, Mary was already redeemed by Christ through Whom the universe was created, the Living Word., the Word Made Flesh.