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

[adrift]

Some further notes
There is no POPE GALLATUS
In searching I found this web site that refutes many of your quotes

Can not find this quote in any source. I did find: Clement of Alexandria (190 AD) “The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning, for he was in God, and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone. is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1).

 

[MartinJordan]

Some further notes
There is no POPE GALLATUS
In searching I found this web site that refutes many of your quotes

Yep. Wherever this has come from I could even tell even if Im hardly even an iota (and that’s already an overstatement ) of a Church Father historian, found the said quoted text as certainly dubious.

MJ

 

[Christalone]

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

The highlighted remark. No man is infallible!

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Jesus could not be corrupted by the original sin of Adam.” For this to be accomplished Mary could not have the Stain of Sin. Frankly, its this simple. As for exactly how this occured through God is a mystery, defined by Catholic Doctrine in the “IC” as “Most Fitting”.

By [scripture we] know that Mary “Magnifies the Lord” [Lk 1:46] If she had sin, she could not magnify him. She would only obscure Him.

Lets look at some more Scripture…

Eve came out of Adam’s body [rib] Jesus, the new Adam (1 Cor 15:22) came out of Mary’s body.

Eve was approached by an angel - a fallen archangel - satan. This fallen angel made a proposition to Eve to eat the fruit, to which Eve said “yes” which set in motion the fall.

Mary was approached by the Archangel Gabriel. Mary said “yes” which set in motion the Birth of the Saviour.

Adam was conquered by sin though a tree. Eve was there at the foot of the tree when sin conquered man.

Jesus conquered sin on a tree [the Cross is often called a "tree " in Scripture]. Mary was at the foot of the “tree” [the cross] when man’s sin was conquered by [God].

 

[rinnie]

See all quotes below.

here are some quotes from the long centuries of the community of the faithful whcih are completely anterior to the IC:

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: The Word Jesus Christ ALONE was born without sin.

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO: Christ alone being made man but remaining God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin though he took flesh OF THE SIN OF HIS MOTHER.

AMBROSE: Of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experienced NOT the contagion of earthly corruption.

ST. BERNARD: For this reason our astonishment is not small in seeing that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a NEW feast that is UNKNOWN to the rite of the Church that CANNOT be approved by reason, that it is CONDEMNED by the ancient traditions, the Feast of The Immaculate Conception.

AND, here’s ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: What honor should we believe in attributing to Mary that honor may be had for her conception which was anterior to her birth? Because without this conception neither her birth should be honored. Then would you say with others, according to your own reasoning were you to maintain that it is necessary to hold feasts in honor of her parents, this is logical. Then it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all. There would be feasts without number on the earth and it would be converted into a paradise.

PETER LOMARD: But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was conceived without original sin?? We say that this was IMPOSSIBLE.

MELCHOIR CANNAS: The dogma that holds the blessed Virgin was free from the original sin was NOWHERE delivered in Holy Scripture.

ST. ANTONINUS: If the Scriptures are duly considered and the sayings of the doctors ancient and modern who have been devoted to the glorius Virgin… She WAS conceived IN sin.

POPE LEO I: The Lord Jesus Christ ALONE among the sons of men was born without sin.

POPE GALLATUS: It belongs to the IMMACULATE LAMB to have NO SIN.

POPE GREGORY I: Christ ALONE was truly born holy.

POPE INNOCENT III: Eve was produced without sin but she brought forth IN SIN. Mary was brought forth IN SIN but she brought forth WITHOUT SIN.

When you get that info, I will be glad to see it. Nothing you have given says anything about the Blessed Mother being SAVED from Original Sin at the moment of her conception.

You keep going ON and ON about how she was conceived in original sin from her parents. Let me make this clear once more. No one denied that her Mother and Father had O.S. How could God SAVE her from O.S. if it was not to be passed on to her for goodness sakes.

Now lets go back and make some sense here. If I said that the Blessed Mother was not born into O.S how could GOD save her from it? He SAVED her BEFORE the stain of O.S. could TOUCH her.

IF its about to rain outside and I put up my umbrella and the rain does not hit me are you going to say, Oh No, you have to get wet because its raining outside. Do you see what I am saying. That is exactly what you are saying. IF it rains you have to get wet. Nothing can PROTECT you from the rain.

We are saying what the Church has always taught, you are trying to make us say something we are not.

Where did we ever say her comception was Immaculate. We never said that while she was being created during the process that her Mother and Dad could save her from O.S.

We are saying at the MOMENT of her conception, which mean the moment she was created God moved in and SAVED her from Original Sin.

SO the Stain of O.S never touched her.

So now you have to prove to me that the early Church ever taught that God never stepped in at the MOMENT of her CONCEPTION and SAVED her from O.S.

Thats what I want to see, until you can show me a Early Father of the Church denying this you have no case.

Read read what you wrote, Pope Innocent III wrpte SHe was brought forth in sin but had no sin. You have to understand what the Immaculate Conception really is and was, and what I am reading here none of you guys really have a clue what it was.

We are not denying that she needed a Savior, If we were why would we say she was SAVED at the moment of her conception.

Please show me where it was every taught that it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to SAVE the Blessed Mother at the MOMENT of her conception, therefore she could not be SAVED from O.S. by God at the Moment of her conception so she has sin. God could not possibly have saved her. Because according to the word of God nothing is impossible for him. SO dispute that this was.

I AGREE that many could not grasp this concept. But for goodness sakes give some credit to the ones that did.

And even the ones that did say, she had sin but was sinless. they all contradict themselves. GIve me a break.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The question of “if” early church father’s spoke on Mary being Sinless is addressed in the thread.

The alternative theory that Mary would had to have sin “is not a mystery”.

Its of no surprize since this was a very hot debate in the CC for centurys, which we see through the period up to Duns Scotus. Had this very question NOT been a debate, then the Immaculate Conception which “was” approved at the Council of Basil in the 14th century, would not have then been debated for the next 400 years till its approval?

So its of no surprize the topic is still debated. The real issue with the Immaculate Conception is not found in Doctrine or the Debates which occur as its consequence. The real issue for the CC at this point is the “Mystical” aspect. Here we have a confirmation of the CC Doctrine and Pro-Stance on the IC.

Though I have intentionally chose “not” to go there in this thread. It also cannot be ignored in light of so many very gifted Mystics in the history of the CC.

No-Doubt this is a topic which would be discussed long and hard should the Churchs reach full communion. There would have to be another Ecumenical Council which I am sure will take “years” to resolve over 1000-years of seperation.

Nonetheless it is what it is till that time.

 

[rinnie]

Every single place you read about the Blessed Mother you see things like this.

ST Gregory. Christ came through a Pure, Virginal, God-fearing UNDEFILED. Lets stop right here.

Undefiled means simply free from the stain of sin.

Every single person who teaches or writes about her says the same thing.

And every single thing they say agrees completely with the teachings of the RCC.

ITs when they state their OPINONS that the trouble begins.

So in order for the Blessed Mother to have sin Our Dear Jesus would have to be born of a Mother who was TAINTED with the SCAR of SIN. There is not one teaching that ever said that.

Now why not? SImple because it is not the truth. Show me one teaching that says the Lord was brought into this world by a SINFULL DEFOILED Mother. ONE. Why do they all say SINLESS?

SImple because it was the truth.

But only by the GRACE of GOd can we understand that she was indeed saved. IF she was not I want to hear ONE PERSON say Jesus Christ was born of a SINFULL WOMEN.

Because she was either FULL OF GRACE as the bible says or FULL OF SIN. You can’t be sinless and be full of grace I am sorry.

Every single writer and person on th is thread who said she had sin, contradicted themself and then said she was sinless. Why?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I AGREE that many could not grasp this concept. But for goodness sakes give some credit to the ones that did.

And even the ones that did say, she had sin but was sinless. they all contradict themselves. GIve me a break.

Pretty much sums it up as respectfully as could be stated.

 

[rinnie]

These don’t support your claim at all.

Okay Our Lord said Whoever listens to YOU listens to me. IF the word of God does not support my claim nothing will.

What part do you deny that God told them whover listens to them listens to God, or that the scriture is indeed the word of God. Or both, I am confused here.

 

[rinnie]

The question of “if” early church father’s spoke on Mary being Sinless is addressed in the thread.

The alternative theory that Mary would had to have sin “is not a mystery”.

Its of no surprize since this was a very hot debate in the CC for centurys, which we see through the period up to Duns Scotus. Had this very question NOT been a debate, then the Immaculate Conception which “was” approved at the Council of Basil in the 14th century, would not have then been debated for the next 400 years till its approval?

So its of no surprize the topic is still debated. The real issue with the Immaculate Conception is not found in Doctrine or the Debates which occur as its consequence. The real issue for the CC at this point is the “Mystical” aspect. Here we have a confirmation of the CC Doctrine and Pro-Stance on the IC.

Though I have intentionally chose “not” to go there in this thread. It also cannot be ignored in light of so many very gifted Mystics in the history of the CC.

No-Doubt this is a topic which would be discussed long and hard should the Churchs reach full communion. There would have to be another Ecumenical Council which I am sure will take “years” to resolve over 1000-years of seperation.

Nonetheless it is what it is till that time.

But did you not say the key word. IT WAS APPROVED. And for some that accounts for nothing. So what now we just pick and choose what we want to belive then?

 

[GaryTaylor]

But did you not say the key word. IT WAS APPROVED. And for some that accounts for nothing. So what now we just pick and choose what we want to belive then?

Yes, “It was Approved” that is the bottom line. And many Saints whom who have been quoted in the negative view of the IC, in the end accepted the Doctrine, such as St Thomas Aquina’s.

Here’s an issue…Its not what you and I or everyone believe. It is the Catholic Church teaching, the same Church which before everything, we know in the end will prevail. The Church truly is infallible and the Empires and Kindoms its prevailed over are a fact in History.

Gary

 

[rinnie]

Yes, “It was Approved” that is the bottom line. And many Saints whom who have been quoted in the negative view of the IC, in the end accepted the Doctrine, such as St Thomas Aquina’s.

Here’s an issue…Its not what you and I or everyone believe. It is the Catholic Church teaching, the same Church which before everything, we know in the end will prevail. The Church truly is infallible and the Empires and Kindoms its prevailed over are a fact in History.

Gary

See thats what I am trying to say, The question should not be do you believe or accept it, the question should be on what authority can you speak out AGAINST it. That’s when it come back on MY OWN AUTHORITY.

And that’s where the buck stops here. The Apostles and the Bishops and Popes in succession have the authority given to them by God to speak in his name.
As I showed the scripture Christ said when they hear you, they hear me.

Granted, as Mickey said we DO have free will. We do not have to accept the teachings. You actually don’t have to even beliieve in GOD alone his word.

BUt its the People that do believe and know it it thier heart to be true that must submit to the Living Visible Church left here by Christ like us that MUST FOLLOW.

Not because we give up our free will, its quite the opposite we want eternal life in Christ. And in order for us to have that we must OBEY his commmands and his Apostles and their successors.

IF the truth be known it is us giving up what we want so we can follow and do what GODS wants us to do. Not makes us do. That is why in order to follow Christ one must give up ones self and imitate Christ as much as we can.

And who taught us better then Christ who came to do HIS Fathers will. IT is Christ who left us the Apostles to teach us and it is in the Church the pilar of truth that the truth can be found. ANd the Church the Pilar of Truth says that the I.C is the truth. So we must obey.

 

[kylemccloughan]

What was asked was to produce from the early Church opposition to Mary being Immaculatly conceived. There are problems with your quotes but I am going to deal with that latter.
Most of the men that you quote were not early Church. I did a google search of what would be considered early Church and it came back as 33-325.
I wouldn’t consider early to be middle ages and that is where a lot of them come from.
What is left?
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA:

Not a whole lot of evidence. I tried to find the quote because I want to see it in context. I had no luck. Can you tell me what it is quoted from?
Also it seems his writings were suspect

I had some indication that the quote was from Discourse to the Greeks but I looked at an online copy and could not find the quote.

I gave you actual quotes from the long centuries of the community of the faithful. So what if they weren’t all EC? One was and many others were doctors of the church. They speak for themselves. You continue to argue against pure actual quotes from many of those long centuries. I don’t know what to do when someone just refuses to accept the truth. I think its time to walk away from this.

 

[KathleenGee]

What people are not drawing on here are the documents that led to the Church to finally declare dogma.

This debate is no different than Roman Catholic theologians among themselves.

 

[adrift]

I gave you actual quotes from the long centuries of the community of the faithful. So what if they weren’t all EC? .

You had said that my statement was false. My statemtent was that there were no EC. That is the only reason that it matters. I would say that what I stated was true for you have not provided anything to make it false.

One was and many others were doctors of the church. They speak for themselves. You continue to argue against pure actual quotes from many of those long centuries. I don’t know what to do when someone just refuses to accept the truth. I think its time to walk away from this.

The problem with many of your quotes is that they are either misquoted or they cannot be varified. You also ignore the many quotes for them.
It is ironic that you quote

AMBROSE: Of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experienced NOT the contagion of earthly corruption.

There is no reference of where this came from and yet you ignore the quote I have from

Ambrose “Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

Ambrose believed in IC.
I take it that you don’t look at any evidence contrary to your belief which I had two full post many of them were from the same folks you quoted.
I guess you do need to walk.

 

[KathleenGee]

Adrift…notice that as well…not drawing on the entire documents…cherry picking…??..

Again, we have to trust in the Holy Spirit, after much reflection, and a very long time as well, that Mary was indeed conceived without original sin.

I mean, to think that the RC is off base after so many theologians within its ranks over the course of Christianity to finally come to this conviction of Mary the Immaculate Conception…

One cannot accuse the Catholic Church of being rash in declaration of its dogma.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I gave you actual quotes from the long centuries of the community of the faithful. So what if they weren’t all EC? One was and many others were doctors of the church. They speak for themselves. You continue to argue against pure actual quotes from many of those long centuries. I don’t know what to do when someone just refuses to accept the truth. I think its time to walk away from this.

kylemccloughan,
I’m still sorting through the issue of the IC, myself.

I will say that usually when someone threatens to walk mid-discussion; it means they can’t support their claims. That may not be the case with you; but it will appear that way if you don’t see it through.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Mickey]

These are from the middle ages not the Early Church so we are still lacking evidence that it was rejected by the early Church.

LOL! How can something be rejected by the early Church that did not exist?

There is no evidence from the Early Church Fathers; no evidence from the seven great councils; no evidence from Sacred Scripture.

Some Fathers of the Church even went so far to say that St Mary sinned through vanity during her earthly life.

Furthermore, it was debated vigorously by Latin theologians after the IC innovation was introduced–including some doctors of the Church. It is very clear that Pius IX should never have introduced this as doctrine in the 19th century. And Roman Catholics now have no choice but to be bound to accept this via papal infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

Augustine “We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

That says nothing about the IC.

Ambrose “Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

Ditto.

Bernard “It behoved the Queen of Virgins, by a singular privilege of sanctity, to lead a life free from every sin, so that, while she brought forth the slayer of sin and death, she should obtain for all the gift of life and justice.”

Ditto.

Thomas Aquinas “And with respect to these two the Blessed Virgin had most perfect grace. For more than any other holy person save Christ alone she avoided all sin. For sin is either original, and of this she was cleansed in the womb[1]; or mortal or venial, and of these she was free. Hence the Canticle of Canticles 4:7: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.’”

Aquinas seemed to flip-flop on the issue.

Origen This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Calling her immaculate has nothing to do with RC doctrine.

Hippolytus He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Says nothing about the IC

Ephraim the Syrian You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ditto.

Ambrose of Milan Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Ditto.

Gregory Nazianzen He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Ditto.

Augustine We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Ditto.

Theodotus of Ancrya A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Ditto.

Proclus of Constantinople As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Ditto.

Jacob of Sarug [T]he 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[ante A.D. 521].

Ditto.

None of your quotes shows evidence of this relatively new doctrine. Funny that not one quote mentions anything about an immaculate conception. You would think that this would be an amazing fact worth writing about.

 

[Mickey]

No-Doubt this is a topic which would be discussed long and hard should the Churchs reach full communion.

And that is a terrible dilemma Gary…because Rome declared it as an infallible doctrine. If they were to remove this as a doctrinal truth…they would have to abandon papal infallibility. But then…there would not be full communion unless papal infallibility was dropped.

As you say…it is…what it is.