Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 232850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #315 on: April 29, 2009, 02:39:16 PM »
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception proclaimed by the Roman Catholics in 1854 is rejected by the Orthodox Church, but without in any way detracting from the dignity of the Mother of God. In fact, according the Fathers, the inheritance from Adam consists not in a personal responsibility of all men for original sin, but simply in the inheritance of the consequences of that sin: death, corruption and the passions ... Hence the Orthodox have no difficulty in recognizing that the Mother of God was heir, like us, of the consequences of Adam's sin - Christ alone was exempt -but at the same time pure and without personal sin, for she freely kept herself from all attraction for the world and for the passions, and she voluntarily co-operated in God's purpose by obeying His will with docility: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," she replied to the Angel Gabriel (LK. 1:38).
(The Synaxarion, Vol. II, p. 361)

Grace and Peace Mickey,

But with regards to the Doctrine of Original Sin, it would appear Dogmatized by the Councils (both at the regional synod level and also by two Ecumenical Councils. In my inquiry into 'modern' Orthodoxy I find weird inconsistencies with the Councils and their own Theologians which really concerned me and ultimately kept me from further inquiry.

The Councils on Original Sin:

Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.

These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not to be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'

Teachings of an Orthodox Theologian:

Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...

In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Even if we look to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius we find comparing our original state of grace in immortality with a new state in death needing 'rebirth' to renew. I simply don't find the "modern" Orthodox apologetic in history and that really concerns me because they appear to have emphasized the Cappadocian Fathers over the consensus of the whole faith in order to present an alternative to historic Catholic Theology. Now I don't pretend to think that everything in the Catholic Church is as it has always been... but I do get the feeling that "modern" Orthodoxy has artificially contrived distinctions in order to appeal to modern sentiment concerning these teachings (particularly that of modern liberal protestant views concerning the need for Baptism etc.).
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #316 on: April 29, 2009, 03:12:27 PM »
...all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sinThe First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I am sorry. I am not understanding your dilemma clearly.  But I am not a very learned man--so perhaps someone else can help you.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #317 on: April 29, 2009, 04:16:11 PM »
...all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sinThe First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I am sorry. I am not understanding your dilemma clearly.  But I am not a very learned man--so perhaps someone else can help you.

Sure. The point I'm trying to make is that this notion of a separation between guilt and consequences of Original Sin doesn't appear to be found in the early Church Councils and even with St. Symeon The New Theologian. This bothers me a great deal because I see it argued so often among Orthodox Apologists. Once I thought I could convert to Orthodoxy and hold to the teachings of St. Symeon but that doesn't seem to be the case. I stand in an awkward 'no man's land' between the East and the West but maybe I am coming to terms with it.
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #318 on: April 29, 2009, 09:54:10 PM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #319 on: April 30, 2009, 12:54:02 AM »
Dear Marduk,

I'm glad you're back.  You've cleared up a few things.  Reading your message as a whole, I can see clearly that I might have misunderstood, and I'm very open to see the terminology you use is similar.

Nevertheless, I don't understand why you would criticize the belief of death as the cause of all things we do as merely a Byzantine, Eastern Orthodox belief.  I really can care less what they believe (although I agree with their beliefs), but based on what I read, this is very Alexandrian, and very Severian.  Fr. Peter Theodore will even agree with me on this one, as he is a scholar on St. Severus' writings.  I've actually had this discussion recently with other Copts who misunderstand the belief of the Original Sin and what it is.

For instance, the Greek for Romans 5:12 is read differently.  If you go back and read St. John Chrysostom's commentaries, he writes very clearly, "for that all have sinned," not "because all sinned."  The meaning here is very different.  Through one man's sin, death entered into the world, and because of death, all sinned.

Second, I agree with you that spiritual death causes us to sin.  However, for the sake of this discussion, the terminology "stain" does not indicate death, but an addition, a sin.  Death is separation, a corruption, something missing in one's life.  A stain is something added to one's life, something like the act of sinning.  This is why I interpret your quotes differently.  For instance, if I met one who did not sin at all in his/her life, I can say of this person he/she is without stain.  That doesn't mean the curse is removed from them, that they are not under this curse of death, spiritual or physical.  I don't think that's what St. Ephrem meant, and I'll share with you a quote by St. Jacob of Serugh in a little bit now that I have the book in my hand again.

In addition, physical death and spiritual death in my opinion are only separated (if I may use a Christological terminology) "in thought alone."  What St. Paul says in Romans 5:12, he meant both.  The psychological ramifications of corruption and death, physically as well as spiritually, lead all to sin.  Christ came and killed death, separating the two.  He partook of physical death without spiritual death, rendering death dead in its power against us.  So, yes we are raised alive again in Christ, but partaking of the Life of Christ, physical death is no longer what it used to be the punishment it was, but a blessing, a grace to look forward to.  We die in Christ that we may live.

Nevertheless, Satan continues to bring death back into the battlefield.  By our sinning, we are recharging death unfortunately.  By our life in Christ, we are keeping death dead.  It is why we sing "Christ is risen from the dead, and trampled death by death, bestowing life to those who were in the tombs."  He did not bestow righteousness to sinners, but life to those who were dead, so that sinners may be righteous.

It is the central teaching in Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus.  I cannot accept the terminology "stain."  Trust me, I understand what you mean when you say we shouldn't war over words (in the spirit of ecumenism, I try my best not to war over words in Christological debates, and in this case, I don't reject differences in the meaning of the word "stain" either).  But when it comes to quotes by Church fathers who say that the Virgin was "stainless," in this particular discussion with you, I avoid the term "stain" so that I can show you why I reject it.  Nevertheless, I misunderstood your use, seeing that it might mean "spiritual death." 

When it comes to the conception of the Virgin Mary, I cannot accept this.  As I mentioned before, many people in the Old Testament were sanctified by the Holy Spirit without removing "spiritual death."  Many prophets spoke through the "Holy Spirit."  That doesn't mean "spiritual death" was removed.  They may have well been stainless.  After all, Romans 5:14 alludes to people who have not sinned that even experience death (spiritual and physical).

A few quotes of yours that we will have to agree to disagree with:


Sanctification is simply a generic term for the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can sanctify in many various ways, and such gifts are not the same for all.  The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception (really nothing more than the Grace of Baptism) is different from the effect of sanctification on Judas (to be an Apostle and perform miracles) and on Saul (to have the divine right of kingship). The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception was also different from the effect of the sanctification she received at the Annunciation.  The grace Mary received at the moment of her conception was the grace to dedicate herself to God.  In distinction, the grace Mary received at the annunciation was the grace to be able to bear the FULL DIVINITY, and, also, IMO, the unique grace to remain a virgin despite bearing Christ.

Quote
For several reasons. (1) I personally and wholeheartedly believe in it. (2) There is nothing in my Oriental Tradition that contradicts it, and vice-versa, when the dogma is properly understood. (3) I have hope that when it is properly understood, it will eventually be acceptable to all. (4) The proscription is only an excommunication, and not an anathema. (5) The proscription of a dogma is not an inherent part of the dogma. It is conceivable that the proscription may be lifted.

Quote
Since she was IC’d NOT for the purpose of bearing Christ, but simply to be dedicated completely to God, then it seems we are in agreement.

You call it IC, I call it sanctification, but we both know we don't mean the same thing. 

Quote
Yes, Baptism only removes the spiritual consequences of Original sin (sin, in all its forms and understanding, loss of original justice, loss of sanctifying Grace, spiritual death), not the temporal/physical consequences (i.e., death, corruption, etc.). This is the same Grace that Mary received at her conception, and which the Forerunner received while yet in his mother’s womb.

So I suppose there's a belief of St. John's IC brewing in Catholic circles as well?

Quote
Now we’re getting somewhere. Previously, you spoke of death, and it seemed like you were not making a distinction between physical death, and spiritual death (which is why I said your understanding seems more Byzantine than Coptic). But now I see you are distinguishing between the temporal/physical consequences of original sin from the spiritual consequences of original sin. So I apologize for my assumption earlier.  On this basis, given my explanation above of what Baptism does, I think we can come to an agreement. But, as always, more questions are welcome.

I sorta agree with this.  But know that I also do not separate physical and spiritual death when it comes to the time before Christ, including the Virgin Mary and John the Forerunner.  When talking about St. Paul, St. Athanasius, etc. they never distinguished between spiritual and physical death.  They talked about death as a whole.

Quote
Quote
I have to respectfully disagree.  I saw "equality" as a matter of previous actions, not state of the soul.  Equality can also be a matter of humanity.  Christ is equal to us by His human nature, equal to the Father by His divine nature.  In this case, it is clear the "equality" is in the matter of their "innocence," and I interpret this to mean their previous actions of sinlessness.
I think “utterly equal” is different from mere “equal.” Like you said, there are different kinds of equality, but “utter equality” is a different thing, n’est pas.

Agree to disagree here as well.  As you say, one was under physical death, and one wasn't.  Yet the latter sinned, and the former didn't.  I like to think the same for spiritual death before the Annunciation.  I mean think of it this way.  What makes something "utterly equal"?  Surely, if "utterly," why draw the line on only spiritual death, and not physical death like other Latins do?  It would seem to me they are more consistent when using this quote.  While my consistency lies in drawing the line in their actions before making a pivotal decision for all mankind.  Through Eve decision under no spiritual or physical death, we were all made dead.  Through Mary's decision under physical and spiritual death, we were all made alive.  Both were utterly equal in the position they were put in, and both were utterly equal in their "stainless life" (the way I define it) before that pivotal moment.

Quote
I’ll agree that it MIGHT be only in reference to the fact that both Christ and Mary never sinned, but when we say Christ is “sinless” do you think we mean only that Christ never sinned, and not actually that Christ also did not have the stain of original sin?  Thus, when a Father compares Mary’s sinlessness to Christ’s, why should we automatically think that it refers only to the fact of not sinning actively?

Let's understand from St. Jacob of Serugh how this comparison is made not because of a grace similar to that of baptism, but solely of her own will to which she is compared to Christ as spotless:

Quote
Our Lord descending to earth beheld all women;
He chose one for Himself who among them all was pleasing.

He searched her and found humility and holiness in her,
and limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.

And a pure heart and every reckoning of perfection,
because of this He chose her, the pure and most fair one.

...

He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil,
nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.

And she allows no thought for luxury,
nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.

Desire for worldly vanity does not burn in her,
nor is she occupied with childish things.

...

She was a person of discernment, full of the love of God,
because our Lord does not dwell where there is no love.

When the Great King desired to come to our place,
He dwelt in the purest shrine of all the earth because it please him.

He dwelt in a spotless womb which was adorned with virginity,
and with thoughts which were worthy of holiness.

...

Maiden, full of beauty hidden in her and around her,
and pure of heart that she might see the mysteries which had come to pass in her.

This is beauty, when one is beautiful of one's own accord;
glorious graces of perfection are in her will.

However great be the beauty of something from God,
it is not acclaimed if freedom is not present.

...

If another had pleased more than her, He would have chosen that one,
for the Lord does not respect persons since He is just and right.

If there had been a spot in her soul or a defect,
He would have sought for Himself another mother in whom there is no blemish.

This beauty which is teh most pure of all beauties,
exists in the one who possesses it by means of a good will.

...

She was made pure like John and like Elisha,
like Elias and like Melchisedek, who were renowned.

She ascended to the degree of these heights in beauty,
so she was chosen to be the Mother of the Son of the Holy One.

She drew near to the limit of virtue by her soul;
so, that grace which is without limit dwelt in her.

And you should read the part about comparing Eve and Mary.  It's just awesome.  One part I like to quote when interpreting her "utter equality," besides the position they were both put at (if I can quote the whole thing for you, I should just type the whole book here), they were also both virgins:

"Two virgins who received the message from two messengers;
two by two, generations were sent forth, one against another.

Satan sent a secret to Eve by means of the serpent;
the Lord sent the good tidings to Mary by means of the Watcher."

In anticipation of something you might answer back with, let me just tell you I agree with you that free will is not taken away if one is baptized, or has a grace similar to that (as the IC).  But here, we're arguing that she reached a measure of purity not by her state of nature, but by her own doing, her own will.  This leads us to believe that when the Syrian poets speak of her "stainless" life, they speak of her as a women without doing sin, not without spiritual death.

Quote
Quote
You misunderstand my question.  I'm not questioning free will brother.  I'm simply asking which is more amazing?  Those under the curse who don't sin or those not under the curse who don't sin?  This is a matter of contemplation that I find why the Theotokos is most amazing, stainless even under the curse of Original Sin (in the way I understand though, since there's no belief in our church of some sort of "stain").
But Mary was also under the curse of death (physical death, that is, not spiritual death).  The dogma of the IC does not deny that.

I am saying both spiritual and physical death, she still was stainless and made a decision to bestow upon us all the One Who will bestow life to those who were in the tombs.

Quote
Quote
So now we have two immaculate events?  One at conception and one at the Annunciation?  I thought the Latins thought the conception was enough for the Incarnation?
First of all, yes, I think that is a popular Latin theologoumenon, but it is not what the dogma of the IC actually teaches.  The Apostolic Constitution on the dogma merely states that the she was IC’d because it was fitting for her AS the Theotokos. But it does NOT say that she was IC’d because it was necessary for her TO BE Theotokos. Like I said, this latter belief is a Latin theologoumenon which I myself do not hold. Though I would add that in the quotes I provided earlier of EOC Fathers, St. Proclus of Constantinople makes an explicit causal connection between the immaculateness of Jesus’ birth and Mary being immaculately conceived.

Secondly, yes, there are two immaculate events. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ.  The Immaculate nature of their respective conceptions came about differently.  Mary was immaculately conceived by the Grace of Baptism being applied to her at the moment of her conception.  In distinction, Jesus was immaculately conceived because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, without a human father. So the IC does not give to Mary anything that is uniquely Christ’s.

You misunderstood my question.  I understood previously from you as if you implied the Virgin Mary was "made immaculate" twice.  One at her conception, and one at the Annunciation.  I'm not talking about two conceptions of two different people.  I'm only talking about the Theotokos.

Now with the icing of the cake, the quotes of St. Jacob of Serug concerning the Annunciation and what it did the Theotokos:

Quote
Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary,
to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.

He sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women;
He freed her from that curse of sufferings on account of Eve, her mother.

...

The Spirit freed her from that debt that she might be beyond
transgression when He solemnly dwelt in her.

He purified the Mother by the Holy Spirit while dwelling in her,
that He might take from her a pure body without sin.

...

The Word had descended that He might become flesh; on this account,
by the Spirit He purified the one from whom He had become flesh,

so that He might become like us in everything when He descended,
except for this:  that His pure body is without sin.

...

He made her pure, limpid, and blessed
as that Eve, before the serpent spoke with her.

He bestowed on her that first grace which her mother had,
until she ate from the tree which was full of death.

The Spirit who came made her like Eve of old,
though she did not hear the council of the serpent nor his hateful speech.

...

He sanctified her body and made her without hateful lusts,
as the virgin Eve had been until she lusted.

The sin which entered Adam's race with impulses of desire,
the Holy Spirit cast out from her when He came within her.

That increase of evil inclination which the serpent effected,
He wiped from her and filled her with holiness and integrity.

...

She rose up to this measure on her own,
until the Spirit, that perfecter of all came to her.

She was full of grace from God which was more exalted than all;
the Only-begotten dwelt in her womb to renew all.

All the quotes in this whole long message I wrote to you from St. Jacob was all not from different homilies, but one homily (Homily 1 in the book "On the Mother of God" by St. Jacob of Serug), in order that there is no doubt one should understand the context of Jacob's understanding of the "equality" between Mary and Eve, what "stainless" means, and what happened at the Annunciation as opposed to the Latin belief of the conception of Mary herself.

This is OO Mariology at its heart.

God bless.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 12:57:37 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #320 on: April 30, 2009, 01:07:15 AM »
Dear brother Mina,

That was a great response.  I will offer my responses later in the week or early next week.  For now, I am going to focus on brother Mickey's quotes. Plus I need some time to recuperate from a cold I just got.

BTW, I just wrote you a PM indicating I responded to you, and when I submitted it, your own response was posted, so just disregard my PM to you.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #321 on: April 30, 2009, 02:45:42 AM »
Dear brother LBK,

How do these quotes refute the dogma of the IC exactly?

Selections from the Vigil for the Annunciation:

From Ode 7, Canon at Matins:

The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul; it has sanctified my body; it has made me a temple containing God, a divinely-adorned tabernacle, a living sanctuary, and the pure Mother of Life.

From Ode 8:

You appear to speak the truth, answered the Virgin. For you have come as a messenger, bringing joy to all. Since I am to be purified in soul and body by the Spirit, let it happen to me according to your word. May God now dwell in me. I cry out to Him with you: All you works of the Lord, bless the Lord.
As mentioned by brother Papist and myself several times, the dogma itself says nothing about the IC being necessary SO THAT she is able to bear the FULL DIVINITY.

I myself believe, as you do, that it is at the Annunciation when Mary received the Grace TO BE ABLE TO conceive the Lord.  The Grace Mary received at her IC is different.  The dogma of the IC states SPECIFICALLY that at the moment of her conception, was preserved "FREE FROM ALL STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN." If you compare this with what the Catholic Church teaches about original sin and Baptism, then it will become more obvious that what Mary received at the moment of her conception was nothing more nor less than the Grace of Baptism.  The dogma doesn't say anything about the IC being necessary for her TO BE Theotokos.

Naysayers of the teaching have simply been knocking down straw men, EXTRAPOLATING matters from the teaching that the dogma never even claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #322 on: April 30, 2009, 02:54:30 AM »
Mardukm, I have supplied Orthodox liturgical texts to back the Orthodox position. They represent the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, these texts date to centuries before the schism between East and West. The Orthodox Church, as many others have said, had no need for a doctrine of immaculate conception, as its position on the sanctity and purity of the Mother of God had been explained and proclaimed since before the Third Ecumenical Council of 431, which preceded the council of Chalcedon, I might add. Need I say more?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 02:55:38 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #323 on: April 30, 2009, 02:58:13 AM »
Now you may say that Bernard was a complete ignoramus - which would be hard to justify - but one thing we can deduce from his fierce rejection of the Immaculate Conceptions is that it did NOT form any part of the genuine Tradition of the Western Church.  Bernard perceived it as an INNOVATION.
The Catholic Church has not rejected anything from St. Bernard.  He (like St. Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, and probably St. Catherine of Sienna) believed that the sanctification of Mary occured at her ensoulment, not at her physical conception. At this time, the Latins believed ensoulment occurred at a different time than the physical conception, perhaps up to 40 days or more until after the physical conception. Of course, it seems the Easterns did not make a distinction between the moment of physical conception and the moment of ensoulment.  Only later did the Latin Church come to the same understanding as the Easterns, who did not differentiate the physical conception from the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment). I already quoted to you the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) explanation of the dogma, and it states that the dogma is actually about the sanctification occuring at the moment of her ensoulment - which is exactly what the Medieval Latin Saints taught.  

And just to be clear, St. Bernard was not rejecting the IC, but rejecting the introduction of the EASTERN Feast of the Conception of St. Anne into the Western Tradition.

I've stated the foregoing a few times already.  Either refute what I am saying, or admit that these Medieval Latin Saints aren't saying anything different from what the dogm of the IC ACTUALLY teaches.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #324 on: April 30, 2009, 03:00:23 AM »
Mardukm, I have supplied Orthodox liturgical texts to back the Orthodox position. They represent the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, these texts date to centuries before the schism between East and West. The Orthodox Church, as many others have said, had no need for a doctrine of immaculate conception, as its position on the sanctity and purity of the Mother of God had been explained and proclaimed since before the Third Ecumenical Council of 431, which preceded the council of Chalcedon, I might add. Need I say more?
Yes.  Forgive me for being insistent. What I want to know is how those texts actually make a dent in the teaching of the IC in any way.

Blessings

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #325 on: April 30, 2009, 03:09:15 AM »
Yes.  Forgive me for being insistent. What I want to know is how those texts actually make a dent in the teaching of the IC in any way.

The Orthodox do not add to the deposit of faith where there is no need to add to it. The liturgical texts I have quoted speak for themselves. Let's not forget that hymnographers such as St Andrew of Crete, St John of Damascus and St Romanus the Melodist (to name but a few) knew their scripture (NT and OT) backwards, were completely immersed in Holy Tradition, and were inspired to write the gorgeous and sublime treasure of hymnody which remains with us to this day.

From another perspective, the iconography of the conception of the Mother of God simply shows Sts Joachim and Anna embracing. There is no symbolism or pictorial motif in these icons which in any way suggests an immaculate conception of their blessed child.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #326 on: April 30, 2009, 04:06:06 AM »
Yes.  Forgive me for being insistent. What I want to know is how those texts actually make a dent in the teaching of the IC in any way.

The Orthodox do not add to the deposit of faith where there is no need to add to it.

Fair enough. But I ask you this: is making something a dogma actually adding to the deposit of Faith?  You don't believe the doctrine of the Assumption is a dogma, but is it not part of the Deposit of Faith?  Earlier, an EO poster smartly wrote that he was confused about this debate because he thought the only issue was that the teaching was made a dogma.

I earlier quoted specific Fathers from the EOC who believed in the IC (I'm not talking about "All-holy" or "Immaculate" quotes, but those, like St. Proclus of Constantinople in the 5th century, who taught that Mary was FORMED WITHOUT STAIN, or St. Theodorus of Jerusalem who taught that Mary was CREATED in a more sublime and glorious fashion than any other creature).  Can you actually say it is not in the depost of Faith?  It seems that prior to the promulgation of the dogma of the IC in the mid-19th century, 99% of the Fathers of the Eastern Church did not believe that something like what St. Proclus taught was in any way contradictory or non-complementary to EO Tradition.  Our efforts at unity should be based on the sources, not on modern polemics, don't you agree?

Quote
The liturgical texts I have quoted speak for themselves. Let's not forget that hymnographers such as St Andrew of Crete, St John of Damascus and St Romanus the Melodist (to name but a few) knew their scripture (NT and OT) backwards, were completely immersed in Holy Tradition, and were inspired to write the gorgeous and sublime treasure of hymnody which remains with us to this day.
Yes, these texts speak of the sublime Grace Mary received at the Annunciation, a belief I myself hold.  But they do not in any way contradict the teaching of the IC, which MOST EO Fathers prior to mid-19th century also believed.

Quote
From another perspective, the iconography of the conception of the Mother of God simply shows Sts Joachim and Anna embracing. There is no symbolism or pictorial motif in these icons which in any way suggests an immaculate conception of their blessed child.
Are you familiar with the Tradition that a white dove entered St. Anna when she conceived St. Mary?  When the Fathers of Ephesus chided Pope St. Cyrill for not sticking to the text of the Creed in his defense of the Faith, he shot back righteously, asserting that the Faith is not restricted to one source, but to all the sources that the Church possesses.  The iconography is only one source of Tradition. I think problems occur when we restrict ourselves to one source while neglecting the totality of the Tradition.

BTW, in 1677, Benedict XIV formally condemned the error which taught that Mary was conceived of a virgin (i.e., that Mary was not naturally formed by Sts Joachim and Anne).

I must be off now.

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #327 on: April 30, 2009, 04:11:34 AM »
Now you may say that Bernard was a complete ignoramus - which would be hard to justify - but one thing we can deduce from his fierce rejection of the Immaculate Conceptions is that it did NOT form any part of the genuine Tradition of the Western Church.  Bernard perceived it as an INNOVATION.
The Catholic Church has not rejected anything from St. Bernard.  He (like St. Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, and probably St. Catherine of Sienna) believed that the sanctification of Mary occured at her ensoulment, not at her physical conception. At this time, the Latins believed ensoulment occurred at a different time than the physical conception, perhaps up to 40 days or more until after the physical conception. Of course, it seems the Easterns did not make a distinction between the moment of physical conception and the moment of ensoulment.  Only later did the Latin Church come to the same understanding as the Easterns, who did not differentiate the physical conception from the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment). I already quoted to you the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) explanation of the dogma, and it states that the dogma is actually about the sanctification occuring at the moment of her ensoulment - which is exactly what the Medieval Latin Saints taught.  

And just to be clear, St. Bernard was not rejecting the IC, but rejecting the introduction of the EASTERN Feast of the Conception of St. Anne into the Western Tradition.

I've stated the foregoing a few times already.  Either refute what I am saying, or admit that these Medieval Latin Saints aren't saying anything different from what the dogm of the IC ACTUALLY teaches.
BTW, Father Ambrose, here is another quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia demonstrating that the dogma of the IC refers to her ensoulment, not her physical conception:

Alexander VII promulgated on 8 December 1661, the famous constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum", defining the true sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared that the immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into the body was the object of the feast (Densinger, 1100).

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #328 on: April 30, 2009, 04:21:52 AM »
I fail to see the relevance in distinguishing between the Virgin's conception and her ensoulment with regard to the IC. Hairsplitting, methinks.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #329 on: April 30, 2009, 04:47:09 AM »
As for the quotes provided concerning St. Ambrose teaching on Mary, he also says,
"A virgin non only undefiled, but whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain." Looks like the quote you poseted above does not mean that Mary was not free from earthly taint. But nice try again Mickey.

Read what it says but whom grace has made inviolate the quotes you made don`t speak of Mary been Immaculate Conception , it speaks of her been Immaculated wich is a difference . She was pure , without sin(s) of her own but she carried the Ancestral Sin , wich it is not ours but it is a consequence of being born human , a consequence of inheritance of the fallen nature and the face of Adam. The Ancestral Sin passes trough all people so that we are all equal , we are all one . The sins of all humanity are acounted in a scroll as one , on the same handwriting , that is why no one could redeem the world , not the just , no one . From the fall all sins of the humanity were accounted as one for all humans , for the fate of the whole humanity . Every sin was written down of every person . That is what the Scripture text ment :  Col2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; So that is why we are all sinners in front of God , all born in Adam but we are all washed and justify trough Jesus , in His blood and He is the Water wich washes our sins , from His rib poured blood and water . This is what the prophet ment :
 Eze18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
 Eze18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Jer31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
 Jer31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah
This refers to the NT convenant trough Jesus Christ wich washes our heel and our sins. Our heel is the one that was biten by the snake , this means falling and death . All who are humans and are born with a falling body , and corrupted body and flesh of sin . That is why the flesh suffers corruption because of the sin , because of the falling from God`s grace . But entering again into the grace of God is made trough Jesus Christ , in who we are reborn , and how He resurrected so will we . In Scripture we see many references of the just people , but they all die , and none is just in front of God , see Job .
Psa49:6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
Psa49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Psa49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
Psa49:9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.
Psa49:10 For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.
Psa49:11 Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names.
Psa49:12 Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.

So all die even the justs they also died , by being named justs it doesn`t mean that they not inherit the handwritting that is against humanity , cause we are all born from the one that fall man(Adam). Only two persons didn`t died and they were tooked in the heavens by God , but they will come to make their testimony and to die . The titles Immaculated , Pure , just , etc are given to a person by their personal deeds and action , not by their inheritance , by the personal life , but still the just could not redeem himself as the psalms say and as Ecclesiast book says , they all die . His heel is biten also . But Jesus is our God , He redeems us . To Him is the glory , the grace and the power .
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 04:48:28 AM by Dan-Romania »
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #330 on: April 30, 2009, 08:27:21 AM »
If you compare this with what the Catholic Church teaches about original sin and Baptism, then it will become more obvious that what Mary received at the moment of her conception was nothing more nor less than the Grace of Baptism. 

I have never seen this explanation about the Immaculate Conception being synonymous with conceptional baptism. Is this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? What do you mean by "it will become more obvious"?  Is this what Pius IX was trying to say in 1854--that St Mary was baptized at conception? Is this what the magisterium says today?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #331 on: April 30, 2009, 09:27:54 AM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367
Since I am probably not going to run out and buy this book, could you provide a quote?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #332 on: April 30, 2009, 10:03:00 AM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367
Since I am probably not going to run out and buy this book, could you provide a quote?
Yes, I would also love to see a quote.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #333 on: April 30, 2009, 10:10:55 AM »
Yes, I would also love to see a quote.

Perhaps you could E-mail Fr Benedict.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #334 on: April 30, 2009, 10:14:18 AM »
Yes, I would also love to see a quote.

Perhaps you could E-mail Fr Benedict.
So, you don't really know anything about it, other than you heard something one time....come on. ::)

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #335 on: April 30, 2009, 10:34:28 AM »
So, you don't really know anything about it, other than you heard something one time....come on. ::)

Please do not be snide. If Fr Benedict wrote about it in his book--then send him an e-mail. No one here has the book.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #336 on: April 30, 2009, 10:35:42 AM »
BTW, Father Ambrose, here is another quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia demonstrating that the dogma of the IC refers to her ensoulment, not her physical conception:

Sorry, Marduk, but that is too hilarious.   In all my decades I have never ever heard it referred to as the Immaculate Ensoulment.  Have you presented this opinion of yours to any Catholic theologian for discernment and advice?

I actually think you may have fallen under the dread penalties attached to the definition of the Immaculate Conception:

Here is the definition:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Here are the penalties:

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX
solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception,
8 December 1854
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm

 

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #337 on: April 30, 2009, 10:35:49 AM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367
Since I am probably not going to run out and buy this book, could you provide a quote?

I am not able to do that.  The small amount of information I was able to give comes from a Catholic source, Catholic Answers Forum.

I see that Fr Groeschel's book is on google books.   Maybe someone could seach it?   I fear that my old spinning jenny of a computer cannot manage to download it all.

Here is the link to his book

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=A1NrfO2uFNAC&dq=%22%22A+Still,+Small+Voice%22+groeschel&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=B4_Ls0MxIw&sig=jlXbCeTxj-L4XrbVarZjKGqhRM0&hl=en&ei=26v5ScfxD5qytAO_rKnyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2


Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #338 on: April 30, 2009, 10:36:19 AM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367
Since I am probably not going to run out and buy this book, could you provide a quote?

I am not able to do that.  The small amount of information I was able to give comes from a Catholic source, Catholic Answers Forum.

I see that Fr Groeschel's book is on google books.   Maybe someone could seach it?   I fear that my old spinning jenny of a computer cannot manage to download it all.

Here is the link to his book

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=A1NrfO2uFNAC&dq=%22%22A+Still,+Small+Voice%22+groeschel&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=B4_Ls0MxIw&sig=jlXbCeTxj-L4XrbVarZjKGqhRM0&hl=en&ei=26v5ScfxD5qytAO_rKnyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2


So this may not be true after all?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #339 on: April 30, 2009, 10:37:33 AM »


Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

I'd be worried if I were you..... KIDDING!  :D
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,675
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #340 on: April 30, 2009, 10:48:19 AM »
I also remember reading somewhere that the Catholic Saint Catherine of Sienna received a vision where the Virgin Mary told Catherine that she was not immaculately conceived. Do you know anything about this?

In Fr. Benedict Groeschel's book, "A Still, Small Voice" he talks about St. Catherine of Siena's declaration that she received a revelation that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived.


http://www.amazon.com/Still-Small-Voice-Practical-Revelations/dp/0898704367
Since I am probably not going to run out and buy this book, could you provide a quote?

I am not able to do that.  The small amount of information I was able to give comes from a Catholic source, Catholic Answers Forum.

I see that Fr Groeschel's book is on google books.   Maybe someone could seach it?   I fear that my old spinning jenny of a computer cannot manage to download it all.

Here is the link to his book

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=A1NrfO2uFNAC&dq=%22%22A+Still,+Small+Voice%22+groeschel&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=B4_Ls0MxIw&sig=jlXbCeTxj-L4XrbVarZjKGqhRM0&hl=en&ei=26v5ScfxD5qytAO_rKnyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2


So this may not be true after all?

Page 59 of Fr. Groeschel's book mentions the above tidbit re: St. Catherine and the IC.  The citation goes onto page 60, which is, alas, not part of the free preview.  The chapter, though, is entitled "Sources of Error in Private Revelation" and the subsection deals with "Subjective Need" as a source for error in private revelation.  However, w/o page 60, we really can't see the full point Fr. Benedict is trying to make :(
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #341 on: April 30, 2009, 11:05:04 AM »
"It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Coception was not true. Actually at this time the Dominicans and the Franciscans were locked in theological controversy over this question. It seemed to the saint that Our Lady took the side of the Dominicans....Where do preconceived ideas end and revelations begin?"

A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
Benedict J. Groeschel

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #342 on: April 30, 2009, 11:07:19 AM »
"It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Coception was not true. Actually at this time the Dominicans and the Franciscans were locked in theological controversy over this question. It seemed to the saint that Our Lady took the side of the Dominicans....Where do preconceived ideas end and revelations begin?"

A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
Benedict J. Groeschel

Thank you poorfool. I also found this:

There is much room for error in private revelations, even when they are
given to Saints (cf. file on discernment of spirits). Canonization of a
Saint does not at all guarantee the truth of alleged private revelations.
St. Catherine of Siena seems to have claimed Our Lady appeared to her and
denied the Immaculate Conception.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PRIPUB.TXT



Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #343 on: April 30, 2009, 11:09:22 AM »
Was the definition for the doctrine of the IC given to Pope Pius IX as private revelation?

Is this doctrine considered to be infallible as set forth by Pius IX?

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #344 on: April 30, 2009, 11:19:56 AM »
Thank you poorfool. I also found this:
No problem. Forgive me for being snippy earlier.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #345 on: April 30, 2009, 11:22:42 AM »
No problem. Forgive me for being snippy earlier.

I am the king of snip.  :-[

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #346 on: April 30, 2009, 11:23:34 AM »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #347 on: April 30, 2009, 11:23:54 AM »
Was the definition for the doctrine of the IC given to Pope Pius IX as private revelation?
No. When you ask questions like this I wonder if you really were ever a member of the Catholic Church.
Is this doctrine considered to be infallible as set forth by Pius IX?
Yes.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #348 on: April 30, 2009, 11:24:49 AM »
"It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Coception was not true. Actually at this time the Dominicans and the Franciscans were locked in theological controversy over this question. It seemed to the saint that Our Lady took the side of the Dominicans....Where do preconceived ideas end and revelations begin?"

A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
Benedict J. Groeschel
Or the "apparition" never happened and was created by others to support their own view.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #349 on: April 30, 2009, 11:30:55 AM »
So then...the doctrine of the IC must be believed unto your eternal salvation?


Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #350 on: April 30, 2009, 11:31:59 AM »
So then...the doctrine of the IC must be believed unto your eternal salvation?
Yes, that is what is a little scary to me.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #351 on: April 30, 2009, 11:32:58 AM »
By the way, can the Orthodox believe in the IC? Does it count as one of the non dogmatics among the EO? Or am I way off?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 11:33:18 AM by PoorFoolNicholas »

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #352 on: April 30, 2009, 11:33:24 AM »
Regarding this particular topic, here is what Pope Benedict XIV wrote in the 17th century, in a work concerning the canonization of Saints and the investigation of their private revelations:

There is also a revelation attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus. But as there is no trace of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no slight suspicion, that this has been added to them ,and is therefore to be accounted apocryphal, as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti and Martin del Rio.

Regarding Fr. Groeschel’s commentary that Pope Benedict XIV suggested that St. Catherine may have been influenced by her teachers, here is the exact quote from Pope Benedict’s work:

Nicholas Lancizzil thus speaks of the revelation of S. Catherine of Sienna that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin: “If S. Catherine said this, she did it, not from God revealing it, but from her own spirit and understanding, as one of the spiritual children of the Dominicans, form whom she had learned it. We must know that when pious persons, abstracted from the senses, speak, they frequently speak of their own understanding, and are sometimes deceived. This is certain, and persons experienced in these things know it, and it is clear from authentic ecclesiastical histories, and I could name some holy women, canonized by the Apostolic See, whose sayings and writing in rapture, and derived from raptures are filled with errors, and therefore not allowed to be published.”

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #353 on: April 30, 2009, 11:38:01 AM »
So then...the doctrine of the IC must be believed unto your eternal salvation?
Yes, that is what is a little scary to me.
What's scary is how someone who claims to have been Catholic can make such a false and ignorant statement about the dogma of the IC.  The proscription of the IC does not contain an anathema, but merely an excommunication from the Catholic Church - which, given the Church's teaching that the grace of salvation can exist outside visible boundaires of the Catholic Church (though indeed the Catholic Church is the Church THROUGH which such Grace comes, regardless), is not tantamount to the loss of one's salvation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #354 on: April 30, 2009, 11:42:19 AM »
So then...the doctrine of the IC must be believed unto your eternal salvation?


I believe so yes. But only relatively so.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 11:43:55 AM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #355 on: April 30, 2009, 11:43:12 AM »
By the way, can the Orthodox believe in the IC? Does it count as one of the non dogmatics among the EO? Or am I way off?
Hello? Anyone there? Must be a bad connection...

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #356 on: April 30, 2009, 11:44:40 AM »
By the way, can the Orthodox believe in the IC? Does it count as one of the non dogmatics among the EO? Or am I way off?
Hello? Anyone there? Must be a bad connection...
Metropolitan Kalistos Ware says that yes an Orthodox Christian can believe in the IC. But many Orthodox theologians strongly oppose this.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #357 on: April 30, 2009, 11:45:28 AM »
BTW, Father Ambrose, here is another quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia demonstrating that the dogma of the IC refers to her ensoulment, not her physical conception:

Sorry, Marduk, but that is too hilarious.   In all my decades I have never ever heard it referred to as the Immaculate Ensoulment.
Why don't you address the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia instead of making these meaningless comments?  Is it because you really can't address them?  Is it because you can't let go of your MISconception of the IC?

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #358 on: April 30, 2009, 11:47:16 AM »
Metropolitan Kalistos Ware says that yes an Orthodox Christian can believe in the IC. But many Orthodox theologians strongly oppose this.
Is it because of the Original Sin problem? The Anselmian views tied to it?

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #359 on: April 30, 2009, 11:48:29 AM »
Dear brother Nicholas

By the way, can the Orthodox believe in the IC? Does it count as one of the non dogmatics among the EO? Or am I way off?
Hello? Anyone there? Must be a bad connection...
Two or three EO earlier in the thread (perhaps midway?), I think one of them is a moderator here, confirmed that it is indeed a legitimate theologoumenon in the EOC, that one can believe it while still being Orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk