Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother LBK,

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

LBK said:
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
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
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?
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
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
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
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
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Mardukm said:
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.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Mardukm said:
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?

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.

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
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
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).
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
I fail to see the relevance in distinguishing between the Virgin's conception and her ensoulment with regard to the IC. Hairsplitting, methinks.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
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 .
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Mardukm said:
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?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mickey said:
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?
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mickey said:
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.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
PoorFoolNicholas said:
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.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
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


 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mickey said:
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

 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mickey said:
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?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
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
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mickey said:
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 :(
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"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
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
PoorFoolNicholas said:
"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


 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
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?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
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.
Mickey said:
Is this doctrine considered to be infallible as set forth by Pius IX?
Yes.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
"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.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
So then...the doctrine of the IC must be believed unto your eternal salvation?

 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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?
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.”
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Mickey said:
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
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PoorFoolNicholas said:
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...
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
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.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
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?
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
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?
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Nicholas

PoorFoolNicholas said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
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
 
Top