Immaculate conception of Mary?

Standing Up said:

Someone made the point every other tribe (EO, P, etc), but mine (RC), had fallen away one time or another. Such is not true. And as you ask, so what? Do we have it right today?

It's either true or a myth. We don't need to rehash.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

Everyone believes theirs is the church and everyone else comes up short. Hope that clarifies.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

What I'm hearing is that you believe that if a Pope was a heretic, then that means that the Catholic Church has fallen away.

I do agree that all Christians--besides our Lady--including Popes are sinners and can fall into error. It does seem that the Popes had a remarkable record of orthodoxy in the early Church. But the only absolute guarantee that I'm aware of regarding the Vicars of Christ is that they will not formally define error. That doesn't mean that they will always speak up when they should or lead well, or that they always know the whole truth, or that they won't be in error. But only that they will not bind (Matthew 16:19) the faithful to believe error.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

I'm not the one who brought up the point that everyone, but RC, had heretical leadership at one point. .

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

I don't remember stating that--perhaps I forgot-- though I do remember agreeing that the other Patriarchates often taught heresy. Popes of the Catholic Church also can be in error except when they define doctrine solemnly as St. Rock's Successors (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 16:19) I don't know much about Honorius as I'm not a historian, though from what I've read he was not a heretic, but did fail to deal with the Monothelite heresy adequately in his unique role as Vicar of Christ. As far as I know, the 6th Ecumenical Council affirmed Papal Infallibility and that Honorius was orthodox and had warned the monothelites to keep silent, but was heretical in the sense that he failed to teach against them.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301#

But again, even supposing that Honorius was a heretic, this would not disprove Papal Infallibility because he did not define heresy as binding on the faithful.

I think that the Vicar of Christs have generally had a good record of orthodoxy, and continue to preach the truth about the Immaculate Conception and the way to Jesus through this Blessed Mother of God.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

The problem in the Catholic Church is that it keeps shifting the goal posts. At one point Papal Bulls were considered to be Truth proclaimed by the Pope. However, over time some of the Papal Bulls became downright embarrassing. Thus, in 1871 the dogma of Papal Infallibility was devised. As a result only four Dogmas have been infallibly declared, placing everything else in the gray area of doctrine, not dogma.
.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

I don't know about these things, though I don't believe that the Catholic Church has been shifting goal posts. I know that as a Catholic I am happily obliged not only to believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption but many other truths of the faith.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Although what you say is true, there is a distinction between infallible dogma (the Four Marian Dogmas being the only ones in that category) and other, lesser, categories of doctrines in the Catholic Church. If you believe that all Catholic doctrines are equal, then you must face the reality that the vast majority of baptized Catholics today are headed directly for hell.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

I'm not clear on the distinctions between dogma and doctrine, though as I understand it, they are both infallible. Apparently, there are very many dogmas of the Church. This site appears to be a list of them:
http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

I'm just considering the teaching that Mary is the New Eve. I don't know that this is dogma, but I would think it is doctrine, because of its connection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Mary's identity as the Mother of God.

In any case, I could not in good conscience choose to doubt this teaching.

I agree that we Catholics can be the biggest sinners of all, and that we often lack the devotion Jesus through Our Lady that we should have, and often don't seek to know and receive what the Church teaches. Until I suffered a great deal, I didn't understand how much I needed Jesus and His Mother. But God is Infinitely Merciful to those who repent and seek to accept Christ and His teachings through Mary and the Church.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you for the good link. I think it provides a nice list of many Catholic doctrines, of which none have been declared to be dogmas by ex cathedra statements.

Click to expand...

I notice that it omits quite a few doctrines, as well, such as the various sins and types of sins.

There is nothing said concerning the difference between mortal sins and venial sins and their specific applications. For example, when is stealing a mortal sin and when is it a venial sin? Is it an immutable doctrine that a Catholic who does not attend weekly mass is commiting a mortal sin?

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

As I understand it, dogmas can be declared by Ecumenical Councils as well, or simply by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Or they can be declared ex cathedra like the Immaculate Conception, which was declared in response to to modernist doubts/denials about this doctrine.

I'm just a layperson, but I would think that it is doctrine (and as such infallible) that a person not attending weekly Mass (or any Holy Day of obligation) is committing a mortal sin if they do so without a serious reason and do so knowingly and freely (i.e. a person must be psychologically free in choosing the evil).

Of course, all sins can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, and Our Lady can help them to heal and amend their lives in her Son.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

The problem is that there has never been any official list of dogmas or a list of doctrines in the Catholic Church. The closest thing that comes to it has been the Catechism. There is no denying, however, that there is a difference, or differences, in significance among the various doctrines and these differences evolve over time. For example, at the time of Galileo the hot doctrinal issue was the fact, established by Papal Bull, that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa. .

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

Would you be willing to post that Papal Bull?

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Better yet, here is the Wikipedia article concerning the controversy around Galileo -

Galileo Galilei was a Catholic scientist of the Reformation period whose support for Copernican heliocentrism was suppressed by The Inquisition.[35] He is considered one of the inventors of modern science. Along with fellow Catholic scientist Copernicus, Galileo was among those who ultimately overturned the notion of geocentrism.[36] Protestant and atheist critics of Catholicism's relationship to science have placed great emphasis on the Galileo affair. Galileo was ordered not to support Copernican theory in 1616, but in 1632, after receiving permission from a new Pope (Urban VIII) to address the subject indirectly through a dialogue, he fell foul of the Pontiff by placing the pope's views in the mouth of an imbecile within the text, and was hauled before the Inquisition. The Inquisition found him guilty of defending Copernican theory as a probability, "vehemently suspect of heresy", and placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.


Federico Cesi created the Accademia dei Lincei in 1603 as an Italian science academy, of which Galileo became a member.[37] Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view. Galileo gained wide support for his theories outside the universities by writing in Italian, rather than academic Latin. In response, the Aristotelian professors of the universities formed a united effort to convince the Church to ban Copernicanism.[36]


Initially a beneficiary of church patronage of astronomy, Galileo rose to prominence with the publication of Sidereus Nuncius, which comprised astronomical observations made possible by the 1608 invention of the telescope. He was feted in Rome, honoured by the Jesuits of the Roman College and received by Pope Paul V and church dignitaries.[38] Galileo began to dismiss geocentrism and emerging alternative theories like that of Tycho de Brahe. Proponents of these alternatives, led by Lodovico delle Colombe began to work against Galileo and claim a contradiction between scripture and his theories. Galileo rejected the accusation - quoting Cardinal Baronius: "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". He invited the Church to follow established practice and reinterpret scripture in light of the new scientific discoveries. The leading Jesuit Theologian Cardinal Robert Bellarmine agreed that this would be an appropriate response to a true demonstration that the sun was at the centre of the universe, but cautioned that the existing materials upon which Galileo relied did not yet constitute an established truth.[38]


Galileo's career coincided with the reaction of the Catholic Church to the Protestant Reformation, in which the Roman Church found itself in a struggle for authority in Europe, following the emergence of the Protestant Churches, and nations of Northern Europe.[39] Pope Paul III created the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition to stop the spread of "heretical depravity" throughout the Christian world. From 1571, the institution had jurisdiction over books and created the Index of Prohibited Books.[40] Rome established the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in 1622. The historian of science Jacob Bronowski wrote that "Catholics and Protestants were embattled in what we should now call a Cold War ... The Church was a great temporal power, and in that bitter time it was fighting a political crusade in which all means were justified by the end ...". In this climate, Cardinal Bellarmine, himself a distinguished scientist of the age, instigated inquiries against Galileo as early as 1613.[39]


After 1610, when Galileo began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, Galileo met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Galileo defended his theories by means of the long established Catholic understanding of scripture, that the Bible was not intended to expound scientific theory and where it conflicted with common sense, should be read as allegory.[36] Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[41] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do.


In March 1616, the Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected", on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[42] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture".[43] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.[citation needed] On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[44] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[45]


In 1623, Galileo's friend Maffeo Barberini was elected as Pope Urban VIII. Urban VIII was an intellectual and patron of the arts and architecture, who had written poetry as a young man in praise of Galileo's astronomical writings. Galileo met with the new Pope, hoping to persuade him to lift the 1616 ban.[46] Instead he received permission to write a book on Aristotelian and Copernican theories, provided he did not take sides.[36] The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was passed by the censors and was well received across Europe,[36] but ultimately offended Urban VIII, whose own arguments were put into the mouth of the buffoon-like Simplicio in the dialogue. The Preparatory Commission for the trial of Galileo noted that the Pope's stated belief that it would be extravagant boldness to limit the power and wisdom of God to an individual's particular conjecture was put "into the mouth of a fool" in Galileo's text.[47]


Galileo was summoned to Rome to be tried by the Inquisition in 1633. According to Bronowski, Galileo's accusers relied on a forged document purporting to have, in 1616, forbidden Galileo from in "any way whatsoever" teaching theories of Copernicus, and thus could find him guilty of dishonestly tricking the censors and therefore ban his book without addressing the issues of substance relating to Copernicus found within it.[48] Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".[49] Though never tortured, Galileo was shown the implements of torture to instill fear in him.[48] Forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Galileo remained a practicing Catholic and during his house arrest wrote his most influential work Two New Sciences - a book which had to be smuggled to Protestant Holland in order to be published.[35]


The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[50] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.[51]


The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[52] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[53] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[54] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[55] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the Church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[56]


Pope Urban VIII refused Galileo a stately burial upon his death, though later his bones were interned under a monument at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence. In 1980, Pope John Paul II ordered a re-examination of the evidence against Galileo and formally acquitted him in 1992.[57]

Click to expand...

jason_delisle said:

Many people mistakenly believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate, but the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus at all. The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. An official statement of the doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature, and was, in fact, sinless.

The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception originated out of confusion over how Jesus Christ could be born sinless if He was conceived inside of a sinful human female. The thought was that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. In contrast to the Immaculate Conception, the biblical solution to this problem is that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because without it, Jesus would have been the object of His own grace. The thought goes like this – for Jesus to have been miraculously preserved from sin, which itself would be an act of grace, would mean God essentially “graced Himself.” The word grace means “unmerited favor.” Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.” In no sense could Jesus possibly be infected with sin. He was perfect and sinless humanity joined with sinless divinity. God cannot be infected or affected by sin, as He is perfectly holy. This same truth applies to Jesus. It did not take “grace” to protect Jesus from sin. Being God incarnate, Jesus was in His essence “immune” from sin.

So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the biblical concept of the virgin birth. The Bible does not even hint that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the Immaculate Conception is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

Good points. As well, the doctrine of IC grew out of mistaken medical information. They thought the baby received its blood from the mother. If the mother had original sin, it was passed to the baby. So, to "protect" Jesus, they invented IC. Turns out the baby makes its own blood.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

Good points. As well, the doctrine of IC grew out of mistaken medical information. They thought the baby received its blood from the mother. If the mother had original sin, it was passed to the baby. Mary had to have "pure blood". So, to "protect" Jesus, they invented IC. Turns out the baby makes its own blood.

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

Before the modern era, it was universally believed that original sin was passed on only by the father.

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that the sole reason for this privilege is the Divine Maternity. Since long before the findings of modern science, Catholics have believed that it was fitting that Mary be preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin, in view of the foreseen merits of Christ, because she was predestined to be the Mother of God. It wasn't by necessity that God granted Mary this singular privilege; in other words, it wasn't because she would have passed the stain of sin on to her Son. Before the modern era, it was universally believed that original sin was passed on only by the father. In any event, we receive one gene from our mother, and one gene from our father, and the resulting blood type is the result of whatever genes we have inherited from them. Sometimes that means we end up with our mother's blood type, sometimes with our father's; sometimes we end up with neither of their blood types. But whatever blood type we end up with, it is a result of the genes we received from both of our parents. Jesus received all his genetic material from Mary. Modern science has proposed that the source of human selfishness lies in a particular gene. Many theologians have defined original sin as being just that - an inbred selfishness.



Justinus Angelus

Click to expand...