Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 48
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
can't link to a book.Excuse me, I am not responsible for running around looking for the evidence for your statements and contentions.
When you quote from authority, you are responsible for the links to them.
I think that is fair.
I gave you where I got it from. If you doubt me then it is up to you to read what I have read.. Not for me to read it for you.. I don't get everything I have from the internet.. I read and read and read.. If you want proof of what I have read then look it up for yourself and read it.. You may have to go to the library. This isn't you eating out of a silver dish and asking for the silver spoon. Look it up. Read it for yourself.. You have where I got it from.. Nuff said..Excuse me, I am not responsible for running around looking for the evidence for your statements and contentions.
When you quote from authority, you are responsible for the links to them.
I think that is fair.
I gave you where I got it from. If you doubt me then it is up to you to read what I have read.. Not for me to read it for you.. I don't get everything I have from the internet.. I read and read and read.. If you want proof of what I have read then look it up for yourself and read it.. You may have to go to the library. This isn't you eating out of a silver dish and asking for the silver spoon. Look it up. Read it for yourself.. You have where I got it from.. Nuff said..
We are told to study to show ourselves approved.. This is what I do.. I study.. This falls back on you my friend not me.
it?If I could, I'd change my vote to yes. I do believe that is without sin.
This doctrine of Mary being sinless originated in the 5th century.. It was also rejected by the Fathers and Popes of the early church.. It was decreed a dogma of the faith necessary to be believed for salvation by Pius IX in 1854 in the papal decree Ineffailis Deus.
The Roman Catholic patristic scholar Walter Burghart Writes of this. Augustine, Pope Leo I Pope Gregory the Great, Anselm, Bede, Bernard of Clairveaux and Tomas Aquinas. For centuries it was a matter of violent dispute within the Church between the Dominicans and the Franciscans.What Early Church Fathers and Popes of the early Church, rejected that Mary was without sin?
The Roman Catholic patristic scholar Walter Burghart Writes of this. Augustine, Pope Leo I Pope Gregory the Great, Anselm, Bede, Bernard of Clairveaux and Tomas Aquinas. For centuries it was a matter of violent dispute within the Church between the Dominicans and the Franciscans.
THE CONTROVERSY
No controversy arose over the Immaculate Conception on the European continent before the twelfth century. The Norman clergy abolished the feast in some monasteries of England where it had been established by the Anglo-Saxon monks. But towards the end of the eleventh century, through the efforts of Anselm the Younger, it was taken up again in several Anglo-Norman establishments. That St. Anselm the Elder re-established the feast in England is highly improbable, although it was not new to him. He had been made familiar with it as well by the Saxon monks of Canterbury, as by the Greeks with whom he came in contact during exile in Campania and Apulin (1098-9). The treatise "De Conceptu virginali" usually ascribed to him, was composed by his friend and disciple, the Saxon monk Eadmer of Canterbury. When the canons of the cathedral of Lyons, who no doubt knew Anselm the Younger Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, personally introduced the feast into their choir after the death of their bishop in 1240, St. Bernard deemed it his duty to publish a protest against this new way of honouring Mary. He addressed to the canons a vehement letter (Epist. 174), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own authority and before they had consulted the Holy See. Not knowing that the feast had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he asserted that the feast was foreign to the old tradition of the Church. Yet it is evident from the tenor of his language that he had in mind only the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and its animation by the soul had not yet been drawn. No doubt, when the feast was introduced in England and Normandy, the axiom "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit", the childlike piety and enthusiasm of the simplices building upon revelations and apocryphal legends, had the upper hand. The object of the feast was not clearly determined, no positive theological reasons had been placed in evidence.
St. Bernard was perfectly justified when he demanded a careful inquiry into the reasons for observing the feast. Not adverting to the possibility of sanctification at the time of the infusion of the soul, he writes that there can be question only of sanctification after conception, which would render holy the nativity not the conception itself (Scheeben, "Dogmatik", III, p. 550). Hence Albert the Great observes: "We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyons" (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i). St. Bernard was at once answered in a treatise written by either Richard of St. Victor or Peter Comestor. In this treatise appeal is made to a feast which had been established to commemorate an insupportable tradition. It maintained that the flesh of Mary needed no purification; that it was sanctified before the conception. Some writers of those times entertained the fantastic idea that before Adam fell, a portion of his flesh had been reserved by God and transmitted from generation to generation, and that out of this flesh the body of Mary was formed (Scheeben, op. cit., III, 551), and this formation they commemorated by a feast. The letter of St. Bernard did not prevent the extension of the feast, for in 1154 it was observed all over France, until in 1275, through the efforts of the Paris University, it was abolished in Paris and other dioceses. After the saint's death the controversy arose anew between Nicholas of St. Albans, an English monk who defended the festival as established in England, and Peter Cellensis, the celebrated Bishop of Chartres. Nicholas remarks that the soul of Mary was pierced twice by the sword, i. e. at the foot of the cross and when St. Bernard wrote his letter against her feast (Scheeben, III, 551). The point continued to be debated throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and illustrious names appeared on each side. St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great are quoted as opposing it. St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e. g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.
In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents. We may formulate the question discussed by them in two propositions, both of which are against the sense of the dogma of 1854:
the sanctification of Mary took place before the infusion of the soul into the fiesh, so that the immunity of the soul was a consequence of the sanctification of the flesh and there was no liability on the part of the soul to contract original sin. This would approach the opinion of the Damascene concerning the holiness of the active conception.
The sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul by redemption from the servitude of sin, into which the soul had been drawn by its union with the unsanctified flesh. This form of the thesis excluded an immaculate conception.
The theologians forgot that between sanctification before infusion, and sanctification after infusion, there was a medium: sanctification of the soul at the moment of its infusion. To them the idea seemed strange that what was subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous in point of time. Speculatively taken, the soul must be created before it can be infused and sanctified but in reality, the soul is created snd sanctified at the very moment of its infusion into the body. Their principal difficulty was the declaration of St. Paul (Romans 5:12) that all men have sinned in Adam. The purpose of this Pauline declaration, however, is to insist on the need which all men have of redemption by Christ. Our Lady was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the silence of the earlier Fathers. But the divines of those times were distinguished not so much for their knowledge of the Fathers or of history, as for their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the Eastern Church, who exhibit in far greater completeness the tradition of the Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been lost sight of have since been brought to light. The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation -- sanctificatio post animationem -- demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."
From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted. With the exception of the Dominicans, all or nearly all, of the religious orders took it up: The Franciscans at the general chapter at Pisa in 1263 adopted the Feast of the Conception of Mary for the entire order; this, however, does not mean that they professed at that time the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Following in the footsteps of their own Duns Scotus, the learned Petrus Aureolus and Franciscus de Mayronis became the most fervent champions of the doctrine, although their older teachers (St. Bonaventure included) had been opposed to it. The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious, consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture; nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary (Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the Church of Rome was celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number of churches of Rome, especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not received in the official calendar. As the council at the time was not ecumenical, it could not pronounce with authority. The memorandum of the Dominican Torquemada formed the armoury for all attacks upon the doctrine made by St. Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459), and by the Dominicans Bandelli and Spina.
By a Decree of 28 February, 1476, Sixtus IV at last adopted the feast for the entire Latin Church and granted an indulgence to all who would assist at the Divine Offices of the solemnity (Denzinger, 734). The Office adopted by Sixtus IV was composed by Leonard de Nogarolis, whilst the Franciscans, since 1480, used a very beautiful Office from the pen of Bernardine dei Busti (Sicut Lilium), which was granted also to others (e. g. to Spain, 1761), and was chanted by the Franciscans up to the second half of the nineteenth century. As the public acknowledgment of the feast of Sixtus IV did not prove sufficient to appease the conflict, he published in 1483 a constitution in which he punished with excommunication all those of either opinion who charged the opposite opinion with heresy (Grave nimis, 4 Sept., 1483; Denzinger, 735). In 1546 the Council of Trent, when the question was touched upon, declared that "it was not the intention of this Holy Synod to include in the decree which concerns original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God" (Sess. V, De peccato originali, v, in Denzinger, 792). Since, however, this decree did not define the doctrine, the theological opponents of the mystery, though more and more reduced in numbers, did not yield. St. Pius V not only condemned proposition 73 of Baius that "no one but Christ was without original sin, and that therefore the Blessed Virgin had died because of the sin contracted in Adam, and had endured afilictions in this life, like the rest of the just, as punishment of actual and original sin" (Denzinger, 1073) but he also issued a constitution in which he forbade all public discussion of the subject. Finally he inserted a new and simplified Office of the Conception in the liturgical books ("Super speculam", Dec., 1570; Superni omnipotentis", March, 1571; "Bullarium Marianum", pp. 72, 75).
Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine, and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Tolerio, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugd, Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima. The Friars Minor confirmed in 1621 the election of the Immaculate Mother as patron of the order, and bound themselves by oath to teach the mystery in public and in private. The Dominicans, however, were under special obligation to follow the doctrines of St. Thomas, and the common conclusion was that St. Thomas was opposed to the Immaculate Conception. Therefore the Dominicans asserted that the doctrine was an error against faith (John of Montesono, 1373); although they adopted the feast, they termed it persistently "Sanctificatio B.M.V." not "Conceptio", until in 1622 Gregory XV abolished the term "sanctificatio". Paul V (1617) decreed that no one should dare to teach publicly that Mary was conceived in original sin, and Gregory XV (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) upon the adversaries of the doctrine until the Holy See should define the question. To put an end to all further cavilling, 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).
I think this is what IAA is referring to.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
I think you are confusing dispute over the IC doctrine with sinlessness. No one disputed her sinlessness.
To which I replied.This doctrine of Mary being sinless originated in the 5th century.. It was also rejected by the Fathers and Popes of the early church.. It was decreed a dogma of the faith necessary to be believed for salvation by Pius IX in 1854 in the papal decree Ineffailis Deus.
And she responded.What Early Church Fathers and Popes of the early Church, rejected that Mary was without sin?
The Roman Catholic patristic scholar Walter Burghart Writes of this. Augustine, Pope Leo I Pope Gregory the Great, Anselm, Bede, Bernard of Clairveaux and Tomas Aquinas. For centuries it was a matter of violent dispute within the Church between the Dominicans and the Franciscans.
This doctrine of Mary being sinless originated in the 5th century.. It was also rejected by the Fathers and Popes of the early church..
It was decreed a dogma of the faith necessary to be believed for salvation by Pius IX in 1854 in the papal decree Ineffailis Deus.
I think this is what IAA is referring to.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
I think you are confusing dispute over the IC doctrine with sinlessness. No one disputed her sinlessness.
The title of this thread is "Was Mary without sin?"...that is what I am dicussing with IAA. She posted the following:
To which I replied.
And she responded.
I am now waiting on her sources footnotes...to the titles of this ECF's writings. So thanks for the link, but I am confused on your last comment...because the sinless of Mary is what is in dispute. Sorry, if I miss understood you...but I really couldn't draw what you were getting at in your comment.
Peace be with you...Pam
There is a negative,unfavorable trend rooted in Augustine's anti Pelagianism: It accentuates the universaltiy of orignal sin and articulates the connections between inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful concupiscence. Th root Idea is summed up by Leo the Great. "Alone therefore among the sons of men The Lord Jesus was born innocent because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence." The same concept is discoerable in St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (d.533) The most significant theologian of his time. In Pope Gregory the Great. (d.604) at the end of the sixth century and a century later in Venerable Bede, (Juniper Carol.Ed. Mariology Milwaukee Bruce ,1955 Volume 1 Page 146.
Sex being different? I don't think I understand what you are asking really. I don't think that sex is different in the marriage bed. I think where sex is different is now there is sin it goes outside the marriage bed instead of where it was intended for..Sex inside the marriage bed is undefiled.. It is pure. It is God ordained.. It is outside the marriage bed when it becomes sin..Do you suppose that sex would be different without the knowledge of good and evil? Like Adam and Eve would have been without the fall? Is that the difference?
Sex being different? I don't think I understand what you are asking really. I don't think that sex is different in the marriage bed. I think where sex is different is now there is sin it goes outside the marriage bed instead of where it was intended for..Sex inside the marriage bed is undefiled.. It is pure. It is God ordained.. It is outside the marriage bed when it becomes sin..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?