True History Of The Immaculate Conception

[Anna]

Bruce,

I decided to adress this one little argument, which was part of a larger debate on Papal Infallibility from another thread.

There, you provided a quote that seemed to indicate that Pope Pius IX just invented the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, without the advice of a council or any previous historical belief in it, but rather, on something of whim of the pope.

Your quote:

We should make note of the fact that ultramontanism is not Pius IX's only claim to fame - a number of important changes were made during his tenure. For example, in 1854 he declared the dogma of Immaculate Conception, according to which Mary was protected from all sin, even original sin, because she had been chosen to become the mother of Jesus. This was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope had taken it upon himself to proclaim a doctrine or dogma without first consulting a council.

True history:

During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine. At this time, the data from Scripture and the Fathers was still not clear. In addition, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been--it was often thought of as having a positive element, instead of merely being an original lack of the grace to which God calls us. This positive element was thought to be transmitted from parents to children through the marital act (which was itself thought to be somehow sinful, though pardoned by God), and so it was hard to see how there could be an immaculate conception. This conception had been found in some, though by no means all, of the Fathers. Now of course we know it to be false. Finally, it was not generally seen at this time how an Immaculate conception of Mary would not take away from the universality of redemption through Christ.

After a while, however, the theological tide began to turn, and the objections which had long obscured the content of divine revelation began to be overcome. This was due especially to the work of the Franciscan, Venerable John Duns Scotus. He showed that for God to preserve Mary from original sin was a greater redemption than to allow her to fall into it and then rescue her. Scotus wrote (cited from J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368): "Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so."

We also note again that behind most of the objections was the rather positive notion of original sin. If we jump ahead several centuries to the clearer understanding of original sin we have now, we can remove this objection. Pope John Paul II epressed this understanding in a General Audience on Oct 1, 1986: "In context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a 'sin of nature' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin'". In other words: It is only the lack, or privation, of that which God wanted us to have, which we should have inherited from our first parents."

Now back to our history. After that this change in theological tide had gone far towards removing objections, the Popes began to make statements of varying clarity. Sixtus IV in 1477 (DS 1400) praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. The same Pope added further support in 1483 (DS 1425-26), condemning those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception. The Council of Trent explicitly declared in its decree on original sin (DS 1516): "... it is not its intention to include in this decree ... the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Rather, the Constitutions of Sixtus [iV] of happy memory are to be observed."

After Trent, the attacks on the Immaculate Conception were greatly moderated. Then Pope St. Pius V, in 1567 (DS 1973) condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. And in 1568 the same Pope put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Alexander VII in 1661 explained the doctrine much as Pius IX did later: DB 1100. Pope Clement XI in 1708 made December 8 a holyday of obligation. Further, the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in the U. S. in 1846 declared Mary Immaculate to be Patroness of the United States, and Pius IX on Feb. 7, 1847 confirmed this dedication.

The result was that about a century and a half before the definition of 1854, the whole Church believed the Immaculate Conception. Finally, in Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ.

This information was obtained from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm.

More historical documentation can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

I hope you will thoroughly research these sites, and see how lacking in true historical facts your original post was. Incidentally, I didn't see where you provided the source of that quote.

I, for one, would always appreciate you or others citing your sources. It's something we're all encouraged to do around here.

Pax Christi. <><

[Circle_Master]

The day a Catholic uses a non-Catholic source will surprise me. :...:

[beng]

The day a Catholic uses a non-Catholic source will surprise me.

Oh, we use it all the time.

One of our best non-Catholic sources is "Essay on Development of Doctrine". Written by John Henry Newman when he was still member of the Anglican Church.

[Anna]

The day a Catholic uses a non-Catholic source will surprise me.

Is there some reason why one who posesses the Truth should turn to one in error for answers?

You and Bruce S have come here, to a Catholic phorum, to debate. So, if you please, kindly cite your sources. You'll note it's a courtesy we provide. When we are defending Catholic teaching, you expect us to find a protestant site to back us up?

Whatcha been smokin? :heymon:

Pax Christi. <><

Edited December 26, 2003 by Anna

[MC Just]

Ok we cannot go to Non-Catholic Christian sites, because they are actually "Anti-Catholic" and they distort Catholic teaching, they do not tell us what Catholics really teach. they tell us what they think Catholics teach. We rely on honest information and i have noticed there really isnt much honest information outside of Catholicism.

[dUSt]

The day a Catholic uses a non-Catholic source will surprise me.

When it comes to Church history pre-dating the reformation, what other sources are there other than Catholic?

Give me a few sources and I'll be sure to look them up and use them.

God bless.

[hyperdulia again]

the day i see a protestant quote a catholic source that is actually loyal to the magisterium of the catholic church, i...i...*music starts* i will always love you!

i'm sick. my family's in georgia. lea-me lone.

[phatcatholic]

circle,

check this article for Martin Luther's devotion to Mary. (he's a rather non-catholic source if u ask me! :D )

pax christi,

phatcatholic