INEFFABILIS DEUS: Dogma of the Immaculate Concepti

[rgrove]

This is also a post regarding the potential for any repair in the split between Rome and Protestantism. I see no potential for reconciliation of course. This encylical is quite long so I've only posted a couple parts. One demonstrates clearly that this isn't an option to believe or not to believe. The second is one of countless statements where Mary is virtually raised to the level of Christ. The document is spiritually repressive to read.

www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

--------------------------
(from the section "The Definition")

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "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."[29]

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 are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

--------------------------
(From the section "Hoped-for Results")

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

[Juan]

The theory of immaculate conception is hard to understand, and hard to agree with, but it doesn't change the nature of God or Christ, and is, as such, less important.

The idea is that Christ could not have been born in a sinful woman. Had He, he would have inherited the sinful nature.

Mary pardoned by grace from her original sin, was then able to give birth to Christ. Something a sinful woman could not have done.

The theory of immaculate conception is older than the canon, and as such, is set aside by the very people who gave us the canon. If you choose not to believe it, then you must throw into question the authority of the canon, and our faith quickly falls apart.

[rgrove]

Juan said:

If you choose not to believe it, then you must throw into question the authority of the canon, and our faith quickly falls apart.

If you mean the canon of scripture then, no, it throws neither the canon of scripture or my faith apart at all. Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. The post was intended to demonstrate that Rome has separated itself permanently from the rest of the churches, especially the Protestant ones, by adding numerous requirements to the Gospel such as this. Or do you say that anyone disagreeing with their understanding of Mary "is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church"?

[Kenny]

TianMing and I had a nice discussion about this on Digital Inflection.

[TianMing]

I believe in the Immaculate Conception, Kenny doesn't. It amounts to both sides are arguable, if people are firm on their sides the only thing that comes of constructive arguing is stalemated harshness.

[Soulfyre]

Ohhh, stalemates...often. Harshness? Not necessarily.

A good discussion can often clarify issues of dogma that are rarely known by "opponents" outside of straw man arguments. For example, I no longer remember how many of my Evangelical friends I have had to disabuse of the notion that the Immaculate Conception referred to the birth of Christ. I would disagree with my brother Juan, and say that it had nothing to do with Mary being "pardoned" of Original Sin, but, as stated previously in Ron's post, with the dogma in the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was kept free from stain of original sin in the womb of St. Anne. According to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there would have existed no presence of original sin in Mary from which to be pardoned. This would necessitate the presumption that original sin was seminal in nature, the result of being born human.

What is important in any discussion of the Immaculate Conception is understanding the underlying assumptions regarding original sin.

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Juan said:

The theory of immaculate conception is hard to understand, and hard to agree with, but it doesn't change the nature of God or Christ, and is, as such, less important.

The idea is that Christ could not have been born in a sinful woman. Had He, he would have inherited the sinful nature.

Mary pardoned by grace from her original sin, was then able to give birth to Christ. Something a sinful woman could not have done.

The theory of immaculate conception is older than the canon, and as such, is set aside by the very people who gave us the canon. If you choose not to believe it, then you must throw into question the authority of the canon, and our faith quickly falls apart.

Perhaps I can clarify, since someone said that they did not quite understand this post.

Juan is saying (I think) that the teaching of the IC is older than the Cannon (aka, pre-100 A.D.ish - right?). The people that originally passed down the teaching of the IC were the same people that declared the Cannon to be "the Cannon." If we accept the Cannon (the Bible) to be authoritative, we should also accept the other teachings passed down by the people that compiled the Cannon... the IC being one of them. If the people that taught the IC were wrong, that would make us question if maybe they were wrong about the Cannon too.

Hope that helps a bit...

[Soulfyre]

Actually, as I understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it was not generally accepted by the early fathers. While many argued that Mary was, in fact, sinless, the church prior to the schism between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches had not fully articulated the dogma of "original sin" (a concept defined much differently among the Orthodox) prior to the Pelagian controversy. If actual sin is not imputed at birth in a juridical sense, as in Orthodox understanding, then the concept of "immaculate conception" is essentially unnecessary, setting Mary apart from the human condition, and calling into question the full humanity of Jesus Christ. When the Western Church doctrine of original sin as imputation of sin at birth (whether seminal or federal) became generally accepted, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which was not initially accepted by Augustine or Thomas Aquinas), was argued as necessary to the birth of Christ. The actual doctrine was not fully formulated until around the 14th century, and did not become established dogma until the ruling of Pope Pius.

Therefore, much of the disagreement concerning the Immaculate Conception revolves around the understanding of "original sin". Incidentally, most protestants believe that if God could have preserved Mary from the stain of original sin in the womb of St Anne, the same could certainly have been done for Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary. So some of the difficulty would also revolve around an understanding of the essential sinlessness of Mary, which protestants deny.

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

Speaking for this Protestant and this Protestant only of course I concur with what Soulfyre said and would add that making this a dogma, a requirment of the faith under threat of anathema is very significant as well. I haven't read any source documents, but I've heard it said that Calvin and Luther agreed with the much of what has become the Marian dogmas. They weren't even really of secondary importance in the Reformation I don't think. They would have been if the current anathema was in place of course, because this affects the gospel. It's an addition to the gospel that has nothing to do with the gospel itself. "Believe and be saved" is simple, but it does has some underlying assumptions. One must have an orthodox (with a small "o") view of God and the Trinity for example. One must have a basic understanding of sin and standing before a just and holy God on judgement day. There must be genuine repentance of our sin and genuine faith in Christ as the propitiation of our sins. But beliefs regarding Mary don't fit in here. So ultimately, while I still disagree with IM and other Marian dogmas, I'm most upset by the addition to the gospel that has been made under threat of anathema.

Yours In Christ,
Ron