Talk:Immaculate Conception
|
|
Entry said: Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary was free of sin at the time that Jesus was conceived. Nope. Changed to reflect fact that doctrine teaches about HER conception, not about his (feel free to believe it or not, but please, please, don't confuse it with the Virgin Birth!). --MichaelTinkler
Text says: Immaculate Conception was announced by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, published December 8, 1854 (the Feast of the Immaculate Conception), speaking ex cathedra using the doctrine of papal infallibility. . That's inconsistent: infallibility was defined as dogma only in 1870. Or was the 1854 declaration later declared as covered by infallibility ? Either way the sentence is incorrect (it implies Pius IX could in 1854 officially rely on infallibility) and should be precised. So I'm removing the last part, "speaking...". --FvdP
- [1] The Catholic view is that the dogma of Papal infallibility as defined in 1870 is simply a restatement of a doctrine that has always been in effect, and [2] the 1854 definition of Pius IX of the Immaculate Conception was clearly the model for the 1870 declaration of which doctrines would be considered infallible: namely that they be ex cathedra, intended to bind the whole Church, and demanding internal assent from all the faithful to the teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception. -- Someone else 01:37 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Good point. But was the "doctrine of infallibility" well-enough defined in 1854 so that it could be seen, at that time, as applying to the Immaculate Conception dogma proclamation ? --FvdP
- Well, I have no doubt that Pius IX had no question about it: he was infallibly defining an infallible doctrine, binding on all Christians. I think the reason infallibility originally got a mention in the article is that the Immaculate Conception is pretty much universally agreed to have been an exercise of the ability of the Pope to define dogma infallibly. -- Someone else 02:09 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
It's OK with me if a mention of infallibility comes back in the main article, with a precision about why infallibility can apply before 1870. But because I have almost no background knowledge of the question, I'm not sure enough of myself to find a historically correct way to explain the above. For instance, who was accepting infallibility in 1854 ? Many/most catholics ? Several/many/most/all officials ? Surely not all catholics. ----FvdP 22:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
Infallibility relates to the verity of the statements in relation to life before birth and after death. When speaking of the Immaculate conception, keep in mind that the issue is related directly to non-fallen Nature and fallen nature.
... a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery ... (Revelation xii, 1-2) rather than: ... a woman sitting on a scarlet beast... arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication... (Revelation xvii, 3-4)
This is not Catholic rocket science. Virgin Nature cooperates in miracles, unless they are a creation out of nothing, water to wine, loaves to fishes, after anguished waiting for this Immaculate Virgin looking to the cosmos to give Immaculate birth to Christ child. -- the Pope was/is positive. User:Another Nov 22, 2003
More on Protestants
"Protestantism rejects the doctrine because it is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, and because Protestantism has less regard for the clarification of dogmatic theology."
One major reason many (but not all) Protestants reject the doctrine is that they reject the doctrine of original sin in the first place.
I'm not exactly sure what "less regard for the clarification of dogmatic theology" means. Many Protestants definitely delight in "hair-splitting" clarification of theology. They just do not have regard for decrees from Catholic authority as having any weight in the matter. Jdavidb 17:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- One major reason many (but not all) Protestants reject the doctrine is that they reject the doctrine of original sin in the first place.
- Pull the other one, it's got bells on! Read any Luther or Calvin lately? I agree that the bit about a regard for clarification... is confusing -- I'd dearly love to know what the person writing this was thinking, to clear it up a bit. Wooster 16:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Here's clarity on Luther and Calvin believing in the Immaculate Conception http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-&p=Luther+Calvin++%22Immaculate+Conception%22
- Uhuh... that wasn't my point. I'm aware that Luther and Calvin both believed in the Perpetual Virginity (Immaculate Concpetion, therefore, comes as no shock, although I didn't know this). I was responding to the accusation that "many" Protestants don't believe in original sin -- by citing Luther and Calvin as prime examples of ones who did. For sure, some don't, especially in this "modern" era; but the historic Protestant position has been one of accepting the doctrine of original sin. A rejection of the doctrine of original sin is, historically, an aberrant and minority viewpoint. Wooster 23:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Luther clearly did believe in the Perpetual Virginity and a form of the Immaculate Conception, and while Calvin defended the Perpetual V., I can find no evidence for or against the Immaculate C. but would tend to think he would consider it a spurious doctrine since he was more scrupulous about having exegetical backing for his positions. --Flex 14:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Problem: When I look up the Bible references cited as supporting this doctrine ( Romans 5, Wisdom 2:24, I Corinthians 15:21 ) I don't find any references to Mary at all. What's going on ?
They support the doctrine only when interpreted from a Catholic standpoint, using Tradition to interpret Scripture (which is standard for Catholicism). The Immaculate Conception is not a doctrine you can derive yourself just from reading the Bible, which is why few Protestant denominations adhere to it.
It seems that this page should make some mention of Bernadette Soubirous, Catherine Laboure, as well as the Ark of the Covenant. Please see http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/winter2004.html which might be a good external link.
I have to confirm my "Immaculate Ignorance". I consider myself a well-read, certainly theologically aware, and to a limited extent formally theologically trained, Protestant. It was only when I read this article (and found the point clarified in this Talk page) that I realised that what I thought was the Immaculate Conception was actually the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I can only imagine that I am not alone. I'd be pleased to put in a piece that would succinctly clarify the Protestant misunderstanding for both sides of this divide.
My plan would be to:
- take the current 4th and 5th paras to below History of the Doctrine;
- make a new heading Other Views; (because this allows more that just a Protestant view)
- rearrange the existing material into the variations - Orthodox and Protestant;
- insert the following into the Protestant section.
Formal Protestant theology rejects the doctrine because it is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, and because Protestantism has less regard for the development of dogmatic theology. Informally among Protestants, there is general ignorance of most Roman Catholic Doctrine, to the extent that the Virgin Birth is normally either or both mistaken for or used interchangeably with Immaculate Conception. Without wanting to hurt the feelings of Catholic friends, most would assert that Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defy their life experience and seem implausible at best.
Protestants rarely praise Mary, which Orthodox and Catholics routinely do. ...
Peter Ellis 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)