A more interesting question is what on earth the church is supposed to make of this proclamation. For a long time now, Rome has been encouraging the Eastern rite churches to recover their distinctive Eastern ways of expressing Christianity, and encouraging them to read and use Eastern Orthodox theology textbooks. Nobody has ever adequately explained to me how the Eastern rite churches are supposed to reconcile this direction with the western proclamation concerning Mary, which implies a view of sin apparently contradictory to eastern Christianity. I’m sure if it confuses me, it must be either confusing the Eastern rite churches too, or else they are simply ignoring Rome and the problem. In fact, the only obvious way to reconcile it is to say yes Mary was born without original guilt, just like every other man and woman ever born, thus turning the proclamation into a nonsense.

Could you please keep your “Eastern Orthodoxy is vastly superior in every way and the Catholic Church sucks” triumphalism on the thread where we talk about the Eastern Churches and not make *everything* all about you all the time?  Thank you.  Further forays derailing the discussion will be deleted.

Hey, inquiring minds would like answers to these questions, which IS IN FACT ON TOPIC. Stupid me thought perhaps there was one.

It is also possible that the more Catholic understanding of the role of Mary, held by the Protestant reformers, was waning and the most anti-Mary developments were gaining steam in fundamentalist Protestantism, may have played some role in the timing of this dogmatic declaration.

I’ve no idea whether John ever takes a triumphalist attitude about Eastern Orthodoxy or not. I didn’t see him doing so, here.

He even said that the Western approach to sin was “apparently” contradictory to the Eastern, leaving room for the thesis that it is not in fact contradictory but only seems to be because the Eastern approach is underdeveloped, leaving it at the stage of some vaguely-stated premises, one of which seems in opposition to the conclusions ultimately reached in the West.

Anyhow, that was quite a Clausewitzian stomping-on, there.

Hey, inquiring minds would like answers to these questions, which IS IN FACT ON TOPIC. Stupid me thought perhaps there was one.

See, it didn’t come off that way to me.  It came off as, “I’m not interested in how the Catholic Church came to develop the doctrine.  I’m only interested in showing why it’s wrong and needs to disappear since my communion is obviously right.”  There’s a whole thread where EO Christians are holding forth on that topic.  I don’t want *every* thread to be about that.  *This* thread is about why the Church chose to make the teaching dogma, not about how inconvenient, unnecessary, or wrong that seems to the Eastern Churches.

I hope you will add more about ‘why’ in your next contribution, for (please correct any vulgar errors in what follows) it would seem that what, quite legitimately - for “some Dominicans” - remained something which until 1854 (to quote an Orthodox Metropolitan) belonged “to the realm of theological opinion” rather suddenly became not only something definitely known to be so (rather than something possible, seemly, likely, probable, etc.) but also necessary (for one’s salvation) to be believed.

Is this, as dogma (rather than probable opinion), not a novelty?

And is there any evidence that the 1848 Letter of Reply from the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius XI - which includes “Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce new teaching” - forms any conscious part of the background to the ‘when’ of Ineffabilis Deus?(an ‘Orthodox’ matter I have not yet seen raised, which strikes me as ‘on topic’ here).

To me… To imply that mary would not need to be saved ahead of time (IE preserved from the stain of original sin) takes away from the Purity and Holiness of God

Just like the Ark had specifics to it… so mary when created, being the new ark… had specifics.  God didnt just pick her out of the blue. he knew from the moment she was a thought, that she would be the Mother of Messiah. So.. her very being was to be that.

The Orthodox friends I have had..tend to take a similar approach to the protestants - God is all powerful..therefore… it was not without his power to allow mary to carry Christ.. even in an unperfect form - This is what happens when we treat Salvation in a linear perspective.. When in reality, Revelations suggests it is not. The difference the orthodox I have met have..is the whole “You didnt need to explain it… people should just believe it”...approach

Lets think this for a moment.. Nothing unclean shall enter - Truly the Son of Almighty God..the WORD MADE FLESH, would need a new holy of holies… which mary IS - this is the doctrine of the immaculate conception. She was made a worthy vessel… from the moment of her conception. only instead of being so many cubits… acacia wood.. etc..she was without sin…thus truly worthy to be the God Bearer (or theotokos) ..  Really the immaculate conception is just a better understanding of the Council of Ephesus..IMHO

Sadly, if you dont explain things (sometimes to nausea), people go and make up their own ideas.

Patrick:

Please see the whole series, including this entry.

Yes, I see the preventative statement you made, thats sort of the gist of my points, though more sharing the perspective that I recieve from some of my orthodox friends

Couldnt we all agree that Grace.. is the shield..and also a sponge?

I mean really to understand the whole concept requires an understanding of what grace does. Grace Changes us…and likewise we can be changed from our nature ahead of time… or after… or am I not seeing what you are saying correctly? Again my point is the orthodox I know… Have more an issue with Dogma in general (as in their thinking, takes away from faith), and not so much with the underlying “meat” of the situation

Great explanation Patrick.I have problems explaing myself since I only went to the 9th grade.by I have a lot of devotion to the mother of God. Thanks again for that beautiful explanation.

The dogma never made sense to me. How do we as humans relate to a woman and a man who have a baby but never had sex? And she is born without sin? Is taken into heaven without dying? How does the Holy Family inspire us who have families, other than a wonderful example of obedience?
No wonder the Church has had so many problems teaching sex to the faithful. No wonder women have had less than equal treatment from the Church. Look at the example the Church wants women to model themselves after.
Why couldn’t Mary have been like the rest of us born of original sin and able to have a child as a result of sexual relations with her loving husband?
Why couldn’t Mary say to God, “Lord I am not worthy to receive your son, but only say the word and I shall be healed?”
I never doubted that Jesus would be free of sin when He came into the world, isn’t that the most important belief in this dogma?
Regards,
Patrick J. Sheahan
Hamilton, Ontario.

[Why couldn’t Mary have been like the rest of us born of original sin…]

A simple question… so here’s *one* simple answer by Fr. Most:

[There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church Fathers already spoke: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, # 55).

If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception.]

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

The old Eve sin and the old Adam followed her and the humanity was plunged in a state of sin where the old innocence of Paradise was lost because of the seduction of Sin.

Now it was in the Providence of the Father to recreate a new creation based on the obedience of new Eve, Mary, which give faith to the word of the angel Gabriel sent by the Almighty to signify the Incarnation, which was to be the beginning of the new creation of God. The Word and the Holy Spirit were sent to the Virgin and the Word was made flesh. Out of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Christ Jesus took our humanity without the tendency to sin or be seduced. Even in his passion his human will was in perfect harmony with the Will of God but the effect of the sins of the world were dumped on him as a sacrificial Lamb burning the sins of all for the salvation and restoration of many.

Now Mary being the mother of God in perfect Communion with the Holy Spirit could not be in a state of sin nor in any tendency to sin for she was always with the Spirit holy. However she likes us was deprived of the old innocence to wear the new innocence of Christ, for also she was saved by her Lord and Son.

The dogma of the Immaculate can only be the proclamation of the special state of Mary as the mother of God most pure and holy because of her perfect Communion with the Holy Spirit and saved imminently by her Son the Immaculate in everything. She is Immaculate because Christ is Immaculate, and the Holy Spirit work in her is one of perfect union and transformation in his love.

Therefore has sons of God we have Christ as our father and Mary as our mother in the spiritual realm for we are indeed participants of the divine nature through the precious gifts of the precious blood and the precious flesh of our Lord.

Bless be the Most Holy Trinity in all!!

Thanks Lion and ED. I know the teachings of the Church and Mark has been trying to shed light on this dogma with this series. My thinking was from a human point of view. Does this dogma help us live our lives as Catholic families and with a healthy view of sex? It’s like we’ve taken this young woman and we want to make her divine like Christ so as not to spoil the story in some strange way. If Mary was born of original sin would that mean that God’s son could not be born free of any sin? God wasn’t capable of doing that? Could we not pray to Mary much better knowing that she was human just like us, but also was blessed by God to be the Mother of our saviour? Did she really have to be perfect in this world? Isn’t that why Christ came so that we might know the perfection of the Father? Just wondering.
Patrick Sheahan.

Does asking the question challenge the mind and authority of the Church? What does an inquiring mind hope to accomplish in questioning an established doctrine?

Patrick: Why are you arguing from the “Human” point of view? Christianity is about the perfect God and our longing to imitate Him. A drug addict would be more comfortable following Jesus if Jesus was a recovering drug addict, I’m sure. Not everything is about your comfort and God and His Church doesn’t have to accommodate your sense of comfort.

“Could we not pray to Mary much better knowing that she was human just like us?”

Patrick, I think you’ve here inadvertently struck on the exact reason why this dogma is so important.  Mary IS human, just like us—that’s the whole point.  She’s a human perfected, a model of what we all may someday be.  The lack of sin is not a defect (a fact regarding which we are all in need of constant reminders).

I do not think it is a coincidence that the Immaculate Conception was finally proclaimed in the 19th Century, when blind faith in human progress was at its peak.  There could not have been a more opportune time for the Church to remind us all what REAL progress looks like.

For me, the love of Mary has come over time. Mary is gentle, loving And kind.  Thru the consecration to The Immaculate heart of Mary and praying the Rosary daily one develops faith and as we pray and commune with God our faith grows. This is the conversion, the daily walk with Our Lady, carrying our crosses and ‘pondering all these things in our heart’!  We see God created this pure, lovely Mother of Our Lord in all grace and purity!  She was open to the spirit and God performed marvelous things in her and HOLY is His name!  She is The Arc of The Covenent, Jesus!!  She said ‘yes’ to God and she awaits our ‘yes’ to her!  Thru Mary, Jesus came as a babe!  Pure and Holy!  It is not for us to question why? Or how?  By faith we have been given the understanding!  It is for us to believe, be converted daily in our faith walk and all these things shall be added unto us!  Pray, read scripture, repent, adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, go to mass!  When we busy ourselves with the truth and beauty of The Word of God; we have no time to debate!  God’s ways are so far above our ways!  Thru Mary, Jesus will come again in glory!  Thank God for the year of faith!  We really need this precious gift to increase in all of us!!

I can’t imagine not questioning, wondering, debating, being curious and challenging things in this life. I can talk to people, go to bible study, pray and meditate on these questions and listen to people like all of you share their experiences. It always leads me to a deeper faith and closer relationship with Christ. Can you imagine the Catholics in Ireland meekly accepting anything the Church has to say now? Do you not think they will question the clergy after being betrayed and abused for so many years? Would God expect anything else from them? Even Mary had questions for the angel. It doesn’t mean I don’t believe, it just means I wonder how it makes sense in our daily lives. Thanks for the replies.

Patrick,  Mary is a real woman human like us as Christ was a real man. In the case of Christ, he is real God and man. He is the Word Incarnate. In case of Mary, her Immaculate state is a gift of God not a right. Christ is Immaculate because is God in the flesh. Mary is Immaculate because she receives everything from God who is please to give her All. God love for Mary is incomprehensible! For she believed in the impossible for nothing is impossible to God.

Now if we had faith like a small mustard grain with could move mountains. Now do we believe or do we limit God mercy?? Those who limit God power deserve to receive little. Those who believe the impossible are worthy to receive the God of all.

“17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22)

God is special, Jesus is special, it just makes sense that Jesus’ mother is special as well. She is an ideal to strive for as so many concepts in Catholicism. I appreciate her as a virgin in a relationship and mother in a family. There are many human saints that we can pray to!

[It doesn’t mean I don’t believe, it just means I wonder how it makes sense in our daily lives.]

Have you *personally* and *seriously* asked God to show you?

If not… why not?

If so… why do you suppose you still don’t know?

“*This* thread is about why the Church chose to make the teaching dogma, not about how inconvenient, unnecessary, or wrong that seems to the Eastern Churches.”

I thought some of the Eastern churches were in communion with Rome, and the question of why the church made it dogma, without telling their Eastern churches what they are supposed to do with this pronouncement would be on topic.

@Patrick

I do not think it is required to believe that it was required (as it were).  There are several theories on why immaculate conception would be necessary, but as far as the dogma itself, my understanding is that it is much more narrowly, “This is what happened.”

That is, you are not required to subscribe to any one particular theory on /why/ it happened, just that it did.

I personally rather doubt the necessity.  I suspect that if it happened, God did it out of generosity rather than necessity.

Yeah, and keep asking questions.  Did St. Augustine, St. Anselm, or St. Thomas ever shrink from asking questions?  If Scotus had stopped asking questions, the Church would not even have an answer to give on this question.  God made us to be men in His image, that loved and understood Him with our minds and our wills, not robots that did whatever they were told without ever knowing or caring why.

ThomasL   if you deny one dogma you deny ALL dogmas.  Catholic have a duty to form their consciences according to the infallible Magisterial teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

Pope St. Pius X   Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum   Jubilee of the Immaculate Conception.                                            Outlines the great riches and the wonderful hidden implications behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

One FYI here whioh is probably mostly irrelevant: I read once years ago in First Things how that Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Southern cause and even sent a crown of thorns to President Jefferson Davis or whatever his name was.  Interesting, I thought…now…someone relate this to the proclamation of the dogma of the I.C and let’s have a rip-roaring argument!  Start your Google engines and Let The Games Begin…with Mark’s kind permission of course…

I’ll start things off: isn’t it a strange coincidence that this discussion of the I.C. coincides with all those states’ recently petitioning for SECESSION??

Patrick Sheahan:

In response to your question, ‘Could we not pray to Mary much better knowing that she was human just like us, but also was blessed by God to be the Mother of our saviour?’:

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Personally, sometimes it is a great comfort to me that Mary is without sin.  I feel different praying to her, compared to when I pray to other saints that knew sin.  I feel both more sure of her wisdom, and more afraid of her rebuke.

If I feel too afraid of that rebuke, as I do sometimes, then the other saints are available too.  But since we have in the other saints the experience of sin with which we can identify by our own experience, isn’t it also awesome, from the standpoint of diversity and for the opportunity to have a relationship to a completely human saint that never sinned and lived the perfect human life and yet was not God, to have a sinless saint?  Isn’t that the ultimate example of being human and something which gives us inspiration and knowledge about how we should aspire to be as humans, since she is the perfect example of humanity?

Keep thinking, keep praying…keep on keeping the faith…peace brother…and happy Turkey day…

yan,  Our Virgin Mother was born without the stain of original sin and was bodily assumed into Heaven.  God preserved her from all sin because she was to be the first tabernacle of the Holy Redeemer.  Our Blessed Mother did not need the Sacrament of Baptism to remove original sin from our first parents as we all must do for our babies as soon as possible for the sake of sanctifying grace.  (Parents wait too long and often their babies are not properly given that special Sacrament.)

        Unlike Our Blessed Mother we all have a life long battle with concupiscence, therefore, it is imperative to receive the legitimate Sacraments for the needed graces to combat sin as we journey on this earth.
Reading the lives of the Saints, Virgins, and Martyrs teaches us how to overcome sin.  Let us learn from their examples.

John, you said, “…..without telling their Eastern churches what they are supposed to do with this pronouncement would be on topic.”  Since when does the Holy Spirit, that guides the Vicar of Christ on matters of faith and morals need to consult with anyone on their feeble opinion?

@Mark - thanks for this series, I’ve enjoyed it, learned something and been inspired to do more reading on dogma, the catechism and church history.
.
Sadly the comments on this installment seem to be all over the place.
.
@PatrickS - You have an odd way of asking questions, postulating that people should not trust the church, saying that doctrine does not make sense.  That is not really asking a question, it is challenging doctrine.  While it might be great for you if Mary and Jesus were sinners and exposed to corruption and death, they were not.  Mary was “Blessed among Women” and “Full of Grace”.  Whether that might have let you relate better to Mary or not is not the point of Doctrine, it is about clarifying/defining what God has Revealed to us.
.
@John - you seem to be the only one who is hung up about the eastern church and IC.  My gripe is why are you whining about it in the comments of multiple installments of this series.  It has been discussed already and your outrage seems to be misplaced.
.
@yan - I see no correlation between the Northern War of Aggression and the Immaculate Conception.  Sadly Lincoln was the only western leader who killed his own countrymen to end slavery, every other western society ended slavery peacefully.

Happy Thanksgiving Rob.
Asking questions leads me to God’s revelation through the doctrines of the Church. It may not be your method or perhaps you have never felt a desire to challenge anything but it seems to work for me. I would think you would have to be naive or have blinders on to discount the lack of trust people have for the Church after the tragedy of the on-going clerical sexual abuse scandal. Maybe you’ve been fortunate to not know any priest or victim involved in it.

Joe:

I agree with all your comments.  Not sure what I wrote that would cause you to address them to me though, since I expressed no doubt about any of those things.

Rob:

The correlation between the Civil War and the Immaculate Conception is that the dogma was promulgated by a Pope sympathetic to the Southern cause.  I merely jested to suggest that the correlation implied more than coincidence.

@joe

You misunderstood me completely.  I didn’t say to deny the dogma; I said that the dogma was narrowly about what happened (immaculate conception), and did not include why it happened, or a belief that it was strictly necessary to have happened.  Yes, the documents quote, reference, and extrapolate various sources on those, but they aren’t the dogma itself.  The dogma is more focused.

There is a lot written by popes, theologians, and saints about why, and if it were necessary or not.  But the dogma doesn’t include a requirement to believe any specific one of those.

ThomasL. you said, “...or a belief that it was strictly necessary to have happened.”  Volumes have been written about why it was necessary that Our Blessed Mother Virgin Most Pure was to be conceived without sin.

Please reconsider your position on Catholics must form their consciences according to dogmas:

        “....Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church’s teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy…”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

ThomasL You will not want to appear on your judgement day not believing in Our Immaculately conceived Mother of us all.

Patrick, if it’s any consolation, I also have many questions about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and am searching for answers. I have yet to find anyone that can or will discuss the dogma in good faith. most like those on this page seem to simply say, believe it because the Church says to.
My understanding of original sin from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that of a lack of trust in God’s love and grace. and that grace, according to the same source is God’s favor. So Mary was born without a lack of trust in God’s love and grace, she trusted in God implicitly. and she was found to be the favored one of God, which is what the greeting of the angel meant. This is the only way this makes sense to me.
there are other questions but this is enough for now.

Barbara - At the First Vatican Council (1870), the Council Fathers reviewed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the Apostolic Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

        “According to the teaching of the Apostle [Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:24, 26, 54, 57; Heb. 2:14, and other texts], when Jesus triumphed over the ancient serpent, He gained a three-fold victory over sin and its consequences, i.e., over concupiscence and death. Since the Mother of God is associated in a special way with her Son in this triumph (Gen. 3:15), and this in accord with the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, we have no doubt that in the above-mentioned passage (Gen. 3:15), this same Blessed Virgin is foretold as illustrious by a similar victory that is threefold: over sin by her Immaculate Conception, over concupiscence by her virginal motherhood, and, in like manner, over death by a triumphant resurrection similar to that of her Son” (The Vatican Council, Collectio Lacensis, VII 860).
        Between 1870 and 1941, petitions for the definition of the Assumption were submitted by 113 Cardinals, over 300 Archbishops and Bishops, some 32,000 priests and brothers, 50,000 religious women, and by more than 8,000,000 laity.
        In response to these petitions, the following questionaire in Pope Pius XII’s letter “Deiparae Virginis Mariae” was sent to all the Bishops in the Catholic World on May 1, 1946: “Do you, Venerable Brethren, in view of the wisdom and prudence that is yours, judge that the bodily Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and do you along with your clergy and people desire it?”
      And those whom “the Holy Ghost has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions.
      This universal consent of the Bishops in union with the Pope represented the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Let us remember the teaching of Vatican Council I in this matter:
    “Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree or IN HER ORDINARY, UNIVERSAL TEACHING.”
In the Roman Breviary for the Feast of the Assumption we read “From the Acts of Pope Pius XII:”
      “Since indeed the universal Church has always throughout the ages manifested faith in the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and since the bishops of the whole world by an almost unanimous agreement have petitioned that this truth which is enshrined in Sacred Scripture and deeply rooted in the souls of Christ’s faithful, and is also truly in accord with other revealed truths, should be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith, Pope Pius XII, acceding to the requests of the whole Church decreed that this privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary be solemnly proclaimed. . .
        “Wherefore having oftered to God continual prayers of supplication and having invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth to the glory of Almighty God who has enriched the Virgin Mary with his special favor; in honor of his Son, the immortal King of ages and victor over sin and death; for the increase of the glory of the same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the whole Church; by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, was, at the end of her earthly life, assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

          Hope this helps.

@Joe - great info thanks.
.
@Barbara
.
The Immaculate Conception and Original Sin are complex topics (the church has studied this Revelation for over 1000 years), so you may have trouble finding people who really understand it enough to answer your questions.  Also there are those who want to challenge the church on dogma stating an uninformed opinion and expect others to make a simple explanation for them. My impressions on this topic are that it takes a great deal of time to understand the scriptural references, theological arguments and parallel beliefs, and then, for me, it requires going through it several times.
.
This is part 5? of Mark’s excellent series on the Immaculate Conception, so (if you were not aware) there is a lot of good information in the series that might help to develop your understanding.
.
As a first source these days for church specific teachings, the Catechism is a pretty complete summary and has footnotes.
Catechism - Paragraphs 484-511
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#
.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good summary with notes on Original Sin.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
.
It might be worth reading about Sanctifying Grace as well.
Sanctifying Grace
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
.
Finally I would recommend an older book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott.  Which obviously covers Dogma specifically and in detail, again with references.
.
I think your interpretation of Original Sin is a bit off, which may be making it difficult to move on to the ideas behind the IC.
.
Finally keep in mind that dogma is a clear statement by the church of Revealed truth.  Therefore it is a good idea to get ALL of the referenced evidence from Genesis, Luke, Paul, etc, all the intermediate doctrines and finally the conclusion.

An interesting summary which I have encountered but not yet checked all the references in: “Anselm held that the Virgin was conceived and born in sin (Cur deus homo, II. 16); Bernard that she was conceived in sin but sanctified before birth (Ep. clxxiv.58); the Domincans followed Aquinas (S.T. III. xxvii. 1,2) in agreeing with Bernard; Duns Scotus (Sent. III.iii.1) ans the Franciscans argued for the sinless conception. In 1483 Pope Sixtus IV in the bull Grave nimis censured both those who attacked the preachers of the Immaculate Conception and those who accused such attackers of heresy ‘since the matter has not yet been decided by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See’”.

David while you are compiling, I suggest you look it up in The Mystical City of God by Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda. It is private revelation which some seem to consider almost anathema, but it has several official Church approbations that certify there is no error in it, and Almighty God is quoted in the document as saying he intended for it to be reliable truth.  You don’t have to believe it, but I am officially permitted to do so. I find it extremely spiritually uplifting. It is a bane for mere speculation.

Catholics are bound to form their consciences by the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church.  To deny even one infallible teaching is to be outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and is the loss of Eternal Beatitude.

@Bob Rowland
.
Private revelation had no bearing on dogma, so I can’t see why you would recommend it in this case.

“To deny even one infallible teaching is to be outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and is the loss of Eternal Beatitude.”

Really? Perhaps then you’d be so kind as to provide a final and exhaustive list of infallible teachings then.
My guess is that by this definition, the pope is not a catholic, since nobody has such knowledge.

INFALLIBILITY
      Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council, “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church” (Denzinger 3074).

      The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.

    The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.

        The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

    The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.

    As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable “of themselves,” that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34185

John, you say nobody has such knowledge of infallibility?  Get John A Hardon, S. J.‘s “Pocket Catholic Dictionary” or “Denzinger - Sources of Catholic Dogma”.  The Divine Assistance was promised to the Vicar of Christ only in order to promulgate and protect Truth.

Really? And you own this book? Perhaps you’d be so kind then as to list for us the definitive list of things that popes have defined infallibly with the charisma of papal infallibility, since all the catholic apologists differ DRAMATICALLY on what the list is. I’m sure it will also resolve hundreds of Internet and scholarly debates too. Academia awaits with bated breath…..

John:

If you really want to know what the Church’s dogmatic teaching is, just dash off to Amazon and get Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  The fact that most Catholics don’t make a study of such things or that internet Catholics are ignorant of some aspects of dogma or inclined to add their own personal pet issues to the corpus dogmatic teaching does not mean such teaching is non-existent.  So, if you really want to know check Ott.  If you are just playing “gotcha” and asking questions to which you have no interest in the answers, carry on.

I hope Ott is infallible, because if he missed out on one infallible dogma, archived somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican, we’ve just been told everyone is going to hell.

One need not be infallible to know what the Church has infallibly defined.  And since the Church doesn’t make a big secret of it teaching, it’s not all that hard to find out if one cares to look.  So: you can go an read Ott and find out about the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, or you can continue pretending it’s a big mystery and impossible to know.  Joe is entitle to his opinion, but of course, the Church also figures in such matters as sufficient knowledge and freedom when discussing matters of grave sin.  People like Joe often don’t, and so they wind up talking nonsense which makes it sound like anybody who is ignorant of Catholic teaching will be automatically damned for their ignorance.  This is compounded by the fact that people like you, John, are often entirely insincere in their claim to want to know about Catholic dogma since they are really just looking for a chance to heckle.

Whether I want to know Catholic dogma or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the notion that you “lose Eternal Beatitude” for denying any Roman Catholic dogma is utter nonsense. It’s not even something that any recent Pope would agree to. It’s frankly, an uncatholic assertion.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012 3:29 AM (EDT):One need not be infallible to know what the Church has infallibly defined. 

Mark Shea, you blocked the explanation i posted of the one who is the bearer of infallibility.
    The Vicar of Christ alone is infallible and no others.  The object of infallibility is teachings on ‘Faith and Morals’.  All papal pronouncement are infallibile on faith and morals.  They are revealed doctrine connected with revelation which has always existed.  The popes do not create new doctrine.  They are protected by supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit as promised.  These ‘ex cathedra’ proclamations do not deceive or mislead.  They are unchangeable and too many to list in this forum.  Google “Denzinger 3074” for more information. 
    Infallibility was a major issue at the Council of Vatican 1.  Infallibility is a detested word either denied, misunderstood or misused in this day.

John,  How very sad for your protestant positioning that wants only to pick and choose what YOU claim as truth.  I’ve tried to give more explanation about infallibility but they are ‘blocked’ by moderator without explanation.  Only the pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals.  He is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised and never deceives nor creates new doctrine.  These pronouncements are in revelation - what Christ personally taught to the first bishops.  If you think you can determine better than the Holy Spirit, may God help you.

BTW, Mark Shea, I’m not giving ‘opinion’.  Every body has one but it is useless chatter, a waste of space all the while people are dying from lack of Truth.  It appears I’m standing on my own opinion because you block my references and sources of why I believe what I do.

Mark Shea, I apologize.  I did not see my posting on infallibilty at 1:28am,———-still you say,  “Joe is entitle to his opinion, but of course, the Church also figures in such matters as sufficient knowledge and freedom when discussing matters of grave sin”.
  You believe I stand on ‘opinion’? RUBBISH!  Matters of faith and morals are not up for discussion.  They are settled issues by the Mageisterium of the Catholic Church. 
    I think one major issue that confuses is when people say “Church” and do not signify “Catholic”. More should be said about this point.
      Catholics and all Christians have a grave responsibility to conform their consciences to matters of faith and morals handed on by the Catholic Church. The Vicar of Christ is the head of ALL Christians.  Yes, God knows the heart and He will judge each person’s obedience based on their knowledge.  God is merciful and a God of justice.
  However, discussions of faith and morals are perceived as UNsettled when the doctrines, when the Sacred Traditional writings and or pronouncements are absent. 
        Sacred Tradition is glarinly feared in this day of permissiveness, and determined bull headed self-styled individulalism that is like a wrecking ball against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Mark Shea, you converted during the time of “changes”.  The changes created such turmoil that it caused a major exodus out and away from the revolutionary ways.  The heartaches and the anguishes due to the changes have not stopped. We’ve not seen the end of it.

Rob: Read it and you may understand why I recommended it. How can an autobiography of the Holy Family not include the basis of dogma?

Joe:

Joe: Just as a discussion of the difficulties some people have with the Immaculate Conception does not constitute an endorsement of those difficulties, just as a non-Catholic who has questions about the dogma is not a damned enemy of the Faith, so the Register system’s mysterious refusal to publish your posts does not mean that I have “blocked” anything.  Instead of perpetually assuming the worst about other people in order to perpetually act as judge, why not try a bit of charity, Joe?  I haven’t blocked anything.  Sometimes the Register filters stuff on some basis I don’t understand.

John: You write, “Whether I want to know Catholic dogma or not is irrelevant. “

Then perhaps you should not have demanded, “Perhaps then you’d be so kind as to provide a final and exhaustive list of infallible teachings then. My guess is that by this definition, the pope is not a catholic, since nobody has such knowledge.” 

Because when you demand such things, it does sound uncommonly like you wanted to know how to obtain a list of infallibly defined Catholic dogmas.

In fact, of course, all you wanted was to take Joe down a peg.  A worthy goal, but a different one than the goal you initially stated.  The reality is, you can find out what the Church’s dogmas are rather easily and plenty of people have such knowledge if they want to find it, since guys like Ott provide the means to find it.  What you *really* meant, if I may be so bold, is that Joe is wrong to assume that anybody who has problems with, questions about, or ignorance of Catholic dogma is going straight to hell.  If you want to argue that Joe is making some huge leaps of logic unendorsed by the Tradition when he says that, you have my full support.  But if you want to argue that nobody can possibly know what Catholic teaching is, or that wilful, knowledgeable and free rejection of the truths the Church teaches can’t possibly result in eternal damnation, you are simply wrong.

“How can an autobiography of the Holy Family not include the basis of dogma?”

There is no autobiography of the Holy Family.  There is a private revelation by somebody claiming to give us information about the Holy Family.  Private revelation is not the basis of dogma.  Public revelation is.  Private revelation may help confirm or bear witness to a dogma (as, for instance, Mary’s “I am the Immaculate Conception” to St. Bernadette helped confirm the recently defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  But private revelation is not the basis of any dogma.

Oh dear, everyone jumping to the conclusion I am protestant, when I am not.

The reality is, neither Ott, nor popes can be sure what the FULL extent of RC dogma is, unless you can identify the FULL list of infallible papal pronouncements. Since nobody can even get close to such a thing, nobody can know it. The list needs to be absolutely perfect apparently to get to heaven.  But even the best informed catholic apologists cannot agree at all about how many times infallibility has been exercised. Scott Hahn believes that there have been only 2 ex-cathedra pronouncements by popes which are infallible, Tim Staples believes that there are 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble 18, and so on and so forth.

To me, Unum Sanctum looks to be exercising the full papal prerogatives, and it says that anyone outside of the RC church, especially the Greeks [ Orthodox ] are damned to hell. Since denying any RC dogma makes you lose “Eternal Beatitude”, I guess we have confirmation that Pope John Paul is now in hell, and Pope Benedict will soon be there, since they think the Greeks are merely slightly separated brethren.

Instead of being so defensive guys, why not admit that somebody in this forum misrepresented Catholic teaching. Stop defending everything a Catholic says, just because they are Catholic. What was represented here as Catholic teaching is anything but Catholic.

Mark Shea, you said,  “..that Joe is wrong to assume that anybody who has problems with, questions about, or ignorance of Catholic dogma is going straight to hell.”

Respectfully, and with forebearance, I must defend my position and that is that all Christians are called to adhere to the teachings of the One Church Christ established.  Oh, how I hate to be on the defensive.               
  Christians who willfully reject the infallible teachings handed on put their souls at great risk.  Can one justify that statement is in error?
    God is merciful; God is just.  Only the Vicar of Christ has the authority to make condemnations or judgments in regards to matters of Faith and Morals.  But not even a Pope has the authority to condemn anyone to hell and I object strongly that you charge me with that attitude.  I do not point to souls in disobedience before the Face of God asking Him to condemn them. Do I speak up?  Yes, I do.  That is charity; that is a Catholic duty and it is according to Sacred Scripture. It is also at the risk of mockery.

Never mind.  I say we put Joe and John in a big jar like spiders and just let them eat each other.  They deserve each other.

Well I’m glad you’re backing off saying they “lose eternal beatitude” down to merely “put their souls at risk”.

The problem is, it is fundamentally impossible to wilfully deny an infallible dogma. If you knew it was infallible, then it would be impossible to deny it. The reason people deny such things is because they don’t think they are infallibly true. So the whole claim is simply a lot of self contradictory nonsense. This is what happens when Catholics get into the scholastic bandwagon and try to define things with such precision that they end up being false.

Mark: If Almighty God is correctly quoted in The City of God as approbations at least seem to imply, how are you going to explain to Him why you so adamantly disclaimed it and private revelation as well?  No offense intended, but I do suggest you at least read it before you discourage others from reading it.  There may be a price for that.

John:  You appear to be arguing that intellectual sin is impossible.  Jesus, in contrast, warns the Pharisees that it is quite possible to sin against the Holy Spirit by deliberately choosing to call black white, evil good, good evil, and truth a lie.  Sin is *sin*, not mere ignorance.

Bob:

I discourage no one from reading it.  I merely point out that private revelation is not binding on anybody and does not form the basis of any dogma. It is you who habitually tend to take private revelation and attempt to make it into public revelation.  I leave it exactly where the Church does, no less—and no more.

Bob: I’m not arguing that intellectual sin is impossible. I’m saying that not every denial of so-called dogma can be said to be sin. There’s a big difference between saying good is evil and saying that, for example, you agree with John Chysostom that Mary might have sinned. There are a whole lot of reasons why faithful Catholics might deny Catholic dogma, some more valid than others. Don’t try and define to the nth degree which of them are going to hell. Just say the church calls on its members to believe dogma, and leave it.

Mark: If private revelation is not binding on anyone why do you suppose God allows it, and the Mother of God exercises it so much?  Are you going to ignore Our Blessed Mother and the message of Fatima when she promises that if we do what she asks there will be peace?  Read Fatima for Today, the definitive book about Fatima by Father Andrew Apostoli before you tell me it is not binding on anyone.

Bob: I’ve read—and written a workbook to accompany—Fatima for Today.  It’s a good book.  And it *nowhere* says that Fatima or any other private revelation is binding on us as public revelation is.  That’s because Fr. Apostoli is familiar with another book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which tells us:

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

John:  When you say it is “fundamentally impossible to wilfully deny an infallible dogma” you are *exactly* saying that it is impossible to commit intellectual sin or lie to oneself about what one knows to be true.  The tradition profoundly disagrees with you.  Yes, Joe is wrong to talk as though anybody who has problems with a dogma is guilty of wilfully rejecting what they know to be true.  But it still the case that some people *do* wilfully ignore what they know to be true, or the warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit is like a warning against disobeying the law of gravity, aiming to prevent something you insist can never happen.

And note how you have never admitted that your initial gripe—that it is impossible to know the dogmatic content of the Church’s teaching—is bunk.  Why do you suppose you keep changing the subject like that?

Mark: I’m pretty happy you’ve downgraded it to only “some” people wilfully deny dogma. As long as we’ve retreated to “some” then the claim that those who deny any dogma go to hell is repudiated.

As to whether you can “lie to yourself”, it’s a bit of a semantic game. Let’s just agree that there are people who are wrong about stuff, and they will go to hell for it. The exact intellectual processes that get them there is a quibble.

The impossibility of knowing church teaching - to be precise - it’s not possible to know for sure what the boundaries of RC dogma are. I don’t see that as too much of a problem unless people are going to go around making foolish statements that you go to hell for denying any church dogma.

I could also make the observation, that it’s pretty hard to even know for sure when you are denying church dogma. Unum Sanctum seems to damn the Greek Orthodox to hell. Recent Popes have taken a very different stance. There are tons of options here. Recent Popes are wrong. Unum Sanctum isn’t infallible (even though it looks like it tries to be). I’m misinterpreting Unum Sanctum. I’m misinterpreting recent Popes. Unum Sanctum is a forgery. Recent Popes are misreported.  One could speculate for hours. Mentioning Ott doesn’t really help, because he is not infallible either, no matter how well regarded he is. When you’ve seemingly got Pope pitted against Pope, it’s a very personal decision which Pope you are going to go with.

I could also make the observation that Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote a long paper expressing the opinion that Vatican I was not a valid ecumenical council because it didn’t properly represent the Eastern Churches, and is just a local western council expressing a non-dogmatic opinion. I mean, this is a teaching from a Catholic archbishop - part of the magisterium. Think logically about this, how do you know he isn’t right? Because the pope signed off the council? But that assumes that western teaching about the Pope is right to begin with, which the Archbishop argues against. So it may not be an ecumenical council, it may just be a mistaken opinion to regard it as such. If you unwind the epistemological string, it’s not clear exactly where you should stop unwinding.

John:

You’re not listening.  I’m not Joe.  I don’t automatically assume that anybody who has a difficult with a dogma is wilfully rejecting it. That’s why I’ve been arguing alongside you against Joe. I simply point out that you are likewise wrong to pretend that a) it’s impossible to know what the Church’s dogmatic teaching is and b) that it’s impossible to wilfully deny something one knows to be true.

Mark:I think we have a problem with semantics. I don’t have a problem with the passage you quoted from the Catechism, and I have never said that private revelation was part of the deposit of faith or even Dogma. The key words are “help live more fully” I believe Vatican Council I:“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter, that they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.” I do suspect VCII has taken some borderline liberty with VCI.  I am glad to know that you are attentive to Father Apostoli and the Fatima message. I consider it just as binding for me to live as the deposit of faith.

“....The popes in defining the Marian Dogmas have anathematized all who would in any way reject or doubt their teachings. And Trent and Vatican I state that they had met specifically to define dogmas of the faith in order to counter heresy, the teachings specifically held by Protestant and Orthodox believers, and both Councils condemn with anathema all who do not submit to their teachings and embrace with a positive faith what they have promulgated. As Trent states:

With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies which have appeared in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments, as well as those which have been revived from the heresies of old by our Fathers, as also those newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, the sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, adhering to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consent of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought it fit that these present canons be established and decreed…”

(The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Baker Book House (1919 ed.), Seventh Session, Decree on the Sacraments, Foreword, pp. 118-119)

Roman Catholic theologian John Hardon in his authoritative and popular catechism:
44. What must a Catholic believe with divine faith?

A Catholic must believe with divine faith the whole of revelation, which is contained in the written word of God and in Sacred Tradition.

45. Can a person be a Catholic if he believes most, but not all, the teachings of revelation?

A person cannot be a Catholic if he rejects even a single teaching that he knows has been revealed by God.

46. What will happen to those who lack ‘the faith necessary for salvation’?
Those will not be saved who lack the necessary faith because of their own sinful neglect or conduct. As Christ declared, ‘He who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16).

Yes and the council of Constantinople 879-880 “anathematised” those who would disagree with it, and the pope gave it his stamp of approval. This council annulled and obliterated the previous council of 869-870. Of course, 3 centuries later the pope repudiated this council of 879 and instated the contradictory council of 869-870 as the 8th ecumenical council. Hey, it’s not 3 centuries since Vatican I yet, there’s still time yet to back out, nobody will talk much about it in a thousand years.

So you have to believe what God said to be a Catholic? Thanks captain obvious. You have to believe what God said to be a Muslim, a Jehovah’s witness, etc etc too.

The ultimate goal of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls.  Dogma is considered to be both divine and Catholic faith. Divine, because of its believed origin and Catholic because of belief in the infallible teaching binding “for all”. 
    The Catholic position is that each dogma has truly divine origin. It is considered an expression of what is truth and does not change. The truth of God, revealed by God, does not change, as God himself does not change; Heaven and earth will disappear but God’s words will not disappear.
  If any one dogma is denied by an individual or group of individuals the truth is not diminished by their denial, however, they remove themselves from the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. The deliberate denial of a dogma of the Faith is called heresy. Heretics are the branches Jesus speaks of when he says:
      “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15:5-6)
  To live as a Catholic is not an easy life.  The infallible promulgations on faith and morals by the Vicar of Christ is difficult.  Never the less , Catholics depend on it and Catholics defend it. 
      47. Why is divine faith called catholic?

Divine faith is called catholic or universal because a believer must accept everything God has revealed. He may not be selective about what he chooses to believe (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981).
  True Popes do not contradict nor correct their predecessors.  To accept that fallacy, or to say truth needs to be adjusted according to the times is to say the Holy Spirit errs, truth must evolve, and there is no truth.  That’s heresy, of course.  Souls are at risk when denying a dogma(s).  Souls risk the loss of eternal glory.  Eternity is a long time.  Think about it…....  Look at the words of Jesus in Scripture!
  21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.—Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm