You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
Fudgiethewhale on scored.co
1 year ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
I just don’t like the idea of papal infallibility and having to believe that Mary was sinless. That’s why I’m not going to Rome. Certain dogmas are wild to me.
Because they’re salvific. Logically, it doesn’t make sense for Mary to be sinless. The Pope is also a man and can therefore err. Why should I have to believe Mary was bodily assumed to get into heaven? I have no problem with people believing these things, but the moment you make it necessary for salvation is where I have a problem.
Papal infallibility really shouldn’t be that hard for a Protestant to buy into, once you think about it a bit.
Let’s look at the New Testament: Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all just men, that sinned and made errors, like everyone else. However, even Protestants believe that when it came to writing the New Testament Gospels and Epistles, the Holy Spirit came down upon these normal men and made sure they committed no error in Faith or morality when writing the New Testament documents. No Protestant would have trouble believing that these imperfect men were infallible and inerrant when it came to the New Testament writings.
So then why doubt Papal Infallibility? Papal infallibility doesn’t mean the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does. No. That would be silly. Look at Pope Francis, for instance. He is wrong about a lot of things, and unfortunately causes a lot of scandal. But if he were to invoke Papal infallibility to teach ex cathedra, which means defining Dogma in laymen terms, of course the Holy Spirit would protect us faithful from allowing this admittedly flawed man to bind all Christians with something problematic. Fortunately, Papal Infallibility has only been invoked twice, once in 1950, when Pope Pius XII invoked it to declare the Assumption of Mart Dogma, and before that in 1854, when Pope Bl. Pius IX invoked it to declare the Immaculate Conception Dogma.
Which now brings us to that…
Even though it was declared Dogma in 1854, like many things declared Dogma, it was already believed by many Christians well before then…
If you do the research, you will find that even the early Church Fathers in the Second Century were professing belief in that Mary was the new Eve, and she was preserved from sin. And this belief was held by many Christians for centuries. The feast of the Immaculate Conception is understood to have started in the Eastern Church sometime between the 5th and 7th Centuries. So the whole belief in the Immaculate Conception was held by many things Christians wayyy before the schism happened between Rome and King Henry VIII.
Now, I will be fair here, and say that it wasn’t universal, but it was always a common pious opinion of Christians, even from the beginning of the Church.
But you’re concerned that you’d be bound to this as a Catholic. To be honest, when I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism I was worried about the Marian Dogmas at first too. But once I realized why these are critical to a good holistic Christ-centered theology, I learned to love them.
I would encourage you to just read Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Ineffabilis Deus, which is filled with references to Scripture and Church Fathers and Doctors, and shows that the whole reasoning behind this Dogma is most very much Christ-centric:
1. The Apostles were men and thus were capable of sin. However, every word written down was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is infallible and inerrant. But this does not happen anymore, as the canon is closed. Nothing new is being added to scripture.
If the Pope is reading and correctly interpreting scripture ex cathedra, then sure, papal infallibility makes sense. But it doesn’t seem like that’s what he’s doing.
2. The immaculate conception logically makes no sense. If Mary was conceived without sin, her mother St. Anne would have to be immaculately conceived, and her mother, and so on all the way back to Eve. If original sin is transferred through natural generation (which is Catholic Dogma), then the fathers (including Adam) would’ve needed to be perfect and without sin as well. (It is also Catholic dogma that she is a daughter of Adam, thus having original sin passed down onto her)
Not even St. Thomas Aquinas believed she was immaculately conceived, only that she was sanctified in the womb. St. Augustine also did not believe in the immaculate conception, but possibly believed that, by God’s Grace, was made holy and sinless after her birth.
Mary called Jesus Christ her savior (Luke 1:47), so it seems she still fell under the consequences of original sin. I could be wrong in my interpretation, though. And I’m willing to admit that.
I have many issues with Catholic dogma, though I love my Roman Catholic brethren. I just hate that certain Catholic groups have damned to hell many Protestants. The EO Church damns us both. American Evangelicals think that no Catholics are saved and that the Pope is the antichrist.
I think we all need to stop spreading so much vitriol and figure out how we can further unify the visible church.
Papal infallibility really shouldn’t be that hard for a Protestant to buy into, once you think about it a bit.
Let’s look at the New Testament: Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all just men, that sinned and made errors, like everyone else. However, even Protestants believe that when it came to writing the New Testament Gospels and Epistles, the Holy Spirit came down upon these normal men and made sure they committed no error in Faith or morality when writing the New Testament documents. No Protestant would have trouble believing that these imperfect men were infallible and inerrant when it came to the New Testament writings.
So then why doubt Papal Infallibility? Papal infallibility doesn’t mean the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does. No. That would be silly. Look at Pope Francis, for instance. He is wrong about a lot of things, and unfortunately causes a lot of scandal. But if he were to invoke Papal infallibility to teach ex cathedra, which means defining Dogma in laymen terms, of course the Holy Spirit would protect us faithful from allowing this admittedly flawed man to bind all Christians with something problematic. Fortunately, Papal Infallibility has only been invoked twice, once in 1950, when Pope Pius XII invoked it to declare the Assumption of Mart Dogma, and before that in 1854, when Pope Bl. Pius IX invoked it to declare the Immaculate Conception Dogma.
Which now brings us to that…
Even though it was declared Dogma in 1854, like many things declared Dogma, it was already believed by many Christians well before then…
If you do the research, you will find that even the early Church Fathers in the Second Century were professing belief in that Mary was the new Eve, and she was preserved from sin. And this belief was held by many Christians for centuries. The feast of the Immaculate Conception is understood to have started in the Eastern Church sometime between the 5th and 7th Centuries. So the whole belief in the Immaculate Conception was held by many things Christians wayyy before the schism happened between Rome and King Henry VIII.
Now, I will be fair here, and say that it wasn’t universal, but it was always a common pious opinion of Christians, even from the beginning of the Church.
But you’re concerned that you’d be bound to this as a Catholic. To be honest, when I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism I was worried about the Marian Dogmas at first too. But once I realized why these are critical to a good holistic Christ-centered theology, I learned to love them.
I would encourage you to just read Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Ineffabilis Deus, which is filled with references to Scripture and Church Fathers and Doctors, and shows that the whole reasoning behind this Dogma is most very much Christ-centric:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm
And just to toot my own horn a bit, I also wrote an article that references Scripture to show how the MarIan Dogmas are all consistent with Scripture:
https://christtheking.info/the-bible-supports-catholic-teaching-on-the-virgin-mary/#Doubting_The_Immaculate_Conception
If the Pope is reading and correctly interpreting scripture ex cathedra, then sure, papal infallibility makes sense. But it doesn’t seem like that’s what he’s doing.
2. The immaculate conception logically makes no sense. If Mary was conceived without sin, her mother St. Anne would have to be immaculately conceived, and her mother, and so on all the way back to Eve. If original sin is transferred through natural generation (which is Catholic Dogma), then the fathers (including Adam) would’ve needed to be perfect and without sin as well. (It is also Catholic dogma that she is a daughter of Adam, thus having original sin passed down onto her)
Not even St. Thomas Aquinas believed she was immaculately conceived, only that she was sanctified in the womb. St. Augustine also did not believe in the immaculate conception, but possibly believed that, by God’s Grace, was made holy and sinless after her birth.
Mary called Jesus Christ her savior (Luke 1:47), so it seems she still fell under the consequences of original sin. I could be wrong in my interpretation, though. And I’m willing to admit that.
I have many issues with Catholic dogma, though I love my Roman Catholic brethren. I just hate that certain Catholic groups have damned to hell many Protestants. The EO Church damns us both. American Evangelicals think that no Catholics are saved and that the Pope is the antichrist.
I think we all need to stop spreading so much vitriol and figure out how we can further unify the visible church.