Posted on 02/15/2008 5:07:55 PM PST by markomalley
.- In an article published by L’Osservatore Romano, Italian historian Francesco Guglietta, an expert on the life of Pius IX, revealed how the Pontiff decided to consult with the bishops of the world to proclaim the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854.
Guglietta points out that the revolution that ended with the proclamation of the “Roman Republic” in 1848 and that forced the Pope to take up residence for nine months in Gaeta, south of Rome, had a profound effect on the Pontiff, who like Cardinal Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti, had openly sympathized with the European revolutionary movements.
“During this lapse of time, in fact, Pius IX progressively lost trust in the processes of the ‘revolution’ that were taking place in Europe and distanced himself from the liberal Catholic environment, beginning to see in the insurrection movement, as well as in the ‘modernity’ of that time, a dangerous snare for the life of the Church,” Guglietta writes.
The expert points out that “understanding what happened with the thinking of Pius IX in Gaeta is of significant historic relevance” and is an “area of research not yet explored.” Nevertheless, he said, the Pope’s sojourn in Gaeta was fundamental for his decision of proclaiming the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
According to tradition, Pope Pius IX spent a long period in prayer in Gaeta before a painting of the Immaculate Conception by Scipione Pulzone preserved in the so-called Chapel of Gold, and that moment of encounter with God convinced him to proclaim the dogma.
However, French historian and professor Louis Baunard said that while gazing upon the Mediterranean from the city, “the Pope mediated on remarks made to him by Cardinal Luigi Lambruschini: Holy Father, you will not be able to heal the world unless you proclaim the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Only this dogmatic definition will reestablish the meaning of the Christian truths and bring minds back from the paths of naturalism upon which they have become lost.”
According to Guglietta, naturalism, which rejected all supernatural truth, could be considered the “backdrop” for the Pope’s proclamation of the dogma. “The affirmation of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin laid a strong foundation for affirming and strengthening the certainty of the primacy of grace and the work of Providence in the lives of men.”
He said Pius IX, despite his enthusiasm, welcomed the idea of consulting with the bishops of the world, who expressed their agreement, leading him to finally proclaim the dogma.
However, I am sticking to my guns to this extent: P-9 had many "liberal" instincts in that he sympathized with many of the groups trying to liberate and unify Italy, that is until he found out they were not exactly religious zealots, to put it mildly. Then he cracked down on'em
OTOH, Leo XIII's encyclical, an absolutely key document in the formation of modern Europe, laid out the basis of Christian Socialism, and beyond that the modern nanny-state. It also is (or was) a foundation text in Catholic Colleges for many areas of study. It is so powerful that (IMHO)it permanently turned the heads of many students leftward, giving rise to the Catholic Worker Party and IMHO, giving the Democrats a permanent lock on a majority of Catholic intellectuals (real and soi-disant). A pity, because the Democrats who really run the show are fond of real, down and dirty gulag killer Communism and despise people of faith, especially Catholics, and particularly those of the working classes.
Enter Russert, Matthews, and O'Reilly. The first two are Holy Cross boys, where the Jesuits probably made sure Rerum novarum was served at every meal. O'Reilly got his indoctrination in Leo XIII's encyclical at Marist College, a low-SAT operation, but thorough none the less.
To reinforce my curmudgeonly theory, this "Gang of Three" are thoroughly partisan Democrats, the "Fairness" shtick just originally being a ploy to cash in on the white male audience of conservative talk radio. However, at the heart of the Democrat establishment, where they assiduously curry favor in disgusting ways, they are roundly despised. Go figure.
To undigress and return to the subject of the the thread: The Immaculate Conception. Many non-Catholics think P-9 pulled this dogma from thin air as a demo of Papal Power, which he incientally also proclaimed. Not true. The Immaculate Conception is an ancient doctrine in all the Catholic Churches from the Chaldeans throught the Armenians, Greeks, Russians, and even the Anglicans. P-9's move was spectacular, the real question is, "was it strictly speaking, necessary?"
Most interesting discussion. However, I would say the real question is, "Was it God's will?" I'm just a humble suburban baby-producer, and not qualified to form an opinion on this.
The primacy of grace versus naturalism's rejection of the supernatural.
Grace = an antidote to anti-supernatural naturalism.
"A" - Mary's Immaculate Conception (origin in supernatural grace?) leads to "B" - the demise of naturalism.
I am not a Roman Catholic but I desire to see how A leads to B
Can someone tell me how this works?
“Can someone tell me how this works?”
Not I, padre. Virtually all the explanations I have seen for the promulgation of this dogma, including this one, have been unpersuasive. However, it seems to me obvious that if one accepts the Augustinian notion of Original Sin, as I believe Methodists do, the IC not only makes perfect sense, it is theologically necessary. I hasten to add that Orthodoxy does not share the West’s notions about original Sin and thus neither do we accept the IC.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Huh???
I assume you are speaking about Rerum Novarum. If you actually cared to read it, you'd see clearly that it made very grave warnings against the evils of socialism. For example, paragraph 30 of that encyclical states:
30. Thus, by degrees, came into existence the patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the inheritance of the poor. Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State. But no human expedients will ever make up for the devotedness and self sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.
Now if that is not a condemnation of 'welfare,' I don't know what is!
You can look at his other encyclicals, as well, to see this. For example,
from Quod Multum:
4. Nevertheless to restrain the danger of socialism there is only one genuinely effective means, in the absence of which the fear of punishment has little weight to discourage offenders. It is that citizens should be thoroughly educated in religion, and restrained by respect for and love of the Church. For the Church as parent and teacher is the holy guardian of religion, moral integrity, and virtue. All who follow the precepts of the Gospel religiously and entirely are, by this very fact, far from the suspicion of socialism. For religion commands us to worship and fear God and to submit to and obey legitimate authority. It forbids anyone to act seditiously and demands for everyone the security of his possessions and rights. It furthermore commands those who have wealth to come graciously to the aid of the poor. Religion aids the needy with all the works of charity and consoles those who suffer loss, enkindling in them the hope of the greatest eternal blessings which will be in proportion to the labor endured and the length of that labor. Therefore those who rule the states will do nothing wiser and more opportune than to recognize that religion influences the people despite all obstacles and recalls them to virtue and uprightness of character through her teachings. To distrust the Church or hold it suspect is, in the first place, unjust, and in the second, profits no one except the enemies of civil discipline and those bent on destruction.
In fact, another encyclical of Leo XII, Graves de communi re, lays out his opposition to so-called "Christian Socialism" very bluntly:
4. This work of popular aid had, at first, no name of its own. The name of Christian Socialism, with its derivatives, which was adopted by some was very properly allowed to fall into disuse. Afterwards, some asked to have it called the popular Christian Movement. In the countries most concerned with this matter, there are some who are known as Social Christians. Elsewhere, the movement is described as Christian Democracy and its partisans as Christian Democrats, in opposition to what the socialists call Social Democracy. Not much exception is taken to the first of these two names, i.e., Social Christians, but many excellent men find the term Christian Democracy objectionable. They hold it to be very ambiguous and for this reason open to two objections. It seems by implication covertly to favor popular government and to disparage other methods of political administration. Secondly, it appears to belittle religion by restricting its scope to the care of the poor, as if the other sections of society were not of its concern. More than that, under the shadow of its name there might easily lurk a design to attack all legitimate power, either civil or sacred. Wherefore, since this discussion is now so widespread, and so bitter, the consciousness of duty warns Us to put a check on this controversy and to define what Catholics are to think on this matter.
As to the history of the Catholics and the Democrats, you ought to look up the history of the Know-Nothings, and the relationship to the Whigs and the early Republicans. As the majority of Catholics in the country at the time were either German or (mostly) Irish immigrants, I think it'll fall in line.
My concern wasn’t with the IC, but with HOW the IC overcomes materialistic naturalism.
Any ideas?
In this case, I don't see the fulfillment of that prediction yet...but I believe that it will happen at some point. (Look at the article I posted earlier today that kids are becoming more pro-life than their parents...with the propagandizing going on in public schools, who'da thunk that would have ever happened either?)
“Any ideas?”
Absolutely none.
So, it is a spiritual force at work rather than a cause/effect sequence that can be spelled out.
I would say if asked "How to change Iraq?" that the US should buy a computer and the internet for every home in the country. Exposure to the modern world would lead to the demise of backward beliefs would be how I'd explain "internet leads to changed Iraq." (This is just an illustration, so don't push me on this point. :>)
You don't think there is any cause/effect sequence that explains HOW the IC leads to the demise of naturalism. Is that correct?
Thanks, Kolo. I was always taught in the military to say “I don’t know.” when, in fact, I didn’t know. It’s a good habit, though a rare one. It’s a sign of honesty and humility in a conceited age.
“...Pope Pius IX spent a long period in prayer...”
O, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Who is she that comes forth, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army in battle array?
“It works the same way that the Consecration of Russia to the Blessed Virgin provided the spiritual underpinnings for the fall of communism in that country.”
“Coals to Newcastle” as we Greeks are wont to say, Padre.
“It’s a sign of honesty and humility in a conceited age.”
It means nothing; I have much to be humble for! :)
Honestly, that's the only way I can attribute a relationship to it. I may be able to see the cause and effect, but to know the mechanics, well, "we see through a glass, darkly."
Anybody even vaguely familiar with history at that time will recognize the modernist movement in full force during that time. There were very vigorous anti-clerical movements throughout the world, including Italy, France, Portugal, and Mexico during the 19th Centuries, as a result of this modernist movement.
By the way, I used the example of the consecration of Russia as an example of such a thing, as the timeline is very well documented.
Thanks, mark. I’ll ponder it. I appreciate the time you’ve taken with me.
Always a pleasure. Thanks for asking.
(BTW, the subject of Original Sin is the one primary area of theological difference between the Orthodox and the Latins...so of course, the Immaculate Conception is without meaning to him)
“BTW, the subject of Original Sin is the one primary area of theological difference between the Orthodox and the Latins...so of course, the Immaculate Conception is without meaning to him.”
Mark, I know what it means. I just don’t believe its theologically correct and is in fact theologically pernicious. If the Theotokos was not a human woman, her Son was not True Man. It goes down hill from there.
I wasn't accusing you of ignorance. I was stating that the doctrine would be without meaning for one who did not subscribe to the concept of original sin. (per your earlier comment: However, it seems to me obvious that if one accepts the Augustinian notion of Original Sin, as I believe Methodists do, the IC not only makes perfect sense, it is theologically necessary.)
Sorry for my inadequate wording in the earlier post.
Well then you Greeks have been thoroughly Anglicized. :)
I thought the Greek phrase (which apparently goes back to Aristophanes) was "Owls to Athens."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.