Pope Gelasius

[PierreGringoire]

The second pope of Rome's name was Gelasius--must have been around 450 CE He made the famous declaration that his word was to be seen as more important than any sovereign ruler. I believe the Church overstepped its boundaries here, when it declared what teachings are "dogmatic," and its assumption (if there is one) of its pre-eminency to this day. Its ironic that the word Catholic means "universal" when to a great deal of many of the Holy Sea (is that what its called?) it means anything but universal. To me its still playing the "I'm right, all you other religions are wrong" game. I know Pope John Paul did things to reach out to other religions-- and it continues to this day. But I sort of think it is foolishness how so many people turn to them like they really are God's Church in every sense of the phrase.

[Jozanny]

The second pope of Rome's name was Gelasius--must have been around 450 CE He made the famous declaration that his word was to be seen as more important than any sovereign ruler. I believe the Church overstepped its boundaries here, when it declared what teachings are "dogmatic," and its assumption (if there is one) of its pre-eminency to this day. Its ironic that the word Catholic means "universal" when to a great deal of many of the Holy Sea (is that what its called?) it means anything but universal. To me its still playing the "I'm right, all you other religions are wrong" game. I know Pope John Paul did things to reach out to other religions-- and it continues to this day. But I sort of think it is foolishness how so many people turn to them like they really are God's Church in every sense of the phrase.

It is spelled Holy See, and Papal infallibility is not a simple affair. Roman Catholicism has a long tradition of tying faith to Aristotelian logic. The Pope is a sinner, but in his role as the Vicar of Christ, his doctrine is the Word of God.

[bazarov]

Read Grand Inquisitor by Dostoevsky, you will like it.

[PierreGringoire]

I'll definitely look into that. I love Doservosky. I've read The Idiot

[PierreGringoire]

:idea:
It is spelled Holy See, and Papal infallibility is not a simple affair. Roman Catholicism has a long tradition of tying faith to Aristotelian logic. The Pope is a sinner, but in his role as the Vicar of Christ, his doctrine is the Word of God.

I understand that there are a bunch of very mystic assumptions about what powers the pope is supposed to have. I just think its gotten out of control. The Church has never made up its mind about how much it wants to be a "spiritual guidance" entity and a "directions on how to live your life" entity.
Again, I hope that its moving more and more towards focusing on spiritual matters and not making a pretence that it is "Divinely Sanctioned" and can actually make "dogmatic teachings" (teachings that are undebatable) such as that the Virgin Mary was immacuately conceived. (Why set certain things like this in stone and leave others opend to debate) The Church took root for many historical reasons. The Roman Empire cleared the seas and allowed St. Paul to move around and get his letters to whomever he wanted them to get to, Frankish army having their backs--giving the pope's declarations of "my word is The Word" power because of the threat of force. I really don't see the Church as being something that changes the times. It changes with the times. The church would probably be calling crusades if it wasn't for the French Revolution. The liberalizing of the Church has to do with the communication boom. And they finally realize, "Oh yea, we had it wrong before, but this time you can trust us:idea:"

I am not an expert on where the chruch is heading nowadays, but it'd be great if it lived up to its name C-A-T-H-O-L-I-S-M (universal)

[bazarov]

I'll definitely look into that. I love Doservosky. I've read The Idiot

That's a chapter from Brothers Karamazov, it's 30 pages or even less; many fans consider it like the best pages he ever wrote.

[Jozanny]

:idea:

IAgain, I hope that its moving more and more towards focusing on spiritual matters and not making a pretence that it is "Divinely Sanctioned" and can actually make "dogmatic teachings" (teachings that are undebatable) such as that the Virgin Mary was immacuately conceived. (Why set certain things like this in stone and leave others opend to debate) The Church took root for many historical reasons.

Church Fathers would no doubt find this discussion ironic, since I am no longer a practicing Roman Catholic, but the Virgin Mary actually happens to be human Gringoire, and was not a product of immaculate conception. That is reserved solely and only for her son, Jesus Christ. She was born without sin, and her mother is also a Catholic Saint, though be it Anne died Jewish!--but Mary is human, and not a product of supernatural intervention. Her privileges were granted by God, but she cannot be adored--adoration is reserved solely and only for the Trinity. I get somewhat discomfited when Protestants and others attack Catholicism without a true understanding of it on the theological level.

Now, on a pragmatic level, the Virgin Mary was elevated because the Church needed a feminine deity-like figure to pull in the pagans, and in Latin America she is, in this sense, a political triumph, and so nearly divine that the caution of catechism little matters.

Here is an approved (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=635545) article on Gelasius, if there is anything else worthy of discussion, and we should discuss specific elements in this forum.

[RichardHresko]

Church Fathers would no doubt find this discussion ironic, since I am no longer a practicing Roman Catholic, but the Virgin Mary actually happens to be human Gringoire, and was not a product of immaculate conception. That is reserved solely and only for her son, Jesus Christ. She was born without sin, and her mother is also a Catholic Saint, though be it Anne died Jewish!--but Mary is human, and not a product of supernatural intervention. Her privileges were granted by God, but she cannot be adored--adoration is reserved solely and only for the Trinity. I get somewhat discomfited when Protestants and others attack Catholicism without a true understanding of it on the theological level.

Now, on a pragmatic level, the Virgin Mary was elevated because the Church needed a feminine deity-like figure to pull in the pagans, and in Latin America she is, in this sense, a political triumph, and so nearly divine that the caution of catechism little matters.

Here is an approved (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=635545) article on Gelasius, if there is anything else worthy of discussion, and we should discuss specific elements in this forum.

Sorry, but on this point you are wrong. The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is December 8th.

There is no evidence in Church literature for the assertion that the Church ever felt it needed a female deity to draw in the pagans. In fact in the West the cult of Mary did not grow in the Church until the Middle Ages, long after the disappearance of the pagans as a group of any significant size. So your theory is shot based on chronology alone.

I agree with you that we should be specific, especially in making claims about the meaning of theological terms and the identification of "pragmatic" considerations for doctrine.

[Jozanny]

Sorry, but on this point you are wrong. The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus.

No I am not. The birth of Jesus was miraculous, not Mary's:


"...in the first instance of her conception..."
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply ( conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata ), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.




I agree with you that we should be specific, especially in making claims about the meaning of theological terms and the identification of "pragmatic" considerations for doctrine.

Mary was elevated for very cynical reasons. The gospels give her very short riff, and it was the Roman Church which overtly glorified her to compete with conceptions of goddess like Venus. I was trying to give Gringoire credit for bringing up a specific subject, since this forum is mostly filled with stupid metaphysical questions which are boring.

[JBI]

The Mary Cult came later with the introduction of the immaculate conception as a belief in the 11th century, and then popularized in the 15th century. And yes, referring to Mary's conception, not Jesus's. The actual facts of the dogma, however, were written by Pious IX in the 19th century.

It stems from a debate on how someone who had original sin embedded in her could have produced the son of god, being impure. The immaculate conception therefore negates the problem by saying she didn't suffer from the original sin, and therefore was fit to be the vessel of god's delivery of Jesus.

Jesus's birth is known as the "virginal conception," coming from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are the two to deal with his childhood, and both state the virginity of Mary.

[Jozanny]

The Mary Cult came later with the introduction of the immaculate conception as a belief in the 11th century, and then popularized in the 15th century. And yes, referring to Mary's conception, not Jesus's.

Jesus's birth is known as the "virginal conception," coming from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Okay, but the way Gringoire phrased it was confusing. She is immaculate in terms of purity, not birth, and I was trying to clarify. Jesus was apparently generated by cloning, done without the benefit of modern piercing tools.:p

[RichardHresko]

No I am not. The birth of Jesus was miraculous, not Mary's:







Mary was elevated for very cynical reasons. The gospels give her very short riff, and it was the Roman Church which overtly glorified her to compete with conceptions of goddess like Venus. I was trying to give Gringoire credit for bringing up a specific subject, since this forum is mostly filled with stupid metaphysical questions which are boring.

Consult either a Church calendar for December 8th or the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and you will find that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'.

As for the reasons for Mary's "elevation," cite your sources, if you have any.

[Whifflingpin]

Perhaps Richard, you could explain the logic of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The essential doctrine in (trinitarian) Christianity is that, starting from Adam's immediate offspring, we are all born in sin, and hence, as a species, separated from God. This separation can only be remedied if the inheritance of sin can be broken, hence God Himself becoming incarnate as a means of redeeming the species.

The argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary is, if I understand, that a person born into sin could not be the mother of God. But, if Mary's conception was immaculate, i.e. untainted by Adam's fall, then a) the inheritance of Adam's sin was already broken, so there was no need for the Incarnation, and b) it is implied that there was a line of immaculate conceptions all the way back to Adam, since for Mary to be conceived immaculately, Mary's parents must themselves be capable of sinless actions.

??

[JBI]

That is true, but religion was never known for logic. I guess that is where the concept of the Adam - Noah - Abraham - King David - Jesus line comes from. Inherent aristocratic "pure" blood perhaps.

[Jozanny]

Whiff, any amount of logical reasoning can reach the same conclusion you did, but as JBI implies, you cannot expect the salad dressing around monotheism and its various brands to make sense. I would not press Richard with too much force on Mary's super-attenuated submission of womanhood to divine exclusiveness.

As to his wish that I cite my sources, it isn't all that necessary, as I haven't asserted anything revolutionary, as Mary incorporates what any major female deism incorporates.

I cannot oblige him because I cannot remember the name of the texts which said that Mary had to go up against the Diana cult, and the like, which came from the Greek.

[RichardHresko]

Perhaps Richard, you could explain the logic of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The essential doctrine in (trinitarian) Christianity is that, starting from Adam's immediate offspring, we are all born in sin, and hence, as a species, separated from God. This separation can only be remedied if the inheritance of sin can be broken, hence God Himself becoming incarnate as a means of redeeming the species.

The argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary is, if I understand, that a person born into sin could not be the mother of God. But, if Mary's conception was immaculate, i.e. untainted by Adam's fall, then a) the inheritance of Adam's sin was already broken, so there was no need for the Incarnation, and b) it is implied that there was a line of immaculate conceptions all the way back to Adam, since for Mary to be conceived immaculately, Mary's parents must themselves be capable of sinless actions.

??

This is frankly an area where there is a lot of confusion. Even Aquinas had some difficulty with the idea (it did not become dogma until the mid-nineteenth century so it was perhaps not such a dire problem).

Roughly speaking, God caused Mary to be conceived without stain ('stain' is macula in Latin) in anticipation of her role in being the Theotokos. However, she retained the potentiality of sinning and so therefore still required the Redemption of Christ. In a sense, she was allowed the sanctifying grace that Adam lost in the Fall "on account" as it were. The great defender of the doctrine of immaculate conception was Duns Scotus, and I would urge you to look at his work on the subject, Ordinatio III, d.3, q.1, over my poor ability to explain.

[RichardHresko]

Whiff, any amount of logical reasoning can reach the same conclusion you did, but as JBI implies, you cannot expect the salad dressing around monotheism and its various brands to make sense. I would not press Richard with too much force on Mary's super-attenuated submission of womanhood to divine exclusiveness.

As to his wish that I cite my sources, it isn't all that necessary, as I haven't asserted anything revolutionary, as Mary incorporates what any major female deism incorporates.

I cannot oblige him because I cannot remember the name of the texts which said that Mary had to go up against the Diana cult, and the like, which came from the Greek.

I appreciate the consideration, but I am both willing and able to offer coherent explanations and also refer to other sources, which is what makes meaningful discussion possible.

[Jozanny]

I appreciate the consideration, but I am both willing and able to offer coherent explanations and also refer to other sources, which is what makes meaningful discussion possible.

I did not realize that in order to post I was going to be held to citing proofs, but be that as it may, I cannot remember every pre-Google article I may have come across which assisted in the deflation of devotional propensity. I did surf a bit this morning about goddess Diana, and the affinity between Diana and Mary is rather too striking to be mere coincidence.

I am, however, very cynical about the old men in the Vatican, and I believe what anecdotal evidence I have come across that suggests it is all mostly about power, and the appearance of moral authority. I'm not sure they do not have some nostalgia for the tortures of the Inquisition. What they did to men of intellect was all the more appalling, since genius is a worthy commodity.

What they did to Bruno, my signature, leaves me speechless, especially as he was one of their own. Surely you know his statue stands in defiance of Rome? Or do I need to go fetch an image for you for verfication?:idea:

Before I return to lying down, there is a difference between posing an abstract universal question, like "Why do we have to die?" Which leaves us lost in the wilderness, and discussing something specific, like papal authority--but this doesn't mean casual observation is, on its face, invalid.

I learned a long time ago that looking at the things themselves is more feasible than banging one's head against the wall asking why existence is what it is.

[Whifflingpin]

"The great defender of the doctrine of immaculate conception was Duns Scotus, and I would urge you to look at his work on the subject, Ordinatio III, d.3, q.1,"

Thanks Richard, I'll do that.

[RichardHresko]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]I did not realize that in order to post I was going to be held to citing proofs, but be that as it may, I cannot remember every pre-Google article I may have come across which assisted in the deflation of devotional propensity. I did surf a bit this morning about goddess Diana, and the affinity between Diana and Mary is rather too striking to be mere coincidence.

I am, however, very cynical about the old men in the Vatican, and I believe what anecdotal evidence I have come across that suggests it is all mostly about power, and the appearance of moral authority. I'm not sure they do not have some nostalgia for the tortures of the Inquisition. What they did to men of intellect was all the more appalling, since genius is a worthy commodity.

What they did to Bruno, my signature, leaves me speechless, especially as he was one of their own. Surely you know his statue stands in defiance of Rome? Or do I need to go fetch an image for you for verfication?:idea:

Before I return to lying down, there is a difference between posing an abstract universal question, like "Why do we have to die?" Which leaves us lost in the wilderness, and discussing something specific, like papal authority--but this doesn't mean casual observation is, on its face, invalid.

COLOR]

What is the point of being specific if one is going to be casual?

How does one distinguish between an "observation" and a "prejudice" if there is no evidence to support the former?

I am at a loss to see how we are any less lost if we accept cynicism as a substitute for evidence.

[Jozanny]

How does one distinguish between an "observation" and a "prejudice" if there is no evidence to support the former?

Bias can be formed through any process of study Richard, whether devotional or skeptical. On the level: I am sorry to disappoint you, truly, but I no longer take religious faith seriously--and whatever over-eagerness there was on my part to emulate, through atheism, a dynamic scholar whom I idolized to unhealthy obsession, doubt formed long before that, when I did briefly wish to become a student of the catechism. But I am not my Aunt. She can hide her tears as a Catholic principal and a dedicated educator who has to accept the distain of the priest who got rid of her. I cannot play those games with patriarchy, modern or otherwise.


I am at a loss to see how we are any less lost if we accept cynicism as a substitute for evidence.

Roman Catholicism has been political from its inception, the Papacy especially. These days, the same can be said for American Evangelicism. Cynicism is practically offered an invitation to entertain itself.

I do have articles which politely deconstructs Mormonism, et al, but I do not see how to post about these items without creating an uproar, so I am at a loss. Even my thread about Atheism was sort of a grandiose ado for reasons beyond my comprehension.

This discussion has recalled to me that I did start an essay about my early childhood devotion to the Blessed Mother, and the sheer power of that devotion. If I did not delete it and attempt to finish it, and we are still both here when that occurs, I will offer you some cited notes, if I find I need them.

Ax that. I just checked both of my non-fiction files. It went poof.