The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
BarsanuphiusFan, connorjack, Hookly, fslobodzian, ArchibaldHeidenr
6,170 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 578 guests, and 117 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,518
Posts417,611
Members6,169
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Admittedly, this was directly cut and pasted from another website.

Is this a real quote?

Does St. Bernard really argue against the Immaculate Conception?

Quote
From the 174th Episle of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux:

" I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, 'One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.' This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her."

"I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. If, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness."

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Yes, many saints argued against the Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe also argued aginst it. The Dominicans generally opposed it and the Franciscans generally promoted it. All this says to me is that Blessed Pius IX should have left well enough alone and left it as an acceptable theological opinion.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
But NOW it is defined and that settles the matter.
Stephanos I

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
F
BANNED
Member
BANNED
Member
F Offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
To be snarky, many Jews did not believe in the resurrection so Nicea should have left well enough alone.

Seriously, though. The debates over the Immaculate Conception are irrelevant here. Having polled the world's Catholic bishops and finding a virtually unanimous opinion in favor of the I.C., Pius IX acted on behalf of and at the behest of the world's bishops. If they had all been physically present in the same place and voted the same in an ecumenical council, the outcome would not have been materially different.

In short, saints, mystics and theologians don't define church teaching, bishops do. And the bishops of the world did in this case through the mediation of Pius IX.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Ah, but remember when all the bishops were wrong, but one, St. Mark of Ephesus.

Alexandr

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Frs. S and J,

If Rome is serious about reunion it is going to have to be willing to let things like the IC fall back to theological opinion, because the Orthodox will never accept it, period. Given that the Church made it 1800 years without its formal definition, or that of Papal Infallibility for that matter, I don't see the big necessity of either.

I don't believe Blessed Pius polled the bishops of the Orthodox CHurch, who are true bishops of true particular churches whose opinion matters (or at least it should) if we really want a polling or council to be ecumenical.

Things may be settled in the minds of Latin Catholics but for many Eastern Catholics they are not. Just ask the Melkite Synod.

Fr. Deacon Lance


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Thank you Father Deacon Lance. It is good to see divided brethren standing together.

Alexandr

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Don't we all believe that she never ever committed any sin?

I do.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
I do. I just don't see the IC as necessary for that to be. I also don't see the need to make belief in it necessary in order to be an orthodox Catholic or for reunion to occur.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Are there any Orthodox or Catholics who would not agree that she never ever committed any sin whatsoever?

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
I stand in agreement. The best way that I can put it is that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to.

Alexandr

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
St. John Chrysostom comes right to mind.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by Slavipodvizhnik
I stand in agreement. The best way that I can put it is that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to.

Alexandr

We as Catholics are taught the same. But that just like Eve was created without sin, so was the Holy Theotokos. Eve still sinned yet was created with out sin.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
F
BANNED
Member
BANNED
Member
F Offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
Quote
I don't believe Blessed Pius polled the bishops of the Orthodox CHurch, who are true bishops of true particular churches whose opinion matters (or at least it should) if we really want a polling or council to be ecumenical.

Clear reunion would require that that polling take place. Reunion could only happen if the East agreed to it. I believe reunion is Christ's will. It may take centuries. Let's not presume what future bishops Catholic and Orthodox must or must never agree to. That puts us in the position of being more of a pope to them than the pope himself is.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
F
BANNED
Member
BANNED
Member
F Offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
I do. I just don't see the IC as necessary for that to be. I also don't see the need to make belief in it necessary in order to be an orthodox Catholic or for reunion to occur.


Father Lance, with all respect, that is just it. It is necessary to believe in the IC in order to be an orthodox Catholic. That is what infallible means. That is what it means to be Catholic and not just a cafeteria Catholic.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0