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.
And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
The bolded text corresponds to the Greek word χαριτόω (charitoo), meaning, according to Strong, to grace, i.e. indue with special honor
Prior to Christ's resurrection, the only person with whom that concept was applied was the Blessed Virgin. (In fact, for those who are into that sort of thing, it might be deemed significant that the only other place where the Lemma χαριτόω is used is in Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
As Catholics, we believe we are buried with Christ in Baptism. Therefore, through baptism, we are cleansed of the stain of all our sin, including original sin (that we inherited from Adam). (cf Rom 6:4-6:7) God has graced us with grace (Eph 1:6) because of that remission.
For the Angel to state that Mary was "graced," as he did in Luke 1:28, or for him to state, as he did in Luke 1:30, that she εὗρες γὰρ χάριν (found favor) with God, she would need to be specially purified to accomplish what God intended for her.
(btw, if any Catholics continue to read this thread, I would encourage you to do a quick word study on where those two Greek words εὑρίσκω and χάρις appear in proximity one to another. It will blow your mind)
I know, Wiley, that you had brought something up regarding that, but by the time I had a chance to respond, the post had been deleted already. Hope I answered what I thought was the question. If not, please ask away.
“Well then you Greeks have been thoroughly Anglicized. :)
I thought the Greek phrase (which apparently goes back to Aristophanes) was “Owls to Athens.””
See what 100 years in an Anglo culture passing for white can do? Its a shame isn’t it!
The bolded text corresponds to the Greek word χαριτόω (charitoo), meaning, according to Strong, to grace, i.e. indue with special honor"
The word is "κεχαριτωμένη", not "χαριτόω". "Κεχαριτωμένη" is related to "χαριτόω" but is not at all the same word nor does it mean the same thing.
With due respect, κεχαριτωμένη is the perfect tense passive voice participle (used as a noun in the nominative case) for the lemma χαριτόω. The lemma χαριτόω is used exactly in one other spot: Ephesians 1:6. (ἐχαρίτωσεν), which is the aorist(1) tense, active voice, and indicative mood.
Source: Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament. 1978. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Saint Bernadette was also a suffering soul. She had terrible illnesses and her family lived in a former prison that was too harsh an environment for prisoners to live in.
These blank slates prove that what is happening is truly from God.
Someone who has an IQ of 150 or more might have trouble, and inadverently put their own interpretations and slants on things -- without realizing it.
Being a blank slate also gives the person a great virtue -- humility -- one that I wish I had... But maybe God will beat the pride out of me and put some humility in...
God bless...
And you, too. Indeed the best prayer comes when one stops trying to rationalize things and just “opens up” —”listens” to Him.
Thank you Mark, but no thank you. I have been directed by the RM to "stay off this thread". That wasn't my question but it seems that this discussion is not open to debate, therefore I'll wait until one is. I was told that someone in your caucus complained about a sincere question about this thread therefore my question was deleted.
In Christ...Alone!
Perhaps had the Eastern Fathers had the benefit of the West's understanding of their language, the world wouldn't have had to wait until an Italian pope in the 19th century sua sponte declared dogmatic the IC.
I said at that time, with due respect. I say this time, with due respect. I wouldn't use that preface if I didn't mean it. I was merely pointing out that the difference between the two words was similar to the difference between "was posting" and "posted." The same root word: "to post." If you actually read Ineffablis Deus, you might find that Pius IX did not make his declaration in a vacuum.
By the way, your explanation is wrong, if only because it is far, far too simplistic.
Yes, what I wrote was far, far too simplistic. But I was attempting to answer something that another individual wrote (that was subsequently deleted), not to fully define and defend the dogma.
As for Ineffablis Deus, I have read it a number of times, in Latin even. I stand by my statement that unless one holds by the notion that "...all men are born infected by original sin", the doctrine is unnecessary and in fact pernicious. Even if it were not, what was the pressing heresy which needed to be dealt with by what otherwise appears to be a capricious, and somewhat disingenuous exercise of papal authority? What, Mark, does it properly add to the devotion of The Faithful to the Most Holy Theotokos? Does its existence in the Western Church make Roman Catholics more likely to pray to Panagia for assistance or comfort or to venerate her icons or celebrate her feast days or be more willing to fast in preparation for, say, the Dormition, than Eastern Christians? I will grant you that it certainly leads the Faithful to be more receptive to notions of Panagia being "Co-Redemptrix" or that she is believed to have appeared to the Faithful in some, shall we say, rather bizarre manifestations.
And, thus, my original statement on the matter, that this is, perhaps, the primary doctrinal difference between Greeks and Latins nowadays...original sin. (See Post #57). I think it will take somebody a whole lot smarter than me (and likely you...but I'm not assuming) to come to a mutual understanding of the concept between the Latins and the Greeks.
But the Christian Socialists themselves, and The Catholic Worker Party,in particular Dorothy Day, The Worker Priest Movement, et al all claim Leo XIII for inspiration.
I think they would say that Leo's references to the evils of socialism were aimed at the secular forces of socialism. Perhaps Leo and Pio Nono share the experience of all the reformers who try to ease the lid off a little bit, and have events spiral reapidly away from them.
In regard to the Know-Nothings, IMHO, they predate the era of the Democrat hold on Catholics. That is fading rapidly and perhaps is already history. Of course the attraction defies logic in some ways, but then so does the Democrat hold on African-Americans.
But the Christian Socialists themselves, and The Catholic Worker Party,in particular Dorothy Day, The Worker Priest Movement, et al all claim Leo XIII for inspiration.
I think they would say that Leo's references to the evils of socialism were aimed at the secular forces of socialism. Perhaps Leo and Pio Nono share the experience of all the reformers who try to ease the lid off a little bit, and have events spiral reapidly away from them.
In regard to the Know-Nothings, IMHO, they predate the era of the Democrat hold on Catholics. That is fading rapidly and perhaps is already history. Of course the attraction defies logic in some ways, but then so does the Democrat hold on African-Americans.
Note the following caveat: I am not a follower of Dorothy Day...but have had occasion to review many of her writings in response to a "Christian Socialist" citing her as inspiration.
As with a lot of things, I found through my reading that she, initially, was a full-blown communist. However, as she came to learn that movement from the inside, she came to understand that not only was Communism evil, but that dependence on the government was a social ill, as well.
To cite a couple of examples:
We believe that social security legislation, now balled as a great victory for the poor and for the worker, is a great defeat for Christianity.
But we in our generation have more and more come to consider the state as bountiful Uncle Sam. "Uncle Sam will take care of it all. The race question, the labor question, the unemployment question." We will all be registered and tabulated and employed or put on a dole, and shunted from clinic to birth control clinic. "What right have people who have no work to have a baby?" How many poor Catholic mothers heard that during those grim years before the war!
But who is to take care of them if the government does not7 That is a question in a day when all are turning to the state, and when people are asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Certainly we all should know that it is not the province of the government to practice the works of mercy, or go in for Insurance. Smaller bodies, decentralized groups, should be caring for all such needs.
The first unit of society is the family. The family should look after its own and, In addition, as the early fathers said, "every home should have a Christ room in it, so that hospitality may be practiced." "The coat that hangs in your closet belongs to the poor." "If your brother is hungry, it is your responsibility."
"When did we see Thee hungry, when did we see Thee naked?" People either plead ignorance or they say "It is none of my responsibility." But we are all members one of another, so we are obliged in conscience to help each other. The parish is the next unit, and there are local councils of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Then there is the city, and the larger body of charitable groups. And there are the unions, where mutual aid and fraternal charity is also practiced. For those who are not Catholics there are lodges fraternal organizations, where there is a long tradition of charity. But now there is a dependence on the state. Hospitals once Catholic are subsidized by the state. Orphanages once supported by Catholic charity receive their aid from community chests. And when it is not the state it is bingo parties!
Is the above the writing of a socialist?
Now, I understand that socialists have, in large measure, taken over positions of influence, within the US Church, in particular, but if you actually go back and read what the 'attributed sources' wrote, you might find a totally different perspective.
Just thought I'd provide that for some food for thought.
Again, let me stress, though, I am not a follower of hers. But after reading what she actually wrote, I can't see the horrible evils that have been attributed to her.
Those who came after her sought, IMO, to make her ideals over in their own image. Unfortunately for her legacy, that apparently entailed an attempt to remove the religious underpinnings of her thought. Although it sounds silly, those of the movement I met were seeking a sort of a non-Catholic, or "interdenominational" Catholic Worker Party.
I think exactly the same phenomenon may well explain the Christian Democrats of Europe in regard to Leo XIII ... and in this country the attraction of Catholic intellectuals to the Democrat Party.
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.