Then there would have been no proclamation Ex Cathedra of the Doctrine of the Assumption nearly a century later. Thse two doctrines are the only instance in which the Holy Father, speaking Ex Cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), made infallable pronouncements in the field of faith and morals.
I don't think it would have had much effect beyond reminding all Catholics that not every pronouncement by the Pope is infallable. Papal succession is only one of the things which connect today's church with the man who walked with Jesus: Shimon Ben Jonah, also known as "Cephas" (Peter). The other connection is more important and that is the Eucharist.
2007-08-12 17:12:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Mary's Immaculate Conception is nothing new. While it was believed from the beginning of the Church, it did not become Dogma until Pope Pius IX came along.
You see, the Immaculate Conception is not a "new" Truth. The Dogma is "new" in the sense that it has been revealed to us relatively recently. But the Truth that the Dogma in question pertains to has always been True since the time of Mary.
Understand what I am saying?
2007-08-13 03:47:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Daver 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The question is not "who's side" Pope Pius IX sided with it would be, rather, whether the Holy Spirit needed to prompt the Pope to declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception always existed. However, there was never a need to "set it in stone" so to speak, before because it never encountered opposition. It was always held fast by the Christian faithful throughout the ages.
What Pope Pius did was basically make it known to all that this doctrine WAS in fact a truth in Christianity. He "set it in stone" to end any debate.
2007-08-12 17:12:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by stpolycarp77 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The Catholic doctrine is that the mum of God could desire to have been sinless herself with a view to be a "worth vessel." Immaculate theory is Anna's (Mary's mom) transforming into pregnant (conceiving) Mary without the help of a guy (immaculately.) This gets around the situation of unique Sin.
2016-10-10 02:40:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by dicken 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You've jumped from one soap-opera to another, all the while the meter for the price to stay a soap opera channel commercial watcher has just become so much more evolved it's starting to incorporate even more advanced beam weaponry into destroying and dissenting its own population through ever more fantasticly blasphemous forms of its own self-degradation as an aversion to "war-mindedness" as if the church could ever even BEGIN to understand such a thing as pure evil or pure good.. my point is simply that they just use the word pure so often they result to the most un-puritanical methods and procedures to re-popularizing that movement w/o actually addressing the fact that science is just looking for a nice and neat way of clearing up the confusions surrounding witchcraft in humans and whether or not THAT'S appropriate as well as the technological implications of how a government could withstand and self-sustain the idio-syncratic phasic characteristics of that lie as a heavy or light conjuctory psychological complex for being able to approach the issues of christ's life in a meaningful manner w/o just growing ever more at someone's feet based on a simple observation of .. "ooh you are hoLy... hOOoLyyY!" and it's like that's how christians are born and bred to think and act like puppets so they just try to put on a good puppet show w/ different analogies for different scenarios just to bolster the fact that they can make endless dramas out of ANY stupid story involving psychic powers and circumstances involving ancient history in the time before we had television and audio/visual recording capacities.. it's just that anyone who says, "these things and more shall you also do." that that could just be setting us up for even MORE demand for endless endless pursuit of perfection until we have nothing really but a bunch of yogis who interfere w/ the way power tries to reach those who actually have conceptual rather than experiential affinities for the removal of starvation and poverty and even mortality dillemas through anything except heartless contrivances into the moral code of man being at fault.
2007-08-13 00:01:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by gekim784l 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Catholic Church would still love & honour the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God & our own Blessed Mother too, because that is exactly what Mary is.
God Bless.
2007-08-12 17:15:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by clusium1971 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many churches and religions have teachings which are based on tradition and very loosely on the Bible. It's up to you whether you believe them or not. What matters is that you hold the fundamental beliefs of a Christian that Christ is God, that he resurrected from the dead and is therefore alive today and he was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit indicating his sinless nature.
2007-08-12 17:09:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by cheir 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Without the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, theologically it could then be argued that Jesus was NOT God Incarnate because he was touched by original sin through his maternal parentage. How could God be touched by original sin and still be purely God?
But for most people, I don't think much would change.
2007-08-12 17:37:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Church Music Girl 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Of course it had to be immaculate conception. If an unmarried woman got pregnant in those days, she would have been stoned to death. Yes?
They did not have the vocabulary of definition in those days that we do. Immaculate conception / ivf. Jesus was a man who grew up under the rulership of a foreign government. He saw the future and tried to change it. He had a following and now he has a religion.
2007-08-12 17:11:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Godhi 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
if Mary is concieved with original sin, then Jesus' human flesh wouldn't be without blemish, w/c will make him un-fit to become the "Sacrificial Lamb".
that's the biggest, and most huge, difference.
edit: if the Catholic would preach otherwise, then there would be no foundation of truth for Christians.
2007-08-12 17:07:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Perceptive 5
·
2⤊
0⤋