OCR Text |
Show DISCUSSION m THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION What Brought About the Controversy That Eventually Led to the Dogmatic Definition. From a little book recently published by Bcn-ziger Bcn-ziger Bros, we select such portions bearing on the definition of the dogma as give it a historical character. char-acter. It is the work of Rev. A. A. Lambing. L.L. I). We begin with Chapter VI.: We are now to consider the establishment of the Feast of the "Immaculate" Conception, which brought about the discussion that eventually led to the dogma.tic definition. The circumstances were these: In the year 1140 the chapter of the cathedral ca-thedral of Lyons adopted the custom, which, it appears, had already begun to prevail in some other places, of celebrating a feast in honor of the Immaculate Im-maculate Conception of the Ble-sed Virgin. St. Bernard remonstrated very sharply with them, both because the feast had been instituted without the approval of the Holy See, ami al-o with regard to the dogma itself, although he is well known to have been one of the most devout clients of Mary and a strenuous advocate and defender of her honor and privileges. Setting the matter of the feast aside, as not being pertinent in this place, he blamed them for honoring that which he could not regard as holy, and, therefore, not a fit object of religious worship. In reality, however, they honored the very, mystery which the Church honors today, but controversy con-troversy had not as yet brought about, a precise theological definition. They believed that the soul of Mary was exempt from sin from the first moment mo-ment of her creation: but they made the mistake of identifying the passive with the active conception, concep-tion, which latter this mystery does not contemplate. contem-plate. It is on this point that the whole eontro-versv, eontro-versv, which we have now briefly to consider, turns; and' bv keeping it carefully in view the objections of St Bernard and St. Thomas, the two strongest opponents of ihe mystery, will present no difficulty, however .strong their language evidently -was at tiiues. But. as lias just now been remarked, it took time and discussion to give a precise meaning to theological terms, as it does in every branch of human hu-man knowledge. The following clear and exhaustive account ot the discussion, from the pages of Dr. Ullathome, will, doubtless, be very welcome to the reader. Says this learned divine: "In looking through the vista of ages back to the beginning of this controversy, the first thing which strikes our attention is the fact that it was never a division of the episcopacy. It was simply a conflict in certain schools which possessed no teaching authority. It began in a dispute dis-pute as to the power through which a festival ought to be established in local churches. In the ardor of the moment St. Bernard called in question the holiness holi-ness of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin which it was proposed to celebrate. The word itself conveyed con-veyed two senses, and the one contemplated by the tradition of the Church was not the one the saint understood. St. Bernard took the word in its popular popu-lar sense, which the Church did not contemplate. This confusion of terms" between the active and the passive conception "embroiled and kept up the quarrel until the days of St. Thomas and St.Boua-venture. St.Boua-venture. ... St. Thomas hesitated to adopt what was yet but a pious belief, and not an article of faith; because he did not fairly see his way to reconcile it with the great dogmas of original sin and Redemption. St. Bonaventure rendered the subject more clear, and Scotus solved the difficulties of St. Thomas. After this, opposition sank more and more, and almost all the great institutions of the Church became the zealous promoters or the valiant defenders of the Immaculate Conception; all the universities and almost all lift; religious orders or-ders were contending for Mary's privilege. It never came before the bishops assembled in their councils, but thev showed themselves inclined to it. It never came before the Sovereign Pontiffs, but they protected pro-tected it as a doctrine and encouraged it as a devotion. de-votion. "Why. then, should the debate have been allowed al-lowed to continue for so long a time? A full reply to this would' require an entire treatise on the Providence which guides the events within, the Church to her final exaltation. ... "God has allowed certain truths, though implicitly im-plicitly contained in Scripture and tradition, to remain re-main under a greater or less degree of obscuration up to a particular time. Such truths may even be explicitly apprehended and expressed at various points in the general current of tradition, but have not as yet become the daily object of the contemplation, contem-plation, the writing, the preaching, and the devotion devo-tion of the Church. 'Then someone who has not clearly seized the more or less latent sense of the Church on a given question, commits himself to an opposite opinion. Suddenly the Church is startled, as when St. Cyprian insisted on re-baptizing heretics. For the truth is in the Church, though it forms not as yet a part of her constant daily teaching. But that was a case involving a practical practi-cal question which demanded instant decision. The first thing questioned respecting the Conception of the Blessed Virgin was the right to establish its festival. It had begun in a particular church in the West, and the Holy See had not been invoked, nor had it set the example. It was rather a vindication vindi-cation of the privileges of the Holy .See, in respect of a point on which the Holy See itself observed silence. Then the controversy glided" into the question ques-tion of doctrine. But. the language used was ambiguous; am-biguous; it might refer, and in St. Bernard's ease it clearly did refer to the active conception, and this is not what the Church honors. But even this ambiguous language, wearing as it did the appearance appear-ance of opposing ihe true doctrine, spread a feeling of disedification so widely as to show the sense which was latent in the Church. Still there was no practical question as yet demanding an immediate imme-diate solution. The devotion continued to spread will; the festival.' huf the Head f the Church had not as yet sanciioned either by voice or example. i Had the festival been universal at that time, he j must have spoken. Put as long as the festival was but partial, and had not the slightest sanction, and ; a long as the language on both sides continued lo ' be ambiguous, so that it could not be easily seen ( who was for the true tradition ami who was agaiiisi I it: so long, in fact, as both parties might be con- j tending for the same thing under a different phrase- .: ology. the Church waited until divines became more ; clear, thai she might more readily point out her i own sense in the controversy. And no sooner was the subject cleared up than Councils ami 'opes . began to be explicit, and they all spoke in one di- ' ; ; rectioii. An overwhelming majority appeared en the side of trul h as soon as it was intelligibly put f. forth. Opposition shrank within the limits ot a ; single school, chiefly of one of the many orders I which flourished in the Church. Even that school . r maintained the sanctih'eutioii as taking pLce soon j after, though not at the moment of animation. Nor ', j was this maintained by continually dwindling mini- " hers without offending the general sense of the Church to such an extend that the Popes were com- f pelled to reduce the opinion to silence. . "We must, then, distinguish three periods in the ;; j history of tluf doctrine: The first is that of simple ; 1 i faith and tradition. At this period the Fathers S ; speak of it. and even enlarge upon it. by figures : i and comparisons, especially in the Fast, bur do not . ' apply to it the principles of iheologieal reasoning. . ' . This takes us from the Apostolic age to the twelfth '! j century. The second period is that in which rea- . ; j soning was first applied to the mystery. And then '";' appeared a result that often has occurred when ' ; reason is first applied to revealed truth. Reason i hat! to labor long before it could make the uect-s- ; t sary discriminations, approximate the various prin- ; 'j j ei pies' which bore upon it. place the subject exactly ! ; in its proper light, adjust its relations with truths 1 i universally admitted and reconcile it with eonelu- j ! sions worked out in collateral subjects. Bu? at all j ' this reasoning, simple-hearted faith, which asks no reason beyond the simple fact that, the 1csm-1 j Virgin was the Mother of God. was keenly scandal- ; 'J ized. This may be called the period of ambiguous j language. It, dates from the twelfth to the four- : teenth cent ury, and from St. An.-elni to Scot its. ; r Then came the period when theological reasoning ; had pervaded the question, had cleared up its dif- :; ficulties. and had harmonized its doctrines with the , j general scheme of theology; when, in short, if he- came a confirmation of those very truths which at I first it had been suspected of opposing. And its , ! acceptance became a reasonable acceptance, which the more learned1 investigation of anriquiry 'had , j served still further to confirm. f "But thir. long Agitation of hitman thought : brought out lights to the understanding, which not. j only illuminatel the mystery, and invested it with "; ' new beauties for our contemplation, but also shod ' I an effulgence on the several truths with which it ,1 stood related. And how many great minds made f their offerings to the Immaculate Mother from the fruits of their genius, not from the necessity of f defending the faith, but as free-will oblations of ; ! their devotion; while what they studied more la- 5 boriously. and professed more generously, and tie- f fended more ardently, was rewarded more abun- , !' dantly.", : The Holy See Impoituned For a Dogmatic , Definition. j Tn the development of the question of the Irn- ; maculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, two cir- f cumstances were now forcibly influencing the Holy .. j; See to pronounce a dogmatic definition of the doe- j trine, and making it daily more evident that it could not long be deferred: the theological dis- cussion of the question, and the urgent appeals of so many Catholic rulers, prelates, and other persons . j or communities who were entitled to a respectful . j hearing. The Head of the Church was not indif- j forent fo these appeals; the Holy Spirit was grad- uallr preparing the way, and the day was not far j distant; but yet all must possess their souls for a ; i time in patience. The more salient points of thh I importunity are admirably summarized bv Rev. John Alzog in his "Manual of Universal Church I History" (English translation, vol. ii., pp. 4:50. j 4:1), in these words: During the present epoch J j- from 1."17 to 164S a statement of a Franciscan, named Francis de Santiago, ta the effect that, the : teaching of the Francis" Order, relating to th , f Immaculate Conception he Blessed Virgin, had i been positively confirmed a vision granted to ,. ; himself, occasioned the revival of the old eontro- ' versy on this point, between the Dominicans and ; j the Franciscans. So determined was the attitude " i of the Dominicans that Philip IL, King of Spain, t felt it to be his duty to request a solution of the p question from the Holy See. The reigning Pope, j f Paul V., did no more, however, than republish the decrees of Sixtus IV.. issued, in the years 14TG a ml f 1483, granting a proper office for the Feast of the j Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and f j .indulgences to those reciting the Divine Office' or f celebrating or assisting at Mass within the octave. L He likewise commanded both parties to abstain I ? from branding each other as heretics. While per- niitting the question to be discussed from a purely f j scientific point of view, Paul V. forbade it to be made the subject of controversial sermons, and his ; bull of 1021 ordained that no expression other than 'The Conception of the Blessed Virgin' should be used in either the missal or the public offices of the Church. A second effort was made by both the contending Orders to obtain through Philip IV. a f decision of the question from Gregory XV., which the latter refused to give. Alexander VII., when f pressed for a similar decision, published a bull in Ifjtjl. in which, while referring to the decision of his predecessors, he showed an unmistakable ten- dency to the doctrine of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin without original sin. . 1 "In 1703 Clement XL made the Feast of the ' ! Conception of the Blessed Virgin one of obligation : f and the learned Pope Benedict XIV. (17l6-17."?0. , summing up the arguments and decisions bearing upon the question, closed his treatise with these words: 'While the Apostolic See does not as yet declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be an article of iaifh. it is nevertheless evident that the-result of the discussion goes to show that the . I Church is favorable to the opinion.'" f So far all the action that had been taken look- '. ing toward a definition was made with a view of j . settling a controversy that was at times well-nigh l Continued on Pae 4.) ' (Continued from Page 2.) scandalous, and was always disedifying to the initiate in-itiate piety and devotion of the Christians at large. Those who later urged the Holy See to utter a dogmatic dog-matic decision, and .who finally succeeded in bringing bring-ing it about, were influenced by motives of a higher and nobler character those of honoring the august brother of God. and of giving duly authorized expression ex-pression to their faith and devotion. And it is gratifying to kivpw that Xorth America was conspicuous con-spicuous for devotion to the Immaculate Conception Concep-tion more than two hundred and thirty years ago. But the declaration of the Fathers of the Council of Trent is entitled to tho first place. Says Iiev. .T. Waterworth, in his history of "The Decrees and Canons, etc., of the Council" (p. xcvi.) : . "When those decrees on original sin were read in general congregation on the Sth of June, 1540. Cardinal Car-dinal Pacheco required that, to the second canon which asserts the transmission of original sin to the whole human race, there should be added the Vords: 'As regards the Blessed Virgin, the Council Coun-cil does not intend to define anything: although it is piously believed that she was conceived without original sin.' This opinion had a majority in its favor, but was opposed by all the bishops of the Horn ini can Order, and by a few other prelates, as a deviation from the resolution not to condemn any opinion prevalent in the Church; for, as it seemed to them, to declare an opinion pious was indirectly to condemn the contrary as impious. If was at length, after much debate, agreed that the obnoxious obnox-ious Avords should be expunged: and that tho Council Coun-cil should content itself with citing the' well known declaration of St. Augustine, thr.t. when speaking of sin, there Avas no . intention of including the Blessed Mother of God. and of ronoAving the decree of Sixtus IV. on'tltH vexed question." The decree finally adopted by' the Council is in these AA'ords: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare that it is not its intention to include in this decree. de-cree. Avhere original sin is treated of. the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of Cod: but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be obserAed under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which' it renews." re-news." " ; ' ' |