Definition immaculate conception history question background


#1

As I recall, the definition of the immaculate conception came about around 1854? Outside the catholic church there was a controvesry brewing over the human nature of Christ. In fact, the Irvinites taught that Jesus had a sin nature or was born with original sin, and thus got such from Mary ( see book list for proof of such ).

Now, here is my questions, was there such a controversy brewing within the Catholic Church and who was behind it? How widespread was this controversy outside the Catholic Church? Were the Irvinites the only one’s who taught this?

Note: the Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a sin nature or original sin, and they came into being in the 1860’s.

Today, Catholic Theologian Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap in his book In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ, 1993, (ISBN 0-567-09643-2) teaches that Jesus had a sin nature, pages 70-91. So, this in not a dead subject.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Weinandy

The purpose of this thread is to identifly, whom within or without the Catholic Church in the 1800’s taught that Jesus had a sin nature or was subject to the stain of original sin.

Book list,

The Orthodox and Catholic doctrine of our Lord’s human nature
set forth in four parts … Author: Irving, Edward, 1792-1834. Publication: London : Baldwin and Cradock, 1830

The true nature of Christ’s person and atonement :
stated in reply to the unscriptural views of the Rev. Edward Irving “On the human nature of Christ” Author: Urwick, William. Publication: Dublin : William Curry ; London : Hurst, Chance, and Co., 1831

The true nature of our Lord’s humanity and atonement :
stated in reply to the misrepresentations and unscriptural views of the Rev. H.T. Burne, on “the scripture doctrine of the person and humanity of our divine redeemer” &c. Author: Meek, R. Publication: London : J. Hatchard, 1833

The sinless humanity of Christ, vindicated against the Irving heresy : in a letter to a clerical friend / Author: Meek, R. Publication: London : J. Hatchard, 1833

Nineteenth century British Christological controversy, centring upon Edward Irving’s doctrine of Christ’s human nature.
Author: Dorries, D. W. Publication: University of Aberdeen, 1987

Brief remarks on the mistatements, &c. in the last pamphlet of the Rev. R. Meek, on “The true nature of our Lord’s humanity,” &c. / Author: Burne, Henry Thomas, 1799-1865.; Noyes, James,
Publication: London: : A. Douglas, … Hatchard and Son, … Lindsey[sic.] and Co., Edinburgh; Binns, Bath; Noyes, Chippenham., 1833

Nineteenth century British christological controversy centering upon Edward Irving’s doctrine of Christ’s human nature
Author: Dorries, David William. Publication: 1987

Animadversions on that Pestilant Heresy, the Sinfulness of the Human Nature of the Lord Jesus Christ :
as promulgated by the Rev. Edward Irving … With notes.
Author: Colyer, W. H. Publication: London : Westley & Davis, 1830

Basically, in the past doctrine was defined in response to a controversy or hearsay, like the Trinity to respond to Arius. I am curious as to whom definition immaculate conception responded to.

:shrug:


#2

OK, so do you want to know the history behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or do you want to know who in/outside the Church taught that Christ had a sinful nature?

With respect, your post is a bit confusing. Can you clear it up a bit?

Peace,
Dante


#3

Dante, his post is who in the Catholic Church taught that Christ had a sinful nature during the 1800’s. It’s sort of kind of bolded there in order to prevent confusion. :wink:

Daniel, the reason for the Dogmatic Treatise on the Immaculate Conception, I believe, was not due to the heresy of Christ’s sinful nature. I’ve heard of the teaching, but it goes way back to the gnostics (?).

Instead the IC declaration was mostly due to a groundswell of support from Catholics around the world. I understand there were numerous petitions sent to the Vatican requesting this statement. I know that flies within the face of most other infallible statements, since they are made to address a controversy, such as the one you produced.

But the Church had already dealt with the heretical teaching on Christ’s sinful nature, and shouldn’t have to re-invent the wheel. As you know, the IC had been around for a long, long time before this Dogmatic Decree.


#4

Thanks – I saw the bolded question, but then he summed up by asking a wholly different question. That’s what I was trying to clarify.

Peace,
Dante


#5

“But the Church had already dealt with the heretical teaching on Christ’s sinful nature, and shouldn’t have to re-invent the wheel. As you know, the IC had been around for a long, long time before this Dogmatic Decree.”

Hi NotWorthy, when was it already dealt with? Any documents?

I am basically asking for history behind the definition in the 1800’s.

The rest are follow up questions related to that which is bolded.

Links to the history before the 1800’s would be good too.

Thanks for your help.

How can the ground swell be documented?

But, since there is a catholic theologian teaching that Jesus had a sin nature, it would be interresting to identifly anyone within the church that holds that position today, so we can set their writings aside as contray to sound teaching.


#6

Hi Daniel,
The history of the Immaculate Conception can be found in Genesis.

3:15.** I will put enmities between thee and the woman**, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

She shall crush… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm

Link to the Catechism:

Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128 By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129 Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130 Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm


#7

But the Church had already dealt with the heretical teaching on Christ’s sinful nature, and shouldn’t have to re-invent the wheel. As you know, the IC had been around for a long, long time before this Dogmatic Decree.

NotWorthy, are you referring to the Theotokos teaching from the early councils?


#8

No, the Theotokos was defined in order to fight Arianism, the belief that Jesus wasn’t fully God AND fully man.

I thought the Gnostics, and then the Albigensians again in the 11th century taught that all flesh was evil. Hence, Jesus couldn’t have been man. Oops, that is a different arguement that what Daniel is inquiring about.

I don’t have the time to look it up, but maybe tonight if one of my brothers or sisters here doesn’t do it for me (hint, hint).


#9

All of the Immaculate Conception Haters just answer this one simple question: How could Jesus who is perfect and God unite with and fuse His perfect humanity with an original sin tainted and infested humanity of Mary?

Jesus could only fuse His humanity with pre-fall humanity such as Adam and Eve had before the fall because it had no inclination towards sin.

That’s why Mary is the New Eve not the post fall sin tainted and infested Old Eve.

Why is that so hard to understand?

People have hated Jesus’ Mother for the last 2,000 years. Why is it so incredulous that the Catholic Church continues to more fully develop doctrine and define what is in the original deposit of faith as the Holy Spirit leads it into all truth?

The Holy Spirit is still teaching and guiding. Who would want to belong to a church that was incapable of listening and learning from the Holy Spirit?


#10

Jerry, please understand, Protestants don’t hate Mary. They just hate the idea that we worship Mary as a deity, even though that’s a wrong assumption.

You want to get somewhere with Protestants, start with that base. You will get much farther in a discussion if the other side feels that you understand their dilemna.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.