tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post4593530202936139538..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Thomas Aquinas (and the Fathers of the Church) on Mary's non-Immaculate ConceptionTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-31170663126497476752023-09-30T12:50:39.338+01:002023-09-30T12:50:39.338+01:00Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune thr...Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);<br />Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25401685947653902402023-09-30T12:32:10.738+01:002023-09-30T12:32:10.738+01:00Tertullian
“It was while Eve was still a virgin th...Tertullian<br />“It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-73987025164093309662023-09-30T12:25:44.749+01:002023-09-30T12:25:44.749+01:00The passage doesn’t prove that Mary sinned.
Roman...The passage doesn’t prove that Mary sinned.<br /><br />Romans 3:23 occurs in a section where Paul is arguing that both Jews and Gentiles need salvation through Jesus Christ and that this is not achieved through the Law of Moses. This is the major thrust of Romans 1–4.<br /><br />Thus he writes: “For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-47568912386586486052023-09-30T12:14:48.351+01:002023-09-30T12:14:48.351+01:00In any event, while St. Thomas had issues with the...In any event, while St. Thomas had issues with the doctrine, it related to his understanding of the impact of original sin. His opposition stemmed from his understanding of the impact of original sin, and yet he believed that Mary was quickly sanctified and thus freed from the stain original sin, and didn’t commit any sin thereafter. As The Catholic Encyclopedia (published in the early 1900s) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-50022219572592077072011-08-30T02:54:27.694+01:002011-08-30T02:54:27.694+01:00I think on further reflection that this is not Sua...I think on further reflection that this is not Suarez' commentary but Voste's own commentary that is being referenced.<br /><br />Let me further grant for the sake of discussion that he is informing the reader that this passage is his admission that the same work that he cites as showing "change of opinion" expresses the same opinion.<br /><br />What then?<br /><br />Shall we Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-51859278155148793402011-08-30T02:29:38.288+01:002011-08-30T02:29:38.288+01:00Regarding Scripture, I knew you would refuse. The...Regarding Scripture, I knew you would refuse. The darkness will not come to the light of the Scripture. Why not? John 1 tells those who have ears to hear.<br /><br />Regarding Luther, who cares? God used him mightly, but he was neither the first nor the last, neither the beginning nor the end. <br /><br />For what it's worth you should be getting your facts about Luther from someone more Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-91894102146120499752011-08-30T00:45:14.568+01:002011-08-30T00:45:14.568+01:00"Unless you've reproduced footnote 2482 w...<i>"Unless you've reproduced footnote 2482 wrong, it is a reference to Suarez' commentary on Thomas' Summa, and to the notes of Voste found therein."</i><br /><br />I just quoted both text and footnote from mentioned work of <b>Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange</b>, O.P. (1877–1964).<br /><br />Here is his <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/christ2.htm" rel="athanasioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165093703735285243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-88767291143771626502011-08-30T00:36:18.600+01:002011-08-30T00:36:18.600+01:00You said: "judged by the authority of Scriptu...You said: <i>"judged by the authority of Scripture, your doctrine is plainly false."</i><br /><br />Sorry, friend, but reality teaches me that by word "Scripture" in such sentences everyone mean just HIS INTERPRETATION of Scripture. For I see that protestants themselves disagree one with another in many questions although they all claims that their teaching is plainly from athanasioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165093703735285243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-90850870540574971322011-08-29T23:00:41.381+01:002011-08-29T23:00:41.381+01:00Unless you've reproduced footnote 2482 wrong, ...Unless you've reproduced footnote 2482 wrong, it is a reference to Suarez' commentary on Thomas' Summa, and to the notes of Voste found therein.<br /><br />There's nothing in Lagrange telling you that the same document in which he's citing the interpolation actually explicitly denies the immaculate conception.<br /><br />It's embarrassing enough for him that he's Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-89157915156200094772011-08-29T22:44:03.418+01:002011-08-29T22:44:03.418+01:00"In any event, as I already noted, the author...<i>"In any event, as I already noted, the author fails to inform the reader that in the same work he is quoting, Thomas explicitly denies the immaculate conception of Mary."</i><br /><br />He did it! See last paragraph of my previous post, namely Lagrange's footnote 2482.<br /><br />Therefore Lagrange both<br />- used "recent critical edition"<br />- inform reader about athanasioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165093703735285243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-79930019162697466222011-08-29T21:01:15.807+01:002011-08-29T21:01:15.807+01:00"Sixteen out of the nineteen codices have the..."Sixteen out of the nineteen codices have the words "nec originale"; hence Father Rossi concludes that the text is authentic"<br /><br />This would be funny if it wasn't such an obviously wrong way to decide the matter.<br /><br />In any event, as I already noted, the author fails to inform the reader that in the same work he is quoting, Thomas explicitly denies the Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-4868067340960614712011-08-29T20:44:45.829+01:002011-08-29T20:44:45.829+01:00Thanks for the interesting observation. I just quo...Thanks for the interesting observation. I just quoted from <a href="http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html" rel="nofollow">summarization</a> of that Lagrange's book. And I gave here also two links form which <a href="http://www.catholictradition.org/Two-Hearts/immaculate-heart8.htm" rel="nofollow">one</a> - as I now see - was not complete.<br /><br />As I athanasioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165093703735285243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40003793901871527382011-08-28T03:15:37.869+01:002011-08-28T03:15:37.869+01:00That theory has long been debunked, since the &quo...That theory has long been debunked, since the "neither original" in that final quotation is an interpolation. Gibbings pointed that out long ago in his "Roman forgeries and falsification" but you can see for yourself if you get a critical text of the work.<br /><br />The Latin actually says "Ipsa enim purissima fuit et quantum ad culpam, quia ipsa virgo nec mortale nec Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85948664973172592032011-08-28T01:52:30.142+01:002011-08-28T01:52:30.142+01:00If you love the Truth, then say whole truth and no...If you love the Truth, then say whole truth and not be misleading as you are now in your saying about Thomas Aquinas...<br /><br />For whole truth is, that although Thomas Aquinas in his <i>Summa Theologiae</i> denied Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, in his earlier and later writings he <b>AFFIRMED Immaculate Conception</b>!!!<br /><br />So e.g. <i>Father Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrangeathanasioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165093703735285243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80499421368632848802010-11-02T20:22:42.604+00:002010-11-02T20:22:42.604+00:00nat wrote:
Scott,
wherever that comes from, this q...<i>nat wrote:<br />Scott,<br />wherever that comes from, this quote:<br /><br />We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-90023117902756808792010-11-02T20:09:30.435+00:002010-11-02T20:09:30.435+00:00In other words, you came up with this yourself, co...<i>In other words, you came up with this yourself, correct? No one told you that this is the right way to understand that particular definition? I don't want to misrepresent you in my reply.</i> <br /> <br /><b>I would like to know what, exactly, are you referring to here. The whole explanation I gave, or just parts of it?<br /> <br />Scott<<<<br /> <br />PS- Pardon my delay in CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-81350783963701040502010-09-02T22:13:45.608+01:002010-09-02T22:13:45.608+01:00Scott,
wherever that comes from, this quote:
We...Scott,<br /><br />wherever that comes from, this quote:<br /><br /><i> We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27503963854659191122010-09-01T00:18:31.577+01:002010-09-01T00:18:31.577+01:00In other words, you came up with this yourself, co...In other words, you came up with this yourself, correct? No one told you that this is the right way to understand that particular definition? I don't want to misrepresent you in my reply.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65466052798902262942010-09-01T00:16:18.694+01:002010-09-01T00:16:18.694+01:00I got my information from the definition of the do...I got my information from the definition of the dogma. Many have gone into theological speculation regarding the Immaculate Conception, but such speculations are not binding upon Catholics. What IS binding is the definition: <i>We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-72292844587189156872010-08-31T22:20:49.328+01:002010-08-31T22:20:49.328+01:00Scott:
The very short answer is that you don'...Scott:<br /><br />The very short answer is that you don't understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I'll try to provide a longer, more detailed answer, when I have time.<br /><br />May I ask if you got this idea from some official source? A priest, bishop, catechism, or something like that?<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-67847493253284772502010-08-31T21:53:47.688+01:002010-08-31T21:53:47.688+01:00It is quite acceptable to be a Catholic, as St. Th...It is quite acceptable to be a Catholic, as St. Thomas Aquinas, and profess that the Blessed Virgin Mary inherited Original Sin, in fact, I do too. The definition of the Immaculate Conception does not say that she did not inherit Original Sin, it only states she was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin at the very moment of her conception. I believe and accept that the Blessed Virgin Mary CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23115599565243014562010-08-29T00:38:32.868+01:002010-08-29T00:38:32.868+01:00continuing
Finally, regarding the third bullet po...continuing<br /><br />Finally, regarding the third bullet point in your thread. I would only leave off with these verses not seeing Mary being kept in any other "special way" than the "only" way all of God's Saints are kept, whether or not God permits us to go onto the depth and level of maturity we suppose Mary attained before passing out of this life to her own Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-64064562733751927132010-08-29T00:28:19.947+01:002010-08-29T00:28:19.947+01:00I pause, as this as most other threads hereon this...I pause, as this as most other threads hereon this blog posted are long.<br /><br />I would comment some before going farther into it.<br /><br />I am intrigued by these two things written:<br /><br /><i>In our Lord Jesus Christ there was something more. In Him the lower appetite was so perfectly subject to reason that it did not move in the direction of any object except in accord with the orderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com