The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 20 1 2 3 4 19 20
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Bob,

The proscription at the end of the Dogma is not a proscription against denial of the dogma. It is a proscription against rejection of Church authority.

Do a study on the language of the anathemas from the Christological controversies, (and anathemas given by the Church, in general), and perhaps you will see what I mean.

In any case, proscriptions attached to dogmas are not part of the dogma and can potentially be revoked. In fact, at Vatican 1, for example, one of the two main concerns expressed by the Eastern bishops regarding the Decree on Papal Primacy is that
it should be promulgated without an anathema (the other concern, of course, was that an explicit statement on the rights of bishops should be added - which the Council did, but rather added it to the Decree on Infallibility).

Blessings

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by danman916
I guess so, but it begs the question, what exactly is a "novelty" and how can we demonstrate that this was a later belief not found in the Apostolic faith? Would not the acceptance of the sinless of the Theotokos qualify as such?
I don't believe the IC is a novelty at all. It is implicit in Scripture, and as early as the second century. The Protoevangelium of James mentions that Mary did not experience the pains of childbirth (prophesied in Isaiah 66), and since the pains of childbirth was a punishment for the original sin -- well, the teaching is not a leap of faith at all. THis besides the fact that the designation of Mary as the new Eve likewise goes back to the second century, and there are Scripture passages in the prophetic verses of the OT that support such a belief.

Blessings

Last edited by mardukm; 09/21/10 08:42 AM.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Bob,

Originally Posted by ByzBob
Originally Posted by danman916
I guess so, but it begs the question, what exactly is a "novelty" and how can we demonstrate that this was a later belief not found in the Apostolic faith? Would not the acceptance of the sinless of the Theotokos qualify as such?

I don't believe that sinless = Immaculate Conception. Indeed, St. Bernard of Claivaux, accepted that Mary was sinless, but warned the faithful that the Immaculate Conception was an unfounded innovation. Teaching instead that Mary was sanctified after conception only, that is when she was already in the womb.
I agree with your comment here. But you have to remember that there was a general theologoumenon in the Latin Church at that time that the spiritual conception occurred many days after the physical conception, whereas the Easterns believed that spiritual and physical conception occurred all at once. St. Bernard (as well as many Latins of that period) believed that Mary's purification occurred at her spiritual conception - indeed, as you say, when she was already in the womb. But what do you think is the consequence of establishing a belief that the physical conception and spiritual conception occurs at the same time? If you believe that purification occurs at the spiritual conception, is that not identical to the teaching on the IC?

Quote
The patristic period is typically the paradigm for determining the questions of antiquity when it comes to doctrine. If Ott was correct, then the Immaculate Conception was not taught during that period.
See my comment to brother Dan above.

Also, we have the explicit statement of St. Ephraim that before their respective cosmic decisions, Mary and Eve were - in his words - "utterly equal."

There is a traceable explicit teaching on the purity of Mary since the first moment of her existence in each century from the third century onwards.

Blessings

Last edited by mardukm; 09/21/10 08:55 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Nonsense. The immaculate conception is a Christological, not a mariological doctrine, whose import is to ensure the sinlessness of Christ while ensuring his humanity in light of the Latin belief that the stain of original sin was transferred through conception from the parents to the offspring. While the East always believed in the sinlessness of Mary, the refusal of the East to believe we are born with a stain of sin into a state of sin obviated the need for such a doctrine. i.e., we are all "immaculately conceived".

That Mary was preserved from sin is a universal belief. That the West wants to believe certain things about how this was accomplished is perfectly appropriate--for the West. It is significant that this particular Western theologumenon did not even begin to gain currency until the Middle Ages, prior to which the West in its modesty was willing to let sleeping dogs lie. What we have in this case (as with Eucharistic Adoration) is the Latin Church attempting to get out in front of an element of popular piety that risked getting out of control.

As to why Pius IX promulgated the doctrine as a "dogma" in the manner he did, the answer is two-fold: (1) because he believed he could; and (2) because, more generally, the Latin Church had been abusing the term "dogma" for a long time, and had gotten into the bad habit of "dogmatizing" matters of doctrine or even Church usage which did not fall under the purview of dogma.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
B
ByzBob Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by mardukm
I don't believe the IC is a novelty at all. It is implicit in Scripture, and as early as the second century. The Protoevangelium of James mentions that Mary did not experience the pains of childbirth (prophesied in Isaiah 66), and since the pains of childbirth was a punishment for the original sin -- well, the teaching is not a leap of faith at all.

I didn't see that Mary did not experience the pains of childbirth in the Protoevanglium. Is this the complete text? http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html
I may just have missed it. Not that I disagree that she did not experience the pains. Death is also a consequence of original sin, and since we celebrate her Dormition it must be that we believe that she died. So I'm not sure that how helpful her not experiencing the pains of childbirth is in establishing the genesis of the belief.

Quote
This besides the fact that the designation of Mary as the new Eve likewise goes back to the second century, and there are Scripture passages in the prophetic verses of the OT that support such a belief.

The new Eve belief does little to establish when Mary was sanctified. The point here is that we cannot make the case, logically, that the Immaculate Conception, as defined in 1854, was part of the 'oral tradition,' of the apostles, or else we are left wondering how all the fathers missed it, and in fact denied it in most cases. Since the Church teaches that the deposit of faith ended with the apostles, and that in order for a doctrine to be considered as 'catholic,' it must have been believed always, everywhere, by everyone we should be able to find an explicit teaching somewhere in the fathers for a belief that is now considered binding on the conscience of all Catholics. If we cannot then is the doctrine 'new,' and thus not dogma at all, but rather a valid opinion to hold?

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
As far as I can tell, we just affirm the idea of spotlessness, and the rest is speculation. I am not comfortable with the idea of "preservation", if that's meant somehow as not being an act of the will. I also don't agree with the idea of "punishment" of any form.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
Seems to me that Pius IX very much wanted to isse an infallible dogmatic definition, and the Immaculate Conception seemed convenient for the purpose.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
The same could be said of Pius XII and the Assumption of Mary. I like to think of ex Cathedra definitions as theological nuclear weapons--only valuable when not used, and when used a concession of failure.

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Stuart,

From what I understand about the doctrine of the Assumption is that it was worded in such a way that it could be understood in other modes other than the latin understanding that she did not die. What I've heard is that it states that at the end her time on earth (horrible paraphrasing what little I remember) she was taken assumed (because it was not by her own power) into heaven.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
Seems to me that Pius IX very much wanted to issue an infallible dogmatic definition, and the Immaculate Conception seemed convenient for the purpose.
Fr. Serge,

Do you think that was because he saw a need to confirm the Papacy in its new "all-spiritual" role in the strongest terms possible?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
I have to admit, I find this all really hard to fathom.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Stuart,

Originally Posted by StuartK
Nonsense.
What is this response referring to?

Quote
The immaculate conception is a Christological, not a mariological doctrine, whose import is to ensure the sinlessness of Christ while ensuring his humanity in light of the Latin belief that the stain of original sin was transferred through conception from the parents to the offspring.
The importance of the IC as a corollary of Christological Truth has nothing to do with the sinlessness of Christ. That’s a blasphemous notion, wouldn’t you agree – the idea that the God-man had to inherit his sinlessness from someone? Christ is sinless in and of Himself because He is God.

The Christological importance of the dogma is to affirm the complete purity of the vessel from whom the Second Person of the Trinity would receive His immaculate flesh. This is the importance attached to the teaching by every Father of the Church who has taught about it. The ironic thing is that this Christological relevance is not part of the dogma, and I sorely wish it was, for it would infinitely increase the dogmatic value of the teaching. The apostolic constitution uses words like “proper” and “fitting,” whereas the Fathers testified that this was a necessity in the plan of salvation.

Quote
While the East always believed in the sinlessness of Mary, the refusal of the East to believe we are born with a stain of sin into a state of sin obviated the need for such a doctrine. i.e., we are all "immaculately conceived".
The “stain of sin” or “state of sin” refers to nothing more nor less than the state of separation from God. Are you saying that the East today denies that we are born separated from God, and that this is indeed an inherited state?

Quote
What we have in this case (as with Eucharistic Adoration) is the Latin Church attempting to get out in front of an element of popular piety that risked getting out of control.
Bad example. Eucharistic Adoration is a disciplinary devotion of the Church, not a dogma.

Quote
As to why Pius IX promulgated the doctrine as a "dogma" in the manner he did,
By “manner,” do you mean his having asked the bishops of the world for their input before proceeding with a definition?

Quote
the answer is two-fold: (1) because he believed he could;

In union with the majority of the world’s bishops, who doubts that he could?

Quote
and (2) because, more generally, the Latin Church had been abusing the term "dogma" for a long time, and had gotten into the bad habit of "dogmatizing" matters of doctrine or even Church usage which did not fall under the purview of dogma.
Could you give 2 or 3 examples of the Latin Church having dogmatized a non-theological matter (i.e., a mere practice or discipline?).

Blessings,
Marduk

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dearest Father Serge,

Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
Seems to me that Pius IX very much wanted to isse an infallible dogmatic definition, and the Immaculate Conception seemed convenient for the purpose.
That doesn't seem probable, given the description of the process of how the definition came about according to the Apostolic Constitution. There was almost a six-year gap between the time he inquired of the matter to his brother bishops and when the dogma was actually promulgated. Further, many requests for the definition had already been received by his predecessor. ISTM that if Pio Nono was itching to make an infallible Decree, he would have done it the moment he entered office.

Humbly,
Marduk

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
For what it’s worth, there are several quotes from the early Father’s (easily found on web searches on Mary), that talk about her purity, immaculate, greatness, without any stain, had no sin. Now, I’m sure that these teachings of the Fathers aren’t new to anyone here, but they are often used in support of the Immaculate conception.
(These came from scripturecatholic.com)




"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

"As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns." Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made." Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary." Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay." Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).


"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation." Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

"[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever." Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Dan,

Of your 15 quotes, I would count only 7 that actually support the doctrine of the IC. There are others out there, of course, from the early Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

Page 2 of 20 1 2 3 4 19 20

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5