I take it then that you do not believe in the apparition of Mary in Lourdes as it was revealed to Saint Bernadette that it was the āImmaculate Conceptionā to whom she was speaking to.
Actually the apparition is irrelevant in the sense that it is not the source of the belief, it came four years afterward and acceptance of the apparition is not binding upon anyone. The proclamation of the dogma was the really big news in Europe, dogma had never been proclaimed that way before and people had doubts, it was quite controversial.
I am not saying the idea was not popular, the Immaculate Conception was a hugely popular idea in countries like France before the bishop of Rome Pius IX declared it dogma, but at the time it was a theological opinion of somewhat later origin.
The āappearanceā was certainly opportune, in one stoke it reinforced and validated (in peopleās minds) the Latin concept of the IC and also the Popeās power to declare dogma. The new dogma also made the apparition hugely popular internationally, there was a synergy.
According to Eastern theology, the Immaculate Conception does not make a lot of sense, the dogma depends upon a Latin understand of the nature of First Sin so for Eastern Christians it is something of a yawner. It is not based upon a universal principle, but a parochial understanding. For Eastern Christians it needs to be āinterpretedā to make some kind of sense.
The dogma just has no depth of meaning to Eastern Christianity in general and that automatically makes it, and any visions which seem to support it, look a bit doubtful to Eastern Christians of all types.
Eastern Catholics (I am referring largely to Byzantine Catholics, the people I know better) have been under the influence of the Latin church for generations (the concept of Sui Iuris church being something I think from the late twentieth century, before which these were considered ritesā¦ sometimes under Latin bishops), so one
will see many Eastern Catholics who believe in the IC. It has become a vehicle which has been effective in dislodging some eastern notions of theology and spirituality in favor of the Latin. In other words, for the IC to make sense to an Eastern Catholic, the person has to adopt a Latin understanding of First Sin (Original Sin) or there will be cognitive dissonance. This has taken place already generations ago, so interiorly many Eastern Catholics with long family histories in their particular churches (sometimes affectionately called the 'Nash) can seem more like Latin Catholics than like Orthodox.
One can see the process in reverse as wellā¦ some Eastern Catholics (many I have known, or met) hear the Clarion Call to return to their churchās original traditions, and many study Orthodox works on spirituality (which are readily available, often sold in the parish and recommended by the priest). Some might identify themselves as āOrthodox in Communion with Romeā, for they see themselves as Orthodox in every way except in their affiliations (which is loyal to Rome).
Those who do might experience this cognitive dissonance going the eastward way, and if they come to accept an Orthodox understanding of First Sin, the IC seems to make less sense. They know they cannot disbelieve it, the church commands them to accept it, even if they donāt understand it.
I know that I told you much more than you asked, I am just trying to put the whole thing in context.
No bishop in history has ever proclaimed a doctrine on his authority alone, that is a practice of some heretics in the distant past. Saint Simon Peter certainly never did soā¦