Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benidict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact, the all-holiness of the Mother of God from her Conception is an ancient liturgical festival that was accepted also by the Catholic Church in England in the sixth century. Her Assumption into heaven is much earlier and we have witnesses to visions of the Mother of God to the Apostles soon after her death (she appeared to them as they were eating and related to them the prayer they should say when they needed her intercession: All Holy Theotokos, help us! The Orthodox monastics have a daily ritual before lunch that celebrates this apparition to this day.).

Rome was only confirming an ancient part of the faith of the Church. But the Eastern Church would have never defined the Immaculate Conception because it never had the West’s view on Original Sin. Alex
Hi, Alex,

Just a clarifying question:

As for the Eastern Orthodox, is it my understanding then from your post that the EOC do not agree with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

On Marian apparitions, I gather you believe in them. I am not sure if you are aware of the apparition at Lourdes, France, where the BVM confirmed her Immaculate Conception to St. Bernadette.
 
Catholicism has done an effective job of putting together a cohesive Mariology that is impressive to Catholics and to many non-Catholics.
Code:
However, much of it comes from tradition and not the Bible.

There are only two references, as I recall, to Mary in the Gospels between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and his crucifixion. Both of them. honestly, strike me as questionable in that they can seem to diminish Mary instead of honoring her. In Matt. 12 Mary arrives and Jesus is informed. His reply begins with: "Who is my mother?" Then he adds: "Here are my mother" etc. Read on. Then, in John 2:4, when Mary says they have no wine, he replies: "Dear woman, why do you involve me....?" 

 Even re the Jerusalem trip, it used to bother me as a child that Mary and Joseph had traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem before they apparently missed Jesus, their only son! That struck me as questionable parenting. I know this sounds heretical, but it was an honest question in a young boy's mind. 

 The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are based on extra-Biblical traditions. Most of the other Biblical proofs cited re Mary tend to involve considerable speculation - such as those found in Genesis and Revelation.

 And, important: St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians in which he made many points re doctrine and practice. In none of these letters is there even a passing reference to Mary. If she were so central to early Christian doctrine and worship, wouldn't he have made some mention of her?

  Obviously Mary is very important, "blessed among women" (I believe those words are used re other women in scripture - e. g., Jael etc), and she was selected to be the mother of Christ. But many would argue cogently that Catholicism has gone beyond that and created extra-Biblical doctrines involving Mary. Scripture says, for example, that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23 and 5:12), yet the Church insists that she lived a sinless life.

   Let us honor Mary, but is it essential that Catholics accept those emphases of Mariology that don't seem to be based on scripture? I hope not.
 
Hi, Alex,

Just a clarifying question:

As for the Eastern Orthodox, is it my understanding then from your post that the EOC do not agree with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

On Marian apparitions, I gather you believe in them. I am not sure if you are aware of the apparition at Lourdes, France, where the BVM confirmed her Immaculate Conception to St. Bernadette.
In terms of Catholic and Orthodox theology, Alex can run rings around almost all of us here I am certain, and he has an intense devotion to Our Lady.

So yes, he knows about Lourdes, I can assure you.

Michael
 
Catholicism has done an effective job of putting together a cohesive Mariology that is impressive to Catholics and to many non-Catholics.
Code:
However, much of it comes from tradition and not the Bible.

There are only two references, as I recall, to Mary in the Gospels between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and his crucifixion. Both of them. honestly, strike me as questionable in that they can seem to diminish Mary instead of honoring her. In Matt. 12 Mary arrives and Jesus is informed. His reply begins with: "Who is my mother?" Then he adds: "Here are my mother" etc. Read on. Then, in John 2:4, when Mary says they have no wine, he replies: "Dear woman, why do you involve me....?" 

 Even re the Jerusalem trip, it used to bother me as a child that Mary and Joseph had traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem before they apparently missed Jesus, their only son! That struck me as questionable parenting. I know this sounds heretical, but it was an honest question in a young boy's mind. 

 The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are based on extra-Biblical traditions. Most of the other Biblical proofs cited re Mary tend to involve considerable speculation - such as those found in Genesis and Revelation.

 And, important: St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians in which he made many points re doctrine and practice. In none of these letters is there even a passing reference to Mary. If she were so central to early Christian doctrine and worship, wouldn't he have made some mention of her?

  Obviously Mary is very important, "blessed among women" (I believe those words are used re other women in scripture - e. g., Jael etc), and she was selected to be the mother of Christ. But many would argue cogently that Catholicism has gone beyond that and created extra-Biblical doctrines involving Mary. Scripture says, for example, that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23 and 5:12), yet the Church insists that she lived a sinless life.

   Let us honor Mary, but is it essential that Catholics accept those emphases of Mariology that don't seem to be based on scripture? I hope not.
Interesting, but Catholics, Othodox and Anglicans do not subscribe to sola scriptura. Nor do we beleive in command, example, and necessary inference.

The church was began by Christ himself more than 300 years before the bible was cannonised, and over 30 years before a word of the NY had been written. Many of the Marian teachings are from Holy Tradition which historically preceeds the writting of the NT.
 
Interesting, but Catholics, Othodox and Anglicans do not subscribe to sola scriptura. Nor do we beleive in command, example, and necessary inference.

The church was began by Christ himself more than 300 years before the bible was cannonised, and over 30 years before a word of the NY had been written. Many of the Marian teachings are from Holy Tradition which historically preceeds the writting of the NT.
What “traditions” are cited in writings of the ECF’s concerning Marian dogma prior to that of the NT? I’d be very interested in it’s history.
 
Let us honor Mary, but is it essential that Catholics accept those emphases of Mariology that don’t seem to be based on scripture? I hope not.
Catholics may not deny any dogma. Perhaps we don’t understand a certain dogma or even know of it, but we cannot deny it.

That’s about the depth of it.

Do you deny the IC or Assumption?
 
👍 The first three protestant reformers. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley even stated their great devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. After them later reformers merely see Mary at the nativity of Jesus’ birth. Mary is then “forgotten”.

Un- Biblical? No

Biblical, YES
Luke 1:37-38, cf Genesis 18:14
Luke 1:45
Luke 1:48
Luke 2:35

Luke 1:43, John 2:1, John 19:25, cf Matthew13:55

Colossians 2:9

Revelation 12:1-6; 13-17

Just to name a few scripture passages on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Catechism of the Catholic church (CCC) ISBN: 1574551108
Paragraph numbers:
148 (footnotes:12,13,14)
149 (footnote: 15)
495 (footnote: 144)
722 (footnote: 102, 103)
726
963
Forgive me for saying, but it seems evident that you are assuming alot about Mary in the NT because I don’t believe she is even mentioned anywhere beyond the book of Acts. You are making a huge leap by assuming that she is the woman talked about in Revelation. It seem much more accepted that this woman being spoken of is actually Israel.
 
Forgive me for saying, but it seems evident that you are assuming alot about Mary in the NT because I don’t believe she is even mentioned anywhere beyond the book of Acts.
This is a curious paradigm: one’s importance in Christianity is identified by how often someone is mentioned beyond the book of Acts?

Firstly, this criterion is not Biblical–no where does Scripture state that one’s importance is based on how often one is mentioned beyond the book of Acts.

Secondly, how often are all the Apostles mentioned beyond the book of Acts? And who could doubt their importance in Christianity?

How many times is Philip mentioned? :hmmm:
 
This is a curious paradigm: one’s importance in Christianity is identified by how often someone is mentioned beyond the book of Acts?

Firstly, this criterion is not Biblical–no where does Scripture state that one’s importance is based on how often one is mentioned beyond the book of Acts.

Secondly, how often are all the Apostles mentioned beyond the book of Acts? And who could doubt their importance in Christianity?

How many times is Philip mentioned? :hmmm:
I said that she wasn’t mentioned at all beyond the book of Acts. That has a definite bearing upon the subject. The Apostles such as Peter and Paul wrote Epistles of Scripture. I think the whole thing really speaks for itself.
 
Catholicism has done an effective job of putting together a cohesive Mariology that is impressive to Catholics and to many non-Catholics.
Code:
However, much of it comes from tradition and not the Bible.

There are only two references, as I recall, to Mary in the Gospels between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and his crucifixion. Both of them. honestly, strike me as questionable in that they can seem to diminish Mary instead of honoring her. In Matt. 12 Mary arrives and Jesus is informed. His reply begins with: "Who is my mother?" Then he adds: "Here are my mother" etc. Read on. Then, in John 2:4, when Mary says they have no wine, he replies: "Dear woman, why do you involve me....?" 

 Even re the Jerusalem trip, it used to bother me as a child that Mary and Joseph had traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem before they apparently missed Jesus, their only son! That struck me as questionable parenting. I know this sounds heretical, but it was an honest question in a young boy's mind. 

 The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are based on extra-Biblical traditions. Most of the other Biblical proofs cited re Mary tend to involve considerable speculation - such as those found in Genesis and Revelation.

 And, important: St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians in which he made many points re doctrine and practice. In none of these letters is there even a passing reference to Mary. If she were so central to early Christian doctrine and worship, wouldn't he have made some mention of her?

  Obviously Mary is very important, "blessed among women" (I believe those words are used re other women in scripture - e. g., Jael etc), and she was selected to be the mother of Christ. But many would argue cogently that Catholicism has gone beyond that and created extra-Biblical doctrines involving Mary. Scripture says, for example, that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23 and 5:12), yet the Church insists that she lived a sinless life.

   Let us honor Mary, but is it essential that Catholics accept those emphases of Mariology that don't seem to be based on scripture? I hope not.
Paul did write of Mary in Galations 4:5 first, next…

Not sure if your aware of the “Law of Separation.” "Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. During His public ministry Christ proclaimed his independence of “all” human ties. He stood on the side of God and knew no law but his Fathers will. Continually raising mens minds from the material to the spiritual. Point being the closest relationship to Him meant nothing if spiritual kinship were wanting.

“Blessed is the womb that bore you…blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it”

This is not to deny Mary, but to forewarn us that, when later her motherhood is exalted, it is not merely physical maternity that is meant, but also Faith and Cooperation that went along with it.

Jacob was the Father of Joseph so the prominence here that Jesus enters through the royal and messianic line of David. hence the allusions to Mary are yet more significant. Mt, emphasize’s the virginal conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. His genealogy. following the male line of decent . concludes significantly,"Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born 1:16 each time Jesus is named, he is linked with Mary as his mother 1:18, 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21, Mt’s, teaching is stated formally in 1:18-23, the emphasis on Marys virginal and supernatural conception is beyond dispute.

Isaiah 7:14 refers to conception and birth of the Massiah by Gods special intervention, though not unversally accepted it certainly can be strongly argued. What is certain is that Mt, understands it as so and applies by the symbolic name “Immanual”.

At Calvary 19:25-27 again Jesus address’s Mary as “women”. but again theres a public and messianic significance here. Jeus knowing “thats it is finished” Moreover it is not John that addressed first, but Mary “Woman behold your Son”. John is referred to not by name, but as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Thus he remains the optimum representative of those who , by keeping Christs commandments are loved by Him and the Father. True disciples who keep his word are spiritual brothers and sisters.

The theres Mary at the Pentecost, Nativity, Annunciation, oh wait a second I almost missed the “Wedding at Cana.”

Again the “Law of Seperation” between Christ and his mother by the use of the term Woman. Mary does not take His words as refusal , in fact she immediatly instructs the servants in a manner that suggests She expects something extrodinary, “Whatsoever He shall say to you, do you” …Her confidence is not misplaced. Thus a Miracle, the first miracle of Jesus’ public ministry, was worked through Marys intervention. Here Mary is designated as the “New Eve.” Jesus changes the water to Wine of the old Jewish purifications, into the Best Wine is a symbol of subplanting of the old rites by the New ones of the Messianic Age. At this Hour Christ Grants a New Wine, which will then be revealed as the Eucharist.

Mary still under the “law of seperation” but this sepration is already fruitful; the sign of Cana, through Marys intercession, foreshadows full union with her Son in the inauguration of the New Alliance, the Outpouring of the Messianic Wine in the Church.

Perpertual Virginity is suggested though not demonstrated by Scripture. Best understood I believe as consecration to Her Son and his Redemtive work, a doctrine of Faith through the Council of Lateran 649. And early scholars and ancient writters such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others directly back to apostolic times.

God Bless, GT
 
Publisher…Just as the Jews had their own books regarding the witness of faith, the Church has had its documents regarding the witness of faith…through the work of the Holy Spirit, and you find such in the history of the saints and the work of the Church.

So you just can’t find practices…as the Bible ended with Revelations written by St. John the Evangelist…at the time the Church was beginning…So again, to study more from the Bible…you then have to take the next step to see how the Apostles’ successors continued bringing the faith, how it was accepted and practiced, the devotions and sentiments of the people in those times, the lives of heroic Christians. It is there.
 
I said that she wasn’t mentioned at all beyond the book of Acts. That has a definite bearing upon the subject. The Apostles such as Peter and Paul wrote Epistles of Scripture. I think the whole thing really speaks for itself.
What is the referrence of Galations 4:4-5? Or Revelations 12:1? which is commonly considered the Coronation?
 
'zactly.

You have then used your yardstick to measure another’s creed/profession/doctrine/behavior/way of life.
Yes I have…but not in condemnation toward them…but to determine how I measure up in the Light.

Does their professed “creed” speak to my condition?

Does their chosen profession go against the testimonies of Friends?

Does their behavior measure up with their professed ‘creed’?

Does their way of life seek to “incarnate” Christ in our world in them?

If I disagree with them, if they hold “heretical” beliefs or racist views. If they are moved toward anger and rudeness, if they speak and act in a hateful manner that does not excuse me from “walking in the Light” or excuse me from “speaking to that of God” within them. Their…“lack” of integrity in no way excuses me to act and speak like they do…I must continue to “be Jesus” for them…to witness toward peace and the sacredness of everyday life.

No matter how hateful or rude or spiteful they may be…it does not excuse me in any way from “living in the Light”.
 
Hi, Alex,

Just a clarifying question:

As for the Eastern Orthodox, is it my understanding then from your post that the EOC do not agree with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

On Marian apparitions, I gather you believe in them. I am not sure if you are aware of the apparition at Lourdes, France, where the BVM confirmed her Immaculate Conception to St. Bernadette.
You are right - the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception dogma simply because they have always believed that the Mother of God was sinless and was sanctified from her Conception by the Holy Spirit - which is why they celebrate her as a Saint already on the feast of her Conception.

The Orthodox do not accept the Western view of Original Sin to begin with. If the West had the same view on Original Sin as the East - the West would never have defined the Immaculate Conception either. The same is true of the bodily Assumption of our Lady to Heaven - Orthodoxy has always believed that as we may judge from the liturgical services, but never felt the need to define it dogmatically.

I do believe in Marian apparitions, to be sure. Lourdes was also venerated by Russian Orthodox emigre people in France, some of whom actually thought that the Immaculate Conception referred to our Lady’s conception of Christ.

“Immaculate Conception” can also refer to the purity and holiness of our Lady’s Conception as the East has always understood it. It need not refer to her being conceived “without the stain etc.”. She was sanctified to the nth degree by the Holy Spirit in lieu of her immensely central role in Salvation History. The East also celebrates the conception of St John the Baptist which means that, since only the feasts of Saints can be celebrated, the Forerunner was a saint at his conception. Again, without the need for dogmatization.

In fact, when St Bernadette was shown some icons of our Lady to give the authorities a sense about what our Lady looked like in her apparitions, Bernadette pointed to a Byzantine icon of Our Lady of Grace (venerated in Cambrai, France) and said, “That is exactly how she looked like!” The Roman Catholic authorities, nevertheless, issued a statue of our Lady to represent Our Lady of Lourdes - a statue Bernadette did not like and said bore no resemblance to how our Lady actually appeared to her.

FYI, I’ve written an Eastern liturgical service, an Akathist, to Our Lady of Lourdes which has been put to music and has been sung by pilgrims at Lourdes. I was recently visited by a priest who led such a pilgrimage to Lourdes and conducted the singing of my Akathist there. He brought me back a Lourdes rosary to thank me 🙂 . I’ve also done Akathists to Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of the Rosary and Our Lady of Mt Carmel.

The UGCC also had the “Akathist to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God” in its 1893 Akafistnyk published in Lviv by Fr. Isidore Dolnitsky.

Throughout the Ukrainian Baroque era, there were actually Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception (which fully accepted the Western doctrine) way before the IC was dogmatically declared in the 19th century (Orthodox seminarians brought this back with them from Paris and Rome - there were even Greek theologians who affirmed the Western IC dogma, as Fr. Meyendorff notes in his popular book on Byzantine Theology).

These brotherhoods wore medals that were similar to the contemporary “Miraculous Medal” and said this invocation frequently, “Most Immaculate Mother of God, save us!”

They also took the “bloody vow” to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.

Certainly, this was a Latinized devotion, but it had its place in the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia for decades. Even the Orthodox Metropolitans of Kyiv insisted that the Immaculate Conception be taught in their Kyivan theological Academy and had all kinds of services, now largely fallen into disuse, praising the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception.

This was because of the scholasic influence, to be sure. But both Churches affirm the total sinlessness, at all times, and the total All-Holiness of the Most Holy Mother of God.

How we arrive at that conclusion is quite secondary.

Most Holy and All-Immaculate Mother of God, save us!

(anything else?)

Alex
 
Forgive me for saying, but it seems evident that you are assuming alot about Mary in the NT because I don’t believe she is even mentioned anywhere beyond the book of Acts. You are making a huge leap by assuming that she is the woman talked about in Revelation. It seem much more accepted that this woman being spoken of is actually Israel.
Not Israel, but the Church or the Body of Christ.

Since Mary nurtured the Body of Christ when Jesus was with us 2,000 years ago, the Fathers saw in that image also a figure of the Virgin Mary, the Mother/Nurturer of the Body of Christ.

The New Testament is not only a “data source” - if it were, then we could never use terms like “Holy Trinity” etc. because they are not in the Bible either.

The NT refers eight times to Mary as the “Mother of Jesus” while it jealously affirms that the Father was Christ’s only true Father.

The Holy Conception of our Lady and that she was infilled with the Spirit are deduced through a consideration of the first two chapters of Luke and the Annunciation. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb . . . In fact, the NT blesses MARY first and ahead of the fruit of her womb. This is how the early Church and her Fathers understood it. And also how, BTW, Martin Luther and his followers understood it too.

It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us all that Christ said. The early Church preached with the living voice alone and only later with the written Word (with a number of books never making it into the NT canon in the fourth century).

Ultimately, it is the voice of the Spirit in the Church, the Bride of Christ, that guarantees our Faith and what/how we are to believe.

Without that Voice, even the cultural context of the NT is missed by us. To be outside the Church, whether it’s our fault or not, is to miss out on that Voice expressed in its fullness.

The Bible is the living Word of God, but outside the interpretive framework of the Voice of the Spirit as spoken in the Bride of Christ - there is no agreement on what the Bible says.

Nor can there ever be.

Alex
 
Yes I have…but not in condemnation toward them…but to determine how I measure up in the Light.

Does their professed “creed” speak to my condition?

Does their chosen profession go against the testimonies of Friends?

Does their behavior measure up with their professed ‘creed’?

Does their way of life seek to “incarnate” Christ in our world in them?

If I disagree with them, if they hold “heretical” beliefs or racist views. If they are moved toward anger and rudeness, if they speak and act in a hateful manner that does not excuse me from “walking in the Light” or excuse me from “speaking to that of God” within them. Their…“lack” of integrity in no way excuses me to act and speak like they do…I must continue to “be Jesus” for them…to witness toward peace and the sacredness of everyday life.

No matter how hateful or rude or spiteful they may be…it does not excuse me in any way from “living in the Light”.
Dear Friends,

I think that Publisher has been more than courteous and responsible in his posting and I, for one, appreciate his candor and his willingness to share his personal faith commitment with us.

Alex
 
Not Israel, but the Church or the Body of Christ.

Since Mary nurtured the Body of Christ when Jesus was with us 2,000 years ago, the Fathers saw in that image also a figure of the Virgin Mary, the Mother/Nurturer of the Body of Christ.

The New Testament is not only a “data source” - if it were, then we could never use terms like “Holy Trinity” etc. because they are not in the Bible either.

The NT refers eight times to Mary as the “Mother of Jesus” while it jealously affirms that the Father was Christ’s only true Father.

The Holy Conception of our Lady and that she was infilled with the Spirit are deduced through a consideration of the first two chapters of Luke and the Annunciation. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb . . . In fact, the NT blesses MARY first and ahead of the fruit of her womb. This is how the early Church and her Fathers understood it. And also how, BTW, Martin Luther and his followers understood it too.

It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us all that Christ said. The early Church preached with the living voice alone and only later with the written Word (with a number of books never making it into the NT canon in the fourth century).

Ultimately, it is the voice of the Spirit in the Church, the Bride of Christ, that guarantees our Faith and what/how we are to believe.

Without that Voice, even the cultural context of the NT is missed by us. To be outside the Church, whether it’s our fault or not, is to miss out on that Voice expressed in its fullness.

The Bible is the living Word of God, but outside the interpretive framework of the Voice of the Spirit as spoken in the Bride of Christ - there is no agreement on what the Bible says.

Nor can there ever be.

Alex
You have valid points here no doubt, but in the midst of the larger picture, what are we really doing with Mary and what does it ultimately matter? Did she ever sin or not? Was she a perpetual virgin or was she not? The point for me is does it really matter? My focus is upon our one true Savior Christ. The saints are all to be honored (including Mary) for their contribution to the faith, but to spend so much time away from the focus on God to me is absurd.
 
You are right - the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception dogma simply because they have always believed that the Mother of God was sinless and was sanctified from her Conception by the Holy Spirit - which is why they celebrate her as a Saint already on the feast of her Conception.

FYI, I’ve written an Eastern liturgical service, an Akathist, to Our Lady of Lourdes which has been put to music and has been sung by pilgrims at Lourdes. I was recently visited by a priest who led such a pilgrimage to Lourdes and conducted the singing of my Akathist there. He brought me back a Lourdes rosary to thank me 🙂 . I’ve also done Akathists to Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of the Rosary and Our Lady of Mt Carmel.

The UGCC also had the “Akathist to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God” in its 1893 Akafistnyk published in Lviv by Fr. Isidore Dolnitsky.

Throughout the Ukrainian Baroque era, there were actually Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception (which fully accepted the Western doctrine) way before the IC was dogmatically declared in the 19th century (Orthodox seminarians brought this back with them from Paris and Rome - there were even Greek theologians who affirmed the Western IC dogma, as Fr. Meyendorff notes in his popular book on Byzantine Theology).

These brotherhoods wore medals that were similar to the contemporary “Miraculous Medal” and said this invocation frequently, “Most Immaculate Mother of God, save us!”

They also took the “bloody vow” to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.

This was because of the scholasic influence, to be sure. But both Churches affirm the total sinlessness, at all times, and the total All-Holiness of the Most Holy Mother of God.

How we arrive at that conclusion is quite secondary.

Most Holy and All-Immaculate Mother of God, save us!

(I totally agree)
(anything else?)

Alex
Alex,

Thanks for the info. Very refreshing indeed. And you are right, it is secondary how we come to the conclusion, what is important is our faith and belief in the IC.

One more question: Is the IC feast day the same date as in the West…December 8?
 
Alex,

Thanks for the info. Very refreshing indeed. And you are right, it is secondary how we come to the conclusion, what is important is our faith and belief in the IC.

One more question: Is the IC feast day the same date as in the West…December 8?
The feast of the Conception of St Anne is on December 9th. I once read a reason for this, but I didn’t think it was all that important.

On the Old Calendar, this would make it December 22.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top