Catholic dogma and the Oriental Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
St Gregory did not have an IC Latin understanding. I believe he procalimed some type of generational purifaction–an understanding that is unique amongst the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Nice gymnastics. He believed in the the immaculate conception. In relation to that belief he also believed some things that are not dogmatized in the Catholic church. But he “emphatically” believed in the immaculate conception.
 
dvdjs said:
He believed in the the immaculate conception.
Click to expand...
He most certainly did not.
dvdjs said:
In relation to that belief he also believed some things that are not dogmatized in the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Indeed! He stood alone in his belief that there was a purification of the geneology in preparation for the Panaghia.
dvdjs said:
But he “emphatically” believed in the immaculate conception.
Click to expand...
He most certainly did not.
 
Mickey said:
That’s what I suspected.
Click to expand...
There are various ways of expressing the purity of the Theotokos. And the following is not intended to be a dogmatic exposition, only to show the varity of expressions.

In the Great Paraclesis of the Theotokos (A Poem of Emperor Theodore Ducas Lascaris 1254-1258 AD), ode 1, irmos, after the second refrain of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos, in an Orthodox translation, we see “O spotless and pure Maid”:
orthodoxchristian.info/pages/megapara.htm
In the Small Paraclesis (A Poem of Theosterictus the Monk or by Theophanes – 9th century) Orthodox translation, the title “O Maiden… O all-blessed one” is used but in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic version the phrase is: “O Maiden, preserved from all stain”.
orthodoxchristian.info/pages/mikropar.htm
metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/Paraklesis.pdf
 
Vico said:
ode 1, irmos, after the second refrain of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos, in an Orthodox translation, we see “O spotless and pure Maid”:
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with an immaculate conception.
Vico said:
In the Small Paraclesis (A Poem of Theosterictus the Monk or by Theophanes – 9th century) Orthodox translation, the title “O Maiden… O all-blessed one”:
Click to expand...
Yes. And it has nothing to do with an immaculate conception.
 
Mickey said:
That has nothing to do with an immaculate conception.
Yes. And it has nothing to do with an immaculate conception.
Click to expand...
Just curious about your perspective, what does the immaculate conception have to do with?
 
Vico said:
Just curious about your perspective, what does the immaculate conception have to do with?
Click to expand...
Good question!

Since it is an unknown doctrine in the East— I would say that it is irrelevant.

We know that the Panagia is all-holy and blessed and full of grace and all those wonderful and beautiful titles we see in the Akathist. But we do not know of any conceptional release from ancestral sin. She was the great example–not the great exception.

Have a great weekend! 👋
 
Absolutely fantastic post, mardukm. That’s exactly the kind of thing we need around here. Although I personally would have liked it more if you had given at least a little bit of treatment to the Assumption/Dormition, that was still one of the best posts I’ve seen in ages. This one will definitely be going in my favorites.

Now allow me to step out before this thread is utterly consumed by polemics. :tiphat:
 
I thought the dogma of the Assumption was deliberately vague so that it was left as a matter of theology whether or not Mary died before her body was assumed?

Because if this is true, it’s possible Mary DIDN’T die and the immaculate conception could be explained quite easily in the Eastern Churches.

But I’m not making a statement here, I’m asking a question. What, exactly, is the Church dogma of the assumption of Mary?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I thought the dogma of the Assumption was deliberately vague so that it was left as a matter of theology whether or not Mary died before her body was assumed?

Because if this is true, it’s possible Mary DIDN’T die and the immaculate conception could be explained quite easily in the Eastern Churches.

But I’m not making a statement here, I’m asking a question. What, exactly, is the Church dogma of the assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
The traditional position held is that the Virgin Mary died physically but this is not a formal dogma. The Assumption dogma is:

“… that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” – Munificentissimus Deus (1950)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
 
One should note that the Byzantine calendars include the feast of the Dormition, it’s icons showing Mary “on the slab”; some show also her spirit being lead to heaven, as well.

A few, Catholic, icons show the assumption including body and soul separately taken up; it’s the only theologumenon that reconciles the dogma with the Tradition of the feast of the Dormition.
 
I’ve probably said this before in other threads, but in the Syriac Churches (including the SOC) both the equivalents of “Dormition” and “Assumption” are in use, although the equivalent of “Dormition” is the more ancient form. (It’s also the one that I personally habitually use.)

Similar to what Aramis notes, the traditional Icons depict the Holy Virgin “on the slab” and usually surrounded by the Apostles. The tradition likewise says that she “fell asleep in the Lord” (in other words, she died an earthly death).
 
And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.-Luke 2:35

This verse seems to indicate that Mary would feel an immense pain that went through her own soul. I believe it to be sharing the pain of her Son on the cross. If she was born ever pure, shared in Christ’s pain, it logically follows that she would die as He did. The point of all the Marian dogmas are to point towards Christ, and they show how she was at His side throughout His life through all the important parts. I believe that then she would share in death, and then in the dormition as Christ assumed her to heaven.
 
Dear brother Mickey,
Mickey said:
Mardukm did.
Click to expand...
Permit me to correct your misconception.

Here is your original statement to which brother Dvdjs replied, “I never gave any indication I believe this”:
40.png
Mickey:
So you also believe that the IC is purely spiritual? There was no physical aspect? Can you show where the doctrine states this?
Click to expand...
The dogma of the IC itself refers only to her spiritual conception. But there are other beliefs regarding the IC that have never been dogmatized, or, more specifically, is not covered by the dogma as proclaimed in 1854 (as brother Dvdjs had correctly informed you earlier).

One of these is the idea that the spiritual conception affected her physical conception in an altogeher mysterious manner, causing her flesh itself to be holy.

This idea that Mary’s flesh, being the flesh that Christ would acquire, was created holy and new is attested to by many Eastern Fathers, among them St. Gregory Palamas. On the other hand, there are also some Eastern and Oriental Fathers who assert that Mary’s flesh, for the sake of being acquired by Christ, was transformed at the Annunciation. Brother Dvdjs, as an Eastern, would likely follow St. Palamas in the belief that God made Mary with flesh that was new. I, as an Oriental, believe that Mary’s flesh was transformed at the Annunciation.

I could be wrong. He could be wrong. I could be right. He could be right. It doesn’t matter.

Either view is acceptable from the Catholic perspective. Either view is consistent with the dogma of the IC, because the only thing that the dogma asserts is that Mary was (ever and always) united spiritually to God, from the first moment of her existence (to her death and beyond).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
This idea that Mary’s flesh, being the flesh that Christ would acquire, was created holy and new is attested to by many Eastern Fathers, among them St. Gregory Palamas. On the other hand, there are also some Eastern and Oriental Fathers who assert that Mary’s flesh, for the sake of being acquired by Christ, was transformed at the Annunciation. Brother Dvdjs, as an Eastern, would likely follow St. Palamas in the belief that God made Mary with flesh that was new. I, as an Oriental, believe that Mary’s flesh was transformed at the Annunciation.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to clarify that I did not intend to restrict the Oriental Tradition to the belief that Mary’s flesh was transformed at the Annunciation. Oriental Fathers such as St. Ephraim and St. John Damascene also taught that Mary’s flesh was holy throughout her existence.

Blessings
 
Interesting.

It seems due to Vico’s reply that with a simple change in the theological understanding behind the dogma of the assumption the controversy would cease.

I wonder why the Eastern Churches don’t adopt this position (as in, the position that Mary was ssumed bodily into Heaven BEFORE her death)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top