Catholic dogma and the Oriental Tradition

[Vico]

This post is not a response to any particular comment.

Besides the many requests for definition to the Holy See from the Catholic bishops, at least three things back the Immaculate Conception dogma, both scripture and tradition:

Luke 1:28: And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)”. Uttered by the Angel prior to Mary’s acceptance and also that kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle meaning a state of being graced (highly favored) prior to angel’s greeting (i.e. before the Annunciation).

The early Eastern Church began and continues to celebrate the feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary (i.e., the pregnancy of Saint Anne) as extraordinary. This was also adopted in the Latin Church.

The Immaculate state is expressed by the Fathers of the Church with the parallel of Eve and Mary (Irenaeus of Lyons), and generally in Marian titles: “holy”, “innocent”, “most pure”, “intact”, “immaculate” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Ephraem of Syria, Ambrose of Milan) and Mary free from original sin (Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Normandy).

 

[Mickey]

Luke 1:28: And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)”. Uttered by the Angel prior to Mary’s acceptance and also that kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle meaning a state of being graced (highly favored) prior to angel’s greeting (i.e. before the Annunciation).).

An appropriate definition of “kecharitomene” might be “ever graced”. But that does not support the Latin doctrine of IC.

The early Eastern Church began and continues to celebrate the feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary.

Amen. But not the IC

The Immaculate state is expressed by the Fathers of the Church with the parallel of Eve and Mary (Irenaeus of Lyons), and generally in Marian titles: “holy”, “innocent”, “most pure”, “intact”, “immaculate” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Ephraem of Syria, Ambrose of Milan) and Mary free from original sin (Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Normandy).

None of those beautiful titles for Our Lady are synonymous with the 19th century doctrine of IC.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

An appropriate definition of “kecharitomene” might be “ever graced”. But that does not support the Latin doctrine of IC.
Amen. But not the IC

None of those beautiful titles for Our Lady are synonymous with the 19th century doctrine of IC.

Mickey, you are not a theologian. Thanks for trying.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, you are not a theologian.

Oh my! I would never profess to be a theologian. No one here is a theologian.

I know of three theologians–St John the Theologian (the Apostle), St Gregory the Theologian, and St Symeon the New Theologian.

Have a great day!

 

[Vico]

An appropriate definition of “kecharitomene” might be “ever graced”. But that does not support the Latin doctrine of IC.
Amen. But not the IC

None of those beautiful titles for Our Lady are synonymous with the 19th century doctrine of IC.

I respect your opinion and your right to it. I am not trying to prove the Immaculate Conception dogma to you, rather showing what it was based upon, and in fact Luke 1:28 is the strongest scriptural reference given for it in Ineffabilis Deus.

There is also a good homily on the Immaculate Conception by His Holiness Pope John Paul II that begins with that reference.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20041208_immaculate-conception_en.html

 

[Mickey]

I respect your opinion and your right to it. I am not trying to prove the Immaculate Conception dogma to you, rather showing what it was based upon, and in fact Luke 1:28 is the strongest scriptural reference given for it in Ineffabilis Deus.

I understand where you are coming from Vico—and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. But I do not see Scriptural evidence for the IC in Luke 1:28.

There is also a good homily on the Immaculate Conception by His Holiness Pope John Paul II that begins with that reference.

I would not expect JP2 to give a homily disproving the IC.

I always liked JP2—he was a good man.

 

[Vico]

I understand where you are coming from Vico—and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. But I do not see Scriptural evidence for the IC in Luke 1:28.
I would not expect JP2 to give a homily disproving the IC.

I always liked JP2—he was a good man.

Certainly there is no direct reference to the Immaculate Conception in Luke 1:28. In the testimony of the early Church Fathers two ideas are insisted upon: Virgin Mary’s absolute purity, and being the second Eve. What we see today in the Immaculate Conception dogma is not based upon direct scriptural reference but upon several factors combined. As a result I can see why it is not universally accepted.

It is misunderstood sometimes, I think, because of two things, the definition of “the stain of original sin”, the meaning of conception, and the rejection of Semipelagianism.

From ancestral sin comes both physical and spiritual death. The Latin term original sin is Adam and Eve’s personal fault.
The stain of original sin is the spiritual effects of Adam and Eve’s personal fault, on each person: lack of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (resulting in unjust behavior thus blocking theosis).
The physical effects of original sin are: sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. (These are not removed by the restoration of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as in baptism, or in the preservation from the stain of original sin.

The Immaculate Conception dogma does not say that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin Mary immaculately like Jesus was.

Contrary to semi-pelagianism (which was rejected at the second Council of Orange), the beginning of faith is not an act of free will.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Oh my! I would never profess to be a theologian. No one here is a theologian.

I know of three theologians–St John the Theologian (the Apostle), St Gregory the Theologian, and St Symeon the New Theologian.

Have a great day!

Thank you for that clarification.

I was only making these observations based upon your erroneous claim stating that the Blessed Virgin was not immaculately conceived (She is). Not that all theologians are perfect, but some are better than others. :bible1:
Take care.

 

[Mickey]

I was only making these observations based upon your erroneous claim…

You are welcome to believe that my claims are erroneous. You are not a theologian either.

 

[Mickey]

Certainly there is no direct reference to the Immaculate Conception in Luke 1:28.

Of course not.

As a result I can see why it is not universally accepted.

I would say that the the Church Fathers never proposed such a doctrine as set forth by Pius IX in the 19th century. I cannot understand why Rome felt the need to do this.

The Immaculate Conception dogma does not say that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin Mary immaculately like Jesus was.

Most Roman Catholics think that the IC refers to Jesus Christ’s conception and/or birth.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You are not a theologian either.

Thankfully, that is a responsibility I am not willing to take on.

 

[Mickey]

Thankfully, that is a responsibility I am not willing to take on.

Thankfully indeed.

 

[Gregory_I]

OK Children, am I gonna have to separate you two?:byzsoc:

 

[Vico]

Of course not.

I would say that the the Church Fathers never proposed such a doctrine as set forth by Pius IX in the 19th century. I cannot understand why Rome felt the need to do this.

Most Roman Catholics think that the IC refers to Jesus Christ’s conception and/or birth.

At that time (1854) there was a need to counter semi-pelagianism and pelagianism (Rousseau). Also it was near the time of the 1830 Paris apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma was made formal only after Pius IX asked the bishops what they thought of it.

But the feast of Mary’s Conception was celebrated starting 1140 when it was introduced by the Chapter of Canons at the Cathedral of Lyons. Later on, at the time of Franciscan William of Ware and Duns Scotus (died in 1308), a positive expression of the dogma of I.C. was worked out, but it was against the opinions of the Dominicans that liked the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ against immaculate conception. It becamse “immaculists” vs. “maculists”. Later The Council of Basel (1431-1449) formally proposed the dogma, but that session (number 36) was not approved. Eventually Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1494), allowed the feast to be celebrated in the curia, but not in general, and stated that neither acceptance nor rejection of the dogma was herecy. But you can see that the Conceptionists order began in 1484 (by St. Beatrice de Silva of Toledo after having a vision of the Virgin Mary), so this seems to be a key era.

Subsequently the Council of Trent made no modification to Pope Sixtus IV’s statement. The apparitions in 1830 of the Blessed Virgin Mary (to St. Catherine Labouré) may have had a great effect on bringing the bishops to approve a definition of the dogma.

That seems strange to me to say that Catholics think the I.C. is about the Annunciation. Maybe some did not pay attention in class or to the homilies. As a Catholic (Latin and Greek catechesis), I was taught these things concerning the Virgin Mary (all have feasts so we hear homilies):

1. Immaculate Conception (age 0) - conception of the Virgin Mary (feast of I.C. of B.V.M. or Conception of St. Anne).
2. Presentation of Virgin Mary (before puberty) (feast of presentation of BVM or entry of Theotokos in the temple)
3. Annunciation (age ~14) - conception of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary (feast of annunciation).
4. Visitation of Virgin Mary with Elizabeth (age ~14) (Luke 1:39-56) - St. John the Baptist leaps at arrival of Lord Jesus incarnate in the Virgin Mary (feast of the visitation).
5. Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ (age ~15) - birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, miraculously with physical integrity of Virgin Mary. (feast of the nativity).
6. Presentation (age ~15) (Luke 2:22) - Virgin Mary presents the Lord Jesus Christ in the temple at her ritual purification - St. Simeon professes of Christ and sword of sorrow (feast of the presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Latin a.k.a. Candelmas)
7. Pentecost (age ~48) (Acts 1:14) - Virgin Mary receives the Holy Spirit with the Apostles (feast of pentecost).
8. Dormition and Assumption - dormition followed by assumption of the Virgin Mary (feast of dormition and assumption).

 

[Mickey]

At that time (1854) there was a need to counter semi-pelagianism and pelagianism (Rousseau). Also it was near the time of the 1830 Paris apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma was made formal only after Pius IX asked the bishops what they thought of it.

But the feast of Mary’s Conception was celebrated starting 1140 when it was introduced by the Chapter of Canons at the Cathedral of Lyons. Later on, at the time of Franciscan William of Ware and Duns Scotus (died in 1308), a positive expression of the dogma of I.C. was worked out, but it was against the opinions of the Dominicans that liked the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ against immaculate conception. It becamse “immaculists” vs. “maculists”. Later The Council of Basel (1431-1449) formally proposed the dogma, but that session (number 36) was not approved. Eventually Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1494), allowed the feast to be celebrated in the curia, but not in general, and stated that neither acceptance nor rejection of the dogma was herecy. But you can see that the Conceptionists order began in 1484 (by St. Beatrice de Silva of Toledo after having a vision of the Virgin Mary), so this seems to be a key era.

The Orthodox continue to celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna. It is not the IC and it never was. As your own research shows, there was much infighting over this new doctrine. The Dominicans vs the Franciscans—Aquinas and Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, etc…

 

[Mickey]

That seems strange to me to say that Catholics think the I.C. is about the Annunciation. Maybe some did not pay attention in class or to the homilies. As a Catholic (Latin and Greek catechesis), I was taught these things concerning the Virgin Mary (all have feasts so we hear homilies):

It is merely my experience when I was in communion with Rome. Do your own poll. Go to the streets and asks random Roman Catholics to explain the IC. I’d be curious to hear the results.

 

[crazzeto]

The Orthodox continue to celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna. It is not the IC and it never was. As your own research shows, there was much infighting over this new doctrine. The Dominicans vs the Franciscans—Aquinas and Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, etc…

There was much infighting with regards to many of the doctrines all Christians accept universally. There was more deadly infighting over whether or not Jesus was God at all than there was over the I.C. However the Lord sent the Blessed Virgin several times to get the record straight, we finally did.

 

[Mickey]

There was much infighting with regards to many of the doctrines all Christians accept universally.

Early disagreements were hashed out through the early great Ecumenical Councils–when the Church was one. The IC was a unique situation.

 

[crazzeto]

Early disagreements were hashed out through the early great Ecumenical Councils–when the Church was one. The IC was a unique situation.

Not so much

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

It is merely my experience when I was in communion with Rome. Do your own poll. Go to the streets and asks random Roman Catholics to explain the IC. I’d be curious to hear the results.

These kind of facts are a sad reality, but we can’t left them influence what is actually taught. For example, in my experience dealing with Orthodox Christians, very very very few actually consider confession necessary and don’t feel obligated to go to Mass. I’ve only met two real EO Christians (aside from online) that share any love for the Sacraments. In fact, I’ll be the first too say that while I was growing up when I heard IC, I thought of Jesus’ birth.