Do Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[Ghosty]

ChrisB: I’m impressed, you’ve really done your homework on this matter!

I’m glad you brought up St. Symeon’s work. I wanted to cite his statements on Original Sin earlier, but I couldn’t remember where exactly I had read them. I own a collection of his monastic Discourses in which he makes many similar statements, such as this one:

(From the Discourse on Repentance, section 10)

Because of him who had committed sin, we were sinners, because of the transgressor, we too were transgressors, because of the slave of sin, we ourselves became slaves of sin.

For those who don’t know St. Symeon the New Theologian, he was a prominent Byzantine monk and abbot at the turn of the first millenium.

My biggest issue with many modern Eastern Orthodox theologians (such as Meyendorff) is not that they’re completely erroneous, because in fact much of what they say is true. My biggest problem is the one ChrisB mentions, namely that an artificial barrier has been erected between Byzantine Orthodox and Catholic (specifically Latin), and that the modern Eastern Orthodox theological approach simply isn’t found in history. That in itself wouldn’t be a major problem for me, since I do believe in the development of theological perspectives, but it becomes a problem when the claim is made that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is simply the non-developed Apostolic theology, unbroken and unchanged for millenia, and that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is simply that of the Fathers and Saints. This simply isn’t the case, though modern Eastern Orthodox theology isn’t necessarily opposed to them either, and I wouldn’t claim that it is. It’s simply a development, based on a particular time and perceived need for creating artificial distance between Latin and Byzantine thought, IMO.

If it were merely resourcement, it wouldn’t be much of a concern, but it is a very narrow and selective resourcement with an agenda that goes beyond simply teaching what was taught before.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

ChrisB: I’m impressed, you’ve really done your homework on this matter!

I’m glad you brought up St. Symeon’s work. I wanted to cite his statements on Original Sin earlier, but I couldn’t remember where exactly I had read them. I own a collection of his monastic Discourses in which he makes many similar statements, such as this one:

(From the Discourse on Repentance, section 10)

For those who don’t know St. Symeon the New Theologian, he was a prominent Byzantine monk and abbot at the turn of the first millenium.

My biggest issue with many modern Eastern Orthodox theologians (such as Meyendorff) is not that they’re completely erroneous, because in fact much of what they say is true. My biggest problem is the one ChrisB mentions, namely that an artificial barrier has been erected between Byzantine Orthodox and Catholic (specifically Latin), and that the modern Eastern Orthodox theological approach simply isn’t found in history. That in itself wouldn’t be a major problem for me, since I do believe in the development of theological perspectives, but it becomes a problem when the claim is made that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is simply the non-developed Apostolic theology, unbroken and unchanged for millenia, and that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is simply that of the Fathers and Saints. This simply isn’t the case, though modern Eastern Orthodox theology isn’t necessarily opposed to them either, and I wouldn’t claim that it is. It’s simply a development, based on a particular time and perceived need for creating artificial distance between Latin and Byzantine thought, IMO.

If it were merely resourcement, it wouldn’t be much of a concern, but it is a very narrow and selective resourcement with an agenda that goes beyond simply teaching what was taught before.

Peace and God bless!

I was looking Original Sin up on the Catholic Encyclopedia and I found it to be very faithful to the early Church Councils Dogmatic Professions. It completely perplexes me why and how ‘modern’ Orthodox Apologetics go against this teaching.

Meaning of Original Sin (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Original sin may be taken to mean: (I) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the First man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor to make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: “Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.
**
The Orthodox Theologian St. Symeon:
**
In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

It all fits…

 

[jimmy]

What exactly is your point? We’re not talking about the Western resourcement movement, and I don’t see any relevance for it in this discussion. It looks like you merely want to muddy the water by bringing up possible problems in Latin approaches, rather than sticking with the topic at hand.

The resourcement of the west is the same thing as what Meyendorff and the other Russians were doing with their delatinization. The theology of the resourcement theologians has recieved a stamp of approval to a very large extent with the second Vatican council. It in no way changes the subject. I am guessing that you don’t reject de Lubac and Congar and other resourcement theologians as simply distorting the tradition. Rather it is their theology which is viewed as giving the modern theology of the west a new vitality. Yet on the other hand you seem unwilling to accept any kind of rereading of the sources of the EO. Maybe Moghilna’s Catechism doesn’t represent Byzantine Tradition in all of its theology.

I can purchase it, assuming the information isn’t available in my own books of his. What works in particular are you thinking of?

Peace and God bless!

Primarily, Ad Thallasium 61: On the Legacy of Adam’s Transgression. There are others in the same book that would be relevant to a lesser extent.

 

[Ghosty]

The resourcement of the west is the same thing as what Meyendorff and the other Russians were doing with their delatinization. The theology of the resourcement theologians has recieved a stamp of approval to a very large extent with the second Vatican council. It in no way changes the subject. I am guessing that you don’t reject de Lubac and Congar and other resourcement theologians as simply distorting the tradition. Rather it is their theology which is viewed as giving the modern theology of the west a new vitality. Yet on the other hand you seem unwilling to accept any kind of rereading of the sources of the EO. Maybe Moghilna’s Catechism doesn’t represent Byzantine Tradition in all of its theology.

It’s not at all the same thing. Theologians like Meyendorff were not trying to just “go back to the Fathers”, they were trying to create a new Byzantine theology that completely steps away from anything “Latin-like”. Given the fact that Byzantine theology was, in many crucial ways, very similar to Latin theology, this means a distortion of Byzantine tradition, and a stepping away from history and theological continuity.

Resourcement is, ideally, about going back and reading the Fathers, and using their writings to inform modern theology. It’s not about taking a modern need or ideology (anti-Latinism) and reading it back on the Fathers and Councils. If I can read Byzantine Saints and Fathers and find similarities with Latin theology, my first response should not be “let’s look for differences with Latin theology and make them into the foundation of true Byzantine theology”, but it should rather be “the Fathers and Councils of both East and West said these things, so we should take them seriously as being truly catholic”.

The Latin tradition certainly has it’s own emphasis and approach to these Catholic teachings, this Catholic Faith, and the Latin way can’t be taken to be the “true and only way to be Catholic”. At the same time, the Byzantine tradition can’t be defined by the points where it differs with Latin theology; such an approach is reactionary and detrimental to the richness of Byzantine theology. We should take Byzantine theology as an integrated whole, a truly Apostolic tradition, and not simply subtract the points where there is similarity with the Latins and call the gutted result “true Byzantine theology”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Yet on the other hand you seem unwilling to accept any kind of rereading of the sources of the EO. Maybe Moghilna’s Catechism doesn’t represent Byzantine Tradition in all of its theology.

That’s not what brother Ghosty is saying.

In any case - fine, their interpretations are legitimate. But do you seriously think the EO (at least the polemical ones) have the right - much less the authority - to claim that their myopic focus is the ONLY legitimate Tradition? Do you seriously think these folks have the right - much, much less the authority - to regard as heresy things that are so plainly contained in the general Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Finally, do you seriously think these folks have a right - much, much, much, much, much, much less the authority - to BREAK THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH thereby?

The Church or Churches should not use their canonical punitive powers to impose uniformity in theology, as distinct from what can be desigated as the constant of the deposit of faith. Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan (Armenian Apostolic Church of America)

The deposit of the faith or revealed truths is one thing, the manner in which they are formulated without violence to their meaning and significance is another. Vatican II

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

It’s not at all the same thing. Theologians like Meyendorff were not trying to just “go back to the Fathers”, they were trying to create a new Byzantine theology that completely steps away from anything “Latin-like”. Given the fact that Byzantine theology was, in many crucial ways, very similar to Latin theology, this means a distortion of Byzantine tradition, and a stepping away from history and theological continuity.

Resourcement is, ideally, about going back and reading the Fathers, and using their writings to inform modern theology. It’s not about taking a modern need or ideology (anti-Latinism) and reading it back on the Fathers and Councils. If I can read Byzantine Saints and Fathers and find similarities with Latin theology, my first response should not be “let’s look for differences with Latin theology and make them into the foundation of true Byzantine theology”, but it should rather be “the Fathers and Councils of both East and West said these things, so we should take them seriously as being truly catholic”.

The Latin tradition certainly has it’s own emphasis and approach to these Catholic teachings, this Catholic Faith, and the Latin way can’t be taken to be the “true and only way to be Catholic”. At the same time, the Byzantine tradition can’t be defined by the points where it differs with Latin theology; such an approach is reactionary and detrimental to the richness of Byzantine theology. We should take Byzantine theology as an integrated whole, a truly Apostolic tradition, and not simply subtract the points where there is similarity with the Latins and call the gutted result “true Byzantine theology”.

Peace and God bless!

Both of your points apply to the theology of Meyendorff. His books are historical studies. For example Christ in Eastern Christian Thought approaches Christology after Chalcedon by explaining the contribution of various writers and movements. He is not simply constructing his own theology. He is explaining the approach of the fathers and trying to show how all of theology is a coherent whole which is founded on our Christology. He makes this point clear.

In any case - fine, their interpretations are legitimate. But do you seriously think the EO (at least the polemical ones) have the right - much less the authority - to claim that their myopic focus is the ONLY legitimate Tradition? Do you seriously think these folks have the right - much, much less the authority - to regard as heresy things that are so plainly contained in the general Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Finally, do you seriously think these folks have a right - much, much, much, much, much, much less the authority - to BREAK THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH thereby?

No, I don’t think they have the right to claim superiority of Greek thinking but at the same time we must recognize a difference of faith when there is one. If the Orthodox don’t believe in a stain of Original Sin then we must recognize it.

You can’t blame the schism on the Orthodox alone and say they don’t have the right to break unity. Rome must take a lot of responsibility for the schism because it was Rome who claimed the authority to adjust the creed. I am not denying the blame which the Orthodox do share in their part of the schism though.

Maybe the Orthodox perspective is wrong. Ghosty is right when he emphasizes reading the sources and I have to read more of the sources before I can make a judgement on whether Meyendorff is reading the tradition accurately. But I have to trust his reading for now. And in that way chrisb makes a good contribution to the thread by showing how some Orthodox saints may have had a view of Original Sin that was more similar to the western conception.

 

[CristusRex]

The simple answer of the question making the topic is: yes. We, Eastern Catholics, must keep the Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith. When a pope or an Oecumenic Council defines a dogma, all catholics, irrespective of their particular rite, are required to adhere.

In Christ, our Lord.

 

[Sunflower15]

The simple answer of the question making the topic is: yes. We, Eastern Catholics, must keep the Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith. When a pope or an Oecumenic Council defines a dogma, all catholics, irrespective of their particular rite, are required to adhere.

In Christ, our Lord.

This makes sense. Does anyone know how many rites exist in the Catholic church? I haven’t been able to find a source online. I believe there are over twenty, if I’m not mistaken, but do not know the exact figure. Just out of curiosity…I think this is something many on this side of the world simply don’t know about.

Are you Catholic in Israel? What rite?

 

[jimmy]

After reading a little more of Maximus I need to adjust my statements regarding Maximus. Maximus viewed all passions as a corruption. Human nature was created without the passions. Through Adam’s sin human nature becomes corrupted by the passions. As a result of the passions death is imposed to counteract the passions. Through death man may be saved (it is not about divine punishment). The passions are handed on through conception because of the sexual passion. Through Christ’s Incarnation and irrational death the passions of human nature are destroyed. Christ’s death is irrational because He was not subject to the passions. Because His death was not due to the passions it became a condemnation of the passions.

It should be pointed out that Maximus does not believe in a pure nature. Man was created for an end and his human nature naturally drives him towards that end. The passions prevent him from reaching his end though. At the same time it should be pointed out that he doesn’t speak of an eternal condemnation of man. The passions have arisen in man and death is the condemnation which is meant to counteract it.

So Maximus’ view may be a little more similar to that of the west. But at the same time it should not be stated that they are the same because it really is not that simple.

 

[CristusRex]

Does anyone know how many rites exist in the Catholic church? (…)Are you Catholic in Israel? What rite?

1. There are 6 families of rites in our Holy Church (it is better to learn them as families). There are the following:
   -latin, with the following particulars: Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Anglican

• a special group of latin rites are those rites proper to the institution of consacred life having the right to have an own rite: dominicans, carmelites, carthusians, cistercians.

-rites of Alexandrin descendence: coptic and ethiopian

-rites of Antiochian descendence: marronites, syrians, syro-malankarians (in India)

-armenian rite

-chaldean rites, with two brances: chaldean and syro-malabrese

-rites of Constantinopolitan descendence: here we are, the greek-catholics from Romania, among other 11 family members (I will nominate them upon request)

All these rites have in common their faith and the recognition of our Holy Father as the supreme pastor on earth of the Church of God.

1. I live in Romania. I am a greek-catholic (contemplating a switch to the latin rite).

 

[Ghosty]

So Maximus’ view may be a little more similar to that of the west. But at the same time it should not be stated that they are the same because it really is not that simple.

I would tend to agree completely with your re-assesment. It fits what I’ve come to understand from St. Maximos’ writings, and I agree that it’s not quite what one finds in the West. On the other hand it’s not really opposed, either, and in fact it bears a striking resemblence to, of all people, St. Augustine who emphasized that we aquire concupiscence (irregular passions) because we are conceived by irregular passion. It’s also important for everyone to remember that at no time did St. Maximos hold the station and prominence in the East that St. Augustine held in the West, so his views were actually less influential over all.

The irony is that St. Maximos is actually fairly close to St. Augustine, while the Latin West tends to follow more along the lines of St. Athanasius (the absence of Grace due to Adam’s sin, and us “falling” to our purely material foundation, hence death and irrational passions). This isn’t to say, however, that St. Maximos and St. Augustine line up exactly, just to say that in this particular case they hold very similar, if not identical views on the transmission of Original Sin.

This also highlights why I am critical of Meyendorff’s approach (and really not just his, but all modern theologians who take the same tactic, East and West). I believe a frank look at St. Maximos will not lead to the conclusions that Meyendorff espouses, and even if they did they can’t be said to totally represent Eastern thinking, or even Byzantine thinking. This is the danger of us taking a modern need or ideology and reading it back onto the Fathers, something we’re all capable of, and something everyone does at some point if only a little bit and for a short time. It’s what lead many Reformers to consider St. Augustine a Protestant and not a Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dixibehr]

1. I live in Romania. I am a greek-catholic (contemplating a switch to the latin rite).<<

Why on earth would you want to do that?

 

[jimmy]

I would tend to agree completely with your re-assesment. It fits what I’ve come to understand from St. Maximos’ writings, and I agree that it’s not quite what one finds in the West. On the other hand it’s not really opposed, either, and in fact it bears a striking resemblence to, of all people, St. Augustine who emphasized that we aquire concupiscence (irregular passions) because we are conceived by irregular passion. It’s also important for everyone to remember that at no time did St. Maximos hold the station and prominence in the East that St. Augustine held in the West, so his views were actually less influential over all.

The irony is that St. Maximos is actually fairly close to St. Augustine, while the Latin West tends to follow more along the lines of St. Athanasius (the absence of Grace due to Adam’s sin, and us “falling” to our purely material foundation, hence death and irrational passions). This isn’t to say, however, that St. Maximos and St. Augustine line up exactly, just to say that in this particular case they hold very similar, if not identical views on the transmission of Original Sin.

This also highlights why I am critical of Meyendorff’s approach (and really not just his, but all modern theologians who take the same tactic, East and West). I believe a frank look at St. Maximos will not lead to the conclusions that Meyendorff espouses, and even if they did they can’t be said to totally represent Eastern thinking, or even Byzantine thinking. This is the danger of us taking a modern need or ideology and reading it back onto the Fathers, something we’re all capable of, and something everyone does at some point if only a little bit and for a short time. It’s what lead many Reformers to consider St. Augustine a Protestant and not a Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, I noticed the similarity to St. Augustine on that aspect and some other aspects of what he says. But Augustine’s view of OS seems to be a little more harsh.

Augustine is difficult to interpret because at times he emphasizes a very strong sense of predestination and Calvinism seems to come to mind like in his anti-pelagian writings. At other times he emphasizes the use of free will like in his treasise On Free Will. But it is rediculous for anyone to say he was a protestant.

 

[CristusRex]

My greek-catholic church is moving fast to separation from the catholic faith. They feel closer to the oriental schismatics than to our latin brothers. For example, the fact that there may be eastern catholics to put in doubt the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is symptomatic.
Other reasons have their ponder, but the catholicity of the Eastern Catholic Church is my main point.

 

[Cantor_Basil]

I see the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as a teaching of the first millenium church of the East (that Mary is pan-aghia) received by the Western Church in the second millenium after centuries of disputation and wrapped in an overlay of Western theology that is alien to us. The passion to dogmatize through papal ex-cathedra pronouncements is also Western.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is never a legitimate reason to doubt the Catholicity of your Eastern Church, simply because your Eastern Church expresses herself differently from her Latin sibling. The Catholicity of the Catholic Eastern ChurchES are not in question.

The Latin scholastic term ‘Immaculate Conception’ could be questioned by your Eastern Church legitimately, but the faith expressed - that the Mother of God, by God’s grace, is all-holy.

From a comment from an article in OrthodoxyToday:

Matthew Steenberg he is teaching Orthodox Patristics at Oxford and had summed things up quite well in another discussion of this nature.

Dear all,

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of ‘original sin’ as centred in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this ‘congenital defect’ that the Virgin’s lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer ‘like me’ in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary’s person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was ‘protected from sin’ from ‘before her birth’, specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn’t sin, but that she couldn’t sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well — often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary’s holy birth and sinless life — which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy ‘has no doctrine of original sin’. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC.

INXC, Matthew

 

[marymol]

My greek-catholic church is moving fast to separation from the catholic faith. They feel closer to the oriental schismatics than to our latin brothers. For example, the fact that there may be eastern catholics to put in doubt the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is symptomatic.
Other reasons have their ponder, but the catholicity of the Eastern Catholic Church is my main point.

This is troubling to read - esp. if the reason for the division is the beautiful Dogma of the Immaculate Conception !

The biblical verses of ’ can anything good come from Galilea !’ and ’ we played the flute for you but you would not dance , we played the dirge but you would not mourn ’ - are what come to mind and respectively the former for the celebration of the commonly held beliefs on purity and special place of our bl.Mother whereas the need to return to unity , in Fatima , in the latter !

It was to 14 year old uneducated St.Bernadette that the Bl.Mother spoke to and revealed herself as the Immaculate Conception, in Lourdes !

Is the message getting too complicated the hands of the learned and the wise and thus inducing unnecessary fear among the faithful !

Is the truth of the Immaculate Conception not as simple as the fact that God was sparing our bl.Mother from any claims of satan , brought on by the invitation of our first parents through their lack of trust in a Good Father !

As the New Eve , Bl.Mother was entiteld to the privilge of the same sinless beginning , with no claims from satan , as the first Eve !

She too had to make choices - of choosing to trust or not !

Yet, it is easy to see the much greater and prolonged extent of her challenge , in comparison to what the first Eve had to !

And we are shown episode after episode of her trust in God and His goodness - even in the midst of - well , we have been told !

By inviting us to gratefully accept the Dogma of Immculate Conception ,is not our Lord , through that Mother asking us too , to trust in Him !

Trusting in Him enough to let the old wounds to be washed off , to help to make 'all things new ’ .

Is it providential that the Syro Malabar Church has the Cathedral Church of Our Lady of Lourdes , given from the Latin Church, for one of its first dioceses !

Was that humility to not reject such a gift pleasing to The Lord and has led to the subsequent good growth of The S.M Church !

Even the Miraculous Medal - there was a time when many Catholic children in the S.M would have the medal on and God alone knows how much protection was given through this aid , in the midst of snake and poisonous infestations ,even in the other area of graces , such as preservation of faith and of warm hearts ( having read on another thread here of some heartless attitudes among those whom we do not expect such , may be the M.Medals with its Sacred Heart emblem is a necessity indeed -for all ! )

In the Old Testament , we have been given a glimpse of the mysterious Urim and Thummim, worn on the breastplate by the priests and imparting to them the discering to choose between good and bad .

In these times of ours , having foreseen our needs ahead , if our Lord has chosen to bless us with the grace to trust …and trust , in His Church , The Pope, the Immaculate Bl.Mother - may we be very grateful !

 

[mardukm]

I just accidentally found this website by a Byzantine Catholic while researching the topic of original sin:

geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5743/barton1.html

I hope it helps.

Blessings

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I love thy, Immaculate Conception.

 

[Sunflower15]

I have to say that it is a joy for me to read these posts, because even though every tradition venerates Our Lady differently and with different terminology, it is obvious to notice the reverence and the deep affection we all share.

Sometimes, when speaking with my Evangelical friends, it hurts to notice that she is not special to them. Just another mere mortal. Maybe so, but quite special in her own way to us.

I cannot imagine living without knowing her love and protection. I would feel orphaned!

Besides, praying with her always leads me to a deeper understanding and perception of her beloved son. Just as one can hardly have a 5 min conversation with a mother who lives for her children, without her mentioning them, so it is with her and her Son.