Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[Ubenedictus]

Gary Taylor gave us the correct wording first among equals. Forgive me if I mispoke when I was referencing as to the writings of all ECF’s writings and the bishop of Rome writings as being equal so as to implicate the Chair of Peter as being primacy united to his brethren to proclaim doctrine “excathedra” from the Chair of Peter as infallible to be without error proves the doctrine of the assumption unites all the ECF’s to the Chair of Peter in the Popes who is the bishop of Rome.

True the pope decleared excathedra on the doctrine of assumption after it had been settle by his brothers, but are you asserting that unless he has consorted with his brothers he is not infalliable?
Ubenedictus

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

True the pope decleared excathedra on the doctrine of assumption after it had been settle by his brothers, but are you asserting that unless he has consorted with his brothers he is not infalliable?
Ubenedictus

Hello Ubenedictus you raise an interesting subject here in regards to the letters of the Pope and other Church Fathers as regards to “infallibility”.

The Pope alone can speak “excathedra” from the chair of Peter “infallibly” according to the faith and morals. Another case which grants “infallibility” is when the magisterium united to the Pope can also teach “infallibly” according to the faith and moral teachings of the Church. Which we have in the document of the Assumption, which finds the Pope and his brethren in one mind of Christ teaching on the assumption of Mary.

The letters by themselves are not infallible, including the popes. The proclamation made by the Pope united with his brethren is the “infallible” teaching of the assumption. The letters that preclude the infallable statement, give support and witness to the concluding infallible statement on the Assumption of Mary.

History proves a 40 year old dead Pope Honorius was declared a heretic, because his personal letters addressed his Eastern brethren which proved to have heretical Monothelism leanings, while the Patriarch of Constaninople Serguis was teaching heresy in Monothelism (Christ had only one will).

But this 40 year dead Pope never declared publicly Monothelism as a teaching held by the Catholic Church nor did this dead pope ever declare Monothelism infallibly by proclamation or council of his brethren united to him. But he was declared a heretic via his personal letters, after he was dead for 40 years.

My point to all this is; although the Pope includes his letter supporting the assumption in the document along with all the other Church Fathers with varying views which do not conflict with the teaching of the assumption of Mary. None of these letters by themselves ever declare “infallibly” the teaching of the assumption of Mary.

It is not until the conclusion of the document which declares “infallibly” the teaching of the assumption of Mary followed by an “anathema”.

If the Popes letter alone was mistakenly to be taken “infallibly”? then his letter would be in direct conflict with some of the Early Church Fathers teachings in regards to the assumption.

The document clearly defines “infallibly” the assumption of Mary in definition which unites the Pope and all the teachings of the Early Church Fathers on the assumption.

The infallibly proclaimed statement on the assmption, allows freedom for the laity and theologians alike to ponder this great mystery in faith with protection from entering error.

Peace be with you