For ORTHODOX: Why is IC heresy?

[mardukm]

This question is only for my Orthodox brethren.

When I was Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I did not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I always thought it was a strange belief by Catholics, but I never thought to call it a heresy, and I never knew a fellow Copt who called it a heresy. To be honest, though, I knew of EO converts to Coptic Orthodoxy who did call it heresy. I’ve noticed some of you here(especially Eastern Orthodox) call it a heresy, and I sincerely do not understand your basis for making that claim. Can you please explain? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

BUMP.

 

[SIA]

This question is only for my Orthodox brethren.

When I was Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I did not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I always thought it was a strange belief by Catholics, but I never thought to call it a heresy, and I never knew a fellow Copt who called it a heresy. To be honest, though, I knew of EO converts to Coptic Orthodoxy who did call it heresy. I’ve noticed some of you here(especially Eastern Orthodox) call it a heresy, and I sincerely do not understand your basis for making that claim. Can you please explain? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Most Anglicans do not accept it for the simple reason that it is not Scriptural nor did it have the support of many of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[mardukm]

Most Anglicans do not accept it for the simple reason that it is not Scriptural nor did it have the support of many of the Early Church Fathers.

Good enough. But what makes it a “heresy.” A “heresy” is not defined by its absence in Tradition (though I would argue that the dogma of the IC is implicit in Tradition), but because of its OPPOSITION to Tradition. So why is the dogma considered “heresy”? How is it OPPOSED to the Faith of the Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SIA]

Good enough. But what makes it a “heresy.” A “heresy” is not defined by its absence in Tradition (though I would argue that the dogma of the IC is implicit in Tradition), but because of its OPPOSITION to Tradition. So why is the dogma considered “heresy”? How is it OPPOSED to the Faith of the Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, I would personally consider it heresy because it does directly oppose Scripture. The Bible clearly shows us that Jesus was the only person ever born and kept free from sin. Paul also says that ALL have fallen short of the grace of God. There are several more in Scripture too to support the idea.

 

[mardukm]

Well, I would personally consider it heresy because it does directly oppose Scripture. The Bible clearly shows us that Jesus was the only person ever born and kept free from sin. Paul also says that ALL have fallen short of the grace of God. There are several more in Scripture too to support the idea.

Thanks for your viewpoint. I already understand that. My purpose here is to ask what the Orthodox understanding is. Orthodox would not agree with your claim here. All apostolic Christians believe that Mary was sinless. I’m specifically asking what it is about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception per se that is heretical. The apostolic doctrine on the sinlessness of Mary is another matter, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Steadfast]

I would hazard the guess that one reason EO Christians reject the belief and call it heresy (those who do, not all do, of course) is because it is a relatively late belief, coming into currency after the Schism.

The earliest reference I can find is by Eadmer the great biographer of Anselm who lived and wrote at the end of the 11th century.

This would probably be why they reject it’s catholicity and say that it’s contrary to the Tradition.

I am only piping up because no EO have yet chimed in. I will yield to their presentations and look forward to learning something if I am incorrect.

 

[SIA]

Thanks for your viewpoint. I already understand that. My purpose here is to ask what the Orthodox understanding is. Orthodox would not agree with your claim here. All apostolic Christians believe that Mary was sinless. I’m specifically asking what it is about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception per se that is heretical. The apostolic doctrine on the sinlessness of Mary is another matter, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

Got ya.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Any clue as to why St. Bonaventure described the IC as “this foreign doctrine”?

And, why did Pope Sixtus IV declare the IC a feat, but not a dogma?

 

[mardukm]

Any clue as to why St. Bonaventure described the IC as “this foreign doctrine”?

IIRC, St. Bonaventure rejected the introduction of the Feast, not the doctrine.

And, why did Pope Sixtus IV declare the IC a feat, but not a dogma?

What’s a “feat”? Can you give a contextual quote? Thanks.

Anyway, can you offer any insight as to why it is considered by some EO as “heresy.” Specifically, what is it about the dogma that OPPOSES the Faith of the Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

IIRC, St. Bonaventure rejected the introduction of the Feast, not the doctrine.

What’s a “feat”? Can you give a contextual quote? Thanks.

Anyway, can you offer any insight as to why it is considered by some EO as “heresy.” Specifically, what is it about the dogma that OPPOSES the Faith of the Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

Wow, English ain’t my strong suit tonight.

I meant “feast”

 

[Roamin_Xian]

IIRC, St. Bonaventure rejected the introduction of the Feast, not the doctrine.

Well, it goes without saying that if he rejected a simple feast, he would also have rejected the introduction of a doctrine (were feasts known as ‘doctrines’ in his day?)

 

[LilyM]

Well, it goes without saying that if he rejected a simple feast, he would also have rejected the introduction of a doctrine (were feasts known as ‘doctrines’ in his day?)

Not quite correct. A feast is a day (or days) of commemoration for someone or something. The FEAST of the Immaculate Conception is August 15, that’s the day we recognise the doctrine. The two don’t automatically go together.

Things like the Divine Mercy and the Sacred Heart have feasts - their commemoration has nothing to do with dogma or doctrine, though, but with simple devotion. It isn’t a dogmatic or doctrinal requirement that we must believe in the Divine Mercy apparitions, or the Sacred Heart apparitions, for example, even though they inspired the feasts.

For another not all doctrinal matters have feasts. We don’t have a ‘feast’ where we commemorate the Church’s teaching on abortion, homosexuality or what-have-you, but these are nonetheless doctrines that must be believed.

In short, there may be dozens of reasons why whoever didn’t want a FEAST day in honour of the Immaculate Conception. That’s not to say it wasn’t true teaching, or not apostolic teaching, or that he didn’t believe Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

See a doctrine is something that has ALWAYS been true - it doesn’t become true by being formally declared, although it need not be believed before that point.

For example - there was always, from the beginning of time, a Holy Trinity, even though many early Christians didn’t believe the doctrine, and even though for hundreds of years after Christ it was NOT formally declared dogma and for probably hundreds more years wasn’t honoured with its own feast (Trinity Sunday).

 

[mardukm]

Well, it goes without saying that if he rejected a simple feast, he would also have rejected the introduction of a doctrine (were feasts known as ‘doctrines’ in his day?)

As sister Lily wrote, a Feast is a public commemoration indicating the importance of a certain matter. If St. Bonaventure did not want to introduce the Feast, at best one can conclude he did not think the Immaculate Conception was important enough to be commemorated, not that he rejected it.

This is just my opinion, but I think in the early years, a lot of people thought that the doctrine was about Mary. It took time for people to understand that the doctrine is really about Christ. It is the Christological focus of the doctrine that gives it its actual merit in the eyes of the Church, and hence its status as dogma.

In any case, I hope some of our EO brethren will participate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

So you all helped pave the way for my statement- why would Bonaventure call it a “foreign doctrine,” since obviously “doctrine” is not referring to the introduction of the feast?

 

[LilyM]

So you all helped pave the way for my statement- why would Bonaventure call it a “foreign doctrine,” since obviously “doctrine” is not referring to the introduction of the feast?

sigh - so what? Jews call the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, ‘foreign doctrines’ too. And Christianity is nothing if not completed Judaism.

So why do YOU believe in these two doctrines when Jews for 2,000 years have been calling them such - and when even some early and modern-day Christians (Oneness Pentecostals) didn’t believe in them either?

Did these doctrines become true only in the 300s or so when they were declared as universally binding belief? No. Is any Christian who didn’t hold to them BEFORE they were declared as universally binding evil or heretical or not a Christian? No again - they were as good Christians as you or I, just wrong and confused about confusing mysteries which hadn’t as yet been clarified.

So Bonaventure was wrong, and so is anyone who doesn’t recognise the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which has been truth ever since her conception. In Bonaventure’s time it was not BINDING belief, so he committed no wrong by not believing, but it was nonetheless as true as my existence is true, even though he didn’t know about my existence.

 

[mardukm]

So you all helped pave the way for my statement- why would Bonaventure call it a “foreign doctrine,” since obviously “doctrine” is not referring to the introduction of the feast?

Can you give a contextual quote or a link to the text? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

This question is only for my Orthodox brethren.

When I was Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I did not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I always thought it was a strange belief by Catholics, but I never thought to call it a heresy, and I never knew a fellow Copt who called it a heresy. To be honest, though, I knew of EO converts to Coptic Orthodoxy who did call it heresy. I’ve noticed some of you here(especially Eastern Orthodox) call it a heresy, and I sincerely do not understand your basis for making that claim. Can you please explain? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

As you know, the Orthodox proclaim that Mary lived her entire life free from sin. Orthodox hymnography is not shy to refer to Mary as “immaculate.”

The rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is due to the understanding of Original Sin that underlies it.

The Ecumenical Patriarch explains it well:
orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm,

As you know, the Orthodox proclaim that Mary lived her entire life free from sin. Orthodox hymnography is not shy to refer to Mary as “immaculate.”

The rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is due to the understanding of Original Sin that underlies it.

The Ecumenical Patriarch explains it well:
orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

Thank you so much, brother Madaglan.

If I read that link correctly, it assumed that the Latin Catholic doctrine of Original Sin teaches that man inherited Adam’s guilt. But that is NOT what the Latin Catholic doctrine teaches. Rather, that is the Latin PROTESTANT understanding of original sin.

Barring that, it does not seem there is anything that would merit assignation of the dogma of the IC as “heresy?” What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Thank you so much, brother Madaglan.

If I read that link correctly, it assumed that the Latin Catholic doctrine of Original Sin teaches that man inherited Adam’s guilt. But that is NOT what the Latin Catholic doctrine teaches. Rather, that is the Latin PROTESTANT understanding of original sin.

Barring that, it does not seem there is anything that would merit assignation of the dogma of the IC as “heresy?” What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

If a non-descript church introduced a doctrine that had neither merit in Scripture or tradition, what would people potentially call it? I am speaking in hypotheticals.

What does the doctrine of Original Sin say, then?