Marian Teachings in East and West

[Elijahmaria]

I believe this rash of Marian dogmas in the last 150 years from the RC Church is because of the heresies the anti-Catholic rhetoric of the Protestants. This is not a problem in the East as much as it is a problem in the West.

Against enlightenment thinking and modernism. Yes.

 

[malphono]

FWIW, I don’t see why the dogma was necessary either. I believe it 100%, but it doesn’t seem to fit with the other things that are necessary to the Faith. It is a fact, like, my date of birth, but I don’t understand why a fact must be a dogma.

I emphasize, however, that I do think it is a fact, and it is a truth worth defending regardless of dogmatic status. There was a time when many EOs felt the same way, too.
Elijahmaria;8683856:

And the timing was driven by the advance of modernism among the people and even its influence within the Church’s clergy, monastics and hierarchy.

While I pretty much agree with Ghosty, I have to say (NB to the folks who are going to slam me for saying this, don’t bother: I will not engage in an argument) that the “timing” was likely driven more by the rise of Garibaldi and the impending peril of the Papal States than by anything else.

 

[malphono]

FWIW, I don’t see why the dogma was necessary either. I believe it 100%, but it doesn’t seem to fit with the other things that are necessary to the Faith. It is a fact, like, my date of birth, but I don’t understand why a fact must be a dogma.

I emphasize, however, that I do think it is a fact, and it is a truth worth defending regardless of dogmatic status. There was a time when many EOs felt the same way, too.

And the timing was driven by the advance of modernism among the people and even its influence within the Church’s clergy, monastics and hierarchy.

While I pretty much agree with Ghosty, I have to say (NB to the folks who are going to slam me for saying this, don’t bother: I will not engage in an argument) that the “timing” was likely driven more by the rise of Garibaldi and the impending peril of the Papal States than by anything else.

 

[Elijahmaria]

While I pretty much agree with Ghosty, I have to say (NB to the folks who are going to slam me for saying this, don’t bother: I will not engage in an argument) that the “timing” was likely driven more by the rise of Garibaldi and the impending peril of the Papal States than by anything else.

Are politics not derivative of the thinking of the age?

There is a clear danger in turning every religious act into a political one.

Nothing is ever quite so monocausal.

 

[Cavaradossi]

While I pretty much agree with Ghosty, I have to say (NB to the folks who are going to slam me for saying this, don’t bother: I will not engage in an argument) that the “timing” was likely driven more by the rise of Garibaldi and the impending peril of the Papal States than by anything else.

Unfortunately, I fear that you might be correct.

 

[Mickey]

So I don’t think I can manage to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Fine. I am not there yet. Am I any less a Catholic? Am I doomed and damned?..NO!..As long as I say to my Church: OK I accept that you have said this is true. I am not going to argue with you. I will pray for insight and for my doubt to be healed. Pray for me.

For me…I honor and venerate Our Lady. I pray for her intercession to Christ our God. I have countless Icons of the Mother of God. I visit her myrrh streaming Icons whenever possible and I have some of the holy myrrh at my home for anointing. I understand that she is sinless, all-holy, immaculate and undefiled. I see her as the greatest ascetic and she is a glorious example for all mankind in the battle against the passions and the attainment of the virtues by the grace of God.

My Church does not ask me to believe she was conceived without original (ancestral) sin…and I am fine with that.

Peace and prayers to you and yours.
Please pray for this sinner.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Against enlightenment thinking and modernism. Yes.

Well, we have a lot of these, “Mary wasn’t a virgin after the birth of Christ”, “Mary had other children,” “Mary is not important,” etc. From an Eastern view it does not make sense to dogmatize these things, but in the West they have to put up with these since the Reformation, and its not stopping anytime soon. Its a message to RCs that they cannot adopt heretical ideas against Mary, so the need to make them into dogma and tell them its required belief.

 

[Formosus]

I see why the IC was dogmatized, I just wish it had been done in a way to make it more easily acceptable to both Western and Eastern theologies. But I suppose a Council or a Pope are products of their time.

 

[MrPip]

I regret that I have nothing of a substantive nature to contribute to this thread, but I would like to say this: many, many, many thanks to all who have contributed to an extremely interesting and informative discussion! And many thanks, too, to CAF for establishing ground rules for behavior here that make the discussion civilized and non-contentious. What a wonderful breath of fresh air!!

God bless you all!!

Jeff

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see why the IC was dogmatized, I just wish it had been done in a way to make it more easily acceptable to both Western and Eastern theologies. But I suppose a Council or a Pope are products of their time.

Indeed. What can you expect, the East wasn’t represented in a way similar to the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Vico]

Furthermore, what does belief in the Immaculate Conception have to do with salvation? How can not believing in the IC endanger the soul? What was the need for it to be proclaimed as a dogma?

The Immaculate Conception dogma is that: God let Mary share beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by his death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception.

If the Cross itself is made possible only through Mary’s consent, then denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception makes our salvation dependent on the power of consent of one creature Mary. So denial of this dogma leads to Pelagianism, and salvation hinges on a human work!

At the time of the promulgation of the dogma it was considered to be a counter to Pelagianism (also semi-Pelagianism).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Against enlightenment thinking and modernism. Yes.

You don’t need to dogmatize against non-Christian rhetorics. The distinction is clear, if one is convinced by the non-Christian arguments, then one simply doesn’t believe in Christianity at all. But with non-Catholic Christian rhetoric, there is a chance a lot of the faithful may be pulled into belief they think is Christian. Similar with Arianism.

 

[Aramis]

You don’t need to dogmatize against non-Christian rhetorics. The distinction is clear, if one is convinced by the non-Christian arguments, then one simply doesn’t believe in Christianity at all. But with non-Catholic Christian rhetoric, there is a chance a lot of the faithful may be pulled into belief they think is Christian. Similar with Arianism.

And with Pelagianism. Which said, the Council of Carthage defined, and that all are born afflicted by/because-of Adam’s sin. Pelagianism is nothing more, really, than denial of the fallen state of mankind.

Caution must be taken in the East to not dip into Pelagianism when examining orginal sin/ancestral sin.

It was determined by this synod in may of 418, and subsequently ratified by pope Innocent I, that (Synopsis) * Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.

• New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
• Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
• The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
• Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
• Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
• The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
• The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
• Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.

(newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm)

The Orthodox do not (usually) reject the coucils of Carthage… and they establish a lot of important elements of the faith. That we are damaged (stained) by Adams sin is one of the canons.

Even limbo was nixed by this council almost 1600 years ago.

Given their definitions, then, the immaculate conception - being born already indwelt with/by the Holy Spirit, was essential for Mary to be sinless. As a generality, the Orthodox don’t deny her lack of voluntary sin; most protestants do, and so the Immaculate Conception as dogma is essential to combatting neopelagianism arising in protestantism.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, we have a lot of these, “Mary wasn’t a virgin after the birth of Christ”, “Mary had other children,” “Mary is not important,” etc. From an Eastern view it does not make sense to dogmatize these things, but in the West they have to put up with these since the Reformation, and its not stopping anytime soon. Its a message to RCs that they cannot adopt heretical ideas against Mary, so the need to make them into dogma and tell them its required belief.

Just to be clear: in the East, Mary as ever Virgin is certainly required dogmatic, required belief.

 

[dvdjs]

FWIW, I don’t see why the dogma was necessary either. I believe it 100%, but it doesn’t seem to fit with the other things that are necessary to the Faith. It is a fact, like, my date of birth, but I don’t understand why a fact must be a dogma.

Just my thought. The theological discussions of over a millenium introduced all kinds of thinking on quickening, ensoulment, etc. The proclamation of the IC put an end to this speculation. We recognized her, in the fullness of her being from the moment of conception, and thus also for all of human beings. We received this idea and had a century to digest it, before being called to lead a fight again the scourge that came soon after. The Spirit blows where it will.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just to be clear: in the East, Mary as ever Virgin is certainly required dogmatic, required belief.

Definitely. We just didn’t need to make pronouncements to familiarize an already accepted fact. I know many Easterners complain about why the West had to dogmatically define something that has already been believed in. The answer of course is what we have been discussing.

 

[dvdjs]

Definitely. We just didn’t need to make pronouncements to familiarize an already accepted fact. I know many Easterners complain about why the West had to dogmatically define something that has already been believed in. The answer of course is what we have been discussing.

I think that we were familiar with and already accepted as fact, things that are pronounced. Mary is pronounced as ever-virgin repeatedly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that we were familiar with and already accepted as fact, things that are pronounced. Mary is pronounced as ever-virgin repeatedly.

Sorry, I meant “formalize”
I was tired last night

 

[Evan]

Definitely. We just didn’t need to make pronouncements to [formalize] an already accepted fact. I know many Easterners complain about why the West had to dogmatically define something that has already been believed in. The answer of course is what we have been discussing.

Typically, a doctrine is formalized to a dogma when a previously accepted fact is attacked and is introducing doubt inside the Church. In this way, the doubt may be discarded and the faith is protected.

 

[Elijahmaria]

You don’t need to dogmatize against non-Christian rhetorics. The distinction is clear, if one is convinced by the non-Christian arguments, then one simply doesn’t believe in Christianity at all. But with non-Catholic Christian rhetoric, there is a chance a lot of the faithful may be pulled into belief they think is Christian. Similar with Arianism.

I believe that I mentioned that enlightement thinking and modernism had an impact on clergy and bishops and monastics in the Church and that in turn had an impact on how they viewed the Mother of God and spoke of her with reference to Jesus Christ, and the Church and the communion of saints, etc. The apostolic constitution was meant to restore the Mother of God to her rightful glory as Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Woman, New Eve.