Marian Teachings in East and West

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Wrong. It does not fall into the concept of ‘‘Orthodox’’ theology. You are not Orthodox you are Catholic. Holding to Orthodox theology and traditions does not mean holding to Orthodox heresy.

**
“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446). **

**
“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733). **

I’m interested in seeing a magisterial document that explains how Eastern Christians are ‘‘free’’ to reject the immaculate conception? Otherwise I am not interested in ‘‘it does not fit into our idea of original sin’’.

And shame be on us Eastern Catholics who do reject the immaculate conception and do not celebrate it. It is a Dogma of the faith. and anyone who rejects the Immaculate Conception has most certainly fallen into heresy and is not in communion with Rome at all.

Eastern Christians are not cafeteria Catholics. And there certainly is no picky choosy in my household.

Just to add my two pesos to the conversation, I would simply say that it’s not that we Eastern Catholics don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. It’s just that we express it differently from the Latin West. Actually, Fr. John Meyendorff himself said that Eastern piety most likely would’ve embraced the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had it not been defined without their presence and/or consent.

So although we Eastern Catholics don’t tend to speak of Mary as being immaculately conceived, we do revere her as “all holy, all blameless, most highly blessed, and glorious Lady,” and we do refer to her as “spotless” and “immaculate.” So while we may not express it in the same way as the Latin West, we certainly do believe in the same fundamental reality of the sinlessness of the Theotokos.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wrong. It does not fall into the concept of ‘‘Orthodox’’ theology. You are not Orthodox you are Catholic. Holding to Orthodox theology and traditions does not mean holding to Orthodox heresy.

There is nothing heretical about the Eastern understanding of the Fall. Can you point me to the Pope or council that condemned such belief as heretical? If there is nothing, then it is not heretical.

**
“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446). **

**
“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733). **

Sounds right, but you are interpreting this with “Immaculate Conception” tatooed in your mind. We believe Mary to be sinless and pure her whole life, but we do not have a concept of Original Sin and therefore there is nothing to exempt Mary from which would necessitate a concept of the Immaculate Conception.

I’m interested in seeing a magisterial document that explains how Eastern Christians are ‘‘free’’ to reject the immaculate conception? Otherwise I am not interested in ‘‘it does not fit into our idea of original sin’’.

First, provide a magisterial document that claims the Eastern theology of the Fall is heretical. If no Pope or Council has condemned our beliefs, then we have every right to keep them.

And shame be on us Eastern Catholics who do reject the immaculate conception and do not celebrate it. It is a Dogma of the faith. and anyone who rejects the Immaculate Conception has most certainly fallen into heresy and is not in communion with Rome at all.

We celebrate the “Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne” on December 9th, the traditional date. We do not reject Rome’s teaching on the Immaculate conception, it just does not fit our own theology. We believe it to be the right teaching for the theology of the West.

Eastern Christians are not cafeteria Catholics. And there certainly is no picky choosy in my household.

Definitely, we accept everything that has been passed down to us by the Church Fathers and the Fathers of our own sui juris Church. We have a right to keep our own traditions and not blindly accept the traditions of another sui juris.

In fact, there are more cafeteria Catholics from Latins who seem so overly concerned with what is de fide and what is not.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We celebrate the “Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne” on December 9th, the traditional date. We do not reject Rome’s teaching on the Immaculate conception, it just does not fit our own theology. We believe it to be the right teaching for the theology of the West.

While I do not disagree, one has to pause for a moment and reflect on the realities of one’s own patrimony:

Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception - Philadelphia, PA

That said, it is truly sad when Eastern Christian thought on such subjects, held faithfully by Eastern Catholics, is referred to as heresy when such is accepted within one’s own Communion (the Catholic Church).

 

[ConstantineTG]

While I do not disagree, one has to pause for a moment and reflect on the realities of one’s own patrimony:

Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception - Philadelphia, PA

That said, it is truly sad when Eastern Christian thought on such subjects, held faithfully by Eastern Catholics, is referred to as heresy when such is accepted within one’s own Communion (the Catholic Church).

Maybe they will change the name soon. We have a number of parishes called “Assumption” that has already been changed to Dormition of the Mother of God (unfortunately we don’t use Theotokos that much and more often translate it to Mother of God).

Also, if you follow the Liturgical Calendar on the back of the Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship, the correct day of the feast is indicated for the Conception of the Theotokos.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

(unfortunately we don’t use Theotokos that much and more often translate it to Mother of God)

The latter is a more faithful translation from Church Slavonic usage and source (Bohorodice).

Also, if you follow the Liturgical Calendar on the back of the Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship, the correct day of the feast is indicated for the Conception of the Theotokos.

I treasure my copy of the Anthology, and did take note. However, as Our Lady of the Immacualte Conception was declared the national patroness of the United States, the common date will likely continue south of your border, and the churches / cathedrals consecrated to her will likely remain so named here.

 

[Stephentlig]

There is nothing heretical about the Eastern understanding of the Fall. Can you point me to the Pope or council that condemned such belief as heretical? If there is nothing, then it is not heretical.

Sounds right, but you are interpreting this with “Immaculate Conception” tatooed in your mind. We believe Mary to be sinless and pure her whole life, but we do not have a concept of Original Sin and therefore there is nothing to exempt Mary from which would necessitate a concept of the Immaculate Conception.

First, provide a magisterial document that claims the Eastern theology of the Fall is heretical. If no Pope or Council has condemned our beliefs, then we have every right to keep them.

We celebrate the “Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne” on December 9th, the traditional date. We do not reject Rome’s teaching on the Immaculate conception, it just does not fit our own theology. We believe it to be the right teaching for the theology of the West.

Definitely, we accept everything that has been passed down to us by the Church Fathers and the Fathers of our own sui juris Church. We have a right to keep our own traditions and not blindly accept the traditions of another sui juris.

In fact, there are more cafeteria Catholics from Latins who seem so overly concerned with what is de fide and what is not.

I have the biggest authority with me to prove that she was immaculately conceived and that we cannot reject her immaculate conception and that is Our Lady of Lourdes HERSELF. She came and said ‘‘I am the immaculate conception’’. what more proof do you need?

As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

This does not just affirm she is all Holy. This qoute is an affirmation of her Immaculate conception - ‘‘as he formed her without my stain of her own’’

You guys are not Eastern Catholics. You are Eastern Orthodox and living with heresy that Our Lady was not Immaculately concieved.

That Eastern Catholic parish of the Immaculate conception in Philedelphia has some sense I see.

 

[The_Idiot]

Have you discussed this with your Priest ?

Is he aware of the fact that you are entitled to make, and are making, statements about people such as

You guys are not Eastern Catholics. You are Eastern Orthodox and living with heresy that Our Lady was not Immaculately concieved.

 

[Stephentlig]

Have you discussed this with your Priest ?

Is he aware of the fact that you are entitled to make, and are making, statements about people such as

Sorry. I mean to say that you are not ‘‘behaving’’ like Eastern Catholics but ‘‘behaving’’ more like Orthodox and living with a heresy in rejecting the Immaculate conception.

I have no right to call people heretics. So forgive me, it was not the intention of my post.

 

[The_Idiot]

I still feel that you need to talk with your priest.

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics do look at some things with a different understanding from Latin Catholics.

 

[Stephentlig]

I still feel that you need to talk with your priest.

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics do look at some things with a different understanding from Latin Catholics.

Yes I am aware of that. But looking at things differently is different from rejecting a Dogma of the faith. and that Dogma is clear that Our Lady was Immaculately conceived as she said so herself ‘‘I am the Immaculate Conception’’.

The East Vs, West distinction/expression is irrelevant in that regard and the dogma must be accepted if we are to remain Catholic.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics do look at some things with a different understanding from Latin Catholics.

That is correct, and that is exactly how the Church wants it!

ECs do not reject Catholic dogma, doctrine or teaching. They understand it from a different perspective, which does of course mirror the Eastern Orthodox point of view to a significant extent.

That does not make us heretics. It makes us Eastern Christians who are faithful Catholics, witnesses to the Truth with an Eastern perspective.

My point in naming the UGCC Cathedral in Philadelphia was to note that the line does get blurred at times, and surely consecrating an Archeparchial Cathedral (not a mere parish) to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception is not inconsequential. The reasons for the “blurring” are beyond the scope of this thread, and have been well noted in this sub-forum.

So, for example, we celebrate:

Pascha, the Holy Resurrection / Easter
The Nativity of our Lord / Christmas
The Dormition of the Theotokos / The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
The Conception of St. Anna / The Immaculate Conception

The perspective is different - the essense is the same. We could not exist in the Catholic Communion if we rejected dogmatic teaching, or if our own understanding were different from it. Indeed that we have been able to do so gives some hope of eventual reconciliation with the Orthodox. The rejection of this reality, frankly, needlessly perpetuates the division.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The East Vs, West distinction/expression is irrelevant in that regard and the dogma must be accepted if we are to remain Catholic.

It is hardly irrelevant, and in fact is quite complementary.

The entire Catechism of the Catholic Church is replete with references to the Early / Eastern Church Fathers and Eastern Christian perspective, and such is rather intentional. It is the blending of perpsectives that leads to a more complete understanding of the Truth.

 

[Stephentlig]

That is correct, and that is exactly how the Church wants it!

ECs do not reject Catholic dogma, doctrine or teaching. They understand it from a different perspective, which does of course mirror the Eastern Orthodox point of view to a significant extent.

That does not make us heretics. It makes us Eastern Christians who are faithful Catholics, witnesses to the Truth with an Eastern perspective.

My point in naming the UGCC Cathedral in Philadelphia was to note that the line does get blurred at times, and surely consecrating an Archeparchial Cathedral (not a mere parish) to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception is not inconsequential. The reasons for the “blurring” are beyond the scope of this thread, and have been well noted in this sub-forum.

So, for example, we celebrate:

Pascha, the Holy Resurrection / Easter
The Nativity of our Lord / Christmas
The Dormition of the Theotokos / The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
The Conception of St. Anna / The Immaculate Conception

The perspective is different - the essense is the same. We could not exist in the Catholic Communion if we rejected dogmatic teaching, or if our own understanding were different from it. Indeed that we have been able to do so gives some hope of eventual reconciliation with the Orthodox. The rejection of this reality, frankly, needlessly perpetuates the division.

But if we are capable of rejecting the idea from an ‘‘eastern perspective’’ that St.Mary was not immaculately concieved like constantine stated, then we are rejecting Catholic Dogma.

You can’t say: ‘‘Because the Dogma of the Immaculate conception does not fit into our theology, we are free to reject the idea but give our nod to it anyway’’ thats a ridiculous and contractictory statement to make.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But if we are capable of rejecting the idea from an ‘‘eastern perspective’’ that St.Mary was not immaculately concieved like constantine stated, then we are rejecting Catholic Dogma.

You can’t say: ‘‘Because the Dogma of the Immaculate conception does not fit into our theology, we are free to reject the idea but give our nod to it anyway’’ thats a ridiculous and contractictory statement to make.

I’ll let Constantine speak for himself, but it is indeed incorrect to say the Eastern Catholics are free to reject dogma.

It is equally incorrect to say we are expected to accept dogma prima facie with complete disregard to the tradition of our own Churches.

In the case of the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox argument boils down to the necessity for a Papal declaration of dogma for what has been essentially an accepted part of the Deposit of Faith for centuries. How could that equate to a rejection of the dogma?

And BTW - while we may not speak of Original Sin in the same way, the Eastern perspective does embrace the notion of Ancestral Sin. Again, it is a question of perspective. However, after all the “explanation” that comes from a scholastic approach to understanding of the Mysteries of Faith, you get an answer that is largely consistent with the early Church / Eastern perpsective. Should that not be an expected result?

 

[Stephentlig]

It is hardly irrelevant, and in fact is quite complementary.

The entire Catechism of the Catholic Church is replete with references to the Early / Eastern Church Fathers and Eastern Christian perspective, and such is rather intentional. It is the blending of perpsectives that leads to a more complete understanding of the Truth.

You make it sound as if I have no respect or care for the eastern perspective which is not true at all. I absolutely do and love the Eastern Perspective and am aware of all the references to Eastern Fathers throughout the catechism. I was saying the eastern perspective of the Immaculate conception that ‘‘One is free to reject it’’ is irrelevent and the Dogma must be ( as you have already mentioned ) be ‘‘accepted’’ by all.

a rejection of the Dogma is not an ‘‘expression’’ but quite a non-Catholic statement to make.

 

[The_Idiot]

Stephen,

You really do need to talk with your priest .

I do not know how long you have been Eastern Catholic - but you have not yet acquired the Eastern mindset.

Eastern Catholics are not legalistic - never have been , never will be.

 

[The_Idiot]

Stephen

you said

You make it sound as if I have no respect or care for the eastern perspective which is not true at all. I absolutely do and love the Eastern Perspective and am aware of all the references to Eastern Fathers throughout the catechism. I was saying the eastern perspective of the Immaculate conception that ‘‘One is free to reject it’’ is irrelevent and the Dogma must be ( as you have already mentioned ) be ‘‘accepted’’ by all.

a rejection of the Dogma is not an ‘‘expression’’ but quite a non-Catholic statement to make.

do you have a copy of the Catechism ?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We could sum up our belief as regards Mary in one word: Theotokos.

It is inconceivable to think that the Son of God could have been born by other than a woman “full of grace”. It is the Mystery of Faith that is first embraced in Eastern thought.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

When all else fails, read the declaration:

Testimonies of Tradition

And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus – that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephen

you said

do you have a copy of the Catechism ?

Yes I do.