The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[Cavaradossi]

I did not mention Mary’s name. Please respond to the post?

1 Corinthians - 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die.

**I understand that Adam’s sin caused death for all that followed him.
**
Romans - 5:16 - the judgement following one single trespass brought condemnation for all.

Romans 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.

**Why were many made sinners because of Adam’s sin, resulting in condemnation?

****Ancestral sin is when one inherits the results of Adams sin but not his guilt, therefore I am not guilty of Adam’s sin, meaning that I was born with no stain of sin on my soul (born immaculate) - correct?

Why the need for baptism prior to sinning? Why then does Adam’s sin adversely effect me in a way that brings condemnation and death? Condemnation and death should only occur once I sin.

If people are not born with the stain of sin then what is being passed on as part of the human condition from Adam, due to his sin?**

Since you define the stain of original sin to be the consequences of Adam’s sin inherited by all humans, it therefore should hold that you interpret the Immaculate Conception to mean that the Virgin was immortal. If not, then you must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ not to refer to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin, but to something else, at which point your objection loses its meaningfulness, because it is clear that Apotheoun does not deny that some things are inherited as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

 

[joe370]

mardukmd As explained, the “stain” according to the Latins is the spiritual separation from God due to the Original Sin from Adam and Eve. Base your response on what the term means to the Latins, not merely on the terminology itself (which you claim is foreign to the Coptic Tradition). Are you claiming that the COC teaches that humanity was not separated from God due to the Original Sin of Adam and Eve; are you claiming that the COC teaches that each new person has not inherited this spiritual separation from God as a condition of human nature? Again, respond to what the Latins mean by the term, not to the mere term itself.

First of all, Catholic “pride” in Mary is for the very things you claimed as well. It’s unreal to claim otherwise. Regardless of the non-Catholic claim that the CC teaches that St. Mary is the pride of our race merely through a special preservation, that claim is wholly false. The fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that the preservation was a GRACE; the fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that ALL creatures must respond to Grace by free will for it to be effective. How non-Catholics conclude therefore that just because Mary was given a special Grace, then that somehow means she never freely chose to be holy in God’s eyes, and that this is not the reason she is thus venerated by all Catholics, Latins, Easterns, and Orientals alike, is not reasonable.

 

[joe370]

mardukm;10184703]CONT’d

Here’s the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parenst. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”

In other words, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit took place at that moment as opposed to baptism.

Thanks for the question. What brother Fonebone means (and he can corroborate or deny this, but I’m pretty sure he will corroborate it) is that “Original Sin” has a more general meaning than “stain of original Sin.” The stain of Original Sin exclusively refers to one of the consequences of the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve - namely, the consequence of spiritual separation from God. The documents of Trent specifically refers to this stain (i.e., the spiritual separation from God) as the condition that is corrected or removed by Baptism. In distinction,

Makes sense. Stain of sin = spiritual separation from God.

“Original Sin” can refer to the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, and when it does so, it is inclusive of ALL the consequences of Original Sin, including mortality and corruption (which would be equivalent in your understanding as the inheritance of the fallen human nature), and can also refer to the original act that is the sin of Adam/ Eve.

Also makes sense.

 

[joe370]

Since you define the stain of original sin to be the consequences of Adam’s sin inherited by all humans, it therefore should hold that you interpret the Immaculate Conception to mean that the Virgin was immortal. If not, then you must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ not to refer to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin, but to something else, at which point your objection loses its meaningfulness, because it is clear that Apotheoun does not deny that some things are inherited as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

Again, I never mention Mary. The stain of sin = spiritual separation from God. You are the one implying that I was born immaculately if in fact I was born without original sin; correct me if I am wrong?

Mardukm explained it well: “Regardless of the non-Catholic claim that the CC teaches that St. Mary is the pride of our race merely through a special preservation, that claim is wholly false. The fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that the preservation was a GRACE; the fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that ALL creatures must respond to Grace by free will for it to be effective. How non-Catholics conclude therefore that just because Mary was given a special Grace, (IC) then that somehow means she never freely chose to be holy in God’s eyes (i.e. immortal as you put it) and that this is not the reason she is thus venerated by all Catholics, Latins, Easterns, and Orientals alike, is not reasonable.”

 

[dzheremi]

Here’s the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”

It is strange that Ineffabilis Deus does not say this, then, but whatever…not my doctrine to begin with. I will say that all of this fretting over when the person is ‘truly conceived’ is an odd conceit. If we do not worry about this (as I haven’t found it in St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, etc.; any of the saints that we get really ‘core’ doctrinal concepts from, I mean), it doesn’t seem necessary, or to put it another way: It seems like it is the result of uniquely Latin speculation, just as others in this thread have put it. It seems like a wannabe dogma in search of a rationalization, rather than a heresy in need of refutation (in sharp contrast with where Orthodox doctrine comes from).

Here’s the authoritative statement from Pope Alexander VII back in the 17th century:
“Antigua es la piedad de los fieles cristianos para con la Santísima Virgen María, que sienten en su alma, que en el primer instante de su creación e infusión en el cuerpo, fue preservada inmune de la mancha del pecado original, por singular gracia y privilegio de Dios, en atención a los méritos de su Hijo Jesucristo…”

Why is this in Spanish? Was Pope Alexander VII Hispanic? Wikipedia says he was born in Tuscany.

As you can see, the decree of Pope Alexander VII is almost exactly identical to the wording of the dogma of the IC, except on its more explicit teaching that the doctrine of the IC refers to the spiritual conception (when the soul of Mary was created and infused into her body) - not the physical conception - of Mary.

What I actually see in the above (as a person who was raised speaking this language) is a statement is about what the Pope claims is the ancient belief of the Christian faithful. I don’t really see anything that actually substantiates the IC…probably because it wasn’t the ancient belief of Christians. You said it yourself in the following portion of your reply (original emphasis removed; new emphasis added):

This is because during the time of Pope Alexander VII, the matter of when the body is animated (i.e., the spiritual conception/ when the soul is created and infused into the body by God) was still debated. By the time that the dogma of the IC was promulgated, almost 200 years later, it was already generally settled and held that spiritual conception (i.e., the soul is created and infused into the body by God) occurs at the same exact instance as the physical conception (by the parents).

The IC was invented to answer a controversy that existed in the Latin world at that time. Outside of that context, it is unnecessary, yet the Vatican drug it out of the medieval Latin monastery, for some reason that I (and many others) can’t possibly begin to fathom. You certainly don’t find this controversy in early Church writings on the Theotokos, such as those of St. Cyril, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanus of Salamis (according to HH Abune Paulos, Patriarch of the EOTC, one of the earliest writers to consider with depth the mortality of the Theotokos), etc. The question of when the soul of the Theotokos was created and infused did not concern them, nor does it concern us, nor should it concern anybody. It’s absolutely irrelevant outside of the context in which the medieval Latins, basing their speculations on Augustine, whipped themselves into a frenzy over nothing.

Thanks for the question. What brother Fonebone means (and he can corroborate or deny this, but I’m pretty sure he will corroborate it) is that “Original Sin” has a more general meaning than “stain of original Sin.” The stain of Original Sin exclusively refers to one of the consequences of the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve - namely, the consequence of spiritual separation from God.

If we consider the consequences of sin to be death (and the Holy Scriptures certainly do, quite explicitly, so I hope you do, too), then it is absolutely incorrect to say that the Theotokos was born without the “stain of original sin”, if that’s what this means. The Theotokos was just like we are! She was not some other kind of thing. So I’m going to have to retract my earlier openness to this idea that we might have common ground on this issue.

The documents of Trent specifically refers to this stain (i.e., the spiritual separation from God) as the condition that is corrected or removed by Baptism. In distinction, “Original Sin” can refer to the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, and when it does so, it is inclusive of ALL the consequences of Original Sin, including mortality and corruption (which would be equivalent in your understanding as the inheritance of the fallen human nature), and can also refer to the original act that is the sin of Adam/ Eve.

Alright… :compcoff: And the Roman Pope can renounce his throne and his current faith and live out the rest of his days at Deir el-Baramous, or call upon the college of cardinals to create the world’s most aged and holy basketball team. You’re not telling me much, but I suspect that’s not your fault.

 

[mardukm]

It is recorded in the Ethiopian Synaxarium (Nehasse 23/August 29).

Thanks. I was hoping the source would be more contemporary to the 5th century (or at least more ancient than the 10th century). That’s OK. No big deal.

And?

Just a fact. Nothing significant about which to argue.

Btw, Pope Alexander VII’s authoritative decree that the IC refers to her spiritual conception (the moment of the creation of her soul and infusion into her body by God), not her physcial conception, is explicitly affirmed in Ineffabilis Deus (the Apostolic Constitution on the IC that contains the dogmatic decree as well as its explanation). Here’s the text in English:
“Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: “Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.””

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

The IC was invented to answer a controversy that existed in the Latin world at that time. Outside of that context, it is unnecessary, yet the Vatican drug it out of the medieval Latin monastery, for some reason that I (and many others) can’t possibly begin to fathom. You certainly don’t find this controversy in early Church writings on the Theotokos, such as those of St. Cyril, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanus of Salamis (according to HH Abune Paulos, Patriarch of the EOTC, one of the earliest writers to consider with depth the mortality of the Theotokos), etc. The question of when the soul of the Theotokos was created and infused did not concern them, nor does it concern us, nor should it concern anybody. It’s absolutely irrelevant outside of the context in which the medieval Latins, basing their speculations on Augustine, whipped themselves into a frenzy over nothing.

Hey Dzheremi. Just an aside; no relation to the thread, but I thought I would ask, if you do not mind: Do you think, perhaps, there might be some validity to the claims made by the CC about Bernadette Soubirous? If not then why not? I won’t mention her again for fear of derailing the thread and breaking forum rules.

 

[dzheremi]

Oops. I hadn’t read Cavaradossi’s reply to Joe wherein he says essentially the same thing I just said to Mardukm about this “stain of original sin” idea. Well then…sorry, Cavaradossi, for essentially repeating your point, and to everyone else…for essentially repeating Cavaradossi’s point. Eh…at least it shows that EO and OO aren’t so far apart in their thought processes, in some ways.

 

[joe370]

Oops. I hadn’t read Cavaradossi’s reply to Joe wherein he says essentially the same thing I just said to Mardukm about this “stain of original sin” idea. Well then…sorry, Cavaradossi, for essentially repeating your point, and to everyone else…for essentially repeating Cavaradossi’s point. Eh…at least it shows that EO and OO aren’t so far apart in their thought processes, in some ways.

 

[dzheremi]

Hey Dzheremi. Just an aside; no relation to the thread, but I thought I would ask, if you do not mind: Do you think, perhaps, there might be some validity to the claims made by the CC about Bernadette Soubirous? If not then why not? I won’t mention her again for fear of derailing the thread and breaking forum rules.

That’s the Lourdes lady, right? I wouldn’t think so, personally, but on the other hand it doesn’t really matter, since we don’t go around validating or invalidating the apparitions of other churches. That’d just be weird. Think of it this way: If a Pentecostal asked you for your viewpoint regarding their phenomenon of speaking in tongues, you’d probably have something to say about it, but it wouldn’t really “mean” anything, because whether or not a Pentecostal claims to be speaking in tongues has no effect on anything a Catholic does or believes (in a dogmatic/doctrinal sense of ‘believing’, I mean; obviously if you lay down with people who bark like dogs, you’re going to wake up with the fleas of the holy ghost, as the saying…doesn’t go.).

 

[Vico]

In 1854 there was a need to counter semi-pelagianism and pelagianism (Rousseau). Also it was closely after the time of the 1830 Paris apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma was made formal only after Pius IX asked the bishops what they thought of it.

But the feast of Mary’s Conception was celebrated starting in 1140 when it was introduced by the Chapter of Canons at the Cathedral of Lyons. Later on, at the time of Franciscan William of Ware and Duns Scotus (died in 1308), a positive expression of the dogma of Immacualte Conception was worked out, but it was against the opinions of the Dominicans that liked the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ against immaculate conception. It became “immaculists” vs. “maculists”. Later The Council of Basel (1431-1449) formally proposed the dogma in session number 36, but was not approved. Eventually Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1494), allowed the feast to be celebrated in the curia, but not in general, and stated that neither acceptance nor rejection of the dogma was heresy.

But you can see that the Conceptionists order began in 1484 (by St. Beatrice de Silva of Toledo after having a vision of the Virgin Mary), so this seems to be a key era.

Subsequently the Council of Trent made no modification to Pope Sixtus IV’s statement. The apparitions in 1830 of the Blessed Virgin Mary (to St. Catherine Labouré) may have had a great effect on bringing the bishops to approve a definition of the dogma.

Some has expressed the idea that the Immaculate Conception is about the Annunciation. Maybe some did not pay attention in class or to the homilies. As a Catholic (receiving both Greek and Latin catechesis), I was taught these things concerning the Virgin Mary (all have feasts so we hear homilies):

1. Immaculate Conception (age 0) - conception of the Virgin Mary (feast of I.C. of B.V.M. or Conception of St. Anne).
2. Presentation of Virgin Mary (before puberty) (feast of presentation of BVM or entry of Theotokos in the temple)
3. Annunciation (age ~14) - conception of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary (feast of annunciation).
4. Visitation of Virgin Mary with Elizabeth (age ~14) (Luke 1:39-56) - St. John the Baptist leaps at arrival of Lord Jesus incarnate in the Virgin Mary (feast of the visitation).
5. Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ (age ~15) - birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, miraculously with physical integrity of Virgin Mary. (feast of the nativity).
6. Presentation (age ~15) (Luke 2:22) - Virgin Mary presents the Lord Jesus Christ in the temple at her ritual purification - St. Simeon professes of Christ and sword of sorrow (feast of the presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Latin a.k.a. Candelmas)
7. Pentecost (age ~48) (Acts 1:14) - Virgin Mary receives the Holy Spirit with the Apostles (feast of pentecost).
8. Dormition and Assumption - dormition followed by assumption of the Virgin Mary (feast of dormition and assumption).

 

[joe370]

That’s the Lourdes lady, right? I wouldn’t think so, personally, but on the other hand it doesn’t really matter, since we don’t go around validating or invalidating the apparitions of other churches. That’d just be weird. Think of it this way: If a Pentecostal asked you for your viewpoint regarding their phenomenon of speaking in tongues, you’d probably have something to say about it, but it wouldn’t really “mean” anything, because whether or not a Pentecostal claims to be speaking in tongues has no effect on anything a Catholic does or believes (in a dogmatic/doctrinal sense of ‘believing’, I mean; obviously if you lay down with people who bark like dogs, you’re going to wake up with the fleas of the holy ghost, as the saying…doesn’t go.).

Dogmatically or doctrinally speaking, you are so right; I just wondered…:shrug:Regarding the Pentecostal I would be interested if in fact it had basis. It would certainly mean something if it proved to be miraculously compelling in some way. I found Lourdes to be miraculously compelling and jut one of many reasons why I left protestantism, but I digress…

 

[lyrikal]

That’s the Lourdes lady, right? I wouldn’t think so, personally, but on the other hand it doesn’t really matter, since we don’t go around validating or invalidating the apparitions of other churches. That’d just be weird. Think of it this way: If a Pentecostal asked you for your viewpoint regarding their phenomenon of speaking in tongues, you’d probably have something to say about it, but it wouldn’t really “mean” anything, because whether or not a Pentecostal claims to be speaking in tongues has no effect on anything a Catholic does or believes (in a dogmatic/doctrinal sense of ‘believing’, I mean; obviously if you lay down with people who bark like dogs, you’re going to wake up with the fleas of the holy ghost, as the saying…doesn’t go.).

There is a huge difference between the two. The Lourdes story would give evidence to a DOCTRINE (IC) while speaking in tongues of Pentecostal Churches only proves that God can work miracles outside of His Church.

 

[dzheremi]

In 1854 there was a need to counter semi-pelagianism and pelagianism (Rousseau).

And the best way to do this to assert that God preserved St. Mary from mortality (according to the definition of the “stain of original sin” given by Catholic posters in this thread)? Wow…paging John Cassian…attention: John Cassian…you are needed in Rome immediately!

Subsequently the Council of Trent made no modification to Pope Sixtus IV’s statement. The apparitions in 1830 of the Blessed Virgin Mary (to St. Catherine Labouré) may have had a great effect on bringing the bishops to approve a definition of the dogma.

These seems to be another uniquely Latin thing: Have a private apparition, a new doctrine follows. I wonder if the Blessed Virgin Mary will appear some place in the future to sort out the ‘Mediatrix’ idea that is popular in some quarters, but still quite controversial?

That seems strange to me to say that Catholics think the I.C. is about the Annunciation.

No doubt some do think that. The IC seems less well-explained than it could be. For instance, I was never told that it was about the Virgin’s “ensoulment” or whatever you might call it. I was always taught that it was about her conception from Joachim and Anna. Perhaps this is the way it is thought of (even by RCIA teachers and priests, apparently) because of the way that it is talked about, as in the later part of your post when you write “Immaculate Conception (age 0) - conception of the Virgin Mary”. As the standard, dictionary definition of conception is “the act of conceiving a child”, not “the act of infusing a soul into a body” or whatever, it is an easy thing to miss.

 

[mardukm]

It is strange that Ineffabilis Deus does not say this, then, but whatever…

Yes it is. You just haven’t read the entire decree Ineffabilis Deus. That’s usually the case with non-Catholics. They will read the dogma itself (without bothering to read the official explanations given by the Catholic Church), create some fantastic and incomprehensible conclusions from it - with the claim that their incomprehensible conclusions are what the CC teaches - and viola!, somehow the CC teaches heresy.

not my doctrine to begin with. I will say that all of this fretting over when the person is ‘truly conceived’ is an odd conceit. If we do not worry about this (as I haven’t found it in St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, etc.; any of the saints that we get really ‘core’ doctrinal concepts from, I mean), it doesn’t seem necessary, or to put it another way: It seems like it is the result of uniquely Latin speculation, just as others in this thread have put it. It seems like a wannabe dogma in search of a rationalization, rather than a heresy in need of refutation (in sharp contrast with where Orthodox doctrine comes from).

WHEN animation occurs was not the point of Pope Alexander VII"s decree or of Ineffabilis Deus. Pope Alexander’s decree was to respond to the claims of certain Latins that the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary did not have a natural human conception like Jesus. You are correct that it is not your doctrine (nor the COC’s), so one should not blithely agree with what non-Catholics claim the doctrine is teaching, but let the magisterial Catholic sources explain it.

Why is this in Spanish? Was Pope Alexander VII Hispanic? Wikipedia says he was born in Tuscany.

It was the first text that popped up when I googled the Encyclical of Pope ALexander VII. I figure since it is quite easly to use a google translator, I didn’t bother to give the English translation. Since you say you know Spanish, why does it even matter? What’s the point of this comment?

You said it yourself in the following portion of your reply (original emphasis removed; new emphasis added)…The IC was invented to answer a controversy that existed in the Latin world at that time.

No, the belief in the IC was around for a long time before that. It’s just that there were certain Latin theologians who were opining at the time that the IC meant that Mary did not have a natural physical conception like all other humans, but had a physical conception like Jesus. Pope Alexander settled the matter by stating that the IC is not about Mary’s physical conception, but about her spiritual conception.

Outside of that context, it is unnecessary, yet the Vatican drug it out of the medieval Latin monastery, for some reason that I (and many others) can’t possibly begin to fathom.

Actually, the source of the teaching is from the East, just as the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos in St. Hannah’s womb originated in the East.

You certainly don’t find this controversy in early Church writings on the Theotokos, such as those of St. Cyril, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanus of Salamis (according to HH Abune Paulos, Patriarch of the EOTC, one of the earliest writers to consider with depth the mortality of the Theotokos), etc.

The question of when the soul of the Theotokos was created and infused did not concern them, nor does it concern us, nor should it concern anybody. It’s absolutely irrelevant outside of the context in which the medieval Latins, basing their speculations on Augustine, whipped themselves into a frenzy over nothing.

Agreed. The question of WHEN the soul of the Theotokos was created and infused did not concern them, and neither was that the concern of Pope Alexander VII or of Ineffabilis Deus.

If we consider the consequences of sin to be death (and the Holy Scriptures certainly do, quite explicitly, so I hope you do, too), then it is absolutely incorrect to say that the Theotokos was born without the “stain of original sin”, if that’s what this means.

Please be more attentive to what is being written. I stated that the “stain of original sin” refers to ONE of the consequences of Original Sin - the consequence of spiritual separation from God. How in the world do you conclude by my statement that I claimed that mortality is not one of the consequences of Original Sin. The Theotokos was preserved/saved only from that particular consequence (spiritual separation from God), not from mortality.

The Theotokos was just like we are! She was not some other kind of thing. So I’m going to have to retract my earlier openness to this idea that we might have common ground on this issue.

That’s fine. As long as it is understood that you are rejecting it based only on what you falsely claim the doctrine is teaching, not based on what the doctrine is actually teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Pope Alexander VII’s authoritative decree that the IC refers to her spiritual conception (the moment of the creation of her soul and infusion into her body by God), not her physcial conception, is explicitly affirmed in Ineffabilis Deus (the Apostolic Constitution on the IC that contains the dogmatic decree as well as its explanation). Here’s the text in English:
“Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: “Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.””

No matter what language you put it in (and the Spanish is really not any more precise or explicit than the English; I don’t know why you think it is), the Pope is making a statement about what he believes is the ancient belief of the Christian faithful, which is something different than actually proving that it is with references to ancient writings that prove it to be so. I could say that the ancient belief of the Christian faithful is to worship the Marshmallow Man who destroys New York in Ghostbusters, but it wouldn’t make it true. (It might make for some pretty interesting religious art, but that’s it.)

 

[Vico]

And the best way to do this to assert that God preserved St. Mary from mortality (according to the definition of the “stain of original sin” given by Catholic posters in this thread)? Wow…paging John Cassian…attention: John Cassian…you are needed in Rome immediately!

These seems to be another uniquely Latin thing: Have a private apparition, a new doctrine follows. I wonder if the Blessed Virgin Mary will appear some place in the future to sort out the ‘Mediatrix’ idea that is popular in some quarters, but still quite controversial?

No doubt some do think that. The IC seems less well-explained than it could be. For instance, I was never told that it was about the Virgin’s “ensoulment” or whatever you might call it. I was always taught that it was about her conception from Joachim and Anna. Perhaps this is the way it is thought of (even by RCIA teachers and priests, apparently) because of the way that it is talked about, as in the later part of your post when you write “Immaculate Conception (age 0) - conception of the Virgin Mary”. As the standard, dictionary definition of conception is “the act of conceiving a child”, not “the act of infusing a soul into a body” or whatever, it is an easy thing to miss.

That would not be the best way according to the dogma of faith. No definition was made regarding her death in any Catholic dogma of faith. Catholics generally believe that St. Mary died before the Assumption. Not all consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve are involved in the Immaculate Conception dogma.

I should have given age -9 months, which is what I intended, since we start counting at birth, zero would be birth. At the Annunciation the Angel cried that she was already blessed in a perfected blessed state (based on the perfect tense of the Greek word kekharitomene).*

The apparitions seem to have brought out the requests from the bishops to act.

 

[mardukm]

Yes it is. You just haven’t read the entire decree Ineffabilis Deus. That’s usually the case with non-Catholics. They will read the dogma itself (without bothering to read the official explanations given by the Catholic Church), create some fantastic and incomprehensible conclusions from it - with the claim that their incomprehensible conclusions are what the CC teaches - and viola!, somehow the CC teaches heresy.

Btw, I concede that popular misconceptions and explanations of Catholic doctrine by CATHOLIC laity is also a source of the misunderstanding.

Sorry for making it seem like all the blame is on “the other side.” I fully concede blame for the schism is on ALL sides.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No matter what language you put it in (and the Spanish is really not any more precise or explicit than the English; I don’t know why you think it is),

I gave it in English because that’s the language it came up in when I googled Ineffabilis Deus. I don’t know why the language it is given in is so important to you. Very strange.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I gave it in English because that’s the language it came up in when I googled Ineffabilis Deus. I don’t know why the language it is given in is so important to you. Very strange.

Blessings,
Marduk

Markuk, he is saying that the reasoning is not given for the dogma. We know that reasoning or scripture are not always the basis of a dogma, but the definition may be based primarily on tradition.