The Immaculate Conception and Roman Catholics

[Alexander_Roman]

The Eastern Churches have always affirmed that Mary was completely All Holy from her Conception.

The RC Church affirmed this only in the 19th century.

Does this mean that prior to this dogmatic definition RC’s were allowed to believe (horror of horrors!) that Mary was conceived in sin??

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Actually, yes it does. Debates over this raged in the West for centuries. The bishops finally got fed up and petitioned Pio Nono to settle the matter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Eastern Churches have always affirmed that Mary was completely All Holy from her Conception.

The RC Church affirmed this only in the 19th century.

Does this mean that prior to this dogmatic definition RC’s were allowed to believe (horror of horrors!) that Mary was conceived in sin??

Alex

I would even contend the claim that Eastern Churches would affirm that because from what I learned from our Orthodox brethren here in CAF, some hold to the opinion that Mary was sanctified later on in life, as late as the Annunciation.

 

[Vico]

The Eastern Churches have always affirmed that Mary was completely All Holy from her Conception.

The RC Church affirmed this only in the 19th century.

Does this mean that prior to this dogmatic definition RC’s were allowed to believe (horror of horrors!) that Mary was conceived in sin??

Alex

“All Holy from her Conception” has two different definitions (at least two) east and west, so there is not an equal comparison in the first two statements. The dogmatic definition was not made at Trent when original sin dogmatic definition was promulgated, but was delayed till 1854. Dogmas are taught long before they are defined, it is an issue of certainty.

 

[Khalid]

As late as St Thomas Aquinas there was debate, at least, because from my reading of the Summa Theologiae, he would have argued against the Immaculate Conception - it was Duns Scotus who argued for it and made the lasting influence in its regard in its favor.

I’ve seen different views amongst Orthodox, with the sanctification (remember, Orthodox don’t believe in original sin as we do, but in “ancestral sin” as a proclivity to sin - not that we are personally responsible for Adam’s sin, which has left an indelible mark on the souls of all his descendants, as we truly are) taking place as early as her mother’s conception, and as late as the conception of Jesus Christ.

The aeiparthenos/Perpetual Virginity, on the other hand, has been upheld by both East and West from the times of the earliest Fathers.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

“All Holy from her Conception” has two different definitions (at least two) east and west, so there is not an equal comparison in the first two statements. The dogmatic definition was not made at Trent when original sin dogmatic definition was promulgated, but was delayed till 1854. Dogmas are taught long before they are defined, it is an issue of certainty.

I’m no expert on Western theology (and don’t plan on ever being ). But the East never got itself involved with the issues on Original Sin raised by Augustinianism. In the East, “Original Sin” was, and is, a state of rebellion that we inherited from Adam. That the Conception of the Mother of God was celebrated in the East formally and liturgically from the sixth century means that the Mother of God was a Saint at her Conception (as only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated).

No precise dogmatic definitions here, but it was always clear that Mary had no shadow of sin over her.

As for the arguments of Orthodox about later sanctifications of the Mother of God - these refer to the East’s dynamic understanding of holiness and our growth in holiness. The Mother of God continues to grow in holiness even today, as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Alex

 

[dcointin]

I’m no expert on Western theology (and don’t plan on ever being ). But the East never got itself involved with the issues on Original Sin raised by Augustinianism. In the East, “Original Sin” was, and is, a state of rebellion that we inherited from Adam. That the Conception of the Mother of God was celebrated in the East formally and liturgically from the sixth century means that the Mother of God was a Saint at her Conception (as only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated).

No precise dogmatic definitions here, but it was always clear that Mary had no shadow of sin over her.

As for the arguments of Orthodox about later sanctifications of the Mother of God - these refer to the East’s dynamic understanding of holiness and our growth in holiness. The Mother of God continues to grow in holiness even today, as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Alex

Would that mean that St. Anna and St. John the Baptist were both conceived without original sin?

goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=329

goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=215

 

[iohanne]

Would that mean that St. Anna and St. John the Baptist were both conceived without original sin?

Not sure about that one but I do know that it is a pious tradition in both east and west that St. John the Baptist was born without original sin (i.e. at some point between his conception and his birth, he was cleansed from the stain). Not sure about St. Anna. I know in the west, St. Joseph is also piously considered to have been born - but not conceived - without original sin.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Not sure about that one but I do know that it is a pious tradition in both east and west that St. John the Baptist was born without original sin (i.e. at some point between his conception and his birth, he was cleansed from the stain). Not sure about St. Anna. I know in the west, St. Joseph is also piously considered to have been born - but not conceived - without original sin.

Yes indeed. Theologians of the Spanish Empire promoted the Immaculate Conception and the bodily Assumption of St Joseph at one time.

Those believed to have been hallowed at their Conception include St John the Baptist. This pious tradition could be extended to St Nicholas since his birthday is celebrated liturgically in some Eastern Churches (the UGCC in particular) on August 10th.

The bodily translation of St John the Theologian into heaven is very highly solemnized in the East suggesting the same for him - although there is no feastday for his conception.

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Would that mean that St. Anna and St. John the Baptist were both conceived without original sin?

goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=329

goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=215

I’ve heard of movements within Catholicism that were pushing for the theologumenon of the immaculate conception of St. Joseph to be dogmatized, or at least studied as a possibility.

As Alex pointed out, I’ve also heard people speculate that St. John the Baptist was immaculately conceived.

I personally don’t see what impact either of those speculations would have on my faith, or anyone else’s for that matter. But then again, I’m not the most intelligent man. So perhaps I’m missing something.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As late as St Thomas Aquinas there was debate, at least, because from my reading of the Summa Theologiae, he would have argued against the Immaculate Conception - it was Duns Scotus who argued for it and made the lasting influence in its regard in its favor.

The Franciscans are, indeed, generally considered to be the champions of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Vico]

I’ve heard of movements within Catholicism that were pushing for the theologumenon of the immaculate conception of St. Joseph to be dogmatized, or at least studied as a possibility.

As Alex pointed out, I’ve also heard people speculate that St. John the Baptist was immaculately conceived.

I personally don’t see what impact either of those speculations would have on my faith, or anyone else’s for that matter. But then again, I’m not the most intelligent man. So perhaps I’m missing something.

The impact that a dogmatic definition has on any Catholic’s faith is that if they do not hold the doctrine to be true, they do not hold the true faith. So this becomes a problem for those that do not accept such a doctrine.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The impact that a dogmatic definition has on any Catholic’s faith is that if they do not hold the doctrine to be true, they do not hold the true faith. So this becomes a problem for those that do not accept such a doctrine.

Yes. True. I was simply referring to the idea that St. Joseph and St. John were also immaculately conceived. I don’t understand how that could have any bearing on the Faith because it doesn’t touch upon Christ in any way. To dogmatically define such a thing would seem superfluous. But again, I’m not the most intelligent person. So what do I know.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t understand how a theological opinion can suddenly becoming dogma binding the consciences of the faithful. If it was not a part of Holy Tradition from the beginning then it is not dogma, period. The deposit of faith does not grow, it is handed down unchanged, and at times clarified in response to controversy. This is “development of doctrine” in the worse sense. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, I just don’t know how else to express it.

 

[Vico]

Yes. True. I was simply referring to the idea that St. Joseph and St. John were also immaculately conceived. I don’t understand how that could have any bearing on the Faith because it doesn’t touch upon Christ in any way. To dogmatically define such a thing would seem superfluous. But again, I’m not the most intelligent person. So what do I know.

One can argue that the compiled list of over 250 dogmas de fide by Ott, contain many that are superfluous. Yet, every dogma is a definition pertaining to the Glory of the Most Holy Trinity. A dogmatic definition could be biblical and give glory, regarding the Forerunner:

13But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; 15for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:13-15)