www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West BELIEF IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOCTRINE

Dear Alice, CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM! I agree. I think that a GREAT many of the differences between the various ancient Churches (whether Roman Catholic or Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox) can be attributed to either approach or even just simple wording and the meaning of the words we use or have used in the past. Unfortunately, instead of dialogue, we often bristle and become defensive...rather than prayerfully talk with one another...in a spirit to charity and kindness. I've done this myself at times...and I am thankful that there have been people in my life (like YOU) who have taught me that there is another/better way.

In Our Most Blessed Lady,
+Fr. Gregory

Someone once explained the E-W difference to me this way: The East always understood Mary to be without stain, without sin, so there was no need to codify it. So when the West decided to make her sinlessness official and promulgated the Immaculate Conception, the East just scratched its collective heads and said, "What are y'all goin' on about? Of COURSE, she's ever virgin, ever pure! Do you need a doctrine to tell you that? Jeesh, you folks are bozos!"

A simplistic explanation, I grant you, but I liked it.

Dear Father Gregory,

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

A most blessed New Year to you!

Thank you, both humbly and from the bottom of my heart, for your kind words.

With love in Christ,
Alice

Dear Pentha Tria,

I love your post! Thanks for sharing it!

However, it only goes to underscore what I know as 'the knee jerk reaction' of my brethren! We DO believe in things the same ways, albeit with different approaches, (scholastic vs. mystical), yet NOW some Orthodox seem to be changing that!

With love in Christ,
Alice

WOW SO MUCH MEAT HERE!

Hello folks,

I have a question:

Who is right? A glass that's half empty or half full???

So, in the same way RCC and Orthodox views are like speaking about a glass that's half empty or half full....both are not wrong...both are right answers.

I believe that both Churches believe that Mary is without stain of sin from the moment of her conception to all eternity (our existence begins at conception...once we exist, we will never cease to exist).

In fact, whenever I go to Great Vespers in the Orthodox Church, I hear prayers at the end, "Most Holy Theotokos, save us! Who are more honorable than the Cherubin, more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Who without stain barest G-d the Word, thou art truly Theotokos, we magnify thee."

So, Does the Orthodox object that prayer above?

So, in the RCC view, Mary is perceived without Sin and in the East she is perceived to be full of grace. Then again, it's the half full half empty theory.

So, in conclusion, it appears that the Orthodox is objecting to IC only because it was pronounced by the Pope. Pure and simple. So, I find it very uncharitable towards Theotokos for trashing IC dogma simply because the Orthodox don't like the Pope. It would be better to trash the Pope than the Mother of G-d!!! Makes me mutter these words to myself "Shame on these Orthodox" for dishonoring the Mother of G-d because of some political pride.

I'm a Byzantine Catholic, so I'm not living the RCC dogma, nor do the Byzantine Catholics observe the dogma of Original Sin. WHY? Because we are Eastern Christians that hold the same theological approach as the Orthodox.

Both views are totally complementary to each other. That's why I have a clapping smilie....as in sign language...clapping 3 times (3 rhymes of that word) means Complimentary.

We have to understand that the purpose of the Pope's pronouncement is because the belief among Roman Catholics about the fact Mary is without sin was being challenged and there were many disbeliefs about that...which could spew out few heresies, etc. So the pronouncement simply was done to stamp out any doubts or disbelief that the Mother of G-d is pure and immaculate (full of Grace...without any stain).

This pronouncement is one of the two ONLY dogmatic pronouncement of the entire 2,000 year history.

I do not think the Council is necessary to define the purity of Mary...as both Churches..of the East and West...have ALREADY drawn the very same conclusion based on our 2,000 Church Sacred Tradition...just expressed differently (half empty...half full). IN other words, why have a Council to discuss what we ALREADY believe in?

So, again I say this, the controversy about Immaculate Conception is really all about the Pope, not Mary. So, please Orthodox Christians, pick on the Pope fine with me, but don't pick on Mary's integrity about her holiness/immaculateness.

I truly believe that the Churches of the East and West with different theological/dogmatic expressions are totally complimentary and both Churches CAN live together...it is FULLY POSSIBLE!!! The Byzantine Catholics are the living WITNESS to that! Amen! Let's go for Church Unity for sake of G-d! Amen!

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzanine who desires unity.


Of course, if Mary is truly glorious beyond Seraphim, more honorable than Cherubims, I would be more inclined to believe that she would be sancitified (or conceived without stain of any sin) at the moment of her conception...so she is holy longer than John the Forerunner who was sanctified upon the visitation of Elizabeth. So, Mary is #1! John is #2. Hehe

By the way, I have another question..I've heard of this "tradition" that when Mary was born, the priests at the Temple heard evil growls all night (of course poor satan was groaning in pain..that's TOO BAD!) Does anyone know where I find that tradition or "story?"

Hi PaniRose: Merry Christmas to all the Julian folk! I attended a Christmas Divine Liturgy yesterday morning at an Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic church. It was sooooo beautiful. As a pleasant surprise, the pastor asked me to proclaim the Gospel in English. That was a good sign for me in my search for spiritual sanity! Here is an article I thought you might like to read on the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception!

I've said this before: I would give my live for this Catholic Truth!

John
O Mary, conceived without sin; pray for us who have recourse to thee and for those who do not have recourse to thee.


Dogma of Immaculate Conception Opened a New Era


Interview With Journalist Vincenzo Sansonetti

ROME, JAN. 8, 2005 (Zenit) - Proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a providential event that reinvigorated "an exhausted Church" by reminding the faithful of "the existence of original sin and Christ's redemption."

So says Vincenzo Sansonetti, who worked for the Italian episcopal conference's newspaper Avvenire from 1976 to 1989.

In this interview with us he highlighted striking passages of his new book "The Immaculate Conception. From Pius IX's Dogma to Medjugorje" ("L'Immacolata Concezione. Dal Dogma di Pio IX a Medjugorje"), published in Italy by Piemme.

Since 1989, Sansonetti has been special envoy of and responsible for the cultural pages of the weekly Oggi; he also contributes to reviews such as Mass Media, Studi Cattolici, and Timone.

Q: When and why did the Holy See, all of a sudden, change its position on this mystery of faith, the object of devotion since the very first years of the Church?

Sansonetti: Rather than a change, one may speak of progressive maturation through the centuries which led the Popes to "support," with discretion but attention, popular devotion and the liturgical feast, for centuries already present in the Church.

The Popes were like arbiters in the disputes, often bitter, between the "maculates" and the "immaculates," led by Dominicans and Franciscans.

However, if one wishes to identify a crucial point, it must be found in the forced exile of Pope Pius IX, forced to flee to Gaeta, a fortress located in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, to remove himself from the fierce anti-Catholic and anti-papal persecution of the Roman Republic, led by Freemason Giuseppe Mazzini.

The book opens with an almost cinematographic scene, on a cold morning of January 1849, when Pope Mastai Ferretti went out on the balcony of the palace that offered him hospitality and saw a stormy sea. He was worried. Cardinal Lambruschini, who was by his side, said to him: "Your Holiness, the world will only be cured of the evils that oppress it ... by proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Only this doctrinal definition will re-establish the sense of Christian truths."

A few days later, from Gaeta, Pius IX published the encyclical "Ubi Primum" in which he asked all bishops worldwide to define themselves on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The result was virtually a plebiscite and, on December 8, 1854, the Pope pronounced the solemn declaration that "the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by special grace and privilege of God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

Q: The promulgation of this dogma took place in a period, heir to the Enlightenment, which in Italy enabled Giuseppe Mazzini to say: "A new era is arising which does not admit Christianity" and that was, as you affirm, characterized by a certain decadence in the life of the Church. Do you believe that this historical and ecclesial event had some affinity with what happened, for example, with the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe and, therefore, that it must be interpreted as the response of grace to an impossible human situation?

Sansonetti: The Guadalupe apparition in Mexico completed the evangelization of Latin America in the 16th century. The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, gave back vigor, in the mid-19th century, to an exhausted Church in a tight spot, by recalling the existence of original sin and the redemption of Christ.

They were providential events, which corresponded to a mysterious divine plan. And it is amazing that, four years after the proclamation of the dogma, on February 11, 1858, Our Lady appeared in Lourdes calling herself the Immaculate Conception, confirming the dogma.

She could have done so earlier -- there were tens, if not hundreds, of Marian apparitions prior to Lourdes -- but the Virgin respects the human way, the steps of the Church. And she described herself as the "immaculate" only "after" Pius IX's Bull of December 8, 1854.

Q: Can you tell us something about the supernatural events that reporters of that time wrote in regard to the promulgation of the bull "Ineffabilis Deus"?

Sansonetti: On the morning of December 8, 1854, in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, a ray of light fell on Pius IX at the moment of the reading of the bull "Ineffabilis Deus." An amazing phenomenon, because in no season, and much less so just before winter, and from no window of the Vatican basilica, could a ray of light reach the apse where the Pope was. It was seen as a kind of heavenly approval, the hope of a joyful future in the midst of the tormented life of the Church at the time.

A few months later, on April 12, 1855, Pius IX was visiting the "Propaganda Fide" School in Rome. All of a sudden the pavement opened up. That instant, the Pope cried out: "Immaculate Virgin, help us!" Miraculously, no one was hurt. For a century in that school the custom continued among the students, when dismissed for a break, to repeat the prayer "Immaculate Virgin, help us!"

Q: In "Ineffabilis Deus," Pius IX, in declaring the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, said that it was destined for "the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the enhancement of the Christian religion." What were the benefits obtained with the definition?

Sansonetti: It was another Pope who described the benefits for the life of the Church: St. Pius X, in the encyclical "Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum," published in 1904, fifty years after the proclamation of the dogma.

In addition to "the hidden gifts of graces" given by God to the Church through the intercession of Mary, Pope Sarto recalled: the convocation of Vatican Council I in 1870, with the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility; the "new and never before seen fervor of piety with which the faithful of all classes and nations, have been coming, for a long time, to venerate the Vicar of Christ"; the longevity of the pontificates of Pius IX and Leo XIII, most wise pilots of the Church; the "apparitions of the Immaculate in Lourdes and the flourishing of miracles and piety."

Missions, charity and culture flourished again, and the presence and visibility of Catholics returned to social life. An amazing example: On the day of the Assumption of 1895, after the courageous example of the Catholics of Roubaix, Eucharistic processions, which had been prohibited, resumed throughout France.

Q: During John Paul II's visit to Lourdes [last] year, on the day of the Assumption, papal spokesman Navarro Valls said: "The Pope has come to ask for healing not only of physical illness but of the gravest sickness that torments the modern world: forgetfulness of original sin."

Sansonetti: In reality, with his reminder of original sin, John Paul II did nothing other than repeat something already clear at the end of the 19th century, the century of Pius IX and of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And, on top of that, in environments that were certainly not clerical.

At the end of the 19th century, the poet Baudelaire, who was certainly not a flatterer, said: "The greatest heresy of our time is the negation of original sin!" This heresy is still alive and acting.

Suffice it to think of the campaign against the former Italian Minister Rocco Buttiglione, a Catholic, obliged to give up his candidature for European Commissioner for Justice and Liberties, for having used the word "sin" during a hearing.

Sin and original sin are denied because there is the desire to affirm the idea of man totally liberated from a supernatural dependence, from a Creator, a man who does not acknowledge his limitations and puts himself in God's place.

But man, freed from this bond, without a religious reference, becomes a tyrant to himself, prey to utopias and totalitarianisms. From a man without God, spring Nazism, Communism and the present terrorism that uses the word "god" for its bloody ends.

Mary Immaculate, with her gentle and benevolent smile, just as she has been pictured, has crushed the serpent's head and leads us by the hand toward Paradise, toward the immaculate condition that is her privilege, though promised to us all.


Contact: Catholic Online
http://www.catholic.org CA, US
Catholic Online - Publisher, 661-869-1000
Keywords: Immaculate Conception, Mary, Church, Catholic, Christ, Sin

PRAISE GOD!

It seems to be an obsession of the West to battle over what goes on in someone's womb.

Mary was still a human in need of salvation, right? Why did she refer to her son as "My Lord" ? Was it Mary and not Jesus who was born in everyway a human but sin? Or was conception of Mary similar to the Adoptionist understanding of Jesus becoming divine at his Baptism?

Cardinal Newman wrote beautifully of the Immaculate Conception and its lessons for us. He asks us to suppose that Eve had stood the trial instead of succumbing to the temptation, that she had kept the grace that was hers and ours in the beginning, and then to suppose that she had children. Those children, from the first moment of their existence would, through divine bounty, have received the same privileges that Eve had possessed. As she was taken from Adam's side clothed in grace, so her children in turn would have received what may be called an immaculate conception. We, her descendants, would have been concieved in grace as in fact we are conceived in sin.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is placed before our eyes as a daughter of Eve unfallen, and thus she shows us what our nature would have possessed supernaturally and by privilege if Eve had not fallen.
Ours is the same human nature that Our Lady possessed and, therefore, in the splendor of Mary's Immaculate Conception, we have a promise of something of what we yet may be if we cooperate with the grace of God that is restored to us by Jesus, Our Savior, but was hers from the beginning.
(From the writings of Cardinal John Wright)

O Mary, conceived without sin; pray for us who have recourse to thee!

John

Yes, Mary is still fully human and STILL need salvation. G-d still saved her just as He saved us on the Cross. Mary could NOT be conceived without stain of sin (Sin=inclination to sin, distortedness, death, etc) WITHOUT G-d's doing. She can't be conceived that way on her own.

Jesus didn't become Divine at his Baptism. He IS Who IS (I am) just as G-d identified Himself to Moses (I am). Jesus is ALREADY Divine even before His incarnation into Mary's immaculate womb. He is G-d.

That is why Mary MUST be pure and without sin from all eternity to her conception (Conception of St. Anne), so that G-d would be comfortable in a "sphere" of holiness just as G-d is holy. G-d cannot tolerate sin, not even an atom of sin...not EVEN for just a billisecond throughout her ENTIRE existence.

It's all for the GLORY of G-d, not for Mary. G-d deserves to be inside the purest vehicle for His Mission. He did that for Himself since as I mentioned before, He cannot tolerate sin.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Mary who is more spacious than the heavens.

i don't think the issue at hand regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception pertains to Christ being born without original sin. i think every Christian would attest to that - regardless of where they stood on the issue of the Immaculate Conception.

The question is why do we have to be dogmatic about the details? All teachings about Mary are focused on Christ - for without Christ, she is just "another" woman (as we are all just "other" people without Him). A case in point is her title of Theotokos.

What needs to be affirmed (and is) is that Christ was born without sin. i just can't get my mind around the reason of why we have to be explicit about the details regarding Mary's conception in this. Why are the details forced here when there is no need?

i ask this in all humility - i simply am seeking answers. i hope i haven't sounded argumentative or divisive as that is not my intent.

Peace,
the_grip

Excellent point/question. Mary's ontology is not necessary, but the West's tendancy to ontologize is unique. For instance, instead of how the Eucharist is spiritual 'food', which is to be consumed and not adored, the West needs to focus on its ontological, not soteriological, reality. So we end up with Eucharistic Adoration - a focus on the substance of its reality, not its role in our deification/partakers of the divine nature/theosis. Jesus said, "Take eat," not, "Take look."

Likewise, instead of focusing on St. Anne's conception - and being done with it - the West needs to ontologize the Immaculate Conception. As a result, we honor more Mary's 'immaculate' conception more than Jesus' conception on the feast of the Annunciation. This gives explanation to why the West will consider the ontologized feast of Anne's conception a "Holy Day of Obligation" rather than Jesus' "Most Holy Transfiguration."

The switch from a soteriology of Jesus (early Jewish Christology - Who is Jesus and how did he play in the economy of salvation?) to an ontology of Jesus (later Greek Christology - What is Jesus and how does he relate to the nature/essence of God?) was only natural because of the question: Who is this Jesus? Even the Gospels reflect this reflection on Jesus' person; the later the Gospel was written, the earlier it goes back in answering the ontological questions: Mark (at Jesus' Baptism), Matthew/Luke (at Jesus' Nativity), and then John (at his Pre-Existence). Such an ontological quest is only natural here since Jesus, not Mary, was God-Man. It was Arius who confused Jesus' subordination in the economy of salvation with his subordination in the essence of God.

But instead of the Conception of St. Anne (a soteriological event), we immortalize Mary's Immaculate Conception (an ontological quest). Instead of Mary's Dormition/Falling Asleep, we immortalize her bodily Assumption. Again, a focus on an ontology of her person.

Mary is the Mother of God (or Theo-tokos). This is the highest role any human person can attain in this life. She is the Queen of our hearts only because she is the supreme example of what humans must do: cooperate with the Holy Spirit (synergy) on their own free will - the eternal YES. She is the Christian par excellence. She is the heart of the Church; hence the reason why her image is depicted on the image of Pentecost (even though she is not mentioned in such an event in the Book of Acts).

But Mary is not, nor was she ever, God. I believe it was St. John Damascene who defined the difference between dulia (or hyperdulia) and latria. We don't worship Mary. There is no need to speculate on her person as far as Jesus, whose nature was/is God-Man.

Funny how the two major Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, deal with events found in the non-canonical Gospels, which even the Church did not accept. Like bookends, they lie outside the corpus of the Good News, which is still Jesus the Christ. So, I guess ANY speculation outside the scope of the canon can be without limit. So, ontologize away! What the canonical Gospels have to say about Mary is more critical. She is an ever-virgin because Isaiah said it-had-to-be. Such is the e-con-o-my. Mary wondered; Joseph pondered. Let's don't think we can come up with the answer if they didn't. Let it be.

Joe

grip,

Who is to say there was no need to define some of the "details"? You? Me? Or the Church? And how "detailed" is unnecessary? I know most Protestants would shudder in revulsion at the details the Church in the East has given to Mary and "forces" upon her followers. Where do we draw the line? The lowest common denominator? Many believe that even the title "theotokos" is unnecessary and should not be "forced" upon believers.

Often those in the East are consternated about definitions applied by the Church in the West. It is true, as J Thur indicated, that we are somewhat "ontologically obsessed". However, this is who we are, and therefore, this is where our heresies come from as well. The East has not had the same heresies as the West, and often cannot understand our need to define things that were never an issue for them (aside: it seems the 1st millenium consisted in battling heresies that originated in the East, whereas the 2nd millenium was consumed with heresies in the West: I wonder what this millenium will bring?).

I recently read an article by Mark Shea about the " Case for Marian Devotion [crisismagazine.com] ". In it, he explains why he believes the Church defined both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. They were both defined in response to incorrect (and dangerous) worldviews that permeated the western world at the time. Who are we to say the definitions were not "needed"? We are unable to see all the ramifications of such an act.

Dear Friends,

There certainly are doctrines that are "forced" such as the doctrine of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos.

What need not be forced ( and should not be) is a particular dogma that relates to the theological tradition of a particular Church (in this case, the Latin) and that, as a result, has no relevance to Eastern Churches that work within other traditions.

However, I believe that today RC's may accept the Orthodox position on Original Sin.

Alex