www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Conception

I'll just respond in one post to everyone who responded to my question on this thread: Thank you. All of your explanations were very helpful. Very good points, indeed. I do, by the way, believe what the Church generally believes, that the Theotokos was actually sinless.

Perhaps, I would add too that the blessed Theotokos would be aware of her dependence on God for her sinlessness, that she is indeed a redeemed creature; whereas Christ is the "only sinless one" in the sense of being almighty God, incapable of sin. Peace in Christ,

Joe

To All,

This thread always seems to grab my attention this time of year.

Being Roman Catholic I had always blindly accepted the Immaculate Conception until I came to this forum.

Many good arguments have been put forth here, and for the first time I think the Orthodox reasons for rejecting the Immaculate Conception have sunken into my thick skull.

Without adding my own clumsily formulated thoughts as to why I still accept it I would like to provide the following links:


http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian4.html is a simple but good piece geared more toward Protestants.

http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton1.html is longer but also fairly simply written and comes from a Byzantine Catholic viewpoint.

In Christ,
Bill

What is interesting about this is that the Orthodox DO accept Mary being 'full of grace' and sinless, but from the time of the Annunciation, not her birth.

Than again, Holy Orthodox Tradition attributes such great holiness to Mary as a child growing up in the Temple that one does wonder.

Also, Mary identified herself to the uneducated St. Bernadette by saying "I am the Immaculate Conception". St. Bernadette didn't even know what this meant!

So, I am really on the fence about this. I think that East and West would be reconciled more on this topic if it had not been dogmatized in the West. Infact, Bishop Kallistos Ware said that Orthodox are free to believe in her immaculate conception privately.

I realize that the reason for this dogma may have been to combat some type of heresy which arose at the time. Does anyone here know what that heresy might have been, and what prompted this dogma?

In Christ,
Alice

Alice,

One thing I would note is that a private revelation, such as an alleged appearance to a little French girl, is never used to support Dogma. As far as why the Roman church decided to dogmatize the Immaculate Conception; I don't know. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Ahh, but private revelation is sufficient to canonize a feast on the Church's calendar...the Feast of the Holy Protection of the Theotokos.

Of course, the Church had believed for centuries in the Protection of the Holy Theotokos before the revelation to St. Andrew the Fool and Epiphanius, as evidenced by the earliest prayer of the Sub Tuum. This private revelation merely confirmed what the Church has always and everywhere believed.

And as further evidence of its veracity, let us consider the perfectly incorrupt body of "the little French girl" as testimony to her profound theosis. One would hardly think that God would permit such a miracle of grace to be manifested in a fool or liar!

Pictures of St. Bernadette [catholicpilgrims.com]

Of course, I have not even TOUCHED upon the miraculous cures that continue to this day in Lourdes. These healings have been documented and studied with great scrutiny.

The evidence of Lourdes is a profoundly theological one.

The lady who miraculously appeared to the little French girl at the garbage dump on successive occasions, who caused a miraculous healing spring to appear in said garbage dump and announced "I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" was either:

a. A figment of the little French girl's imagination...yet why her incorrupt body?

b. a demon appearing as Mary to deceive hundreds of thousands of devout Catholic pilgrims...even millions (and the atheist converts)...but why the continued healings

c. the All-Immaculate Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary

Of course, I find "c" a much more credible answer.

Look, personally, I think there are problems with Todd's argument. He seems to treat the "Byzantine tradition" as if it were some hermetically sealed and static deposit of Patristic texts, when in fact many Orthodox scholars recognize the confluence and cross-fertilization that occured between the three great streams of Holy Tradition - Latin, Greek and Syrian - over the course of many, many centuries and whose diversity and development in large part formed the greatness of Byzantium. Latinization is a separate - and much later - issue historically.

And while I agree that there are things to be critical of when it comes to the writings of Saint Augustine, there is enough within the broader Patristic writings (and our liturgical canons) to convince me that:

a. the concept of the ancestral sin encompasses more than just mortality (anyone who has ever raised a child through the terrible two's knows this..."they did not learn that from me!" )

b. praise of Mary's prerogatives never in any way detracts from her nature as a human being, nor does it elevate her to the level of "goddess", as Papaflessas absurdly argues...in fact the fathers seemed loathe to withhold any praise from the Theotokos as befitting her nature as the perfect woman "full of grace" (kecharitomene - which evidently means an action completed in the past that also continues to the present) and human person. Just read Saint john of Damascus and his praises to the Theotokos and see how little they differ from the theological piety of a Saint Alphonsus or Saint Louis Marie!

c. the Biblical evidence for the intimate connection between the twofold curse of "sin and death", as well as the typological interpretations of creation, the deluge and the Exodus in relationship to Holy Baptism in both the liturgies and the fathers leave little doubt as to the nature of the illness and the cure made manifest in this mystery.

As with Bishop Kallistos Ware's treatment of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception has its "hawks" and "doves" within Orthodoxy. I would argue that despite Todd's somewhat hawkish positions in this regard, it does fall outside the scope of Orthodox tradition to hold as a matter of theologumena that the all-holy Mother of God as the New Eve was conceived immaculate and thus free from the curse of sin and death her whole life.

God bless,

Gordo

Let me blame it on the hour (he said rather sheepishly), but this is rather how I intended my last paragraph to read:


Ah well...as GK Chesterton once said, "Any thing worth doing is worth doing baaaadly!"

God bless,

Gordo , baaaaaaaa

[Linked Image]

Gordo, just for the record; I wasn't implying that the appearance to St. Bernadette was a fraud or untrue in any way. :o). I will say though that having a feast based on an appearance or revelation and using such an appearance as proof for a Dogma are two different things. Peace in Christ.

Joe

Joe,

I agree with your distinction. Of course, the proclamation of the dogma preceded the purported apparition, so if it is offered as proof, it is only after the fact of its definition. Private revelation is in effect a prophetic confirmation of doctrine, as was the case with the revelation at Constantinople to St. Andrew and his companion regarding the mediatorial role of the Theotokos in the life of Christians. In this regard, many Catholics would see Lourdes as a prophetic confirmation of the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception (much in the same way that Our Lord's appearance to Saint Paul convinced him of the Divinity and Resurrection of Christ, although in the hierarchy of truths, the Immaculate Conception falls fairly low in rank especially in comparison to Christ's Divinity).

Sorry that I misunderstood your meaning...

Peace,

Gordo

PS: BTW, just for the record, while I agree theologically and dogmatically with the definition, I disagree with the fact that it was dogmatically defined since, in answer to Alice's question, I do not believe that there was any controversy which required such a definition. The same holds true for the efforts of some that I admire who advocate for the canonical addition of the Marian title "Co-Redemptrix", a title which has a rich theological tradition (are we not co-redeemers in Christ with the Theotokos holding such an honor in a particular way as Mother of all Christians?) and I believe even originated with St. John of Damascus. The act of proclaiming what may very well be spiritual and theological truths apart from controversies or heresies has shown itself to be extremely and unnecessarily divisive, whatever the good will of the popes who did so. Although I personally do not wish to withhold any honor of grace from the Theotokos, I do not believe that papal definitions are the proper means to achieve such a worthy end. I believe that it was for this reason that Blessed John Paul the Great elected not to issue a dogmatic definition canonizing the new title.

Of course, one could argue that providence permitted such a definition to occur through the pope, and who am I to question how the Holy Spirit works in the Church?

Time to fold those wings and bow...

I am not confident that Catholic understanding of original sin is adequately represented in this thread. What has been attributed to Augustine may misrepresent his thought.
Clearly something signficant happened after our first parents ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They lost something as a result of their disobedience. The question is what did they lose?




I quote Aquinas from two questions in the Summa on the treatise of habits and regarding original sin. I see nothing contrary to the Fathers in Aquinas� position or to the concept of theosis. In fact, for Aquinas, what is truly in accord with man�s nature is to be ordered to God. See, e.g., Q 95 Whether the first man was created in grace?

"But the very rectitude of the primitive state, wherewith man was endowed by God, seems to require that, as others say, he was created in grace, according to Ecclesiastes 7:29, "God made man right." For this rectitude consisted in his reason being subject to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul: and the first subjection was the cause of both the second and the third; since while reason was subject to God, the lower powers remained subject to reason, as Augustine says (De Civitate Dei xiii,13; De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione et de Baptismo parvulorum i,16). Now it is clear that such a subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin; since even in the demons the natural gifts remained after sin, as Dionysius declared (De Divinis Nominibus iv). Hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace; for it is not possible that the effect should be of greater efficiency than the cause. Hence Augustine says (De Civitate Dei xiii,13) that, "as soon as they disobeyed the Divine command, and forfeited Divine grace, they were ashamed of their nakedness, for they felt the impulse of disobedience in the flesh, as though it were a punishment corresponding to their own disobedience." Hence if the loss of grace dissolved the obedience of the flesh to the soul, we may gather that the inferior powers were subjected to the soul through grace existing therein."


Back to original sin:

Q. 82. Of original sin as to its essence.

... Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul's powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.


Q. 86 Whether an effect of sin is a stain on the soul?


On the contrary, It was said to Solomon (Ecclesiasticus 47:20): "Thou hast stained thy glory": and it is written
(Ephesians 5:27): "That He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle": and in each case it is question of the stain of sin. Therefore a stain is the effect of sin.
I answer that, A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man's soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above. Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.

As to Mary�s Immaculate Conception, I take it that it means that Mary, through Christ�s redemption, was never subject to this inordinate turning to a mutable good. She always, from the very moment of her conception, was ordered to Him whose Mother she was to become. Could there be any more fitting honor to Mary than to recognize that she was never in a state of not being ordered to God?

To All,

I think this thread has reached the point where, putting the argument aside, the ultimate question is "Why was this proclaimed as dogma?".

To that question I can only guess that somebody somewhere wanted a definition as to what "Immaculate Conception" means.

I'm not sure of the year, but I do know the United States was consecrated to Our Lady under this title before it was ever proclaimed as dogma. So I would guess there were probably a bunch of Americans sitting around scratching their heads wondering what exactly does Mary's "Immaculate Conception" mean.

Unlike the Eastern Churches who are willing to let mystery be mystery, the Western Church likes to define or "pigeon hole" things, so to speak. I kinda like that about the Latin Church, but in this case, and others I'm sure, it has caused a bit of a stir.

May we all be blessed,
Bill

Here is what I understand about the definition of the Immaculate Conception as dogma.

The 19th century was not a good time for the Latin Church in Western Europe. Freud, Marx, Engels and Nietsche (sic) were all atheists who targeted religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. Catholic Poland was partitioned into the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Protestant Germany and Orthodox Russia. Italy formed as a nation and took over the Papal States and Rome.

These factors have more to do with Vatican I and the "papal infallibility" than the Immaculate Conception, but, I think it is not a coincidence that the Mother of God appeared to Bernadette in Lourdes. France was once called "the eldest daughter of the Church". The Church was persecuted and tightly controlled by the French government in the 19th century. Our Lady's words to Bernadette resolved the centuries-long debate in the West over Mary's conception.

I see nothing in the Immaculate Conception that detracts from Christ.
It seems to me that God can do this and chose to do it for Mary. She told it to Bernadette and that's more than good enough for me.

I remember the line from the movie The Song of Bernadette, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice."

I realize that my explanation will likely sway nobody, but I tried.

I have a very good personal reason to believe that Juan Diego, Bernadette, Jacinta, Lucia and Francisco all saw and heard the Blessed Mother of God.

It seems to me that Eastern Orthodox Christians reject the Immaculate Conception simply because it isn't Eastern Orthodox. One could, however, make a solid patristic case for the doctrine, without referring to claims of papal infallibility.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Orthodox rejecting the Immaculate Conception 'simply' because it isn't Eastern Orthodox. Given the importance of the Fathers to Orthodoxy, if such a solid patristic case existed, wouldn't the Orthodox have seen it for themselves before now?

Brigid

Certain church fathers wrote in such a way as to support the Immaculate Conception.

A Byzantine Defense of the Immaculate Conception
http://www.loupizzuti.com/bartonic.htm

Yet since it was declared dogma by the Pope in a unilateral fashion, it's been rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.

It has been rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy since it was declared dogma by the pope since there was no concept of the Immaculate Conception prior to that...

Chris