www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why is the Immaculate Conception considered Ex-Catherda?

That's interesting...without reading into them the "pre-conceived" notion of IC...I can't find patristic evidence in any of them for the IC.

Really none of the quotes implicitly teach when she was 'sanctified,' in the womb, which is why the IC is a valid opinion (though perhaps a minority one).

The reason why it is not proper grounds for a dogma are two-fold. The first reason is it is predicated on the theological assumptions of one church, without reference to the teachings and praxis of the other churches in that communion. The second reason is because it is not part of the proclamation of the gospel.

However, it is part of the Liturgical Tradition of all the Apostolic Churches, whether implicitly or explicitly. Whether or not one reads the text the 'exact' same way as the Latin proclamation is up to question, but it cannot be denied that such a reading is possible.

The liturgical tradition of the churches is a good point. Could it be that the west felt it necessary to dogmatize certain things because of the relative scant references to them liturgically? The purity of the of the Theotoksis is proclaimed at every celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Since it is so much a part of the liturgical tradition, it is not questioned, nor does it require explanation, and thus there is no reason to "dogmatize" it. By comparision, thumbing through the Tridentine Mass one is struck by the lack of reference of the same.

Ok, so when we say the word, immaculate, what exactly does that mean?

It seems that the west applies this to mean without sin and preserved from all sin from the moment of her creation in the womb of St. Anne. Are there other equal ways of interpereting this among the Fathers?

What about the Angelic saluation, Hail full of grace. Doesn't the Greek form of the word, Kecharitomene infer that she was made full of grace as a past event that is future enduring?

i'm no theolgian, but this is how I've understood it to be.

This, I think is exactly the issue. As I have always understood it, the early church had no interpretation of "immaculate" meaning "preserved from sin at the moment of her creation in the womb" since Christ is alone in being without sin. (I know I just opened a "can of worms" in regards to Mary) This interpretation was later created and many in the West were against such an interpretation since it did not conform with ancient tradition...

ByzBob,

It's interesting to note that the question of *when* Mary's unique sanctification took place seems to be of little importance in Eastern thinking, yet is seen as absolutely crucial in Western thinking.

Let's consider this: as we all know, the feast celebrating Mary's conception began in the East and migrated west around the 11th Century. We also know that a number of prominent Western theologians, including St. Bernard of Clairvaux, opposed the idea of having a feast in honor of Mary's conception. What is often missed, however, is the fact that all the discussion about this feast in the West simply assumes that its purpose is to celebrate the moment of Mary's sanctification!

I would therefore conclude that this uniquely Western concern about the moment of Mary's sanctification is NOT an essential part of the dogma, and if we can just set that aside, we will have removed a major obstacle to reunion!

(The nature of Original Sin, of course, is a separate issue and needs to be dealt with similarly but separately.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It's absolutely important to the West because (contra Markdum), it's really all about Christ. Christ is sinless. Christ is a man, born of a woman. All men are born into a state of sin. Therefore. . .

Does not compute. Does not compute. Danger, danger, Will Robinson!

The doctrine of the immaculate conception circumvents the incongruity and leaves both the Western doctrine of original sin and the dogma of Christ's sinless nature intact.

And, again, contra Markdum, all Marian doctrines are at their foundation Christological in nature.

Dear Deacon Richard,

I agree with you, but most Roman Catholics that I have meet don't allow this sort of latitude, as they considered it ex-cathedra. It is their understanding that the dogmatic statement is expressed near the end of Ineffabilis Deus:


As I was listening to a recent debate on this topic between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant apologists it seemed that what the Protestant objected to the most was that it was now “required,” belief. In a certain sense, I empathized with his concern. So given the new doctrine "plank," of Vatican 1 I wondered if it really rose to an ex-cathedra statement, even from a western perspective. It is unfortunate that this teaching, along with some other ones is considered de fide in the west, since it (the question of the state of Mary’s soul at the time of conception) is a non-essential, and liberty was hitherto allowed on this, as well as other non-essential questions.

Bob

Dear brother Job,

Let me just take two of the 7,

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

What does the word “exempt” mean to you?

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).

What does it mean that God “formed her without any stain?” What relevance can we attach to the fact that St. Proclus is analogizing that statement about Mary, with the very conception of Jesus?

Blessings

Dear brother Job,


I agree with you that this is the exact issue. What do such words as "pure" and "immaculate" mean? Coming from an Oriental background, I, like you, have never before considered such terms as meaningful evidences of the IC --- until tonight.

As I was pondering my response to you in my previous post, it dawned on me that when the Fathers East, West, and Orient speak of the "stain" or "blemish" (or any other synonym the Fathers have used) of sin, they are not speaking literally. They are referring, rather, to a state of separation from God. I know the Latins have always taught this, but I never made the connection before.

If "pure" or "immaculate" means not having the "stain of sin," and "stain of sin" means "separation from God," then a Father who states that Mary "never had a stain" or "has never been defiled" means simply that there was never a moment in Mary's existence that she was separated from God. That does indeed denote a belief in the Immaculate Conception.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where is your opinion (that the Dogma was intended to preserve the sinlessnes of Christ) expressed in the Dogma or in the apostolic consitution? Please give us a direct quote.

Mary's utter purity was necessary not so she could pass on her unblemished nature to the God-man, but rather because God is sinless and could not abide in anything that was touched by sin.

Basically, you have it the other way around.

Blessings

Dear brother Bob,

At CAF, I initiated a thread in the Eastern Catholicism Forum called "Is the IC a hindrance to unity." I don't know if its permitted to link to another Forum here in ByzCath, so I would just like to invite you to check out the thread. It's not very long at this point, only 3 pages. I believe it has great relevance for the issues you bring up.

Blessings

Christ is risen!

The hour is late and my wits are not their sharpest. However...


I would say that to ignore concern for the moment is to sacrifice an extremely pressing modern issue: When does human life begin? There is an intrinsic tie between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Catholic defense of the moment of conception as the beginning of human life.

As I said, it's late for me. I hope that made sense.

It's always a very, very bad idea to taylor doctrine to address transient social issues rather than transcendent truths. There is plenty of scriptural and patristic support for the fact that life begins at conception. In any case, the scientific evidence for that fact are now overwhelming. Not even abortionists deny that a fetus is a human being--they just don't care.