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

The question is what did it mean to Hippolytus? I looked, but can't locate this quote in it's context so unless someone has the entire context we are left with one sentence that is being used to buttress the Latin concept of the IC. In order to maintain this you would have to prove that Hippolytus had the same understanding of original sin as did Pius IX when he promolgated the doctrine in 1854. You also have to prove that his use of exempt meant at the exact moment of insemination, not sometime afterwards. In short, I don't think that this proves the IC (esp. given the historical and patristic evidence to the contrary). Nor do I think it is a valid question to ask what the word "exempt," means to us. Indeed, that is much like the Protestant arguement against the sinlessness of the Mother of God. Romans 3:23 states, "for all have sinned..." "What does 'all' mean to you?"


Again, we can only speculate, which is much the point. Here is what we know: The Immaculate Conception was not promologated until 1854, which means that up until that point there was liberty on the question. If it is really a De Fide (of the faith) doctrine then why was liberty allowed on it for 19 centuries? If it was a central dogma then why didn't an early council deal with the question since there were differing opinions? There is a quote that comes to us from the early church (attributed to Augustine): In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things charity.
The underlining issue, seems to me, to be a difference on the understanding of dogma. What is dogma, what elements of the Christian faith are proper subject to dogma, and how do we know?

Bob

Dear brother Bob,

Hippolytus states that she "was exempt." He did not say she "was made exempt." The diction is pretty plain, to me anyway. I don't think I'm reading anything into it.

The stain of Original Sin has always been understood by the Church to refer in part to spiritual death/corruption - separation from God. That is a unanimous teaching of all the Churches, and that is all that the Dogma of the IC refers to - that Mary was exempt from the spiritual effects of Original Sin (i.e., she was never for one instance in her existence separated from God). The dogma of the IC has nothing to do with the physical effects of the Orignal Sin (physical death/corruption).

The historical evidence against the IC is sparse, to say the least. There are 1 or 2 Fathers who say Mary actually sinned. There are 2 or 3 Fathers who say only Jesus was exempt from the consequences of the Fall, and this because He is God. That has no bearing on the teaching of the IC, because whereas Jesus' exemption was natural (because He is God), Mary's exemption was of Grace. And, of course, there are 2 or 3 Latin Fathers in the Middle Ages who opposed it, not because they did not believe Mary was sanctified at her spiritual conception (which is what the IC teaches), but only because they thought the spiritual conception occurred many days after the physical conception. That's the sum of the supposed patristic evidence "against" the teaching, which is not much at all.

That verse really has no bearing on the discussion. St. Paul is referring to actual sin (the context of the verse is the righteousness that comes from performing the works of the law), not original sin, and all apostolic Churches admit this verse does not refer to Mary (since Mary never actually sinned).

I assume from your subsequent statements that you agree that this statement supports the IC.

But what differing opinions? I summarized the extent of the supposed opposition to the IC above. The very great majority of the early Fathers would not have had a problem with the teaching of the IC. Even the Eastern Church did not have a problem with the IC. For example, the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine had a very strong Traditional belief in the matter. It was only at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries that the belief in the IC became systematically opposed within the EOC. And even then, there has been no official synodal condemnation of the teaching.

Dogma is Truth. It's necessity is dependent on its relationship to the central Truths of our Faith - namely, Truths about God.

In the Catholic Church, there is an hierarchy of Truths. The central Truths are about God proper (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and belief in these are necessary for salvation. All other Truths exist insofar as they are an aid to reinforcing the central Truths about God. Insofar as they serve that purpose, they are likewise necessary for salvation. One can generally (though by no means concisely) gauge their relative necessity by the proscriptions attached to them. If they are anathemas, they have a special and unique relation to the Truths about God (for example, Truths about the teaching authority of the Church, without which our knowledge of God would suffer or not exist at all). If they are not anathemas (such as in Munificentissimus Deus and Ineffabilis Deus), that would normally mean that the Truth is not central (and thus not absolutely necessary for salvation), but necessary only insofar as it reinforces the central Truths.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the revelation of the Mystery of Christ. In Catholic doctrine there exists an hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian Faith…The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith.”

In any case, a person who believes that the IC is a valid theologoumenon, but not a dogma, does not fall under the proscription of the Decree. Only those who obstinately believe and teach that it is a heresy fall under its proscription. Since no Orthodox Synod (Eastern or Oriental) has condemned the teaching as a heresy, then it does not divide. If in the future, an Orthodox Synod decides it is a heresy (God forbid), then it is not the Catholic Church that has made it a source of division, but rather that Synod.

Blessings,
Marduk

I really have to wonder why, inevitably, Markdum comes down on the side of Latin doctrine, each and every time. Were we of the Christian East so incredibly obtuse that, somehow, we missed all of these important interpretations for millennia, but are expected to accept that the Latin Church was the one, only, ultimate and exceptional conduit of truth--even though it took them something like eighteen centuries to get around to "defining" some of them?

Dear brother Stuart,

I don't understand why the IC is "Latin" doctrine. Do you deny that the ROC in Ukraine had a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Middle Ages? I believe it was Father Ambrose who brought up the fact in a post a while ago that a bishop in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has forbidden his priests to speak against the IC. There are many EO and OO who accept the teaching, so I don't understand why you style it as a "Latin" doctrine.

You also have to understand that the EO argument against the IC based on the difference in understanding of Original Sin has no bearing on me as an Oriental. The Oriental Tradition does not delineate between the spiritual and physical effects of original sin as sharply as the Eastern Tradition does. So if I don't accept the validity of that rhetoric, it has nothing to do with the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

My dear Markdum,

The Orthodox Church in Ukraine had lots of things not found elsewhere due to its proximity to the West, so it proves nothing. It is, according to a number of Orthodox authorities, including Metropolitan Kallistos, acceptable for an individual Orthodox Christian to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary; it is a permissible theologumenon. Is it a dogma of the universal Church? No, it is not, nor is it a suitable area for dogmatization.

I find the doctrine to be unnecessary to fulfill its fundamental purpose of ensuring the sinlessness of Christ within Byzantine-Orthodox anthropology, but I am not going to excommunicate anyone who believes it. On the other hand, I have a lot of problems with trying to force the doctrine upon others as "necessary for salvation", for that is obviously not the case.

What I want to know is why you so vociferously defend the dogmatic nature of this doctrine, instead of accepting it as one of any number of speculations about how and why Mary was preserved from all sin.

It proves that it was not a heresy, as many EO regard it today.

I disagree, obviously. I believe it is a necessary corollary to the dogma of our Lord's divinity. If our Lord was merely human, as many to this day believe, then the utter purity of Mary as his mother would be entirely unnecessary.

Agreed. And neither does the Decree say it is "necessary for salvation."

I defend it because it is Truth. I don't believe it is mere speculation because of the witness of the Fathers on the matter. As stated, I believe the utter purity of Mary as Theotokos is a natural corollary of the Divinity of the Son, who cannot abide in anything touched by sin. You and I have Christ through our baptism, and we experience the Energy of God, but you nor I, nor anyone else in history, had the honor of having within herself the fullness of divinity. I cannot accept the idea that God would unite Himself in the manner of the Incarnation with anyone who has been touched by the stain of sin, original or otherwise, at any moment in her life.

And, of course, I vociferously defend it against those who claim it is a heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Who are these Orthodox who think it's a heresy? Why do I never seem to meet any of them? And, in any case, who cares? I am more concerned about my Latin brethren who seem to think not believing in the immaculate conception is a heresy, because that has direct implications for me, and all of us in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike.


You mean you think it is Truth. Other than the assertion of the Latin Church, there is no consensus of the Fathers on the matter, and much dissent. Lacking a universal consensus--and I mean truly universal, not by unilateral fiat of one Church over the others--then it is simply one theological speculation among others, and not a particularly important one at that.


There are all those anathemas, though.


Again, your theological speculation, not mine.



Ah, well that's the real issue: you can't accept it, but obviously a good many others feel this is unnecessary given their understanding of the consequences of Adam's fall. And that being the case, by what right can this interpretation be imposed upon Churches that have a different interpretation?

Go to websites like orthodoxinfo and orthodoxchristianity and you'll find enough of them.

If you can show me a single Father (except the one or two expressed the opinion that she actually sinned) who taught that Mary had a single stain while she was alive, keeping in mind that "stain" or "blemish" or "spot" refers to separation from God, then I'll believe you when you say that there was no universal consensus.

In any case, what I "think" is Truth is irrelevant. It's what the Church teaches that is Truth.

Btw, would you claim that the Essence/Energy distinction is "Truth," despite the fact that there is no universal consensus from the Fathers on it? If you admit that the Essence/Energy distinction is only a speculation, I will do likewise with the IC.

What anathemas? From my reading of Church history, when the Church wants to anathematize, it doesn't walk on eggshells. Where are the words "let them be anathema!" in the Decrees?

So you don't believe that Mary had to be utterly pure for the Lord to descend upon her?

No. The real issue is that there is nothing in the Decree that imposes the belief on others "under pain of damnation." There is a proscription against obstinately opposing the taeching (which means the proscription is not against those who merely doubt it, nor against those who believe it but do not think it should be dogma, nor against those who deny it because they have been taught to oppose it throughout their life, nor against those who deny it because they don't understand it, or any number of other exceptions that come into play by virtue of invincible ignorance). There is a proscription against publicly opposing it in writing, which is punishable by law, not damnation. At best, the proscription is an excommunication. There's nothing in the Decree that states that it is "necessary for salvation." The real issue is your claim that it does.

Blessings,
Marduk

I prefer to interact with flesh-and-blood Orthodox, thanks. The web has a tendency to bring out extremists, Catholic and Orthodox alike.


I don't believe that this required any prenatal action on the part of God. Since we are born without the stain of Adam's sin, but rather with Adam's consequent mortality, Mary--like all of us--would be responsible only for the sins which she committed after her birth, both voluntary and involuntary. As the Tradition says Mary was preserved from all sin through her perfect cooperation with the Holy Spirit, that is sufficient. As the consequence of Adam's fall is death, and as the Tradition also says Mary fell asleep in the flesh and was assumed bodily into heaven, it is also apparent that Mary shared all the elements of human nature, including mortality.

As Tradition says Christ voluntarily surrendered his life for the life of the world, it is evident that his sinlessness has nothing to do with the circumstances of his mother's conception, but with the perfect harmony of his human and divine natures within the single hypostasis of Jesus of Nazareth. As I said, we have our own unique anthropology and soteriology developed over the course of a millennium; why should we abandon it in favor of a different one that does not share our assumptions?


You know, in Talmudic studies, there is a method called pilpul, which is defined as "an infinite splitting of hairs". This goes beyond pilpul to making distinctions without differences. To be excommunicated is to be separated from the Body of Christ, which is for all intents and purposes equivalent to a decree of damnation--at least in the mind of the vast majority of Catholics (and maybe a lot of Orthodox, too).

Dear brother Stuart,

I think it is certainly a great sign that you have not met any Orthodox in real life who call the IC a heresy. I believe that is the ideal. The proscription in the IC does not apply to those who have the attitude as you have described from those Orthodox you have met in real life. It only applies, as the proscription explicitly states, to those who “obstinately maintain” an opposition to the teaching.

Comment: The Assumption is not a dogma to the EO, but would any EO feel comfortable or sit idly by while anyone calls it heresy? Would not EO rather actively defend the teaching? So it should not surprise you to find a Catholic, even an Oriental Catholic, or even an Eastern Catholic who believes it but does not believe it should be dogma, who defends the IC.


Mortality is not the only thing we inherited from Adam and Eve. We also inherited the state of separation from God (otherwise known as spiritual death, otherwise known as the stain of original sin). Question – do you deny that? Tradition says Mary never had that stain – any stain - during her entire existence. Does or can the Byzantine Tradition distinguish between sin (offense against God) from the stain/blemish/spot of sin (the resultant separation from God due to the offense)? If it can, I don’t understand what an Eastern would be abandoning (as you later propose) by accepting the teaching on the IC, or at least admitting it is a valid theologoumenon. Perhaps you or another Eastern can explain.

Since the dogma of the IC does not teach that Mary did not die, then it would seem the tension here is just a matter of semantics. Surely that can be overlooked, as St. Paul has exhorted us (“Charge them before God to stop disputing about words; it serves no useful purpose” – 2 Tim 2:14). In other words, by all means, don’t use the word “original sin” in order to understand the dogma, if the word means something differently to you. But it would be a wholly artificial and unwarranted excuse to use that difference in definition as a basis to reject it. In that light, I would ask you again, what would an Eastern be abandoning by accepting the teaching of the IC, or at least admitting that it is a valid theologoumenon?

On this issue, I admit I can’t help. I have repeatedly stated that the purpose of the IC is not to ensure that Christ will inherit sinlessness, but rather to ensure the utter purity of the vessel in view of the awful majesty and holiness of God Who cannot abide by anything touched by sin. And I have asked you before to provide proof for your theory from the dogma itself or the apostolic constitution, but you have not. If you need to impose this artificial and false intent upon the doctrine in order to oppose it, then the problem may not be with the doctrine after all, but something else?

Ahhhh. But you would be guilty of a bit of anachronism here, brother. Today, the CC does not seem to distinguish between Anathema and Excommunication, but for almost 2,000 years, including the period when the IC was promulgated, the Church did. The Council of Trent used Anathemas, and so did the First Vatican Council. If the Church wished to utilize an anathema as the proscription for Ineffabilis Deus, the Church could and would have certainly done so. And certainly, the Church was fully aware that there was a big difference between an anathema and an excommunication. An anathema was a condemnation proper, but an excommunication was intended to be corrective; the anathema was primarily an exercise of the Church’s juridical authority (case in point – the Church even placed anathemas on dead heretics), while the excommunication was primarily an exercise of the Church’s pastoral ministry. To style an excommunication as an automatic threat to one’s salvation would place the early Church under condemnation for excluding repentant sinners, according to the gravity of the sin, for as much as 20 years away from the Eucharist.

But apart from that, I know you know that the Catholic Church does not teach that it is impossible for those outside her visible communion to attain salvation (though indeed any Grace of salvation outside the Church has come through the Church in the first place, which is the font of Christ’s salvation).

So if the dogma of the IC places an apparent barrier to reunion by virtue of its proscription, it would not be the fault of the Church who has carefully worded the Decree in view of her pastoral responsibility, but rather of those who (perhaps unintentionally) misinterpret her intent.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have met far more Catholics who say not believing in the immaculate conception is a heresy. So I will say now, openly, to your face: I don't believe in the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. Am I a heretic, in your book?


You certainly like to mix your apples and oranges, don't you. Your statement is logical gibberish, and ignores one critical difference between the Dormition and the immaculate conception: the former has been received universally as part of the Tradition, in the Western and Eastern Churches alike (the doctrine and the feast in fact originated in the East and was adopted in the West in the fifth century, which makes it pure chutzpah for the Latin Church to think it has to "define" it for us), while there is no such consensus on the immaculate conception. It remains a theologumenon of the Latin Church, and nothing more.

If you believe the immaculate conception is true, good for you. Believe to your heart's content. Do not presume to impose it on others, insisting that they abandon critical elements of their Church's Tradition to do so.


Still making distinctions without a difference. For close to a millennium, the Latin Church taught that to die out of communion with the Church of Rome was tantamount to being cast into the outer darkness. That's what gave excommunication its force, until, of course, it got devalued from overuse (it's one thing to excommunicate someone for failing to believe in the Trinity, quite another to do so as the penalty for refusing to bankroll the Pope's latest war, or building project). When you find yourself falling back on legalisms, you ought to hang it up--your argument is failing.

Really? I was taught (in the Latin Church) that excommunication ceases to exist at the moment of death, so it's impossible to die excommunicated. The Church has no juridical power over the dead, and she is not infallible in juridical matters, so the punished individual is ultimately judged by God.

I'd say that it was rather the fact that subjects of the excommunicated individual were relieved from their feudal oaths.

The "stain" is mortality, that is the shadow we live under. That is one of the reasons the idea of "preservation" does not make sense. We as humans are all of the same nature, and in the same state in the wake of the fall.

I would not use the word heresy because I don't see the point of that. The whole thing is based on an anthropology I simply don't share however.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Ineffabilis Deus is "ex-cathedra," and you refused it, wouldn't you be falling under the anathema of Vatican 1 anyway?

That is the problem with considering the IC "ex-cathedra," because then it is considered to be irreformable, according to Vatican 1. The fact that you consider there to be some room for another approach seems to indicate that you agree that it is not "ex-cathedra." Is that accurate?

It helps if you don't consider Vatican I to be a valid council, or Pastor aeternus to have any authoritative standing.