www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Heart of Mary

This obesession on command and reponse seems to me to be from a bygone era. The Universal Pastor recommends to the Catholic faithful our devotion to the Mother of God, meditating on her Immaculate Heart. I can't imagine why something so unobjectionable would need to be an "order". I also can't imagine why some would think that even if not in this case, but some cases, devotions should be ordered"

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 10-20-2000).]

>>>I also can't imagine why some would think that while not in this case, but some cases, devotions should be ordered"<<<

Because true belief cannot be compelled, as any of the ante-Nicene Fathers would have told you.

Fr. Deacon Ed wrote:

>>>Thus, Latin Catholic must accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.<<<
-----------------------------------------

I agree. But Latin Catholics who lived and died prior to 1854 were not bound by this doctrine (actually a dogma) and did not have to accept it.

Yosko Prokopchak
archsinner

Joe P.:

Quite correct. One must believe only what has been taught. That which might be taught in the future is not binding today any more than future discipline is binding today.

Edward, deacon and sinner

FrDeaconEd,
Your remarks would not have been true during/after the centuries of the great Seven Ecumenical Councils. For this reason the Orthodox Church is recognized as the Church of Seven Ecumenical Councils. The teachings of these Councils were good then, today and for tomorrow without addition, substraction or alteration. It is an unfortunate doctrine, the IC dogma, that cannot be included to the UNITY OF THE FAITH. The IC dogma probably can be compared to a discipline that can be out of sync. As for the Seven Ecumenical Councils they are nonnegotiable. Something quite forgotten by Latin-oriented people. Christians should believe only in true teachings that are apostolic and catholic and good for all eternity. Under no circumstances may Apostolic teachings be altered to better suit any one people. It is the people who have to adjust and accept that which is holy and apostolic and catholic.

Fr. Deacon Ed wrote:

>>Quite correct. One must believe only what has been taught. That which might be taught in the future is not binding today any more than future discipline is binding today.<<
-----------------------------------------

Again I agree. We may be on to something here. The Catholic Church teaches that the dogma of the I.C. is a "revelation from God" ( as it teaches all dogmas to be ). This "revelation from God" has been made known to the Catholic Church. Maybe this "revelation" has not been made known to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. If that is the case then we as Catholics should not criticize our brothers and sisters in the East for not accepting something that God has not yet revealed to them. It took 1850 years for the Catholic Church to receive this revelation. Maybe God has another time frame for our brothers and sisters in the East.

Joe Prokopchak
"Save your people O' God, and bless your inheritence"

Joe P:

First, I don't have a problem with how the Eastern Churches (Catholic or Orthodox) view Mary. With regard to the Immaculate Conception I have reconciled both the Eastern and Western positions in my own mind and find them compatible. As is frequently the case, the same reality is expressed differently because of different ways of approaching or seeing something. When I lead the people in the Great or little Synpate and chant: I am saying the same thing the Immaculate Conception says about Mary. Different approach, same meaning.

Robert: I take exception to your comments as it appears you overlooked one aspect. I clearly stated that before the definition of the Immaculate Conception one was free to accept or reject the notion. Before the Seven Councils declared particular teaching one would not be excommunicated for holding a contrary view. It was only after the declaration of a particular teaching that this penalty would follow. There's no difference here. Sometime I get the feeling you disagree simply because a Catholic has said something and, therefore, you feel you must say the opposite.

Edward, deacon and sinner

"Orthodoxy, while holding in high honour the role of the Blessed Virgin as Christ's Mother, sees no need for any dogma of the '"Immaculate Conception."'As defined by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, this doctrine states that Mary, from '"the first moment of her conception"' by her mother St.Anne, was exempted from '"all stain of original guilt."'....Orthodoxy does not envisage the fall in Augustanian terms, as a taint of inherited guilt. If we Orthodox had accepted the Latin view of original guilt, then we might have felt the need to affirm a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. As it is, our terms of reference are different; the Latin dogma seems to us not so much erroneous as superfluous." The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos.

Dear Joe P. and Fr. Deacon Ed,

I run the risk of being ripped apart for my asking this, but here it goes:

Where in the stichera, troparia, Typicon, and catechetical material via ECF, does the Byzantine Catholic Church teach the "Immaculate Conception" dogma? In fact, we don't even celebrate the I.C. on December 8; we DO celebrate the Feast of St. Anne's Conception on the 9th though as an option for now. All the stichera there is common to the Orthodox.

What we reconcile in 'our' mind or not has nothing to do with the 'mind of the Church.' The question has to be asked (my job) and answered (your job now) since this issue is constantly being raised. Give me documentation, they verses of the hymns, and the day we celebrate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as understood by Roman Catholics. I don't see it in our Typicon. If this is a dogma mandatory for all Catholics, then can I learn of it by simply showing up for liturgy and singing the hymns? Will I learn it at ECF? Will I know what stichera is to be sung by studying our Church's Typicon? What are the scripture readings for the Immaculate Conception as opposed to the readings for St. Anne's Conception? Are they different from the Orthodox stichera? Please help me here because this has really bothered me to no end. I constantly hear and read of Byzantine Catholics stating we believe in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception but find absolutely NO evidence of it being taught in our churches. I don't ask these questions to start an argument for argument's sake; I really want to know how we can say something which we have NO evidence to support it except for our minds having the ability to 'reconcile' it privately out of the context of church Tradition.

Help!!!

Elias, not the Monk

PS: One more question: If we Byzantine Cathoics have accepted the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as do the Roman Catholics, then will it be acceptable to sing their hymns for this feast in our churches?



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 10-21-2000).]

Dear Fr. Deacon Ed,

I really need clarification on some things you have written. My intent is not to cause arguments or to divide people. But what you write seems dubious. Please let me comment:


Fr. Deacon Ed: �When I lead the people in the Great or little Synpate � I am saying the same thing the Immaculate Conception says about Mary. Different approach, same meaning.�

Elias: Is this what the Melkite Bishops mean when they accepted everything Orthodoxy teaches?


Fr. Deacon Ed: �I clearly stated that before the definition of the Immaculate Conception one was free to accept or reject the notion.�

Elias: Interesting enough, the Byzantine Church never entertained the Western dogmatic notion. It wasn�t rejected because it was never accepted; and it was never accepted then and not accepted now. For a brief period, we adopted many of the Western feasts and hymns and theologies. Today, those theologies and feasts and hymns no longer find a home in our traditions. We discovered we are not Augustinian in our doctrinal expositions of the church. An aside: for a brief moment, we adopted Western vows and handing over the bride in our marriage services � as if we were conducting contractual arrangements in church � IN ADDITION to the crowning ceremony which conveys a covenantial relationship with God. Today, those contractual rites have been deleted. They do not speak the mind of the church on these matters. We don�t sing �here comes the bride� nor have a Marian candle or nuptial candle. We ALREADY had two candles given to the man and woman as they entered the temple to be wedded. How confusing it is to introduce layers upon layers of theologies, rites, ceremonies and notions upon innocent and confused people. It is not being honest. Why must the Byzantine Church always adopt Roman Catholic dogmas and religious practices, and never vice versa? How come the Romans never adopted the crowning ceremony? Anyways � back to the I.C. definition. Why do some think it is mandatory for Byzantine Catholics to accept now? I see the opposite happening. Its traces are being gradually erased from our liturgical praxis. Though its name is still on the ever-visual wall calendar, it is not visible in the official Typicon; that is because those who have a Typicon and read it know better. They follow the rule of Church Order.


Fr. Deacon Ed: �Before the Seven Councils declared particular teaching one would not be excommunicated for holding a contrary view.�

Elias: What you do privately in your mind is one thing, what you would teach in the church would be another. A true theologian is one who prayed and spoke the mind of the Church. We have always been cautioned about those who entertain views for entertainment sake. There are an unlimited number of contrary views we can take which are not declared official church teaching. But why would one waste time in holding such views if these views can never be sung at liturgy or taught at catechesis? What is the purpose? Why not stick with the basics found in the Creed and taught in church?


Fr. Deacon Ed: �It was only after the declaration of a particular teaching that this penalty would follow. There's no difference here.�

Elias: But did the faithful hold such views before that particular teaching was proclaimed?


Elias, not the Monk

The dogma of the so-called "Immaculate Conception" was not adhered to in the Orthodox East. How could it have been? From the Byzantine perspective (as Bishop Kallistos says) the dogma would be entirely superfluous.

[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 10-21-2000).]

Elias (non-monk):

You ask what the Melkite bishops think -- I cannot answer that as I am not a Melkite bishop. I said (again, clearly), that I had no problem reconciling the two positions. I believe it is only when one is unable to see both sides of the coin that one begins to polarize positions. When one can see both positions, and can find that they are not inconsistent, then one can truely approach dialog.

As for whether or not there were laity that held positions contrary to what was eventually defined in the Seven Ecumenical Councils I ask why such a strange question? Have you never heard of Arianism, Monophysiteism, Montheliteism, Nestorianism? Of course there were members of the laity (and the clergy) who held views that were eventually defined to be heterodox. I am baffled that you would even ask such a question.

Edward, deacon and sinner.

FrDeaconEd,
There can only one true understanding of the story of Original Sin. I am familiar with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position. Both cannot be reconciled. It is your desire alone that they can be made reconciled. Why do you continue to ignore the injustices that evolved from the Augustinian notion of Original Sin that influenced the creation of the Protestant Reformation? What doest thou say of St. Thomas Aquinas rejection of IC dogma?

Robert,

Perhaps you could enlighten me with regard to the "injustices" caused by Augustine's understanding of Original Sin...

You see, I, too, understand both the Catholic and Orthodox positions...and I find that they are, indeed, part of the fullness of understanding of Original Sin. However, if you feel that I've missed something, I am open to learning...

Edward, deacon and sinner

FrDeacon Ed,
Permit me to enlighten you. Have you ever heard of purgatory and indulgences? I have no trust for anyone that tells me that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are compatible when it comes down to the story of Original Sin. Original Guilt not found anywhere in Orthodoxy is foreign and abnormal teaching, and should be expunged. Promoting the guilt of Adam & Eve can be reflected of how Roman Catholics are always sorry about something and it tends to be excessive as if it were their fault and at times it may have been their fault. I call these problems "excessive guilt trips". These "trips" send the believer to the Church in the hope they can receive an indulgence to expunge them from temporal punishment. I think this is a bunch of nonsense since it reduces the authority of a bishop/priest to remit sins while elevating the extraordinary power of an indulgence. Wasn't the sale of indulgences in the medival Catholic Church one of the reason for the Protestant Reformation? Tell me you don't believe that there is a connection between Original Guilt and Indulgences? I still cannot comprehend why indulgences are still promoted by the current Pope. I saved an article last year that said that the Pope would offer an indulgence if a smoker would quit smoking for one day. All I could then was "What!" Oh, great incentive! I don't mean to mock anyone but it is outrageous.
My beautiful Roman Catholic wife tells me how her families play "guilt trips" on one another when it suits their purposes. I wonder where this comes from! Hint: Try the distortion of Original Sin implemented by Augustine which the Orthodox Church never accepted. I think we need to reexamine what went wrong with Rome's view of Original Sin and how the Roman innovative dogmas rest on this faulty understanding.