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

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

StuartK,

You are quite right to inject some humour into this rather dry and serious deiscussion! Dcn. Lawrence makes me laugh too. I did not know that he was Irish.

I agree that the Ukrainians and Ruthenians should not have changed their calendars. I agree that they ought to celebrate the Conception of St. Anne/Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos on the same date( Dec. 9) as we Russians and Melkites do.

I quite agree that in the past many Roman Catholics have assumed that certain practices and disciplines were immutable (e.g. celibacy, age of Communion and Confirmation, Mass in Latin, etc.) I think that this beginning to change.

Glory to Jesus Christ ! Glory forever!

StuartK, Rusnak, Robert, and all other particpants:

I am posting this so that we can all refer to it in our discussion. This is not binding on the Orhtodox, though as many have noted, many Orthodox profess belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. This beautiful encyclical does express the faith of all Catholics including Orthodox in communion with Rome/Byzantine Catholics.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/bvm00013.htm

Doulos de Fatima,
Why do continue to insist that "many Orthodox profess belief in the Immaculate Conception" when this is not true? Where have you been during all these discussions?!

Elias,
Thank you for your reply. You need to know that the Antiochian Orthodox and the Melkites are not in communion. Much talk on the issue occurs from time to time but it has not happened. I know since I belong to the Antiochian and constantly asking on the status. None of my Bishops permit intercommunion here or in the Middle East to Melkites. It is still a closed communion.

P.S. My Irish wife makes good Hot Toddy as we may wait a long time. Would you care for a cup of tea instead?

StuartK,
Thank you for a wonderful and intriguing sermon. I have questions for you. The Unity of the Faith as I understand it as it probably has been understood is ONE FAITH (Ephesians 4:5 & 13) which you rightly pointed to. This ONE FAITH is found in the Apostolic beliefs & expressions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Church is one in essence while diverse in gifts and functions. Each member is unique before God, with gifts and roles granted by Him. Diversity in operation is based on the ascent of the Son and the descent of the Spirit, guided by specially gifted people, and for the sake of the maturity and stability of the Body. With this in mind, the Roman dogmatizations
are still problematic leading to polarization of the two Churches. The "kind of live and let live approach" in regards to the substance of the Faith is what I am concerned about not so much the expressions and practices. I sincerely believe that the substance of the Faith must be the grounds for UNITY OF THE FAITH or Eucharistic sharing. If we cannot agree to the basis of the Fall in the Garden and the coming of Christ we have a problem. There are many heterodox and heretics explaining the Fall in the Garden as it suits their special interests. Could you imagine someone telling you that the Muslim version of Garden of Eden is but an expression of the One Faith which in essence denys Original Sin and accepts the coming of Christ? Is the Muslim really speaking and expressing the truth on what Islam says on the Fall? Should we entertain the Muslim's view of the Garden? We know what are the ramifications of such a distortion: the denial of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. The example of this heresy is a far cry from a "Christian" view of the Fall. In regards to the Augustinian Original Sin adopted by Catholicism, I am sad to say that the ramifications have been poor. It has contributed to the formation of the IC dogma, purgatory, indulgences, etc. Why should an Orthodox accept to ramify the Augustinian notion of Original Sin into a separate, unique category to its own continual existence? Then should we not accept that unbaptized babies go to hell? What is the difference if any in the thought process of Blessed Augustine? Should we not be one in our understanding of Original Sin? Rather than having various versions of it that does not make ends meet? What do you think? I personally do not believe we should maintain the Augustinian notion of Original Sin and continue to fool others and ourselves as itself being a valid school of thought for daily Christian living. I am certainly not speaking about the practice of the Rosary prayers.

>>>Why do continue to insist that "many Orthodox profess belief in the Immaculate Conception" when this
is not true? Where have you been during all these discussions?!<<<

It would be more accurate to say that there are a substantial number of Orthodox who hold theologumena that approach the ideal of immaculate conception; i.e., who believe that Mary was divinely protected from sin from the moment of her conception. They can believe this without holding anything like the Augustinian understanding of original sin. It is merely their way of explaining how Mary became "all holy, all pure, and immaculate" (the Orthodox use translation of "without stain" being right up there with the Ruthenian translation of Pravoslavie as "true faith"). Among those who historically held such a belief was St. Gregory Palamas. Could Barlaam have been right about him, after all?

StuartK,
I really don't know if "there are a substantial number of Orthodox who hold theologumena that approach the ideal of immaculate conception." When I hear the word 'Immaculate' in reference to the Lady Theotokos, I immediately picture the The Feast of the Annunciation. This is about the time the Holy Spirit overshadows the Virgin and mysteriously absolves Her from the stain of sin in order to take on Her flesh as His own flesh. The Theotokos hymn, "It is Truly Meet," refers to Her as "Thou who without stain barest God the Word" means one thing to me: the Holy Spirit in the operation of the life of the Virgin at the time of Christ's conception. It does not tell me anything about Her being conceived without Original Sin. For the Virgin to be conceived without Original Sin she would have to be beyond human. Only Christ is beyond human and born without Original Sin.

Robert writes:

"For the Virgin to be conceived without Original Sin she would have to be beyond human. Only Christ is beyond human and born without Original Sin."

Exactly! Adam and Eve were not only banished from paradise but lost their immortality because of 'original sin'. If the Theotokos was born without the stain of 'original sin' of Adam & Eve, then she would not only be a higher level being than us, thus affecting both the beliefs in the Incarnation & dual natures of Christ (divine & humnan), but she should have been immortal.

Dear FrDeaconEd,
I would like to pose a question. The Immaculate Conception dogma - is this an imposed belief on Roman Catholics in general, or can each Catholic determine whether to believe it or not?
As an Orthodox, I don't believe we inherit our ancestors sins. We may inherit their propencity<<sp?>> to sin but not the actual sin. I think, in my unscholastic way, that this maybe the main difference in our beliefs.
Theotokos protect us
JoeS

JoeS:

Roman Catholics (and I use this term to refer to the members of the Church of Christ that sojourns in Rome) are bound to accept and believe all that the Church in Rome proposes and teaches with regard to faith and morals. Thus, Latin Catholic must accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Regardless of the artificial differences that some have attempted to create, the reality of this teaching is not too dissimilar to the standard understanding of Orthodoxy that we are all born into the consequences of Original Sin but without the guilt associated with Original Sin.

You might want to see the thread on Original Sin on this forum that I started for more on this.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear FrDeaconEd:

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

My reason for bringing this up is that I regularly listen to our local EWTN radio and last week they stated quite the contrary. That these aparitions may or maynot be believed even though Rome may have sanctioned it.
JoeS

JoeS:

You are mixing two different items. Apparations of Mary, in fact any private revelation, is not binding on the faithful and the Church cannot make it binding. All anyone is obliged to believe is found in the public revelation of Jesus as presented in Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles or as expounded in presenting those teachings.

This is quite different from the Immaculate Conception which is a formally proclaimed doctrine of the Church based upon the Latin Church's understanding of the constant tradition of the Church.

Edward, deacon and sinner

For what it's worth (in keeping with the opener of this discussion), the Holy Father's recommended prayers of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary were taken that Sunday during the Liturgy at the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan/Archeparchial Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Munhall, PA.

What I still wonder is, was it an order (which would have been out of line) or a request (still inappropriate for the Eastern Catholics of whatever tradition)?

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

>>>For what it's worth (in keeping with the opener of this discussion), the Holy Father's recommended prayers of consecration to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary were taken that Sunday during the Liturgy at the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic
Metropolitan/Archeparchial Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Munhall, PA.<<<

On the other hand, it seems to have been ignored everywhere else. Staff officer's maxim: An action passed is an action completed.