Topic: What Grace(s) would the IC Confer?

[Papist]

Especially when the IC has no basis in reality.

When I lived in D.C., my roommate/best friend used to go to what I called "the National Shrine of the Event that Never Happened." As a typical communicant of the Vatican, he took that as questioning the Virgin Birth.

Funny, your Liturgy is where we got the idea of the IC in the first place. 

[ialmisry]

There comes a time when it is time to just be quiet and let others tell you about yourself.  It won't matter.  Assertion changes no reality.
M.

Agreed, but it's disheartening to see these attacks on God's Mother and His Church.  

I don't think I can post a link to CAF under the rules here, and I can't post there under their "rules"     but I can post what I posted there before:

Bernard of Clarivaux (12th cent.):

The Mother of the Lord, you say, ought greatly to be honoured. You say well, but the honour of a queen loves justice. The royal Virgin does not need false honour, since she is amply supplied with true titles to honour and badges of her dignity. Honour indeed the purity of her flesh, the sanctity of her life, wonder at her motherhood as a virgin, adore her Divine offspring. Extol the prodigy by which she brought into the world without pain the Son, whom she had conceived without concupiscence. Proclaim her to be reverenced by the angels, to have been desired by the nations, to have been known beforehand by Patriarchs and Prophets, chosen by God out of all women and raised above them all. Magnify her as the medium by whom grace was displayed, the instrument of salvation, the restorer of the ages; and finally extol her as having been exalted above the choirs of angels to the celestial realms. These things the Church sings concerning her, and has taught me to repeat the same things in her praise, and what I have learnt from the Church I both hold securely myself and teach to others; what I have not received from the Church I confess I should with great difficulty admit. I have received then from the Church that day to be reverenced with the highest veneration, when being taken up from this sinful earth, she made entry into the heavens; a festival of most honoured joy. With no less clearness have I learned in the Church to celebrate the birth of the Virgin, and from the Church undoubtedly to hold it to have been holy and joyful; holding most firmly with the Church, that she received in the womb that she should come into the world holy. And indeed I read concerning Jeremiah, that before he came forth from the womb he was sanctified, and I think no otherwise of John the Baptist, who, himself in the womb of his mother, felt the presence of his Lord in the womb (S. Luke i. 41). It is matter for consideration whether the same opinion may not be held of holy David, on account of what he said in addressing God: In Thee I have been strengthened from the womb: Thou art He who took me out of my mother’s bowels (Ps. lxxi. 6); and again: I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly (Ps. xxii. 10). And Jeremiah is thus addressed: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jer. i. 5). How beautifully the Divine oracle has distinguished between conception in the womb and birth from the womb! and showed that if the one was foreseen only, the other was blessed beforehand with the gift of holiness: that no one might think that the glory of Jeremiah consisted only in being the object of the foreknowledge of God, but also of His predestination.

3. Let us, however, grant this in the case of Jeremiah. What shall be said of John the Baptist, of whom an angel announced beforehand that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb? I cannot suppose that this is to be referred to predestination or to foreknowledge. For the words of the angel were without doubt fulfilled in their time, as he foretold; and the man (as cannot be doubted) filled with the Holy Ghost at the time and place appointed, as he predicted. But most certainly the Holy Ghost sanctified the man whom He filled. But how far this sanctification availed against original sin, whether for him, or for that prophet, or for any other who was thus prevented by grace, I would not rashly determine. But of these holy persons whom God has sanctified, and brought forth from the womb with the same sanctification which they have received in the womb, I do not hesitate to say that the taint of original sin which they contracted in conception, could not in any manner take away or fetter by the mere act of birth, the benediction already bestowed. Would any one dare to say that a child filled with the Holy Ghost, would remain notwithstanding a child of wrath; and if he had died in his mother’s womb, where he had received this fulness of the Spirit, would endure the pains of damnation? That opinion is very severe; I, however, do not dare to decide anything respecting the question by my own judgment. However that may be, the Church, which regards and declares, not the nativity, but only the death of other saints as precious, makes a singular exception for him of whom an angel singularly said, and many shall rejoice in his birth (Luke i. 14., 15), and with rejoicing honours his nativity. For why should not the birth be holy, and even glad and joyful, of one who leaped with joy even in the womb of his mother?

4. The gift, therefore, which has certainly been conferred upon some, though few, mortals, cannot for a moment be supposed to have been denied to that so highly favoured Virgin, through whom the whole human race came forth into life. Beyond doubt the mother of the Lord also was holy before birth; nor is holy Church at all in error in accounting the day of her nativity holy, and celebrating it each year with solemn and thankful joy. I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of women. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely befitted the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all. Therefore, her birth was holy, since the abundant sanctity bestowed upon it made it holy even from the womb.

5. What addition can possibly be made to these honours? That her conception, also, they say, which preceded her honourable birth, should be honoured, since if the one had not first taken place, neither would the other, which is honoured. But what if some one else, following a similar train of reasoning, should assert that the honours of a festival ought to be given to each of her parents, then to her grand-parents, and then to their parents, and so on ad infinitum? Thus we should have festivals without number. Such a frequency of joys befits Heaven, not this state of exile. It is the happy lot of those who dwell there, not of strangers and pilgrims. But a writing is brought forward, given, as they say, by revelation from on high, [A writing of this kind is attributed to an English abbot named Elsin in the works of Anselm. Watch out for those angels of light] as if any one would not be able to bring forward another writing in which the Virgin should seem to demand the same honours to her parents also, saying, according to the commandment of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother (Exod. xx. 12). I easily persuade myself not to be influenced by such writings, which are supported neither by reason nor by any certain authority. For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it.

6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, .

Btw, Bernard is no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks [i.e. Orthodox], who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as "diligent doctor," so he likes him).

One Vatican supporter said "St. Bernard realized his mistake in heaven," I asked "In 1153 or 1854?"

The IC makes nonsense of II Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that
we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  That enough is heresy.



To the claim that in light of the words spoken by the saints making "my" history evident and it "first appearance" was much earlier than that; going all the way back to Genesis 3:15,  I replied "Do you mean the faulty translation thereof (the Masoret says "they": does that indicate that infinite regression implicit in the IC?).


And to the claim that the IC "fulfills" Gen. 3:15 in the new Eve, Our Lady, Mother of Life. And also verified by the Angelic Salutation, the connection between the Our Lady and the Ark, the various Liturgies, and the teachings of the Saints, and now the teaching authority of the Vatican, which prooftexts Gen. 3:15, I say "potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit."

As this thread is started by a Copt who has submitted to Rome, what I wrote about proof of the IC in the East to a Chaldean I think is also relevant:

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don't mean what the Vatican claims by them.


Btw, Mardukm.  You posted:

Also, permit me to point out that, since the dogma of the IC refers to her spiritual conception, not her physical conception, it means Mary was just like us. She had a natural, unglorified body that was subject to corruption, aged and died. It is a non-Catholic misunderstanding of the dogma that causes them to claim that the dogma somehow makes Mary different from us

This is not true: the Vatican has the "Immortalist" school who believe she did not die, and that is within Vatican "orthodoxy."  That's quite different from us.

The IC as proclaime by the Vatican is heretical in at least the sense that it is, the Vatican states, to be believed on penalty of damnation and "shipwreck of faith."  No such necessity exists: to claim so is heresy.

So far, no one has given any reasons why the dogma is a heresy to such an extent that it is Church-dividing. I am wondering if any of my Orthodox brethren can add anything new to the topic of that thread.  We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

To address one thing:
IC isn't Church-dividing; we had lots of things that divided us before Old Rome added this to the mix.  Maybe if we cleared up all the other theological, dogmatic, and ecclesiological issues but left this one, then it may remain a Church-dividing issue, or it may not - who knows.  But until we get to that point (5th millennium after Christ?) we can't say that IC is a "Church-dividing" issue.  Heck, the only way that it's a dogmatic issue (and, hence, heresy) is in its fundamental presuppositions regarding humanity, not Mary.  For the Orthodox, nothing about the Panagia ("All-holy") is dogmatic unless it somehow relates to Christ and creation - that's one of our objections to IC as dogma, because it has nothing to do with our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ, so there's no reason to make it a compulsory belief for a Christian.

Thanks for the response!  I'm glad you don't think it is Church-dividing. It's just that those who leave the Catholic Church for EO'xy always invariably cite that as one of the reasons for them leaving.

It's interesting that you think the dogma has nothing to do with Christ.  That's actually the very reason that Catholics believe it IS a dogma - because it IS Christ centered.

And that's why it's Church-dividing.  One church is confused on what Christocentric is.

Unless anyone else has anything else to add, I guess there really is no good reason for stating that the dogma is heresy.  

There's a shock.

[ialmisry]

Especially when the IC has no basis in reality.

When I lived in D.C., my roommate/best friend used to go to what I called "the National Shrine of the Event that Never Happened." As a typical communicant of the Vatican, he took that as questioning the Virgin Birth.

Funny, your Liturgy is where we got the idea of the IC in the first place. 

Yes, so you say. See what happens when your mind wanders and you do not pay attention.

[Papist]

There comes a time when it is time to just be quiet and let others tell you about yourself.  It won't matter.  Assertion changes no reality.
M.

Agreed, but it's disheartening to see these attacks on God's Mother and His Church. 

I don't think I can post a link to CAF under the rules here, and I can't post there under their "rules"    but I can post what I posted there before:

Bernard of Clarivaux (12th cent.):

The Mother of the Lord, you say, ought greatly to be honoured. You say well, but the honour of a queen loves justice. The royal Virgin does not need false honour, since she is amply supplied with true titles to honour and badges of her dignity. Honour indeed the purity of her flesh, the sanctity of her life, wonder at her motherhood as a virgin, adore her Divine offspring. Extol the prodigy by which she brought into the world without pain the Son, whom she had conceived without concupiscence. Proclaim her to be reverenced by the angels, to have been desired by the nations, to have been known beforehand by Patriarchs and Prophets, chosen by God out of all women and raised above them all. Magnify her as the medium by whom grace was displayed, the instrument of salvation, the restorer of the ages; and finally extol her as having been exalted above the choirs of angels to the celestial realms. These things the Church sings concerning her, and has taught me to repeat the same things in her praise, and what I have learnt from the Church I both hold securely myself and teach to others; what I have not received from the Church I confess I should with great difficulty admit. I have received then from the Church that day to be reverenced with the highest veneration, when being taken up from this sinful earth, she made entry into the heavens; a festival of most honoured joy. With no less clearness have I learned in the Church to celebrate the birth of the Virgin, and from the Church undoubtedly to hold it to have been holy and joyful; holding most firmly with the Church, that she received in the womb that she should come into the world holy. And indeed I read concerning Jeremiah, that before he came forth from the womb he was sanctified, and I think no otherwise of John the Baptist, who, himself in the womb of his mother, felt the presence of his Lord in the womb (S. Luke i. 41). It is matter for consideration whether the same opinion may not be held of holy David, on account of what he said in addressing God: In Thee I have been strengthened from the womb: Thou art He who took me out of my mother’s bowels (Ps. lxxi. 6); and again: I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly (Ps. xxii. 10). And Jeremiah is thus addressed: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jer. i. 5). How beautifully the Divine oracle has distinguished between conception in the womb and birth from the womb! and showed that if the one was foreseen only, the other was blessed beforehand with the gift of holiness: that no one might think that the glory of Jeremiah consisted only in being the object of the foreknowledge of God, but also of His predestination.

3. Let us, however, grant this in the case of Jeremiah. What shall be said of John the Baptist, of whom an angel announced beforehand that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb? I cannot suppose that this is to be referred to predestination or to foreknowledge. For the words of the angel were without doubt fulfilled in their time, as he foretold; and the man (as cannot be doubted) filled with the Holy Ghost at the time and place appointed, as he predicted. But most certainly the Holy Ghost sanctified the man whom He filled. But how far this sanctification availed against original sin, whether for him, or for that prophet, or for any other who was thus prevented by grace, I would not rashly determine. But of these holy persons whom God has sanctified, and brought forth from the womb with the same sanctification which they have received in the womb, I do not hesitate to say that the taint of original sin which they contracted in conception, could not in any manner take away or fetter by the mere act of birth, the benediction already bestowed. Would any one dare to say that a child filled with the Holy Ghost, would remain notwithstanding a child of wrath; and if he had died in his mother’s womb, where he had received this fulness of the Spirit, would endure the pains of damnation? That opinion is very severe; I, however, do not dare to decide anything respecting the question by my own judgment. However that may be, the Church, which regards and declares, not the nativity, but only the death of other saints as precious, makes a singular exception for him of whom an angel singularly said, and many shall rejoice in his birth (Luke i. 14., 15), and with rejoicing honours his nativity. For why should not the birth be holy, and even glad and joyful, of one who leaped with joy even in the womb of his mother?

4. The gift, therefore, which has certainly been conferred upon some, though few, mortals, cannot for a moment be supposed to have been denied to that so highly favoured Virgin, through whom the whole human race came forth into life. Beyond doubt the mother of the Lord also was holy before birth; nor is holy Church at all in error in accounting the day of her nativity holy, and celebrating it each year with solemn and thankful joy. I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of women. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely befitted the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all. Therefore, her birth was holy, since the abundant sanctity bestowed upon it made it holy even from the womb.

5. What addition can possibly be made to these honours? That her conception, also, they say, which preceded her honourable birth, should be honoured, since if the one had not first taken place, neither would the other, which is honoured. But what if some one else, following a similar train of reasoning, should assert that the honours of a festival ought to be given to each of her parents, then to her grand-parents, and then to their parents, and so on ad infinitum? Thus we should have festivals without number. Such a frequency of joys befits Heaven, not this state of exile. It is the happy lot of those who dwell there, not of strangers and pilgrims. But a writing is brought forward, given, as they say, by revelation from on high, [A writing of this kind is attributed to an English abbot named Elsin in the works of Anselm. Watch out for those angels of light] as if any one would not be able to bring forward another writing in which the Virgin should seem to demand the same honours to her parents also, saying, according to the commandment of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother (Exod. xx. 12). I easily persuade myself not to be influenced by such writings, which are supported neither by reason nor by any certain authority. For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it.

6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, .

Btw, Bernard is no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks [i.e. Orthodox], who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as "diligent doctor," so he likes him).

One Vatican supporter said "St. Bernard realized his mistake in heaven," I asked "In 1153 or 1854?"

The IC makes nonsense of II Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that
we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  That enough is heresy.



To the claim that in light of the words spoken by the saints making "my" history evident and it "first appearance" was much earlier than that; going all the way back to Genesis 3:15,  I replied "Do you mean the faulty translation thereof (the Masoret says "they": does that indicate that infinite regression implicit in the IC?).


And to the claim that the IC "fulfills" Gen. 3:15 in the new Eve, Our Lady, Mother of Life. And also verified by the Angelic Salutation, the connection between the Our Lady and the Ark, the various Liturgies, and the teachings of the Saints, and now the teaching authority of the Vatican, which prooftexts Gen. 3:15, I say "potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit."

As this thread is started by a Copt who has submitted to Rome, what I wrote about proof of the IC in the East to a Chaldean I think is also relevant:

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don't mean what the Vatican claims by them.


Btw, Mardukm.  You posted:

Also, permit me to point out that, since the dogma of the IC refers to her spiritual conception, not her physical conception, it means Mary was just like us. She had a natural, unglorified body that was subject to corruption, aged and died. It is a non-Catholic misunderstanding of the dogma that causes them to claim that the dogma somehow makes Mary different from us

This is not true: the Vatican has the "Immortalist" school who believe she did not die, and that is within Vatican "orthodoxy."  That's quite different from us.

The IC as proclaime by the Vatican is heretical in at least the sense that it is, the Vatican states, to be believed on penalty of damnation and "shipwreck of faith."  No such necessity exists: to claim so is heresy.

So far, no one has given any reasons why the dogma is a heresy to such an extent that it is Church-dividing. I am wondering if any of my Orthodox brethren can add anything new to the topic of that thread.  We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

To address one thing:
IC isn't Church-dividing; we had lots of things that divided us before Old Rome added this to the mix.  Maybe if we cleared up all the other theological, dogmatic, and ecclesiological issues but left this one, then it may remain a Church-dividing issue, or it may not - who knows.  But until we get to that point (5th millennium after Christ?) we can't say that IC is a "Church-dividing" issue.  Heck, the only way that it's a dogmatic issue (and, hence, heresy) is in its fundamental presuppositions regarding humanity, not Mary.  For the Orthodox, nothing about the Panagia ("All-holy") is dogmatic unless it somehow relates to Christ and creation - that's one of our objections to IC as dogma, because it has nothing to do with our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ, so there's no reason to make it a compulsory belief for a Christian.

Thanks for the response!  I'm glad you don't think it is Church-dividing. It's just that those who leave the Catholic Church for EO'xy always invariably cite that as one of the reasons for them leaving.

It's interesting that you think the dogma has nothing to do with Christ.  That's actually the very reason that Catholics believe it IS a dogma - because it IS Christ centered.

And that's why it's Church-dividing.  One church is confused on what Christocentric is.

Unless anyone else has anything else to add, I guess there really is no good reason for stating that the dogma is heresy. 

There's a shock.

And that helped the conversation how?

[ialmisry]

And that helped the conversation how?

Gave it a dose of reality. After all, he's YOUR saint.

[elijahmaria]

And that helped the conversation how?

Gave it a dose of reality. After all, he's YOUR saint.

Here's another little dose of reality:

"The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived."--St. Bernard the Slightly Confused

The Lord Jesus existed prior to his conception.

The Mother of God did not exist prior to conception because she was fully human, and she had no disembodied soul floating around prior to conception either.

There is no soul floating around disembodied prior to conception OR ensoulment.

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.

He and St. Thomas and others all worried about conceptions that came prior to ensoulment and St. Thomas at least agreed to concede to whatever the Church taught.  He was not so dead set against it.

But Bernard was worried about people thinking that there were disembodied souls floating around prior to conception, just ripe for prevenient cleansing.

SO if you are going to choose Saints from another tradition to make your point...try to find ones that actually make YOUR points.

The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

In Christ,

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

[elijahmaria]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

The ordinarily clear voice of St. Bernard was muffled here by three things. 

1. There was severe tension between east and west, and at the time there was little knowledge of the texts from the east that made reference to the unusual holiness attributed to the Mother of God, and there was great resistance to things that were too "eastern" in their feel.  In those centuries the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was PERCEIVED to have come from the east and it was resisted because of the schismatic relationship between east and west.

2. There was not a solid consensus in the west concerning original sin:  Was it spiritual death?  Was it physical death, did sex=concupiscence=sin itself?  And much of the reason for that refusal to allow clarity also was the fact that the west had been cut off from the texts from the east where there was a more clear tradition of original sin being the loss of original justice.

3. And then there was the idea of ensoulment that allowed for the easy way out which was to say that she was justified in the womb at the time of her ensoulment.

But you don't really care to look at the period or the time.  You simply want to read out of it what suits you...No context.  No other explanation possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Father "Patristic Consensus", there were many many many more of the western fathers who did agree with the reality of the Immaculate Conception than those who did not.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

The ordinarily clear voice of St. Bernard was muffled here by three things. 

1. There was severe tension between east and west, and at the time there was little knowledge of the texts from the east that made reference to the unusual holiness attributed to the Mother of God, and there was great resistance to things that were too "eastern" in their feel.  In those centuries the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was PERCEIVED to have come from the east and it was resisted because of the schismatic relationship between east and west.

2. There was not a solid consensus in the west concerning original sin:  Was it spiritual death?  Was it physical death, did sex=concupiscence=sin itself?  And much of the reason for that refusal to allow clarity also was the fact that the west had been cut off from the texts from the east where there was a more clear tradition of original sin being the loss of original justice.

3. And then there was the idea of ensoulment that allowed for the easy way out which was to say that she was justified in the womb at the time of her ensoulment.

But you don't really care to look at the period or the time.  You simply want to read out of it what suits you...No context.  No other explanation possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Father "Patristic Consensus", there were many many many more of the western fathers who did agree with the reality of the Immaculate Conception than those who did not.

M.

I apologise, dear Mary, that in offering views which run contrary to yours I seem to have aroused some anger and led you into one or two ad hominems.    I suppose that if you sit in judgement and speak of Bernard of Clairvaux, a Doctor of the Church, as "Poor old Bernard" ... well, what can I say....?  You cannot be expected to treat others such as me with any more respect.  Better to let it slide.

[elijahmaria]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

The ordinarily clear voice of St. Bernard was muffled here by three things. 

1. There was severe tension between east and west, and at the time there was little knowledge of the texts from the east that made reference to the unusual holiness attributed to the Mother of God, and there was great resistance to things that were too "eastern" in their feel.  In those centuries the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was PERCEIVED to have come from the east and it was resisted because of the schismatic relationship between east and west.

2. There was not a solid consensus in the west concerning original sin:  Was it spiritual death?  Was it physical death, did sex=concupiscence=sin itself?  And much of the reason for that refusal to allow clarity also was the fact that the west had been cut off from the texts from the east where there was a more clear tradition of original sin being the loss of original justice.

3. And then there was the idea of ensoulment that allowed for the easy way out which was to say that she was justified in the womb at the time of her ensoulment.

But you don't really care to look at the period or the time.  You simply want to read out of it what suits you...No context.  No other explanation possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Father "Patristic Consensus", there were many many many more of the western fathers who did agree with the reality of the Immaculate Conception than those who did not.

M.

I apologise, dear Mary, that in offering views which run contrary to yours I seem to have aroused some anger and led you into one or two ad hominems.    I suppose that if you sit in judgement and speak of Bernard of Clairvaux, a Doctor of the Church, as "Poor old Bernard" ... well, what can I say....?  You cannot be expected to treat others such as me with any more respect.  Better to let it slide.

   You'll have to look for anger elsewhere, Father.

You cannot defeat me soundly with substance so you are always driven to make it personal.

I pray for you.

In Christ,

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

The ordinarily clear voice of St. Bernard was muffled here by three things. 

1. There was severe tension between east and west, and at the time there was little knowledge of the texts from the east that made reference to the unusual holiness attributed to the Mother of God, and there was great resistance to things that were too "eastern" in their feel.  In those centuries the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was PERCEIVED to have come from the east and it was resisted because of the schismatic relationship between east and west.

2. There was not a solid consensus in the west concerning original sin:  Was it spiritual death?  Was it physical death, did sex=concupiscence=sin itself?  And much of the reason for that refusal to allow clarity also was the fact that the west had been cut off from the texts from the east where there was a more clear tradition of original sin being the loss of original justice.

3. And then there was the idea of ensoulment that allowed for the easy way out which was to say that she was justified in the womb at the time of her ensoulment.

But you don't really care to look at the period or the time.  You simply want to read out of it what suits you...No context.  No other explanation possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Father "Patristic Consensus", there were many many many more of the western fathers who did agree with the reality of the Immaculate Conception than those who did not.

M.

I apologise, dear Mary, that in offering views which run contrary to yours I seem to have aroused some anger and led you into one or two ad hominems.    I suppose that if you sit in judgement and speak of Bernard of Clairvaux, a Doctor of the Church, as "Poor old Bernard" ... well, what can I say....?  You cannot be expected to treat others such as me with any more respect.  Better to let it slide.

   You'll have to look for anger elsewhere, Father.

You cannot defeat me soundly with substance so you are always driven to make it personal.

Mary, I *know* that I cannot defeat you.  You appear as an Ultramontanist Amazon battling for the papacy.  Indefatigable and unconquerable!   I admire you and love you.  What a shame you never came into Orthodoxy earlier in life.  What an formidable apologist we would have gained!   

[elijahmaria]

Poor old Bernard was a holy soul but his pre-natal science stunk.


The fellows you Orthodox choose regularly were not quite up to snuff when it came to knowing when a person actually became a person.

The traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux on the Immaculate Conception (12th century.)  He rejects it quite vigorously. Bernard, although post-schism, is seen by some Orthodox theologians as the last voice of the patristic mindset in the West.  After him the older patristic traditon begins to be overlaid by scholasticism.

Please read his words at message 204
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

The ordinarily clear voice of St. Bernard was muffled here by three things. 

1. There was severe tension between east and west, and at the time there was little knowledge of the texts from the east that made reference to the unusual holiness attributed to the Mother of God, and there was great resistance to things that were too "eastern" in their feel.  In those centuries the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was PERCEIVED to have come from the east and it was resisted because of the schismatic relationship between east and west.

2. There was not a solid consensus in the west concerning original sin:  Was it spiritual death?  Was it physical death, did sex=concupiscence=sin itself?  And much of the reason for that refusal to allow clarity also was the fact that the west had been cut off from the texts from the east where there was a more clear tradition of original sin being the loss of original justice.

3. And then there was the idea of ensoulment that allowed for the easy way out which was to say that she was justified in the womb at the time of her ensoulment.

But you don't really care to look at the period or the time.  You simply want to read out of it what suits you...No context.  No other explanation possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Father "Patristic Consensus", there were many many many more of the western fathers who did agree with the reality of the Immaculate Conception than those who did not.

M.

I apologise, dear Mary, that in offering views which run contrary to yours I seem to have aroused some anger and led you into one or two ad hominems.    I suppose that if you sit in judgement and speak of Bernard of Clairvaux, a Doctor of the Church, as "Poor old Bernard" ... well, what can I say....?  You cannot be expected to treat others such as me with any more respect.  Better to let it slide.

   You'll have to look for anger elsewhere, Father.

You cannot defeat me soundly with substance so you are always driven to make it personal.

Mary, I *know* that I cannot defeat you.  You appear as an Ultramontanist Amazon battling for the papacy.  Indefatigable and unconquerable!   I admire you and love you.  What a shame you never came into Orthodoxy earlier in life.  What an formidable apologist we would have gained!   

What gives me strength is the truth, Father.  Without it and I am lost.   I've learned that over many hard years of wandering and wondering.

Our two confessions could stand against the world.

But rather we sit and tear at one another.

in Christ,

mary

[Irish Hermit]

Mary, I *know* that I cannot defeat you.  You appear as an Ultramontanist Amazon battling for the papacy.  Indefatigable and unconquerable!   I admire you and love you.  What a shame you never came into Orthodoxy earlier in life.  What an formidable apologist we would have gained!  

What gives me strength is the truth, Father.  Without it and I am lost.   I've learned that over many hard years of wandering and wondering.

Our two confessions could stand against the world.

But rather we sit and tear at one another.

It is the nature of the Internet which brings belligerence to the fore.   But I am friends with another hermitess in this city, such as yourself formed in the Carmelite tradition, but now living as an independent diocesan hermit consecrated under Canon 603 by the diocesan bishop. Our friendship and relationship is on another plane altogether, mutually supportive and respectful.   I think that life on the Internet is destructive of a hermit's calling.  It take him or her too much out of his anchorhold and engages him too much in the passions of the world, battling for the papacy and the IC and a dozen other issues not really germane to his life's calling.  It also cuts awfully into prayertime (just ask me!!)

[elijahmaria]

Mary, I *know* that I cannot defeat you.  You appear as an Ultramontanist Amazon battling for the papacy.  Indefatigable and unconquerable!   I admire you and love you.  What a shame you never came into Orthodoxy earlier in life.  What an formidable apologist we would have gained!  

What gives me strength is the truth, Father.  Without it and I am lost.   I've learned that over many hard years of wandering and wondering.

Our two confessions could stand against the world.

But rather we sit and tear at one another.

It is the nature of the Internet which brings belligerence to the fore.   But I am friends with another hermitess in this city, such as yourself formed in the Carmelite tradition, but now living as an independent diocesan hermit consecrated under Canon 603 by the diocesan bishop. Our friendship and relationship is on another plane altogether, mutually supportive and respectful.   I think that life on the Internet is destructive of a hermit's calling.  It take him or her too much out of his anchorhold and engages him too much in the passions of the world, battling for the papacy and the IC and a dozen other issues not really germane to his life's calling.  It also cuts awfully into prayertime (just ask me!!)

Nothing cuts into prayer.  That much I have learned over the years.  Nothing gets in the way of the discipline.  That is what makes it a discipline and the practice of the presence of God is unceasing after a time.

Also:

It is not only the nature of the medium.   It is the nature of the subject matter that we address here.

That and the ascription of motives.

In Christ,

Mary

[ialmisry]

This reply should have been here:

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

This argument I find problematic. This would be like saying that St. Basil's appropriation of the term hypostasis to describe the threeness (for lack of a better term) of God was not until the Second Council of Constantinople an official teaching of the Church, but rather a private (and possibly heretical) opinion introduced by St. Basil and shared by some of the Church's most eminent theologians, since the Creed of Nicaea specifically condemns the proposition that the Son is of another hypostasis or ousia, and also since, to my knowledge, neither the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, nor the Chalcedonian Definition specifically teach that God is trihypostatic. But this argument is flawed because the Christological use of the term hypostasis already presupposes that God is a triad of hypostases. To deny this would be to make the Chalcedonian Definition and the teaching of the hypostatic union to be meaningless utterances.

If so many respectable Roman Catholic theologians expound upon the Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Virgin is made impeccable by a unique grace of God bestowed upon her (one bestowed from her very conception), what reason do we have to believe that they are only expressing a private opinion? It is unfair, I think, to decontextualize the Immaculate Conception in an attempt to make it orthodox. Should we not evaluate the belief on the terms that the Roman Catholics understand it, rather than evaluating what we think it should mean? If the Roman Catholics understand it in an orthodox manner, then we should rejoice in knowing that it presents no barrier to reestablishing communion, and if they understand it in a heterodox manner, then we should reject the teaching as an error, but let us not out of a good desire for peace and unity fool ourselves by robbing the teaching of its meaning, or reading our own meanings into it, when a perfectly viable hermeneutic tradition for understanding the teaching already exists.

It can be understood only in a heretical manner.

Christ existed as a hypostasis before His Incarnation.  His divine will could and did freely will to unite with human nature.  That human nature and its will (and other faculties) never existed apart from the incarnated divine hypostasis and its will (if it ever did, Nestorius would have been right).  Human nature, and ancestral sin that clings to it, is not transmitted by the will, and hence the human will is not involved in it: no one man can will to beget anything but a human (as Father Adam, the First Adam did: Genesis 5:1-3)-he can't beget a sheep, for instance-and no woman can will to bear a sheep rather than a man, as Mother Eve, the First Eve-exclaimed (Genesis 4:1).  Hence the human nature and its will that the divine hypostasis of the Son was not violated when it conformed to the divine will to which it was united from the first moment of its existence, which had freely chosen the Incarnation into fallen human nature and its mission, and born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, although born in blood and flesh and with the will of a man.

Despite what the good Fr. Kolbe said (and the writings of this "Doctor of the Church" as the Vatican calls him shows that the IC is understood in the terms the Vatican believe in a heretical manner, hence why we should reject it as error), the Holy Theotokos had no pre-existence.  No will to freely choose human nature (pre)existed.  The IC would have to be chosen for her. And thus depriving her of the exercise of her free will, she would be separated from human nature inherited from Father Adam and Mother Eve, rendering her useless as a vessel for the Second Adam to chose her to chose Him as the Second Eve. The First Eve freely chose to obey the serpent's words, the Second Eve freely chose to obey the angel's words.  The Second Adam could come in no other way to free the First Adam.

I couldn't find this thread before
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30017.0.html
where this post should have been.

[ialmisry]

As a spin off of another thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,48075.msg849245.html#msg849245
it occurred to me, if the IC were true, what would there be to celebrate in the Presentation of the Holy Theotokos in the Temple.  Would the hymns of the Feast reflect the Feast in any way?