No, it is quite exact. It has NOTHING on it.Mardukm said:I don't think there are any explicit sayings. I think the belief came out of a pious meditation on such statements about Mary being the New Eve (extant since the second century), combined with the Church's belief on her being the most perfect creation of God (also just as ancient). It finally came to fruition, as mentioned, with the establishment of the Feast of the Conception in the Byzantine Church in the 7th or 8th century. Of course, the Feast is not exactly about her preservation from the stain of original sinMarc Hanna said:Does anyone have any sayings from the fathers on this topic? Just so we can all agree, let's limit these saying to those pre 5th century.
And it is interesting that all the Churches that claim Apostolic foundation and refer to the Fathers of the first four centuries, and yet it is only the church in Britain that comes up with this, and it is only the Vatican in the Pentarchy who runs with it.
Can you cite some text from the service in support of this?- it is, rather, about the pious belief that Mary received the graces of the Holy Spirit at her conception.
Btw, can you locate when this idea of the IC being equivalent to baptism? As I don't see it in the sources from the IC's appearance to the proclamation by the Vatican.I'm guessing that the belief quickly blossomed into the realization that receiving all the graces of the Holy Spirit (that a creature can receive, that is) is tantamount to receiving Baptism. So what is the effect of Baptism? The cleansing of the stain of original sin.
Would you mind quoting where your Bernard of Clairvaux objected? You have a lot of his material quoted above. Did I miss something?When the Feast migrated to the West, it faced opposition. What the Latins already believed was that Mary received the graces of the Holy Spirit at the moment of her SPIRITUAL conception (i.e., ensoulment or quickening). However, unlike the Easterns, the Latins distinguished the moment of ensoulment from the moment of physical conception, believing that ensoulment occurred at least 40 days or more after the physical conception. Thus, some prominent Saints in the Latin Church opposed the introduction of the Feast in Latin Church. They could not agree to the idea that she received the graces of the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception, because they believed she received those graces at least 40 days hence. As part of their rhetoric against the Eastern Feast, they opined that only Jesus was absolutely pure from the moment of his physical conception because he did not have a human father (from whom original sin was traditionally held to be transmitted).
Nice revisionism, but where is that in your Vatican Fathers? In Bernard? In Thomas Aquinas? In Bonaventure? In Alexander of Hales?Eventually, the Latin Church grew to understand, together with the East, that the moment of ensoulment occurs at the same instant as the moment of conception. Hence, the dogma of the IC.
No, unfortunately the above only demonstrates Ultramontanist revisionism in action, in a desperate attempt to save Vatican I.The above explanation demonstrates that there is no difference between what the medieval Latin Fathers (who opposed the introduction of the Feast into the West) believed and what Catholics today believe - namely, that Mary received all the graces the Holy Spirit at the moment of her ensoulment. The dogma of the IC uses the word "conception" instead of "ensoulment" simply because both occur at the same time (it's the simple and basic commutative law).
That the application of logic to the IC yields results you don't like doesn't make them misrepresentation.There are some things that need to be emphasized about the dogma of the IC that opponents always mispresent (and those misrepresentations are glaringly evident in this thread):
I'll wait for your reply to my quotation from the Vatican's ex cathedra pronouncements above on this issue.1) The dogma does NOT say that Mary was preserved from original sin. If she was preserved from original sin PERIOD, then she would not only be spiritually pure, but she would also not experience corruption or death. But that is, as stated, NOT what the dogma states (contrary to the polemical wishes of Father Ambrose). Rather it says she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin. As repeatedly explained, the STAIN of original sin refers to the SPIRITUAL CONSEQUENCES of original sin, NOT the PHYSICAL/TACTILE effects of original sin.
LOL. I'm going to leave Father Ambrose the fun of taking this up.2) The dogma, when it speaks of conception, refers to her SPIRITUAL conception (i.e., ensoulment), not her PHYSICAL conception. Thus, it is true, and the dogma does not contradict, the teaching of the medieval Latin Fathers that only Jesus had an immaculate PHYSICAL conception.
You mean the "theologoumen" that she died.3) The two points emphasized above evinces that the dogma does not contradict the fact that Mary died.
Again, can you cite something official to back this up?4) The dogma of the IC refers to nothing more nor less than the fact that Mary received the graces of Baptism at the moment of her conception, as already explained fully in an earlier post.
They say it is a mortal sin to miss mass on a "holy day of obligation" your term, not ours.Mardukm said:Thank you for your response. First, I really don't see what the problem is attending a Feast day (on December 8, btw). Our obligation to worship on Feast days is based on love, not fear. That's the kind of love for God that the Catholic Church promotes. Heck, the Latins have DAILY Mass, one of the things I am actually jealous about in the Latin Tradition.
"Cafeteria Catholics" disbelieve things that the Vatican (and the Church) have dogmatically defined.Second, if you believe the teaching as theologoumenon, I don't understand the problem. I see you are thinking of becoming EO. Let me ask you something. Do you think that EO are free to disbelieve something that is not dogmatically defined but is otherwise contained in their Tradition? Is there such a thing as "cafeteria Eastern Orthodoxy"?
Fr. Ambrose. He is well know here and on CAF (and elsewhere). I don't think he's afraid to say it.Last year, an EO priest on CAF stated that even though the Assumption is not a dogma in his Church, he would refuse communion to an EO who did not believe in the doctrine.
LOL. Yeah, anathema is Latin for "really important" and "much cherished."Considering these things before I became Catholic, I understood that dogmas in the Catholic Church are simply an indication that a belief is really important and much cherished.
So you say. Can you cite a canon or something else with the authority of your church on this?Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) have very important and much cherished doctrines that are not dogmatized, but belief in them are nevertheless viewed as consitutive of one's claim to be Orthodox. So what if the Latins dogmatized these important and cherished doctrines? Would they be less important if they were not dogmatized? I don't think so. Besides, the prosciption of the dogma, as stated, is not an anathema, but a minor excommunication.
The IC is quite unimportant to the Orthodox.Lack of belief in it would result in nothing more or less than what that EO priest mentioned he would do if he knew someone coming to him for communion rejected the doctrine of the Assumption of the Theotokos - he would refuse it. In other words, Catholics and Orthodox both hold beliefs that are very important to them. Catholics, and Latins in particular, like to dogmatize these doctrines. But the fact that Orthodox don't dogmatize these same doctrines does not make these doctrine any less important to Orthodox.