I don’t have any particular knowledge of the Vatican I issues. I know that Pius IX was motivated in great part by a desire to confront darwinism. It has been a popular belief for quite some time. I don’t think papal infallibility was invoked to proclaim the dogma, I belief the consensus patrem was reached on that.
The Orthodox have an issue with the entire magisterial system. Both Marian dogmas themselves are not a problem for the Orthodox Church. The notion that a belief that was not spoken about with a single voice by the Church of the first seven councils, could be clarified with such precision by the Latin Church, — is unsettling to them.
I am pinging Kolokotronis who can clarify this better than I can.
“The Orthodox have an issue with the entire magisterial system. Both Marian dogmas themselves are not a problem for the Orthodox Church. The notion that a belief that was not spoken about with a single voice by the Church of the first seven councils, could be clarified with such precision by the Latin Church, is unsettling to them.
I am pinging Kolokotronis who can clarify this better than I can.”
Orthodoxy rejects completely any notion that the Pope is infallible and there is no nuance to make the idea acceptable to us, but you both know that. You, Paridel, should know that our resolute rejection of papal infallibility, however defined or limited, says nothing about our understanding of the role of the pope of Rome as the primus among the Patriarchs and bishops of The Church during the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.
The question we Orthodox have had about the Assumption is why it was ever dogmatized. Quite aside from the fact that we reject the idea that the pope can do such a thing sua sponte, the dogmatization was unnecessary as it combats no heresy and one is hard pressed to understand why it is that belief in the Assumption is a sine qua non of theosis. In fact, however, I have never met an Orthodox Christian who does not believe in the Assumption.
The Immaculate Conception is, to an extent, a different matter. Alex says that the consensus patrum accepts the IC. This is incorrect. That dogma of the Latin Church as a belief is necessitated by the Latin Augustinian notion of Original Sin which the Church in the East rejects. Without Original Sin, there is no need for the Immaculate Conception notion. Furthermore, as Orthodox theologians make clear, the idea that Panagia was born in some fashion different from the rest of humanity means that her Son was not the Son of a true woman but rather of something else, a goddess of sorts, which leads straight to a Christological heresy denying the two natures of Christ. If His mother was not human, then He could not be true God and true Man. Now no one can gainsay the Orthodox when it comes to Marian devotion so it stretches credulity to the breaking point to assert that refusal to believe in the IC results in damnation. It too suffers from the defect that it addresses no heresy.