OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 07:31:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox?  (Read 33034 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #90 on: April 15, 2008, 10:51:56 AM »

As to the OP, The Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception is contrary to the beliefs of Orthodoxy. If Bishop Kallistos Ware's comment in his book, is meant to say that Orthodox christians can hold as an opinion the roman dogma, then he is wrong- once again(he is quite the lousy Orthodox theologian).

The RC definition of the Immaculate Conception is as follows:
"The doctrine which holds that the blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privelege of Almighty God, in consideration of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, has been revealed by God and must therefore be firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."

This definition is full of difficulties for Orthodoxy.  First off, we are taught that the Theotokos was concieved by parents  who were spotless themselves,  because they themselves descended from a lineage of ancestors who were all holy.  St John of Damascus writes, "Joachim and Anna, how blessed and spotless a couple! You will be known by the fruit you have born  as the Lord says, 'By their fruits you will know them'. The conduct of your life pleased God and was worthy of your Daughter. For by the chaste and holy life you lead together you have fashioned a jewel of virginity..."  In the Matins of the Birth of The Theotokos we worship, "Ann, the barren and sterile, was not childless before God: For she was foreordained from many generations to become the mother of the pure Virgin, from whom the Maker of all creation sprang in the form of a servant."

A more damaging blow to the IC belief about the Theotokos being "preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her Conception" is found in the Matinal Canon of the Service of the Annunciation, where a dialogue between the Angel Gabriel and the Theotokos takes place. About being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary responds:

"The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my Soul and sanctified my Body, it has made me a Temple that containes God, a tabernacle divinely adorned, a living Sanctuary and the Pure Mother of Life." This event recalls Like 1.35-38

Another un-orthodox aspect of this dogma is the reference to the "merits" of Jesus Christ. That the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ in 33a.d.  actually saved Mary by going backwards thru space and time, thus saving her before it actually happened- is not Orthodox. In fact this belief renders the process of Theosis void.  Instead, as the holy Liturgical texts of the Orthodox church teach us, "O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins, thine end was conformable to thy nature..."(Dormition of the Theotokos). Christ Alone is the Immaculate Conception and any definition attempting to establish "when" or "how" the Theotokos remained sinless is futile and is a mystery .
"

This post, by far, has been the most useful for me to understand 'why' the Roman IC should not be considered.

Thank you.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #91 on: April 15, 2008, 11:24:39 AM »



A more damaging blow to the IC belief about the Theotokos being "preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her Conception" is found in the Matinal Canon of the Service of the Annunciation, where a dialogue between the Angel Gabriel and the Theotokos takes place. About being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary responds:

"The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my Soul and sanctified my Body, it has made me a Temple that containes God, a tabernacle divinely adorned, a living Sanctuary and the Pure Mother of Life." This event recalls Like 1.35-38
Not to be arguementative but the bible says that Christ, "Was made perfect" by his acts of obedience. Does that mean he was not already perfect? Of course not. Mary may have been sanctified by the coming of the Holy Spirit. But that does not mean that she was not already made Holy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #92 on: April 15, 2008, 11:27:20 AM »

I wonder what the answer to the question is then. Some seem to think its ok for an EO Christian to believe in the IC; others do not.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #93 on: April 15, 2008, 02:21:20 PM »

Not to be arguementative but the bible says that Christ, "Was made perfect" by his acts of obedience. Does that mean he was not already perfect? Of course not. Mary may have been sanctified by the coming of the Holy Spirit. But that does not mean that she was not already made Holy.

I think there is a slight difference between "was made perfect" and "was cleansed by the Holy Spirit."  To clean denotes actually having some sort of stain or being dirty before.  Perfection is being shaped into something, not necessarily denoting lack before, but rather growth, just as Christ grew from a child into an adult "in wisdom."  It's something pertaining to humanity.  He took on the limits of ignorance as a child even though He was essentially omniscient.  The Theotokos on the other hand needed the Holy Spirit to be cleansed from something, and according to Pope Leo of Rome, cleansed away "the sin," just as it cleansed it away from the Virgin's womb before Christ was conceived.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #94 on: April 15, 2008, 08:07:30 PM »

I wonder what the answer to the question is then. Some seem to think its ok for an EO Christian to believe in the IC; others do not.

From my reading it seems that it's acceptable to believe in the IC as Orthodox have understood it in the past; not as proposed by the Roman Catholic dogma. Bishop Kallistos has given a balanced response to the subject in his book "The Orthodox Church". Here is the quote again;

In the past individual Orthodox have made statement which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament.

Bishop Kallostos then goes on to say that people who believe a doctrine of IC (I don't see that he is suggesting that Orthodox can believe the Roman Catholic dogma) should not be considered heretics; and that seems a reasonable conclusion IMO.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,165


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #95 on: April 15, 2008, 08:25:06 PM »

Another point to ponder is, that the Orthodox church celebrates two conceptions as feast days: the conception of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the conception of St. John the Baptist. Fr. Tom Hopko pointed this out when he was refuting the IC at our retreat last fall. As Buzuxi so eloquently explained it: the Theotokos' lineage of ancestors were holy. She was the pure fruit that was produced from this lineage. Fr. Tom even went on to say, that the  coming together of her parents, as man and wife in producing her conception, was holy, good, pure, and without lust.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 11:25:21 PM by Tamara » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 15, 2008, 10:47:22 PM »

In "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", St. John Damascene writes that in assuming human Nature, the Logos freely assumed "unblameworthy passions, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, tears, decay, shrinking from death, fear, agony with the bloody sweat, succor at the hands of Angels because of the weakness of nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man" ("Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" III.20, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIV ).
An Augustinian view of the Fall and Original Sin combined with the Roman Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception does not allow for this. If "Original Sin" and the consequences of the Fall were extinguished in the Virgin, then so were the passions to which they give rise. Therefore, if the Virgin was did not have the consequences of the Fall in her nature along with the passions which result from it, then Christ did not assume these passions- and He was therefore not "a man like us in all things except sin", and therefore, human nature is unredeemed.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #97 on: April 15, 2008, 11:22:34 PM »

Another point to ponder, is that the Orthodox church celebrates two conceptions as feast days: the conception of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the conception of St. John the Baptist. Fr. Tom Hopko pointed this out when he was refuting the IC at our retreat last fall. As Buzuxi so eloquently explained it: the Theotokos' lineage of ancestors were holy. She was the pure fruit that was produced from this lineage. He even went on to say, that the  coming together of her parents, as man and wife in producing her conception, was holy, good, pure, and without lust. 

You mean two other conceptions, in addition to Mary's (by Anna, her mother).  An important distinction between our celebrations: RC's celebrate it on Dec 8, while we celebrate it on Dec 9 (one day less than 9 months).  St. John the Baptist's is celebrated Sep 23 and his birth Jun 24 (one day more than 9 months) - each showing that they are as close to perfection as possible (a status indicated by the Lord Himself in St. John's case, and by the church in His Mother's case).  Only the Lord is celebrated as 9 months (Mar 25-Dec 25).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #98 on: April 15, 2008, 11:58:07 PM »

In "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", St. John Damascene writes that in assuming human Nature, the Logos freely assumed "unblameworthy passions, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, tears, decay, shrinking from death, fear, agony with the bloody sweat, succor at the hands of Angels because of the weakness of nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man" ("Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" III.20, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIV ).
An Augustinian view of the Fall and Original Sin combined with the Roman Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception does not allow for this. If "Original Sin" and the consequences of the Fall were extinguished in the Virgin, then so were the passions to which they give rise. Therefore, if the Virgin was did not have the consequences of the Fall in her nature along with the passions which result from it, then Christ did not assume these passions- and He was therefore not "a man like us in all things except sin", and therefore, human nature is unredeemed.

Later in that same chapter you cite, St. John writes this:

"Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and feared and died."

Why is this? St. Maximus explains in Ad Thalassium 61:

“But the Lord, when he became a man, did not have a birth in the flesh preceeded by the unrighteous pleasure that caused death to be elicited as a punishment of our nature. He naturally willed to die, to take on death amid the passibility of his human nature.”

It is because the Lord assumed pre-fall humanity, untainted by Original Sin, that he was not naturally subject to these human passions. He underwent them only by will.

St. Augustine writes the same thing in On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, II.48:

"Inasmuch, however, as in Him there was the likeness of sinful flesh, He willed to pass through the changes of the various stages of life, beginning even with infancy, so that it would seem as if even His flesh might have arrived at death by the gradual approach of old age, if He had not been killed while young. Nevertheless, the death is inflicted in sinful flesh as the due of disobedience, but in the likeness of sinful flesh it was undergone in voluntary obedience."

An Augustinian view of the fall does not in any way conflict with what St. John of Damascus writes.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 11:58:27 PM by Symeon » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #99 on: April 16, 2008, 12:12:25 AM »

It is because the Lord assumed pre-fall humanity, untainted by Original Sin, that he was not naturally subject to these human passions. He underwent them only by will.
But that means that the consequences of the Fall were extinguished in the Theotokos (and therefore Christ did not assume them) only to then be re-established in Christ's Human Nature. "He voluntarily assumed" means He freely accepted (literally "took up to Himself") what was there, not "he switched it off in His Mother only to switch it on again in Himself."
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:14:31 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #100 on: April 16, 2008, 12:21:24 AM »

But that means that the consequences of the Fall were extinguished in the Theotokos (and therefore Christ did not assume them) only to then be re-established in Christ's Human Nature. "He voluntarily assumed" means He freely accepted (literally "took up to Himself") what was there, not "he switched it off in His Mother only to switch it on again in Himself."

I think the correct formula would be "The Theotokos was stained by Original Sin, as we all are, due to her natural birth. Christ was born immaculately of a virgin, and so was unstained by Original Sin. By will he underwent the blameless passions that his mother and all of humanity are subject to, although he himself was not naturally subject to these." I'm not arguing for the IC.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:21:45 AM by Symeon » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #101 on: April 16, 2008, 12:28:17 AM »

I think the correct formula would be "The Theotokos was stained by Original Sin, as we all are, due to her natural birth. Christ was born immaculately of a virgin, and so was unstained by Original Sin. By will he underwent the blameless passions that his mother and all of humanity are subject to, although he himself was not naturally subject to these." I'm not arguing for the IC.
How do you define "stain of Original Sin"?  Is this the same thing as the depravity of the fallen human condition of which Augustine spoke?  Or is this something different?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #102 on: April 16, 2008, 12:31:01 AM »

Tamara,

The Orthodox Church also celebrates the Feast of the Conception of Theotokos on Dec 9. Fr Hopko just glossed over this?

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #103 on: April 16, 2008, 12:44:52 AM »

How do you define "stain of Original Sin"?  Is this the same thing as the depravity of the fallen human condition of which Augustine spoke?  Or is this something different?

I define the stain of Original Sin as the "concupiscence" of which St. Augustine and the other Fathers spoke, yes. Basically, the liability to the "blameworthy passions." Even if the Theotokos, for instance, did not actively engage in any blameworthy passions, she was still naturally liable to them, while the Word in his human nature was not.

The Word was subject to neither the blameworthy nor the unblameworthy passions according to nature, but by will he assumed the latter.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:58:06 AM by Symeon » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #104 on: April 16, 2008, 11:48:08 AM »

I define the stain of Original Sin as the "concupiscence" of which St. Augustine and the other Fathers spoke, yes. Basically, the liability to the "blameworthy passions." Even if the Theotokos, for instance, did not actively engage in any blameworthy passions, she was still naturally liable to them, while the Word in his human nature was not.

The Word was subject to neither the blameworthy nor the unblameworthy passions according to nature, but by will he assumed the latter.
But St. Augustine does not make this distinction between "blameworthy" and "unblameworthy" passions. What you are actually doing is only accepting half of St. Augustine's understanding of "Original Sin"- the same half which the Orthodox church does not have a problem with either.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,859


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #105 on: April 16, 2008, 12:05:42 PM »

How do you define "stain of Original Sin"?  Is this the same thing as the depravity of the fallen human condition of which Augustine spoke?  Or is this something different?

I think it means that we carry within us personally a stain that is the effect of the Original Sin of Adam. Mary, according to the RCC, was free of that effect  within her own soul which takes her out of the usual human condition.

We say humans do suffer from the effects of that Original Sin, which is to be born into a fallen World. But we do not inherit from our own Fathers and Mothers a personal effect, we carry no taint upon our soul.

Some people get confused by the Immaculate Conception dogma of the RCC because it is covered by a certain admirable looking piety. It is however an exit ramp off the highway of Ancient Christianity and into a paradigm filled with false assumptions.
Logged

\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #106 on: April 16, 2008, 12:21:31 PM »

But St. Augustine does not make this distinction between "blameworthy" and "unblameworthy" passions. What you are actually doing is only accepting half of St. Augustine's understanding of "Original Sin"- the same half which the Orthodox church does not have a problem with either.

So St. Augustine would have said that Christ's weariness, hunger, etc. were all blameworthy passions? Are you sure?  Wink
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #107 on: April 16, 2008, 02:00:32 PM »

So St. Augustine would have said that Christ's weariness, hunger, etc. were all blameworthy passions? Are you sure?  Wink
Isn't that Blessed Augustine, not Saint Augustine.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #108 on: April 16, 2008, 02:56:15 PM »

Isn't that Blessed Augustine, not Saint Augustine.
Blessed...  Saint...  What's the difference?  We call many of our saints "Blessed so-and-so", so this title does not mean Augustine is less than a saint.  Besides, St. Augustine was glorified well before the schism, iirc, and has never been removed from the roll of the Saints.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #109 on: April 16, 2008, 03:07:04 PM »

Isn't that Blessed Augustine, not Saint Augustine.
Fr. Ambrose argues that its St. Augustine. I am not sure if he is an expert on the matter or not.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #110 on: April 16, 2008, 03:15:55 PM »

Fr. Ambrose argues that its St. Augustine. I am not sure if he is an expert on the matter or not.

I'm not sure that Orthodoxy has the distinction between Blessed and Saint that Catholicism has; my understanding is that they are interchangeable.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 16, 2008, 03:18:04 PM »

I'm not sure that Orthodoxy has the distinction between Blessed and Saint that Catholicism has;
It doesn't.

my understanding is that they are interchangeable.
They are.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #112 on: April 16, 2008, 03:19:32 PM »

It doesn't.
They are.


Yay, I got one right!
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,165


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #113 on: April 16, 2008, 05:40:03 PM »

Tamara,

The Orthodox Church also celebrates the Feast of the Conception of Theotokos on Dec 9. Fr Hopko just glossed over this?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Hi Deacon Lance,

No, he didn't gloss over any part of her life. He went in to detail about her lineage, her conception, and her childhood. He referenced Scripture, iconography, hymns, liturgical texts and many other sources to give us as full of description as possible.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 05:41:21 PM by Tamara » Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #114 on: April 17, 2008, 03:49:03 PM »

Blessed...  Saint...  What's the difference?  We call many of our saints "Blessed so-and-so", so this title does not mean Augustine is less than a saint.  Besides, St. Augustine was glorified well before the schism, iirc, and has never been removed from the roll of the Saints.

There was a reason that we were told this, and there was a distinction.  I didn't learn this in a theology on tap session, on the internet or over coffee.  I learned this in a very formal setting and from one of the most intelligent men I know, who happens to be one the people I look up to in this world. 
Logged

Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,859


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #115 on: April 17, 2008, 04:10:18 PM »

All you asked was how I believe that the EC's misrepresent the Catholic Church. If you wanted more you should have asked for more. A real man asks the question he wants answered.

Was that post removed? I cant find it anywhere.

But getting back to the RCC's Immaculate Conception dogma , it is wholly unorthodox. This is because of the root assumption behind it which is the false idea of inherited guilt. The idea of inherited guilt ( the passing of the effect of Original Sin upon your sole personally from generation to generation) was not present in the Until
St. ( Blessed...whatever) Augustine. The RCC then had made a problem for itself. If the soul is damaged by this inherited taint, then the Theotokos is also blemished by this. Therefore, they had to fix this by inventing the Immaculate Conception heresy. The Orthodox never was all that much influenced by St. Augustine and never bought into inherited guilt/sin. They didn't have to fix a problem that didn't exist for them.

Orthodox can be fooled into thinking this dogma is okay to follow if all they look at is the Marian Piety that surrounds it , which looks admirable. But it is a misguided piety as the idea that the Lord created Mary in a special or different manner takes her out of the human realm and places her as a sort of demigod rather than as the greatest Saint and our best HUMAN intercessor. 
Logged

\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #116 on: April 17, 2008, 10:41:52 PM »

To our RC posters:  The purpose of the Faith Issues board, as stated in the Forum Index, is to foster "Discussion of issues and inquiries related to the Orthodox Christian faith".  I know the Immaculate Conception is a topic of great importance to you, but you'll have plenty of opportunities to discuss your point of view concerning this dogma on the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion board or the Orthodox-Other Christian Private Discussions board.

The OP has asked specifically if it's okay to agree with the Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox.  The wording of this question therefore makes this an issue internal to the Orthodox Christian faith, which is why I've kept this thread here on the Faith Board and don't intend to move it.  I have allowed only enough input from you to correct any misconceptions we may have of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I will not allow you to preach your dogma with an eye for persuading us to believe as you do.  Again, you have two boards outside of the Faith Board for that.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and the Lord's blessings be upon you during your season of the Lord's Pascha.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #117 on: April 17, 2008, 11:20:43 PM »

The most recent posts on this thread had more of the flavor of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, so I split them off and merged them into a version of this discussion that should be more open to such dialogue:  Mary, Sin, and the Immaculate Conception
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 11:37:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2008, 11:50:52 AM »

cool
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 11:52:14 AM by Myrrh23 » Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #119 on: June 01, 2008, 07:43:19 PM »

Here is how I am beginning to understand the Immaculate Conception counterargument according to Orthodoxy (stop me if I'm wrong):

Say you have a cup of water, which represents God. Then, you have a jar of instant lemonade powder, which represents humanity, or the would-be humanity of Jesus. If you put the lemonade powder into the water, you change it's state, but not its nature. The powder changes from a solid state to a liquid state. The water cannot help but change the state of the powder. If the powder was Jesus' would-be humanity, the water (God) would change the sinful state, but not the basically-good nature. Hence, the IC is not needed. I put forth this idea to a Roman Catholic friend of mine. He asked, "Would the lemonade be any good if you put it in a dirty glass?" How would Orthodoxy respond to that? Thanks! Smiley
Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #120 on: June 01, 2008, 08:28:54 PM »

This metaphor is making my head hurt...

But the real question is, does the aqueous solution that represents humanity have a charge, and if so, is it a cation or an anion? That'll determine whether we're a very base species or extremely caustic.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 08:29:38 PM by Simayan » Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2008, 09:56:25 PM »

Well, is fallen human nature a "dirty glass" which gives a sense of contamination or repugnance, maybe or is the state humanity that of being more like 'chipped' or warped or somehow 'broken' but still partaking of what God declared to be "very good" and and that He loved so much that He sent his Son?  Since, I think, part of the brokeness of humanity is the part about pain and suffering and death, it seems to be that Our Lord did have that in being fully Man as well as fully God.

One might certainly still drink lemonade out of a glass that has some crazing or air bubbles or lumps or chips it seems to me.  But then again, I don't believe in the IC, no offense intended. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #122 on: June 01, 2008, 09:57:20 PM »

This metaphor is making my head hurt...

But the real question is, does the aqueous solution that represents humanity have a charge, and if so, is it a cation or an anion? That'll determine whether we're a very base species or extremely caustic.  Cheesy

 Cheesy Cheesy  Oh no!  Science humour!  Good one, Simayan!

 Smiley

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 109


« Reply #123 on: June 01, 2008, 10:28:20 PM »

The citric acid of the lemonade would clean the glass.   Grin

God was/is.  God made man.  Relationship intact.  Man sinned.  Relationship broken.  Jesus had to come to fix the break.  Mary was human and would suffer the natural consequence of the broken relationship, death.  If Mary's relationship with God didn't need fixing, then Jesus wasn't her Savior--she would be His equal.  We know this is not true.  The Theotokos was pure but still has the capacity to sin--she just didn't.  To use the original "dirty glass" analogy, if Jesus didn't assume our human nature in its entirety, then it would be like trying to clean the dirty glass while encased in a clean one.  The clean one would get cleaner, but the dirty one would still be dirty--what's the point?  Maybe the glass was only dirty on the outside.   Wink
Logged
Orthodox Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 2


« Reply #124 on: June 02, 2008, 04:39:11 PM »

Dear Friends,

John Meyendorff, as we know, mentioned Orthodox theologians who understood the Western doctrine on the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin - and accepted them both. 

There were also "Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception" in the Orthodox Church at Kyiv during the Baroque era to which belonged also St Dmitri of Rostov and a number of professors of the Kyivan-Mohyla Academy (which according to Florovsky gave a heavy emphasis to the Immaculate Conception in both theological as well as devotional terms - but without going so far as to condemning those who didn't accept it).

Prof. Poselyanin in his book on Orthodox icons of the Theotokos (Bogomater) does list a few Western pictures of the Immaculate Conception that appears to have gained acceptance as "locally miraculous" images in Orthodoxy (and the "icon" of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Horodyschenske as well).

The Orthodox Church knew of the private views of St Dmitri and others and this did not prevent them from being glorified as Orthodox Saints.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that accepting the Western views in this regard fails to provide a truly Orthodox theological position on the complete holiness of the Most Holy Theotokos (and how true!).

It would be important to discuss what "Original Sin" means in Orthodox theology and how it is radically distinguishable from the Western point of view.

In a study I read on John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian who laid the Western theological groundwork for the Immaculate Conception dogma (amid great opposition from the Paris School at the time), the authors admitted there was more than one RC view on what Original Sin was in terms of what it did to our nature.

What was fascinating to read was that Scotus appeared closer to Orthodox theology on the score of the impact of Original Sin on human nature than to Augustine (according to the authors).

Alex
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #125 on: June 03, 2008, 01:13:05 PM »

How would Orthodoxy respond to that? Thanks! Smiley
We wouldn't use dehydrated lemonade. We'd use lemons.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Sophie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #126 on: June 03, 2008, 01:47:46 PM »

You could say the glass was clean because the glass was never used, nor exposed and was constantly safeguarded. The liquid inside sanctified the glass. But as Mary was the recipient of Grace as well as the source of our Lord´s human nature, the metaphor is not very successful (the glass is only a recipient). Still, you can argue that to give a human nature, you have to take it out of a human nature. I would have thought that if the Theotokos had been conceived in an immaculate fashion, it has to be proven somehow that she´s still fully human, otherwise there may be doubt.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 01:48:28 PM by Sophie » Logged

"Thoughts are like airplanes flying in the air. If you ignore them, there is no problem. If you pay attention to them, you create an airport inside your head and permit them to land!" (Priestmonk Christodoulos Aggeloglou, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain Mount Athos, Greece, 1998,pp. 29-30, 48)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 03, 2008, 02:33:15 PM »

You could say the glass was clean because the glass was never used, nor exposed and was constantly safeguarded. The liquid inside sanctified the glass. But as Mary was the recipient of Grace as well as the source of our Lord´s human nature, the metaphor is not very successful (the glass is only a recipient). Still, you can argue that to give a human nature, you have to take it out of a human nature. I would have thought that if the Theotokos had been conceived in an immaculate fashion, it has to be proven somehow that she´s still fully human, otherwise there may be doubt.

I think I agree with Sophie. One possible shortcoming of Myrrth's metaphor is that is imiplies that the humanity of Christ had already existed before the Immaculate Conception (the powdered lemonade did exist in the jar). However, as far as I undrestand (and I am not a theologian so I can be wrong), the Church's doctrine is that until the very moment of Annunciation/Immaculate Conception, Christ's humanity simply did not exist at all. It was CREATED at the moment of conception from cells of the Theotokos.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 03:05:38 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,879


« Reply #128 on: June 03, 2008, 02:33:49 PM »

The only way for Mary to be conceived immaculately would be for Joachim and Anna to have been sinless.... We know that wasn't the case. Mary sinned like everyone else up until the time (Annunciation) that Christ is conceived in her (at which point she is immaculate) therefore, she can give birth to an immaculate Son who would not be subject to original sin.

Plain, simple, and neither sweet nor sour, just right.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,076



« Reply #129 on: June 03, 2008, 02:51:28 PM »

I have no problem with it.
Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,879


« Reply #130 on: June 04, 2008, 01:30:03 PM »

The only way for Mary to be conceived immaculately would be for Joachim and Anna to have been sinless.... We know that wasn't the case. Mary sinned like everyone else up until the time (Annunciation) that Christ is conceived in her (at which point she is immaculate) therefore, she can give birth to an immaculate Son who would not be subject to original sin.

Plain, simple, and neither sweet nor sour, just right.

-Nick

Just to further my point, do the Orthodox not celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos? If she is not subject to the penalty of original sin, she would not die. If she was immaculate, then we would have some issues with "There is no man living who does not sin"... (excepted from prayers and the ending of the funeral service). I can provide a more definite reference if anyone would like.

-Nick
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 01:30:50 PM by admiralnick » Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #131 on: June 04, 2008, 03:18:07 PM »

Dear Friends,

John Meyendorff, as we know, mentioned Orthodox theologians who understood the Western doctrine on the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin - and accepted them both. 

There were also "Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception" in the Orthodox Church at Kyiv during the Baroque era to which belonged also St Dmitri of Rostov and a number of professors of the Kyivan-Mohyla Academy (which according to Florovsky gave a heavy emphasis to the Immaculate Conception in both theological as well as devotional terms - but without going so far as to condemning those who didn't accept it).

Prof. Poselyanin in his book on Orthodox icons of the Theotokos (Bogomater) does list a few Western pictures of the Immaculate Conception that appears to have gained acceptance as "locally miraculous" images in Orthodoxy (and the "icon" of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Horodyschenske as well).

The Orthodox Church knew of the private views of St Dmitri and others and this did not prevent them from being glorified as Orthodox Saints.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that accepting the Western views in this regard fails to provide a truly Orthodox theological position on the complete holiness of the Most Holy Theotokos (and how true!).

It would be important to discuss what "Original Sin" means in Orthodox theology and how it is radically distinguishable from the Western point of view.

In a study I read on John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian who laid the Western theological groundwork for the Immaculate Conception dogma (amid great opposition from the Paris School at the time), the authors admitted there was more than one RC view on what Original Sin was in terms of what it did to our nature.

What was fascinating to read was that Scotus appeared closer to Orthodox theology on the score of the impact of Original Sin on human nature than to Augustine (according to the authors).

Alex


I guess this is where 350 years of the U*ia gets you, and certain local churches.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #132 on: June 06, 2008, 08:07:24 AM »

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox?

If you want the short answer, it is "No."
Logged
theinformer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #133 on: June 08, 2008, 10:14:53 PM »

There is only one immaculate person and that is christ.According to the truth, the most Holy Virgin was purified from any stain of the original sin by the Grace of the Holy spirit, when the archangel told her: "The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee"(luk 1.35). Nowwhere in the gospels, in the decrees of the councils or in the works of the fathers is there found anything about this teaching of the immaculate conception.This disgusting error places the virgin mary in comparison with god, how can you make her identical to him?. Absoltley absurd, she is still his servant.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #134 on: June 09, 2008, 02:27:36 AM »

What about these title's ....Пре Света,Пре Блажена,Пре Славна,Пре Благословена Бого Мајка, Богородица Дјева Марија... why are they used if it isn't true,,,,??... SmileyCentral.com" border="0
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 03:10:19 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Tags: Theotokos Immaculate Conception Original Sin Theotokos and sin 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 72 queries.