Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 231193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #495 on: May 01, 2009, 10:53:46 AM »
I'll be giving an explanation for Fr. Ambrose in a moment.

Blessings

Dear Marduk,

This is embarrassing.  A web search will turn up Coptic Orthodox sites denying the Immaculate Conception.  It is more than clear that this very ancient Church founded by the Apostle Mark has never had and does not now have a teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  The Coptic Church shares the authentic teaching of the other Orthodox Churches both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian on this matter

What about the Armenian Orthodox?  How do they stand on this matter?

-oOo-
Bishop  Angaelos:

Again, one side [Catholic] believes in Immaculate Conception, the other side [Protestant] believes St. Mary was merely a vessel and had no use after that; as Orthodox, we believe the Savior had to come from a lineage of humanity, bearing that human sin.  Therefore, St. Mary was a human – a holy human, prepared to bear God, the Theotokos.

Saint Mina Coptic Orthodox Church, Alberta
http://www.stmina.ab.ca/Resources/articleDetails.php?AID=237

-oOo-
The Coptic Orthodox Church does  not  believe in the  notion of an "immaculate conception".

Coptic.Net
http://www.coptic.net/articles/OneGodInTrinity.txt

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #496 on: May 01, 2009, 10:53:47 AM »
Not much different from what I have seen from many EOs here either. They often contradict their own saints. A good example is the EO rejection of St. Gregory Palamas' teaching on Mary being created without Original Sin.

Steady on there, Papist  :)  What we have seen is a second hand report of a sermon of Saint Gregory Palamas.   Nowhere is the concept of an Immaculate Conception mentioned.

Before you can make such an accusation somebody needs to locate the sermon.

Marduk said he would present us with evidence that Palamas believed in the IC but so far he has not presented it.

As to rejecting what Palamas says, let's remind ourselves that Palamas' view is considered highly unusual and unique to himself.  There is no patrisric consensus supporting Palamas on this matter, neither Western Fathers nor Eastern Fathers.   So let's not say that anybody  is "rejecting" Palamas. :(


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #497 on: May 01, 2009, 11:05:03 AM »
 If perchance you ever go around trying to verify what I've stated at Catholic websites or the like, please make sure to represent what I've stated correctly.  Thanks.

Dear Marduk,

I shan't be quoting you on any Catholic websites.  In the 2 years I was reading your messages on CAF the Catholics there were as puzzled by you as the Orthodox were.   ;D

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #498 on: May 01, 2009, 11:15:06 AM »

Dear Marduk,

I shan't be quoting you on any Catholic websites.  In the 2 years I was reading your messages on CAF the Catholics there were as puzzled by you as the Orthodox were.   ;D

Especially the Eastern Catholics!  ;D

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #499 on: May 01, 2009, 11:17:01 AM »


Again, one side [Catholic] believes in Immaculate Conception, the other side [Protestant] believes St. Mary was merely a vessel and had no use after that; as Orthodox, we believe the Savior had to come from a lineage of humanity, bearing that human sin.  Therefore, St. Mary was a human – a holy human, prepared to bear God, the Theotokos.

This arguement is based on the misconception that sin is intrinsic to human nature. If anything its embarassing for the Bishop who made the arguement.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #500 on: May 01, 2009, 11:17:58 AM »
Papist, would you peruse the quote I provide, and that Mardukm responds to, and comment on whether it is a succinct exposition of the RC doctrine of the IC?

Would you first read the following quoted section (reference coming soon) and indicate whether it is a good summary of your (and, by extension, your understanding of RC) belief concerning the IC?

Quote
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. Under this aspect Mary is sometimes called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic contexts. The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church's belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g., Mary's being greeted by the Angel Gabriel as "full of grace") as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Ambrose of Milan. Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined by Pope Pius IX is also viewed as a key example of the use of sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium rather than pure reliance on Scripture and Tradition. The Vatican quotes in this context Fulgens Corona, where Pius XII supported such a faith:

    "If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?”

The Roman Catholic tradition has a well-established philosophy for the study of the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the field of Mariology, with Pontifical schools such as the Marianum specifically devoted to this.

That is a pretty good summary of the dogma.  There are three things I would point out for comment and correction:

1) "The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace."
In the clause "and that she was instead filled with divine grace," I would replace the word "divine" with the word "sanctifying."  Using the word "divine" draws one into the error that Mary was somehow made into some sort of demi-god.  Using the word "divine" instead of "sanctifying" also detracts from the otherwise obvious fact that the Grace Mary received at her conception is simply the Grace we all receive at Baptism - namely, sanctifying Grace.

2) "The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX" This statement on its own would make one think that this "dogma" is just like any other dogma defined by the Church - such as those defined by the Ecumenical Councils. When one looks at the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, one discovers that every dogma is accompanied by a very severe proscriptive penalty that redounds to the very salvation of a person - namely, an anathema.  But the dogma of the IC does not contain an anathema, but merely an excommunication.  Given the Catholic Church's dogmatic teaching that the Grace of salvation can be found outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, then this particular proscriptive penalty in the dogma does not really tend to the loss of one's salvation.  Without the foregoing explanation, a non-Catholic reading it (and perhaps even a Catholic reading it) might think, wrongly, that the "dogma" of the IC also contains the normative "loss of salvation" intent that has historically accompanied the dogmas of the Church.  FYI, the dogma of the Assumption does not even contain a proscriptive penalty altogether!!!

3) "Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat."  As the explanation implies, this is a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, which is held mainly by Latin Catholic.  I don't have to believe it as an Oriental Catholic.  But really, the subordinate clause ("it was fitting that ...") is very problematic because it is so vague.  What does it mean?  Is it saying that without the IC, she could not have given her fiat?  Does it mean that without the IC, Jesus could not have become incarnate of the Virgin? Does it mean that the IC caused her not to be able to sin (that is, lost her free will)?  Since this is just a theologoumenon, it does not really belong in an explanation of the IC.  This additional clause just confuses people, and might make readers think that this theologoumenon is somehow an inherent part of the dogma.  It should be left out altogether.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 11:18:21 AM by cleveland »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #501 on: May 01, 2009, 11:18:48 AM »
Not much different from what I have seen from many EOs here either. They often contradict their own saints. A good example is the EO rejection of St. Gregory Palamas' teaching on Mary being created without Original Sin.

Steady on there, Papist  :)  What we have seen is a second hand report of a sermon of Saint Gregory Palamas.   Nowhere is the concept of an Immaculate Conception mentioned.

Before you can make such an accusation somebody needs to locate the sermon.

Marduk said he would present us with evidence that Palamas believed in the IC but so far he has not presented it.

As to rejecting what Palamas says, let's remind ourselves that Palamas' view is considered highly unusual and unique to himself.  There is no patrisric consensus supporting Palamas on this matter, neither Western Fathers nor Eastern Fathers.   So let's not say that anybody  is "rejecting" Palamas. :(


But you do reject Palamas teaching that Mary did not have original sin. You can dance around it all you want but you disagree with Palamas on this matter. You want to know what's really funny about all this. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that Mary was created with original sin but Palamas did not.  ;D
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #502 on: May 01, 2009, 11:19:51 AM »
Papist, would you peruse the quote I provide, and that Mardukm responds to, and comment on whether it is a succinct exposition of the RC doctrine of the IC?

Would you first read the following quoted section (reference coming soon) and indicate whether it is a good summary of your (and, by extension, your understanding of RC) belief concerning the IC?

Quote
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. Under this aspect Mary is sometimes called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic contexts. The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church's belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g., Mary's being greeted by the Angel Gabriel as "full of grace") as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Ambrose of Milan. Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined by Pope Pius IX is also viewed as a key example of the use of sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium rather than pure reliance on Scripture and Tradition. The Vatican quotes in this context Fulgens Corona, where Pius XII supported such a faith:

    "If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?”

The Roman Catholic tradition has a well-established philosophy for the study of the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the field of Mariology, with Pontifical schools such as the Marianum specifically devoted to this.

That is a pretty good summary of the dogma.  There are three things I would point out for comment and correction:

1) "The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace."
In the clause "and that she was instead filled with divine grace," I would replace the word "divine" with the word "sanctifying."  Using the word "divine" draws one into the error that Mary was somehow made into some sort of demi-god.  Using the word "divine" instead of "sanctifying" also detracts from the otherwise obvious fact that the Grace Mary received at her conception is simply the Grace we all receive at Baptism - namely, sanctifying Grace.

2) "The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX" This statement on its own would make one think that this "dogma" is just like any other dogma defined by the Church - such as those defined by the Ecumenical Councils. When one looks at the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, one discovers that every dogma is accompanied by a very severe proscriptive penalty that redounds to the very salvation of a person - namely, an anathema.  But the dogma of the IC does not contain an anathema, but merely an excommunication.  Given the Catholic Church's dogmatic teaching that the Grace of salvation can be found outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, then this particular proscriptive penalty in the dogma does not really tend to the loss of one's salvation.  Without the foregoing explanation, a non-Catholic reading it (and perhaps even a Catholic reading it) might think, wrongly, that the "dogma" of the IC also contains the normative "loss of salvation" intent that has historically accompanied the dogmas of the Church.  FYI, the dogma of the Assumption does not even contain a proscriptive penalty altogether!!!

3) "Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat."  As the explanation implies, this is a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, which is held mainly by Latin Catholic.  I don't have to believe it as an Oriental Catholic.  But really, the subordinate clause ("it was fitting that ...") is very problematic because it is so vague.  What does it mean?  Is it saying that without the IC, she could not have given her fiat?  Does it mean that without the IC, Jesus could not have become incarnate of the Virgin? Does it mean that the IC caused her not to be able to sin (that is, lost her free will)?  Since this is just a theologoumenon, it does not really belong in an explanation of the IC.  This additional clause just confuses people, and might make readers think that this theologoumenon is somehow an inherent part of the dogma.  It should be left out altogether.
I'll read through it at lunch so that I can give a detailed analysis.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #503 on: May 01, 2009, 11:22:43 AM »
*pokes head in*

If you read HH's statements carefully, you'll notice that he rejects the Immaculate Conception on the basis that "as if she was born of no human seed."

Saying that HH rejects the IC because of that one clause would be like saying that Orthodox reject Roman Catholicism because "of the Pope."  It may be the largest objection, but it certainly isn't the only one and probably not even one that, if overcome, would change the stance toward the doctrine in question.

*pokes head out*
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #504 on: May 01, 2009, 11:23:13 AM »
I'll read through it at lunch so that I can give a detailed analysis.

Thank you!
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #505 on: May 01, 2009, 11:34:47 AM »
Papist, would you peruse the quote I provide, and that Mardukm responds to, and comment on whether it is a succinct exposition of the RC doctrine of the IC?

Would you first read the following quoted section (reference coming soon) and indicate whether it is a good summary of your (and, by extension, your understanding of RC) belief concerning the IC?

Quote
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. Under this aspect Mary is sometimes called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic contexts. The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church's belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g., Mary's being greeted by the Angel Gabriel as "full of grace") as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Ambrose of Milan. Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined by Pope Pius IX is also viewed as a key example of the use of sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium rather than pure reliance on Scripture and Tradition. The Vatican quotes in this context Fulgens Corona, where Pius XII supported such a faith:

    "If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?”

The Roman Catholic tradition has a well-established philosophy for the study of the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the field of Mariology, with Pontifical schools such as the Marianum specifically devoted to this.

That is a pretty good summary of the dogma.  There are three things I would point out for comment and correction:

1) "The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace."
In the clause "and that she was instead filled with divine grace," I would replace the word "divine" with the word "sanctifying."  Using the word "divine" draws one into the error that Mary was somehow made into some sort of demi-god.  Using the word "divine" instead of "sanctifying" also detracts from the otherwise obvious fact that the Grace Mary received at her conception is simply the Grace we all receive at Baptism - namely, sanctifying Grace.

2) "The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX" This statement on its own would make one think that this "dogma" is just like any other dogma defined by the Church - such as those defined by the Ecumenical Councils. When one looks at the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, one discovers that every dogma is accompanied by a very severe proscriptive penalty that redounds to the very salvation of a person - namely, an anathema.  But the dogma of the IC does not contain an anathema, but merely an excommunication.  Given the Catholic Church's dogmatic teaching that the Grace of salvation can be found outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, then this particular proscriptive penalty in the dogma does not really tend to the loss of one's salvation.  Without the foregoing explanation, a non-Catholic reading it (and perhaps even a Catholic reading it) might think, wrongly, that the "dogma" of the IC also contains the normative "loss of salvation" intent that has historically accompanied the dogmas of the Church.  FYI, the dogma of the Assumption does not even contain a proscriptive penalty altogether!!!

3) "Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat."  As the explanation implies, this is a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, which is held mainly by Latin Catholic.  I don't have to believe it as an Oriental Catholic.  But really, the subordinate clause ("it was fitting that ...") is very problematic because it is so vague.  What does it mean?  Is it saying that without the IC, she could not have given her fiat?  Does it mean that without the IC, Jesus could not have become incarnate of the Virgin? Does it mean that the IC caused her not to be able to sin (that is, lost her free will)?  Since this is just a theologoumenon, it does not really belong in an explanation of the IC.  This additional clause just confuses people, and might make readers think that this theologoumenon is somehow an inherent part of the dogma.  It should be left out altogether.
Ok, I got a chance to read through all of it just now. I agree with the description of the Immaculate conception and his history that you quoted above. As for Marduk's understaning, I am in complete agreement with him on points one and three but not on point two. He posits that because an "anathema" is not attached the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that it is not a dogma necesary for salvation. His arguement is based on the idea that the Catholic Church has "only" attached an excommunication to the dogma. The problem is that there is no such thing as "only" an excommunication vs. an anathema. Excommunication is the most serious possible punishment in Catholicism. It means that you are no longer a member of the Catholic Church and with some extremely odd set of circumstances an excommunicated person will not go to heaven unless that person is reconciled to the Catholic Church. Thus a person who is excommunicated by the Catholic Church for heresy cannot get into heaven.
My second reason that I disagree with Marduk is that I don't think that the consequence of excommunication is attached to the dogma. It never says that anywhere. I think that there is an implied anathema which just means that a person is condemning himself or herself by theif unbelief but is not kicked out of the Catholic Church. They may not enter heaven because they have 1. rejected the truth and 2. have been gravely disobedient to the magesterium.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #506 on: May 01, 2009, 11:35:57 AM »
*pokes head in*

If you read HH's statements carefully, you'll notice that he rejects the Immaculate Conception on the basis that "as if she was born of no human seed."

Saying that HH rejects the IC because of that one clause would be like saying that Orthodox reject Roman Catholicism because "of the Pope."  It may be the largest objection, but it certainly isn't the only one and probably not even one that, if overcome, would change the stance toward the doctrine in question.

*pokes head out*
I don't think your arguement follows at all. Apparently his rejection of the IC is based on a poor understanding of the concept.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #507 on: May 01, 2009, 12:28:45 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

*pokes head in*

If you read HH's statements carefully, you'll notice that he rejects the Immaculate Conception on the basis that "as if she was born of no human seed."

Saying that HH rejects the IC because of that one clause would be like saying that Orthodox reject Roman Catholicism because "of the Pope."  It may be the largest objection, but it certainly isn't the only one and probably not even one that, if overcome, would change the stance toward the doctrine in question.

*pokes head out*
I'm just basing my comment on what HH stated, and on that basis, his statement does not touch upon the actual teaching of the dogma in any way.  If HH expressed other reasons for rejecting it, I'm sure brother Mina and I will discuss it when we engage in the discussion together this weekend.  But for clarity's sake, I would like to list the various misconceptions about the dogma that have so far been stated and refuted, and not merely on the grounds that such misconceptions don't even touch upon the matter of the dogma itself:

1) That the IC removes her freewill;
2) That the dogma states that Jesus' own freedom from original sin is ontologically attached to Mary's stainless nature, and not by virtue of His own unique conception by the Holy Spirit without a human father;
3) That Mary is not a natural creature like the rest of us;
4) That Mary could not die because she was IC'd;
5) That Mary by nature was not corruptible;
6) That the IC necessitates that all her descendants were IC'd;
7) That the IC was necessary for her TO BE Theotokos;
8) That Mary did not need a Savior (the dogma specifically states that it was God who saved her);
9) That her Virginity was so completely dependent on the Grace of the IC so that her her free was not involved;
10) That her holiness was so completely dependent on the Grace of the IC so that her her free will was not involved.

Indeed if any one of these claims were actually the matter of the dogma, then the dogma of the IC would indeed be an innovation.  But since these points are not at all what the dogma is about or what the dogma teaches, then such a claim of innovation has no merit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,483
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #508 on: May 01, 2009, 12:31:33 PM »
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?
I hope an EO answers this, and I pray everyone who is reading this thread pays careful attention.  TOO often, we hear the notion that the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin is SOOOOOOO different from the Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin, a myth invented by modern EO polemics, and perpetuated by the disinterest of many EO to even bother to try to find out the actual truth of the matter from the horse's mouth, being content with the hearsay they get from their "apologists."  If this cannot actually be proven, then I hope EO out there will stop and think before giving an ear to statements against the Catholic Church, just because the authors of those statements bear affiliation with the EOC.  In any case, this will be just one more step to help the cause of true unity, which is based neither on lies, accomodation, nor forced uniformity, but rather on genuine understanding and acceptance of each other.

First, before you get to what the Vatican teaches (and I admit, it's inconsistent here), first I don't recall your explanation of the IC only affecting the spirit and not the body, when the Vatican's documents on the IC and Assumption like the two.  Which indeed would agree with the EO (and Palamas') about death (physical that is) being the result of original sin.  So can you again tell us, how the Theotokos' body has nothing to do with the IC, or better yet, cite the relevant texts?
Well, I gave you two references already to the notion that the IC refers to her spiritual conception and not the physical conception - both from the 1917 CE, and one of those quotes references an encyclical by Alexander VII in the 17th century.  If you want to investigate Alexander VII's encyclical, I'm sure you can do it on your own. I have also given you St. Athanasius' teaching on original sin in order to explain the distinction between the spiritual and physical consequences.  I gave you all the proper resources to analyze what I stated.  Address what I've given you already, and we can continue from there.
And I've given you what you believe are infallible statements (which you do not claim for your 1917 BC (what's with the CE nonsense?) and 17th cent. documents, do you?) maintaining the conection between the spiritual and physical:
Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?
Quote
SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY


Quote
I don't know what you find inconsistent. Is it the fact that the Catholic teaching on original sin can agree with St. Palamas' own teaching? Perhaps your confusion lies in the modern EO

Yes, another attempt to project your church's development of doctrine onto the Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox teaching is the same as Historical/Traditional/Ancient Orthdoox Teaching.  That's why it is ORTHODOX (and hence, CATHOLIC).

Quote
attempts to create a false dichotomy between EO'xy and Catholicism, and when you find that HISTORIC EO'xy is actually quite consistent with Catholicism, it is something of a quandary to you.

Your quandry is all those "apostolic churches," and the Vatican is the only one who comes up with the IC, and demonstrably nearly a millenium after the divisions between the apostolic churches.

Quote
Perhaps you should seriously consider that modern EO'xy just actually might not be representing historic EO'xy in its attempts to create a wider chasm between Catholicism and EO'xy than there actually is.

Or you might consider, as has been told to you by numberous members of those apostolic (including those with the Vatican) that you are misrepresenting official Church teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #509 on: May 01, 2009, 12:44:34 PM »
Let us take a brief look at the confusion associated with the IC theology prior to Pius IX elevating it to a doctrine of the post schism Latin Church.

The question concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been agitated with great warmth in the university of Paris, when both the university and the bishop, in 1387, condemned certain propositions of John de Montesano, a Dominican, in which this privilege was denied. The Council of Basle, in 1439 (Sess. 36), declared the belief of her Immaculate Conception to be conformable to the doctrine and devotion of the church, to the Catholic faith, right reason, and the holy scriptures, and to be held by all Catholics. But this council was at that time a schismatical assembly, nor could its decree be of force. It was, nevertheless, received by a provincial council held at Avignon in 1457, and by the university of Paris. When some gave scandal by warmly contesting the Immaculate Conception, this famous university passed a decree in 1497, in which it was enacted, that no one should be admitted in it to the degree of doctor of divinity who did not bind himself by oath to defend this point. (See Spondan, Contin. Baron. Ad an. 1497; Bulaeus, Hist. Universit. Paris, t. 5, p. 815; Fleury, cont. t. 24, p. 336; Frassen, t. 8, p. 227). The council of Trent declared, in the decree concerning original sin, that it was not its intention to include in it the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of God, and ordered the decree of Sixtus IV, relating to this point, to be observed. That pope, in 1476, granted certain indulgences to those who assisted at the office and mass on the feast of her Conception; and, in 1483, by another constitution, forbade anyone to censure this festival, or to condemn the opinion which asserted the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception. St. Pius V, by his bull in 1570, forbade either the opinion which affirmed, or that which denied it, to be censured. Paul V, in 1616, reiterated the same prohibition, and, in 1617, forbade anyone to affirm in sermons, theses, or other like public acts, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. Gregory XV, in 1622, forbade anyone to affirm this, even in private disputations, except those to whom the holy see gives a special license to do it, which he granted to the Dominicans, provided they do it privately, and only among themselves [emphasis added]; but he ordered that, in the office or mass of this festival, no other title than simply that of the Conception should be used. Alexander VII, in 1671, declared that the devotion of honoring the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is pious; yet prohibits censuring those who do not believe her Conception immaculate. Philip III of Spain, demanded of Paul V, and Philip IV, of Gregory XV, a definition of this question, but could obtain nothing more than the foregoing bulls. (See Luke Wadding, the learned Irish Franciscan, who lived some time in Spain, and died at Rome in 1655, De Legatione Philippi III et Philippi IV ad Paulum V et Greg. XV, pro definienda Controversia de Conceptione Virginis). In the latest edition of the Roman Index, a certain little office of the Immaculate Conception is condemned; but this censure is not to be extended to other such little offices. In the prayers themselves it is called the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin, which phrase is ambiguous, and may be understood to imply only that she was spotless from all actual sin, and was cleansed from original sin before she was born, in which all Catholics agree. Benedict XIII granted to the subjects of Austria, and the empire a weekly office of the Immaculate Conception on every Saturday; but the epithet Immaculate Conception occurs not in any of the prayers, but only in the title of the office.
(Butler, op. cit. vol. IV p. 493)

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #510 on: May 01, 2009, 12:45:31 PM »
And I've given you what you believe are infallible statements (which you do not claim for your 1917 BC (what's with the CE nonsense?) and 17th cent. documents, do you?) maintaining the conection between the spiritual and physical:
I haven't seen them.  Are they the ones that state that while we are filled with Sanctifying Grace at Baptism (the same Sanctifying Grace Mary was filled with at the IC), we nevertheless die?  Can you quote those infallible statements again?

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?
Quote
SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY
I don't know the purpose of this quote.  Can you explain?

Quote
Quote
I don't know what you find inconsistent. Is it the fact that the Catholic teaching on original sin can agree with St. Palamas' own teaching? Perhaps your confusion lies in the modern EO

Yes, another attempt to project your church's development of doctrine onto the Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox teaching is the same as Historical/Traditional/Ancient Orthdoox Teaching.  That's why it is ORTHODOX (and hence, CATHOLIC).
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???

Quote
Quote
attempts to create a false dichotomy between EO'xy and Catholicism, and when you find that HISTORIC EO'xy is actually quite consistent with Catholicism, it is something of a quandary to you.

Your quandry is all those "apostolic churches," and the Vatican is the only one who comes up with the IC, and demonstrably nearly a millenium after the divisions between the apostolic churches.
Demonstrably, the matter of the teaching of the IC has been in the EASTERN Church for over a millenium. :o
Besides, I'm not the one that expressed puzzlement.  You were. ::)

Quote
Quote
Perhaps you should seriously consider that modern EO'xy just actually might not be representing historic EO'xy in its attempts to create a wider chasm between Catholicism and EO'xy than there actually is.

Or you might consider, as has been told to you by numberous members of those apostolic (including those with the Vatican) that you are misrepresenting official Church teaching.
Yet after having had at least two opportunities to tell everyone here how the quote from St. Palamas somehow contradicts the Catholic teaching on Original Sin, you haven't and in fact can't do so. ::)

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #511 on: May 01, 2009, 12:50:40 PM »
Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)

Quote
History of the dogma
Velázquez's Immaculate Conception, 1618

The Conception of Mary was celebrated as a liturgical feast in England from the ninth century, and the doctrine of her "holy" or "immaculate" conception was first formulated in a tract by Eadmer, companion and biographer of the better-known St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), and later popularized by the archbishop's nephew, Anselm the Younger. The Normans had suppressed the celebration, but it lived on in the popular mind. It was rejected by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (who, teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine," indicating its association with England), and by St. Thomas Aquinas who expressed questions about the subject, but said that he would accept the determination of the Church. Aquinas and Bonaventure, for example, believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.[10]

Despite this formidable array of tradition and scholarly opinion, the Oxford Franciscans William of Ware and especially Blessed John Duns Scotus defended the doctrine. Scotus proposed a solution to the theological problem involved of being able to reconcile the doctrine with that of universal redemption in Christ, by arguing that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption that was given to her on account of her special role in history. Furthermore, Scotus said that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ's death on the cross. This was similar to the way that the Church explained the Last Supper (since Roman Catholic theology teaches that the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, and Christ did not die before the Last Supper). Scotus' defence of the immaculist thesis was summed up by one of his followers as potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it). Following his defence of the thesis, students at Paris swore to defend the position, and the tradition grew of swearing to defend the doctrine with one's blood. The University of Paris supported the decision of the (schismatic) Council of Basel in this matter. Duns' arguments remained controversial, however, particularly among the Dominicans, who were willing enough to celebrate Mary's sanctificatio (being made free from sin), but, following the Dominican Thomas Aquinas' arguments, continued to insist that her sanctification could not have occurred at the instant of her conception.

Popular opinion remained firmly behind the celebration of Mary's conception. The doctrine itself had been endorsed by the Council of Basel (1431-1449), and by the end of the 15th century was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties. However, the Council of Basel was later held not to have been a true General (or Ecumenical) Council with authority to proclaim dogma; and such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323, and declared "Doctor Angelicus" of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545-63)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position; it simply reaffirmed the constitutions of Sixtus IV, which had threatened with excommunication anyone on either side of the controversy who accused the others of heresy.

Dogmatic definition

It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, proclaimed the doctrine in accordance with the conditions of papal infallibility that would be defined in 1870 by the First Vatican Council. Pope Pius IX defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December 1854. The Pope stressed that Mary's sinlessness was not due to her own merits, but truly, by the merits of her son, Jesus.

    "We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."

Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the "original or first sin" at the beginning of human history.

Explanation of the dogma

In Catholic teachings the dogma is explained as follows:

1. The essence of original sin consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. Being preserved from original sin, Mary entered existence in a state of sanctifying grace.

2. Mary's freedom from original sin was an unmerited gift of God's grace.

3. The efficient cause of the Immaculate Conception was Almighty God.

4. The meritorious cause was the Redemption by Jesus Christ. It follows from this that even Mary was in need of redemption and was, in fact, redeemed "by the grace of Christ" in a more perfect way than other human beings. Christ's redemption frees all humanity from original sin. The uniqueness of what Christ has done for Mary is that she was freed from original sin before ever inheriting it, while the rest of humanity is freed after it has been inherited from Adam and Eve. Thus, this dogma in no way contradicts the dogma that all children of Adam are subject to original sin and in need of a savior.

5. The final cause of the Immaculate Conception is her Motherhood of God.[11]

Scriptural sources

In his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1854), which officially defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma for the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius IX primarily appealed to the text of Genesis 3:15, where the serpent was told by God, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed". According to the Roman Catholic understanding, this was a prophecy that foretold of a "woman" who would always be at enmity with the serpent—that is, a woman who would never be under the power of sin, nor in bondage to the serpent. Some Roman Catholic theologians[who?] have also claimed the angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary at the Annunciation (Luke 1:28) as scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception. The verse "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee", "Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te" (Vulgate[12]), from the Song of Solomon (4.7) was also regarded as a scriptural confirmation of the doctrine, and as "macula" is Latin for "spot" or "stain", is probably responsible for its name.

The early Church Fathers compared Mary to Eve. St. Justin Martyr said that Mary was a kind of New Eve, "in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin". (Dialogue with Trypho, 100) Tertullian argued in a similar manner: "As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced". (On the Flesh of Christ, 17) St. Irenaeus declared that Mary became "the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race", because "what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith". (Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 22, 4) St. Jerome coined the phrase, "Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary", (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21).

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, however, states that these scriptures merely serve as corroborative evidence assuming that the dogma is already well established, and that there is insufficient evidence to prove the dogma to someone basing their beliefs solely on biblical interpretation:

    No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. ... The Proto-evangelium [Genesis 3:15], therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and...the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin. The salutation of the angel Gabriel—chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace...finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. ― [6]

Other verses sometimes used to defend the Immaculate Conception include:

    "And you shall make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood, and you shall gild it with pure gold, you shall gild it within and without; and you shall make for it golden wreaths twisted round about." (Exodus 25:10-11 Brenton LXX)

    "So I made an ark of boards of incorruptible wood, and I hewed tables of stone like the first, and I went up to the mountain, and the two tables were in my hand." (Deuteronomy 10:3 Brenton LXX)

Other translations use the words "setim", "acacia", "indestructible", and "hard" to describe the wood used. In any case, Moses used this wood because it was regarded as very durable and "incorruptible". Mary is regarded by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as being the Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament and therefore claim it is fitting that the New Ark likewise be made "incorruptible" or "immaculate". Their basis for calling the Virgin Mary the Ark of the Covenant is based partly on the parallels of the Ark in Second Samuel 6 with the Nativity narrative of the Gospel of Luke. The early Church Fathers called Christ, the Church, and the Virgin Mary each at one point as being symbolized by the Ark. [13]

It is also claimed that Mary is shown as being totally faithful to Christ, especially during his Passion, when he was abandoned by his followers and apostles except for the young John. In this way, Mary's complete faithfulness is argued to be the fruit of being sinless, as she could not then reject Christ in the darkest hour.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #512 on: May 01, 2009, 01:05:50 PM »
Let us take a brief look at the confusion associated with the IC theology prior to Pius IX elevating it to a doctrine of the post schism Latin Church.

The question concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been agitated with great warmth in the university of Paris, when both the university and the bishop, in 1387, condemned certain propositions of John de Montesano, a Dominican, in which this privilege was denied. The Council of Basle, in 1439 (Sess. 36), declared the belief of her Immaculate Conception to be conformable to the doctrine and devotion of the church, to the Catholic faith, right reason, and the holy scriptures, and to be held by all Catholics. But this council was at that time a schismatical assembly, nor could its decree be of force. It was, nevertheless, received by a provincial council held at Avignon in 1457, and by the university of Paris. When some gave scandal by warmly contesting the Immaculate Conception, this famous university passed a decree in 1497, in which it was enacted, that no one should be admitted in it to the degree of doctor of divinity who did not bind himself by oath to defend this point. (See Spondan, Contin. Baron. Ad an. 1497; Bulaeus, Hist. Universit. Paris, t. 5, p. 815; Fleury, cont. t. 24, p. 336; Frassen, t. 8, p. 227). The council of Trent declared, in the decree concerning original sin, that it was not its intention to include in it the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of God, and ordered the decree of Sixtus IV, relating to this point, to be observed. That pope, in 1476, granted certain indulgences to those who assisted at the office and mass on the feast of her Conception; and, in 1483, by another constitution, forbade anyone to censure this festival, or to condemn the opinion which asserted the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception. St. Pius V, by his bull in 1570, forbade either the opinion which affirmed, or that which denied it, to be censured. Paul V, in 1616, reiterated the same prohibition, and, in 1617, forbade anyone to affirm in sermons, theses, or other like public acts, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. Gregory XV, in 1622, forbade anyone to affirm this, even in private disputations, except those to whom the holy see gives a special license to do it, which he granted to the Dominicans, provided they do it privately, and only among themselves [emphasis added]; but he ordered that, in the office or mass of this festival, no other title than simply that of the Conception should be used. Alexander VII, in 1671, declared that the devotion of honoring the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is pious; yet prohibits censuring those who do not believe her Conception immaculate. Philip III of Spain, demanded of Paul V, and Philip IV, of Gregory XV, a definition of this question, but could obtain nothing more than the foregoing bulls. (See Luke Wadding, the learned Irish Franciscan, who lived some time in Spain, and died at Rome in 1655, De Legatione Philippi III et Philippi IV ad Paulum V et Greg. XV, pro definienda Controversia de Conceptione Virginis). In the latest edition of the Roman Index, a certain little office of the Immaculate Conception is condemned; but this censure is not to be extended to other such little offices. In the prayers themselves it is called the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin, which phrase is ambiguous, and may be understood to imply only that she was spotless from all actual sin, and was cleansed from original sin before she was born, in which all Catholics agree. Benedict XIII granted to the subjects of Austria, and the empire a weekly office of the Immaculate Conception on every Saturday; but the epithet Immaculate Conception occurs not in any of the prayers, but only in the title of the office.
(Butler, op. cit. vol. IV p. 493)
Iconoclasm had been around in the Church since the time of the Gnostics.  It came to the forefront of the Church's attention in the 7th century, and was not resolved until the 9th century.  Some things take a little longer to bring into focus for the Church's determination. No big deal.

There was really no major denial of the IC after the promulgation of the Feast of the Conception in the West (and at that point, they were united with the East on the matter).  What delayed a solid formulation was because there were several competing theories as to the HOW of the matter, which I explained in an earlier post.  Nevertheless, the actual matter of the IC - that Mary was purified from the moment of her conception - was not in doubt in both East and West at least since the 15th century.

Blessings
 

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #513 on: May 01, 2009, 01:13:09 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #514 on: May 01, 2009, 01:16:37 PM »
Iconoclasm had been around in the Church since the time of the Gnostics.  

Nice dodge.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #515 on: May 01, 2009, 01:24:59 PM »
(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)

This is a great idea cleveland. Marduk has been all over the board--talking about conceptional baptism, ensoulment, and even going so far as to rejecting part of Vatican I statement that he is not comfortable with. Some say there is ex-communication. Some say there is loss of salvation. Some say there is neither. Others attempt to use St Gregory Palamas (who had a unique perspective) as a proof for the RRC position.

Let us get an agreed upon statement and proceed from there.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #516 on: May 01, 2009, 01:43:47 PM »
Iconoclasm had been around in the Church since the time of the Gnostics.  

Nice dodge.
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #517 on: May 01, 2009, 01:44:36 PM »
(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)

This is a great idea cleveland. Marduk has been all over the board--talking about conceptional baptism, ensoulment, and even going so far as to rejecting part of Vatican I statement that he is not comfortable with. Some say there is ex-communication. Some say there is loss of salvation. Some say there is neither. Others attempt to use St Gregory Palamas (who had a unique perspective) as a proof for the RRC position.

Let us get an agreed upon statement and proceed from there.
I'm demoting you from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #518 on: May 01, 2009, 01:45:40 PM »
Grace and Peace,

Would Blessed Bernard's views on Our Lady or the views of Blessed Gregory Palamas' views of Our Lady be condemned by the East? If not I am comforted to say that I may be able to continue my inquiry into Orthodoxy. If not, and they are in fact, condemned views then I will continue to be unable to be a modern practicing Orthodox.

Peace and God Bless.
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.”

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #519 on: May 01, 2009, 02:06:40 PM »
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

That's precisely the reason why I quoted it without telling you the source: I wanted you (and Papist) to verify that the information was correct before introducing the word "Wiki" which seems to turn people off before they even check the veracity of the claims in the article.  I pray you'll take the time to read the follow-up material that I quoted.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #520 on: May 01, 2009, 02:07:06 PM »
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.

Apples and oranges.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #521 on: May 01, 2009, 02:14:45 PM »
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.

Apples and oranges.
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #522 on: May 01, 2009, 02:21:16 PM »
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
Sorry bud. Bringing up the Iconoclast controversy, (which was settled by a council of the undivided Church), is apples and oranges.

I suggest you and Mark begin working on an agreed statement regarding the IC (as suggested by cleveland), so that we can continue the discussion.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 02:22:47 PM by Mickey »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #523 on: May 01, 2009, 02:26:19 PM »
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
Sorry bud. Bringing up the Iconoclast controversy, (which was settled by a council of the undivided Church), is apples and oranges.


You sure love your fruit. Its not apples and oranges. The debate about iconoclasm exited for hundreds of years in one form or another and was not settled until the seventh ecumenical council. In the same way the issue surrounding how Mary was preserved from original sin was really not settled until the feast day was established.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #524 on: May 01, 2009, 02:28:31 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #525 on: May 01, 2009, 02:31:03 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #526 on: May 01, 2009, 02:37:02 PM »
In the same way the issue surrounding how Mary was preserved from original sin was really not settled until the feast day was established.
Rome tried settled it on her own with Her innovative doctrine of the IC in 1854. And it looks like many within the RCC still do not understand it.

Apples and oranges.

Are you working on that common statement?  ;)

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #527 on: May 01, 2009, 02:42:14 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.

520 only means you will not prevail here.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #528 on: May 01, 2009, 02:44:49 PM »
Rome tried settled it on her own with Her innovative doctrine of the IC in 1854. And it looks like many within the RCC still do not understand it.
Still not addressing the point and still using his radio talk show verbage that adds nada to the conversation.
Apples and oranges.
And now he is drowing in what must by now be rotten fruit salad. :(
Are you working on that common statement?  ;)
We already have one:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #529 on: May 01, 2009, 02:46:16 PM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.

520 only means you will not prevail here.
Prevail? What is this a millitary battle? We're just having a discussion. Of course we won't convince you guys to change your mind. I have no plan of that because I assume that your convictions about your faith are just as stong as my convictions concerning my faith.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #530 on: May 01, 2009, 02:49:12 PM »
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #531 on: May 01, 2009, 02:54:11 PM »
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
If we are not careful about how all this spreads, we will soon have an IC pandemic!  :D
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #532 on: May 01, 2009, 02:55:00 PM »
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,294
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #533 on: May 01, 2009, 02:55:38 PM »
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
If we are not careful about how all this spreads, we will soon have an IC pandemic!  :D

The only pandemic seems to be "talking-past-one-another-itis," and it's already reached levels the CDC would panic about! :D
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #534 on: May 01, 2009, 02:57:00 PM »
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 02:58:39 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #535 on: May 01, 2009, 03:26:09 PM »
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?

I'll help you out. Here is what he said:

I don’t think the “merits of Christ” clause is necessary for my own belief in the dogma.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #536 on: May 01, 2009, 03:27:43 PM »
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?

I'll help you out. Here is what he said:

I don’t think the “merits of Christ” clause is necessary for my own belief in the dogma.

I want to let him answer for himself before I jump to conclusions.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #537 on: May 01, 2009, 03:44:19 PM »
I want to let him answer for himself before I jump to conclusions.

Okay. Have a good weekend Chris. Don't drink too many cape cods.

Over and out.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #538 on: May 01, 2009, 03:58:07 PM »
I want to let him answer for himself before I jump to conclusions.

Okay. Have a good weekend Chris. Don't drink too many cape cods.

Over and out.
You have a good weekend too. And if you choose to, enjoy a nice cape cod. :)
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,483
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #539 on: May 01, 2009, 03:59:10 PM »
And I've given you what you believe are infallible statements (which you do not claim for your 1917 BC (what's with the CE nonsense?) and 17th cent. documents, do you?) maintaining the conection between the spiritual and physical:
I haven't seen them.  Are they the ones that state that while we are filled with Sanctifying Grace at Baptism (the same Sanctifying Grace Mary was filled with at the IC), we nevertheless die?  Can you quote those infallible statements again?

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?
Quote
SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY
I don't know the purpose of this quote.  Can you explain?

It's the convenient link to those so called infallible statements, so I don't have to repeat myself (too much).


I don't know what you find inconsistent. Is it the fact that the Catholic teaching on original sin can agree with St. Palamas' own teaching? Perhaps your confusion lies in the modern EO

Yes, another attempt to project your church's development of doctrine onto the Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox teaching is the same as Historical/Traditional/Ancient Orthdoox Teaching.  That's why it is ORTHODOX (and hence, CATHOLIC).
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that St. Palamas coincides with what the Vatican says (problematic to begin with, as Fr. Ambrose has shown).  Does he cite the Fathers, the Liturgies of the Church, etc. to support his view?  Does he represent the consensus of the Fathers, or just a "proof-text" of a idiosyncretic idea, which is being twisted out of context to be moulded to later purposes?

attempts to create a false dichotomy between EO'xy and Catholicism, and when you find that HISTORIC EO'xy is actually quite consistent with Catholicism, it is something of a quandary to you.

Your quandry is all those "apostolic churches," and the Vatican is the only one who comes up with the IC, and demonstrably nearly a millenium after the divisions between the apostolic churches.
Demonstrably, the matter of the teaching of the IC has been in the EASTERN Church for over a millenium. :o

I've already answered this:
Btw, quoting from the services etc. of the EO and OO (quoting which thus far you have not done) are a rather tricky business when the Vatican tries to prove its dogmas, and those who have submitted in the East chime in.  An egregious example would be the use of the quote of St. Ephraim of Syrian by the Chaldeans under the Vatican: they will dismiss St. John of Chrisostom's (an Antiochian in origin, btw) on the immaculateness of the Holy Theotokos, saying that "it wasn't proclaimed as dogma.  It wasn't binding."  They will, however, latch onto the earlier "You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])," and, because the IC, according to the Vatican, is binding on them, will say "a-HA! Immaculate Conception."

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. Use of that title is still a little, shall we say, uncommon among them.

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.


Quote
Besides, I'm not the one that expressed puzzlement.  You were. ::)

My only puzzlement thus far is how you continue claim, for instance, that the Armenians teach it while an "untranslated" Armenian Orthodox, the All Armenian Catholicos' website and the website of the Armenian diocese to which your friend the subdeacon belongs to, states otherwise.

Perhaps you should seriously consider that modern EO'xy just actually might not be representing historic EO'xy in its attempts to create a wider chasm between Catholicism and EO'xy than there actually is.

Or you might consider, as has been told to you by numberous members of those apostolic (including those with the Vatican) that you are misrepresenting official Church teaching.
Yet after having had at least two opportunities to tell everyone here how the quote from St. Palamas somehow contradicts the Catholic teaching on Original Sin, you haven't and in fact can't do so. ::)

This idea of a line of purified ancestors does reveal the problem of infinite regression.  If you want that problem, go for it.  The Vatican does seem to want to.

The "quote" reminds me of the Muslim idea of the "light of Muhammad" passing from Adam through the loins down to Muhammad (the Sirah goes into some detail of how it was still in Muhammad's father: a woman propositioned him, but in the meantime Abd Allah had sex with Aminah, the light went out, and the woman thereupon lost interest in Abd Allah.  St. Gregory was kidnapped by the Turks.  Maybe that's where he got the idea, because it's not in the Fathers.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 04:00:01 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth