Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 202613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #585 on: May 04, 2009, 08:40:46 AM »
You really have to stop projecting "development of doctrine" on us, it is leading to rather unfortunate and embarrassing results for your side.

Yes! LOL! His argument has disintegrated to the point where he is saying:

"You guys are modern Orthodox, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."  

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #586 on: May 04, 2009, 08:54:37 AM »
No, I never stated he taught it.  I said he believed it

Let me get this straight. In YOUR opinion, St Gregory Palamas believed the Latin understanding of the IC, but you do not offer any proof--perhaps you have access to a time machine.  :laugh:

On the other hand, you say that he never taught it.

I believe I once read something you wrote saying that although Honorius believed his heresy--the fact he did not teach it means that  he was not a heretic.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 09:01:55 AM by Mickey »

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #587 on: May 04, 2009, 09:44:10 AM »
...You guys are modern Orthodox...
I would very much like to see some evidence showing that Orthodoxy as a whole, not just various saints, proclaimed something much different than we do now concerning the Ancestral Sin/Immaculate Conception issue. Your arguments do seem to indicate that we have changed the Faith in this area, and are teaching something wholly different. Care to provide some proof please?

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #588 on: May 04, 2009, 09:47:17 AM »
I would very much like to see some evidence showing that Orthodoxy as a whole, not just various saints, proclaimed something much different than we do now concerning the Ancestral Sin/Immaculate Conception issue. Your arguments do seem to indicate that we have changed the Faith in this area, and are teaching something wholly different. Care to provide some proof please?

Hi Nicholas!

Christos Voskrese!

I am not the one making that claim. It is an argument emanating from another poster here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #589 on: May 04, 2009, 09:53:08 AM »
Hi Nicholas!

Christos Voskrese!

I am not the one making that claim. It is an argument emanating from another poster here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I know. Mardukm is. And I would love to see some proof.
Indeed He is Risen!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #590 on: May 04, 2009, 10:10:14 AM »
Hi Nicholas!

Christos Voskrese!

I am not the one making that claim. It is an argument emanating from another poster here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I know. Mardukm is. And I would love to see some proof.
Indeed He is Risen!
I don't think he will be back for a week.
"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 PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #591 on: May 04, 2009, 10:13:20 AM »
I don't think he will be back for a week.
Give him a year, as far as I am concerned, he'll never be able to prove what he is claiming.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #592 on: May 04, 2009, 10:21:28 PM »
Yes, she was a sinner because of her humanity, that is she, as with any one of us, had the potential to sin. It would help to think of what people who kicked off the addiction habit say: I am an alcoholic/drug addict/etc.. who is in recovery. They are addicts who do not use. Some are able to maintain the non-use state because of will power, others because of treatment and participation in 12-step programs, and still others by the Grace of God. Saint Paul was very clear on this point: the necessity of separating mankind's propensity to sin from their potential to overcome this propensity through the Grace of God, through Christ our Lord. Indeed, this is the central tenet of our faith is it not?

Now, I answered the plain meaning of your question. If you had asked whether "Mary sinned" rather than "Mary was a sinner," my answer would have been different, but still in consonance with the Holy Scriptures.  
Brother Papist and myself have stated, and I have demonstrated according to the Athanasian understanding, that it is not the case that Mary was not able to sin.  She truly did use her free will not to sin.  That is the misunderstanding that you have imposed on the dogma. The dogma properly interpreted simply means that Mary had all the Graces to enable her not to sin, not that the Graces forced her not to sin.  But we all know that Grace can be resisted by man.  So even your explanation here does not make the slightest dent in the dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings to you too, dear Marduk,

We may be talking past each other here. With all due respect, it seems to me that you are trying to fit a round peg into a square whole. As I understand your argument, Mary had all the graces needed from the beginning of her existence/conception. Indeed, she could have sinned if she wanted to but did not simply because she chose not to resist the Graces. Have I got this correctly?

Now, let us look at the actual wording of the dogma and its supposed Catholic explanation. I got it from Wiki and I am sure somebody will point out if this is the correct English version and proper explanation.

""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.

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."

So, even if this dogma does not contradict the Holy Scriptures (Point 4 above), it nonetheless makes Mary the only one of humankind not to be afflicted by the stain of the original sin. Furthermore, she was kept sinless throughout her life in a state of grace. The last point is rather redundant as it really means the same, to me at least, as being freed from the stain of the original sin. In any case, it seems to me that the Roman Church, having gotten itself into an untenable position with the dogma itself,  is now explaining away its ramifications.

My friend, all of your explanations and appeal to the Holy Fathers cannot refute the following points:

1. The dogma created a new species of man--a species of one that has the characteristics of a demi-God. It is one thing to believe that God became man so that man can become God (through a lifelong struggle). It is another thing to believe in the IC, where Theosis is not achieved but granted to a human at a moment of conception.

2. The reasonable consequences of this dogma have included the worship of Mary by some, as if she is God, and, on the other hand, the debasement of her example to believers as the examplar par excellence of belief and trust in God.

3. The dogma is refuted by the plain text of the Holy Scriptures. It is one thing to resort to the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils when the Scriptures need explaining. It is another thing where there is no need to because the Scriptures are definitive.

My friend, I hope I have been able to explain a bit better why this dogma is very problematic.

Be well.

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,044
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 01:57:21 PM by cleveland »
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

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

Selam

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,492
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #594 on: May 05, 2009, 02:49:42 PM »
Thanks Cleveland.
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #595 on: May 05, 2009, 07:14:10 PM »
Dear brother Second Chance,

Quote
1. The dogma created a new species of man--a species of one that has the characteristics of a demi-God. It is one thing to believe that God became man so that man can become God (through a lifelong struggle). It is another thing to believe in the IC, where Theosis is not achieved but granted to a human at a moment of conception.
There are three major errors in your rhetoric here. First, brother, there are only two kinds of beings – ones that don’t need Grace, and ones that do.  Demi-gods, like the gods of paganism, do not need Grace - they are self-sufficient half-human/half-divine beings. Mary is not one of those, since she, like everyone else, needed the Grace of God. Your wholly artificial distinction between Mary and the rest of humanity has no support from the Fathers. It is a very recent and modern rhetorical invention that did not even cross the minds of the numerous Fathers who expressed belief that Mary was made pure by God from the first moment of her existence. Sin never touched Mary.

Second, as there are really only two types of people, not distinguished by the false and artificial distinction you have proposed of WHEN people receive the Graces (should we have another category for people who were sanctified in their mother’s womb – like Sts. John and Jeremiah? Were they demi-gods, too?), it is actually your own version of Mary that is quite unacceptable.  Your Mary is a Pelagian invention who does not need Grace in order to be holy in the eyes of God, a novelty that has no room in Catholicism nor historic Orthodoxy. Not even the Latin Saints of the Middle Ages who refused the introduction of the Eastern Feast of the Conception into the West were ever so creative as to make this modern and novel argument of a Pelagian version of Mary (the comments of St. Jacob of Sarug are being discussed by brother Mina and myself, and I daresay his comments, taken in context, in no way lend credence to this Pelagian version of Mary you support).

Third, even after proving to you that the IC does not deprive Mary of her free will, you once again bring up a similarly unfounded claim that Mary did not throughout her life give a free-will response to the Grace in her.  At any time during her life, Mary had the possibility of choosing to reject the Grace that was given to her – that is the thing you don’t understand and perhaps unconsciously misrepresent about the Catholic teaching.  Mary and Eve were “utterly equal” before their respective decisions, as St. Ephrem wrote.  They both had the Grace of sinlessness, and both had the possibility of freely rejecting the Grace in them.  The beautiful thing about Mary is that she responded to the Grace positively throughout her life. 

Quote
2. The reasonable consequences of this dogma have included the worship of Mary by some, as if she is God,
That’s relative. Easterns freely exclaim, “Mary save us,” something not even Latins would do. “Is Mary a god that you think she can save us?” a Protestant might ask. Please don’t make these inconsistent arguments against Catholics. As the Lord said, don’t judge, or the judgment you have pronounced on others will be turned back on you.  In any case, who has actually made a demi-god out of Mary?  Is it those who have created a self-sufficient Mary requiring no Grace to be holy in God’s eyes whereby He chose her, or is it Catholics who teach that Mary did indeed need Grace – like everyone else - to be holy in the eyes of God?

Quote
and, on the other hand, the debasement of her example to believers as the examplar par excellence of belief and trust in God.
Rather, the debasement is in your creation of a Pelagian exemplar of Mary.

Quote
3. The dogma is refuted by the plain text of the Holy Scriptures. It is one thing to resort to the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils when the Scriptures need explaining. It is another thing where there is no need to because the Scriptures are definitive.
What Scriptures? The ones that Protestants use against the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness? I don’t see how that gets you anywhere.  You were already refuted earlier in your use of these verses. Here’s the rundown of the debate:
You quoted some verses from Romans to the effect that all have sinned;
Brother Papist called you on the unpatristic ramifications of your use of those verses which implies Mary is a sinner;
You replied by stating you were not referring to the act of sinning, but rather the potential to sin, simultaneously presuming the IC states she had no potential to sin;
I responded to you by appealing to the patristic understanding of concupiscence to demonstrate that Mary still had the potential to sin.

I explained this rather fully to brother Mina, but perhaps you did not read my answer to him, whereby you merely repeat your claim without refuting what I stated, so I will repeat it for you.  The dogma of the IC states that Mary was free from concupiscence. Most people MISTAKENLY assume that concupiscence simply means “the propensity or potential to sin.” These people (not only non-Catholic apologists, but even many Catholics), assume thereby that “Mary had no propensity to sin.” But this is not the patristic (and Catholic) definition of concupiscence.  To Athanasius, and numerous other Fathers – faithfully followed by the Catholic Church – concupiscence is NOT the “propensity to sin,” but rather “the disordered use of reason.” Both Mary and Eve had the Grace of perfect reason.  Nevertheless, the presence of that Grace does not dictate that one CANNOT sin, as readily demonstrated by Eve.  The lack of concupiscence in Mary simply means that she had the Grace of perfect reason.  It does NOT mean that she COULD NOT sin. 

Or perhaps you are referring to other verses from Scripture that you have not yet provided?

Quote
My friend, I hope I have been able to explain a bit better why this dogma is very problematic.
Not really a problem, brother, but just more misunderstanding of the dogma of the IC, which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit will be overcome by the spiritual fruits of wisdom, patience, and understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #596 on: May 05, 2009, 08:22:04 PM »
Dear brother Nicholas,

...You guys are modern Orthodox...
I would very much like to see some evidence showing that Orthodoxy as a whole, not just various saints, proclaimed something much different than we do now concerning the Ancestral Sin/Immaculate Conception issue. Your arguments do seem to indicate that we have changed the Faith in this area, and are teaching something wholly different. Care to provide some proof please?
I've never argued anything for "Orthodoxy as a whole, not just various saints."  These are not my words, but the words of people like brothers Mickey and IsaAlmisry, who take little snippets of what I write and create some exaggerated straw man out of them.  Another example is brother Mickey's claim that I stated that St. Palamas believed "the Latin version of the IC." I've never done such a thing, but merely another exaggerated creation in brother Mickey's mind in order to make my statements utterly abhorrent.  What I do speak out against are particular EO (those I call "modern EO") whose main drive is not to preserve the Orthodox Faith, but to create as wide a false dichotomy between Catholicism and Orthodoxy as possible.  In view of that, I quote certain Eastern Fathers in historic EO'xy who held very similar views as Catholics (particularly Latins).  I don't do it to demonstrate that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has somehow betrayed its heritage (something I would never do), because I know there are many EO who don't share the views of those like brothers Mickey, IsaAlmisry or Dan-Romania.  I do it simply to demonstrate that these modern EO don't have a real basis for creating their false dichotomies between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. 

So if you're asking for proof from me that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has "changed the faith in this area," I can't provide any. I can't provide proof for something I've never claimed.  I would rather you ask people like brother Mickey to prove that I have made these exaggerated generalizations of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #597 on: May 05, 2009, 11:35:13 PM »
Dear brother Second Chance,
Quote
1. The dogma created a new species of man--a species of one that has the characteristics of a demi-God. It is one thing to believe that God became man so that man can become God (through a lifelong struggle). It is another thing to believe in the IC, where Theosis is not achieved but granted to a human at a moment of conception.
There are three major errors in your rhetoric here. First, brother, there are only two kinds of beings – ones that don’t need Grace, and ones that do.  Demi-gods, like the gods of paganism, do not need Grace - they are self-sufficient half-human/half-divine beings. Mary is not one of those, since she, like everyone else, needed the Grace of God. Your wholly artificial distinction between Mary and the rest of humanity has no support from the Fathers. It is a very recent and modern rhetorical invention that did not even cross the minds of the numerous Fathers who expressed belief that Mary was made pure by God from the first moment of her existence. Sin never touched Mary.

Second, as there are really only two types of people, not distinguished by the false and artificial distinction you have proposed of WHEN people receive the Graces (should we have another category for people who were sanctified in their mother’s womb – like Sts. John and Jeremiah? Were they demi-gods, too?), it is actually your own version of Mary that is quite unacceptable.  Your Mary is a Pelagian invention who does not need Grace in order to be holy in the eyes of God, a novelty that has no room in Catholicism nor historic Orthodoxy. Not even the Latin Saints of the Middle Ages who refused the introduction of the Eastern Feast of the Conception into the West were ever so creative as to make this modern and novel argument of a Pelagian version of Mary (the comments of St. Jacob of Sarug are being discussed by brother Mina and myself, and I daresay his comments, taken in context, in no way lend credence to this Pelagian version of Mary you support).

Third, even after proving to you that the IC does not deprive Mary of her free will, you once again bring up a similarly unfounded claim that Mary did not throughout her life give a free-will response to the Grace in her.  At any time during her life, Mary had the possibility of choosing to reject the Grace that was given to her – that is the thing you don’t understand and perhaps unconsciously misrepresent about the Catholic teaching.  Mary and Eve were “utterly equal” before their respective decisions, as St. Ephrem wrote.  They both had the Grace of sinlessness, and both had the possibility of freely rejecting the Grace in them.  The beautiful thing about Mary is that she responded to the Grace positively throughout her life. 

I would be guilty as charged, if the straw horses that you are busy knocking down were indeed real. My Mary is definitely not a Pelagian conception (Pelagius after all simply denied the original sin). iShe was an extraordinary human, but a human nevertheless. As such, she needed God's saving grace as much as anybody. Now, it is one thing to say that the mind of the Church or the Holy Fathers tell us that Mary, although by nature a sinner, did not actually sin after the Lord sanctified her (choose a datapoint from the Holy Scriptures). I can live with this belief even if it is not in the Bible precisely because it does not contradict the Holy Scriptures. I have no problem with a sinner being so full of grace that he simply does not sin, even though he knows he is capable of sinning and must continue in the holy struggle.

However, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in essence says that Mary was never by nature a sinner: the plain meaning of being free from the stain of original sin from the moment of conception can only mean  that.

Quote
2. The reasonable consequences of this dogma have included the worship of Mary by some, as if she is God,
Quote
That’s relative. Easterns freely exclaim, “Mary save us,” something not even Latins would do. “Is Mary a god that you think she can save us?” a Protestant might ask. Please don’t make these inconsistent arguments against Catholics. As the Lord said, don’t judge, or the judgment you have pronounced on others will be turned back on you.  In any case, who has actually made a demi-god out of Mary?  Is it those who have created a self-sufficient Mary requiring no Grace to be holy in God’s eyes whereby He chose her, or is it Catholics who teach that Mary did indeed need Grace – like everyone else - to be holy in the eyes of God?

As I demonstrated, your Pelagian straw horse will not work. Orthodox people who pray to Mary to "save" them do not necessarily believe that she can do so on her own. Orthodox theology is solid on this point, although some prayer formulations and some language from some our saints do come very close to the edge. I do not think that one has to pray to the Holy Theotokos, any Saint, or our dearly departed ones to be saved. We ask for the intercession of the living and the dead members of the Holy Body of our Lord because the Holy Scriptures instruct us to do so. Granted that there are many Orthodox who believe that the Holy Theotokos is better able to intercede for us. With Orthodox, I don't believe it is matter of doctrine as much as it is a matter of piety.

OTH, what is the poor, uneducated and unlettered Latino peasant to do when the priests are offering up prayers to Jesus and His Mother who is without sin and also crowned as the Queen of Heaven, called co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, etc...? Why, I do think that they worship her the same way as they worship her son. And, it is no wonder that the Vicar of Christ, in this case Pope Leo X, can contradict himself in one paragraph (Ad Diem Illum, 1904): "We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace - a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces." Please tell me how ordinary people are not justified in thinking that "productive power of grace" is in practical terms different from "supreme Minister of the distribution of graces"?

Quote
and, on the other hand, the debasement of her example to believers as the examplar par excellence of belief and trust in God.
Quote
Rather, the debasement is in your creation of a Pelagian exemplar of Mary.

Looking past your obsession with Pelagianism, which I have assured you that I am not a fan of, allow me to explain. The principal distinction of the Holy Theotokos is that as a normal human being--that is a sinner-- she, through the Grace of God, became an extraordinary human being worthy of emulation. I believe this is one of the main definitions of a Saint, no? The very reason to emulate her vanishes with Immaculate Conception.

Quote
3. The dogma is refuted by the plain text of the Holy Scriptures. It is one thing to resort to the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils when the Scriptures need explaining. It is another thing where there is no need to because the Scriptures are definitive.
Quote
What Scriptures? The ones that Protestants use against the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness? I don’t see how that gets you anywhere.  You were already refuted earlier in your use of these verses.

Funny, although I addressed my reply to you, Papist replied with a question, which I subsequently answered. If you think that Papist's question was a proper refutation, I salute you for your greater grasp of the art of the rhetoric. BTW, don't you think that it is bad form to argue against my point by saying that these verses are also used by Protestants? First, I believe the Holy Scriptures belong to humanity. Second, these particular verses are plain and simple and hardly require further elucidation, which you have not done either. You simply dismiss them out of hand. Let me ask you brother what have you got against the Word of God that you seemingly prefer the words of men (saintly and learned but men nevertheless)?

{Edit - fixed quote boxes - Cleveland, GM}
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 08:05:50 AM by cleveland »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #598 on: May 06, 2009, 12:37:50 AM »
It seems to me that the Catholics writing here are beginning to push the envelope and instruct the Orthodox in the Orthodox faith.  That is something they complain strongly about when the boot is on the other foot.

The Catholics on the Forum have satisfied themselves that the authentic Orthodox teaching on both original sin and the Immaculate Conception is identical to the Catholic teaching.    Since they have established this to their own satisfaction it is rude of them to continue this conversation, hammering the point home again and again and insisting on teaching the Orthodox what the Orthodox faith is.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
  • Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #599 on: May 06, 2009, 06:04:19 AM »
I start reading a book called " The life of the Mother of God" by Protokos Nicodim Mandita but i stopped reading it all . He adds his comment , and i think he writtes from the Tradition about Mary`s life before having Jesus . It is very very very FISHY if that is what the true Tradition says , it is very doubtfull . Maybe is because of the way he narrates :/ . But there seem to be some things refuting each other . It says the the parents knew that Mary will bear Jesus . And it says that since Mary had 3 years the big priest of the Temple was Zecheriah . And he was presented faithfull and believer in Mary , and that she lifted at 3 years of her own the 15 stairs of the temple and then Zecheriah decided to take her in the Holy of holies :/.Also she was always alloved into the holy of holies , and there was where she prayed . And Zecheriah saw and Angel comunicating with Her almoust daily and giving her something to eat . And he wondered what could this mean . Also while she Mary was praying and reading Scripture she got to the part of Isaia were it says: The virgin shall conceive and bear a child and shall call His name Emanuel . And she start saying how happy of that virgin , she is so blessed , of If only I could be that . And there the angel came to her and told her that she will be :/ ? Now in that book are many things refuting each other from my perspective . One of them Zecheriah being the High Priest :/ from that time . Another thing Zecheriah being so faithfull , let`s not forget he couldn`t speak because he didn`t believe the Archangel . Another thing Mary being fead by angel every day . And last but not least the Annonciation before the Annunciation :/ , now what is that ? Plus a whole lot of things maked if you try to check there veridicity according that time and the Bible they can be very shakey . And this is only from the begining of the book . If that is from the true Tradition pff... let`s be serious , no tradition is above the Scripture . Also atributes and resemblance between the birth of Jesus and the birth of Mary , even trough events , like kind of copy from , and invented from . This huge time seems an invented Tradition . Maybe someone could provide me the writing of James and Jacob , or info from it or where can i get it in romanian , or a title of good tradition book of the life of Mary . Waiting for your assistance .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Michał

  • ['mi:hɑʊ]
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 821
  • "Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #600 on: May 06, 2009, 06:15:47 AM »
Waiting for your assistance .

As far as the Temple story is concerned:
- OrthodoxWiki article: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Presentation_of_the_Theotokos
- Ancient Faith Radio podcast (mp3): http://audio.ancientfaith.com/hopko/stt_2008-11-20.mp3

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #601 on: May 06, 2009, 08:34:39 AM »
I see you've come back a few days early.  ;)

These are not my words, but the words of people like brothers Mickey and IsaAlmisry, who take little snippets of what I write and create some exaggerated straw man out of them.

What you write are your words.  It is all we have to go on regarding your opinion.

Another example is brother Mickey's claim that I stated that St. Palamas believed "the Latin version of the IC." I've never done such a thing, but merely another exaggerated creation in brother Mickey's mind in order to make my statements utterly abhorrent. 

I am glad this is cleared up. We agree then, that St Gregory Palamas did not support the Latin IC.

What I do speak out against are particular EO (those I call "modern EO") whose main drive is not to preserve the Orthodox Faith, but to create as wide a false dichotomy between Catholicism and Orthodoxy as possible. 

You are living in an imaginary world and you try to spin many things.  There is not a false dichotomy--there is a true dichotomy. Holy Orthodoxy and RCism are very far apart on many things.   The Orthodox whom you refer to as "modern" are in fact those Orthodox who hold to the Sacred Tradition of the Fathers.  Your spin on RC innovations are not going to change that.

I do it simply to demonstrate that these modern EO don't have a real basis for creating their false dichotomies between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. 

You do it because you are now subject to the supreme infallible pontiff.

So if you're asking for proof from me that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has "changed the faith in this area," I can't provide any.

Amen.



Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #602 on: May 06, 2009, 08:41:47 AM »
these particular verses are plain and simple and hardly require further elucidation, which you have not done either. You simply dismiss them out of hand. Let me ask you brother what have you got against the Word of God that you seemingly prefer the words of men (saintly and learned but men nevertheless)?

Thank you second chance. I enjoy your posts.  :)

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #603 on: May 06, 2009, 09:12:02 AM »
So if you're asking for proof from me that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has "changed the faith in this area," I can't provide any.
Amen.
Thank you for your honesty. It seems your argument has now degraded, as Mickey pointed out previously, to saying that Orthodoxy used to teach "such and such", but do not anymore. It would seem that this is purely your own opinion, and not in any way based in fact. If it were based in fact, you would provide some evidence, which you have already stated, you can't.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #604 on: May 06, 2009, 11:47:08 AM »
It seems to me that the Catholics writing here are beginning to push the envelope and instruct the Orthodox in the Orthodox faith.  That is something they complain strongly about when the boot is on the other foot.

The Catholics on the Forum have satisfied themselves that the authentic Orthodox teaching on both original sin and the Immaculate Conception is identical to the Catholic teaching.    Since they have established this to their own satisfaction it is rude of them to continue this conversation, hammering the point home again and again and insisting on teaching the Orthodox what the Orthodox faith is.
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
"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 PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #605 on: May 06, 2009, 12:39:22 PM »
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
Then prove it. It should be rather simple. You have convinced yourself. Why not convince us as well?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #606 on: May 06, 2009, 01:03:21 PM »
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
Then prove it. It should be rather simple. You have convinced yourself. Why not convince us as well?
That has been done to death on this and other threads. Quotes have shown that the East once believed in Original Sin, the Atonement, Purgatory, etc etc etc ad infintum. This dizzying drip is getting old. Goodness gracious.
"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: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #607 on: May 06, 2009, 01:18:32 PM »
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
Then prove it. It should be rather simple. You have convinced yourself. Why not convince us as well?
That has been done to death on this and other threads. Quotes have shown that the East once believed in Original Sin, the Atonement, Purgatory, etc etc etc ad infintum. This dizzying drip is getting old. Goodness gracious.

I always find this claim that the Latin have adopted our discarded beliefs rather intriguing.  It never asked why they were discarded. ::)
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 #608 on: May 06, 2009, 01:22:37 PM »
I always find this claim that the Latin have adopted our discarded beliefs rather intriguing.  It never asked why they were discarded. ::)

LOL!  :laugh:

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #609 on: May 06, 2009, 02:02:32 PM »
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
Then prove it. It should be rather simple. You have convinced yourself. Why not convince us as well?
That has been done to death on this and other threads. Quotes have shown that the East once believed in Original Sin, the Atonement, Purgatory, etc etc etc ad infintum. This dizzying drip is getting old. Goodness gracious.

I always find this claim that the Latin have adopted our discarded beliefs rather intriguing.  It never asked why they were discarded. ::)
No we didn't adopt your discarded beliefs. We had those beliefs too. But we didn't get rid of 'em.  ;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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #610 on: May 06, 2009, 02:03:48 PM »
We are not convinced that you currently believe what we believe. Just that you once did.
Then prove it. It should be rather simple. You have convinced yourself. Why not convince us as well?
That has been done to death on this and other threads. Quotes have shown that the East once believed in Original Sin, the Atonement, Purgatory, etc etc etc ad infintum. This dizzying drip is getting old. Goodness gracious.

I always find this claim that the Latin have adopted our discarded beliefs rather intriguing.  It never asked why they were discarded. ::)
No we didn't adopt your discarded beliefs. We had those beliefs too. But we didn't get rid of 'em.  ;D

LOL. I'll leave you to figure that out.
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 #611 on: May 06, 2009, 02:22:30 PM »
No we didn't adopt your discarded beliefs. We had those beliefs too. But we didn't get rid of 'em. 

I can't even respond to that one.  :-\

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,044
  • 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 #612 on: May 06, 2009, 02:46:29 PM »
So it cannot be claimed that the Orthodox do not accurately represent the RC position on the IC and the underlying issues (Original Sin, for example):

The Fall, Fall of Angels, & Original Sin:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Conception by the Holy Spirit & Virgin Mary; the IC:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II

Mary the Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

Sin:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Judgment, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, the Final Judgment:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Reconciliation:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

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 #613 on: May 07, 2009, 12:11:24 AM »
Thanks for the quick references.

Perhaps one of the non-Catholic "experts" on Catholicism can explain for us where the differences exist, according to the texts you have given to us.

Blessings

So it cannot be claimed that the Orthodox do not accurately represent the RC position on the IC and the underlying issues (Original Sin, for example):

The Fall, Fall of Angels, & Original Sin:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Conception by the Holy Spirit & Virgin Mary; the IC:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II

Mary the Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

Sin:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Judgment, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, the Final Judgment:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Reconciliation:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 12:12:10 AM by Mardukm »

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,044
  • 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 #614 on: May 07, 2009, 12:15:08 AM »
Thanks for the quick references.

Perhaps one of the non-Catholic "experts" on Catholicism can explain for us where the differences exist, according to the texts you have given to us.

Nobody but the RC's (and maybe you) are claiming to be "experts" on Catholicism.  But the same cannot be said in the other direction.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

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 #615 on: May 07, 2009, 12:16:05 AM »
Dear brother Nicholas,

So if you're asking for proof from me that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has "changed the faith in this area," I can't provide any.
Amen.
Thank you for your honesty. It seems your argument has now degraded, as Mickey pointed out previously, to saying that Orthodoxy used to teach "such and such", but do not anymore. It would seem that this is purely your own opinion, and not in any way based in fact. If it were based in fact, you would provide some evidence, which you have already stated, you can't.
I think you misunderstood what I said.  My argument has not degraded.  It's just that there are people like brother Mickey who like to exaggerate what I say and knock down the straw man.  The only thing I've ever claimed is that the dogma of the IC is not a heresy, and is a legitimate theologoumenon in Orthodoxy. I've already proven that, and no one has contested it.  I've never claimed it was a teaching of Orthodoxy "as a whole." Those are your own words, and the straw man creation of people like brother Mickey.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #616 on: May 07, 2009, 12:17:59 AM »
Thanks for the quick references.

Perhaps one of the non-Catholic "experts" on Catholicism can explain for us where the differences exist, according to the texts you have given to us.

Nobody but the RC's (and maybe you) are claiming to be "experts" on Catholicism.  But the same cannot be said in the other direction.
But these non-Catholics keep claiming that there is such a wide chasm between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the issue of original sin.  They made the claim FIRST.  Apparently, they know enough about Catholicism to make that claim, so why don't they back it up?

Blessings

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,044
  • 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 #617 on: May 07, 2009, 12:23:29 AM »
They don't have to know as much about Catholicism as they do about their Orthodoxy to make such a claim; as to "why don't they back it up" I can tell you why I've avoided the substantive portion of this debate: some of us have hopped on this merry-go-round before, and have had our arguments ignored or skipped for a debate of points not relevant to the main ones.  At some point, fatigue sets in when people don't actually listen to what you're saying (and supporting with evidence).  I was doing this song-and-dance in 10th grade with teachers more than twice my age who had advanced degrees in Catholic Theology; I learned then about the intricate side-steps and have become quite weary of them.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

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

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #618 on: May 07, 2009, 12:28:09 AM »
Dear brother Nicholas,

So if you're asking for proof from me that "Orthodoxy as a whole" has "changed the faith in this area," I can't provide any.
Amen.
Thank you for your honesty. It seems your argument has now degraded, as Mickey pointed out previously, to saying that Orthodoxy used to teach "such and such", but do not anymore. It would seem that this is purely your own opinion, and not in any way based in fact. If it were based in fact, you would provide some evidence, which you have already stated, you can't.
I think you misunderstood what I said.  My argument has not degraded.  It's just that there are people like brother Mickey who like to exaggerate what I say and knock down the straw man.  The only thing I've ever claimed is that the dogma of the IC is not a heresy, and is a legitimate theologoumenon in Orthodoxy. I've already proven that, and no one has contested it.  

You haven't been reading evidently.


Quote
I've never claimed it was a teaching of Orthodoxy "as a whole." Those are your own words, and the straw man creation of people like brother Mickey.

Blessings,
Marduk
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 Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #619 on: May 07, 2009, 01:03:55 AM »
Dear brother Second Chance,
Quote
1. The dogma created a new species of man--a species of one that has the characteristics of a demi-God. It is one thing to believe that God became man so that man can become God (through a lifelong struggle). It is another thing to believe in the IC, where Theosis is not achieved but granted to a human at a moment of conception.
There are three major errors in your rhetoric here. First, brother, there are only two kinds of beings – ones that don’t need Grace, and ones that do.  Demi-gods, like the gods of paganism, do not need Grace - they are self-sufficient half-human/half-divine beings. Mary is not one of those, since she, like everyone else, needed the Grace of God. Your wholly artificial distinction between Mary and the rest of humanity has no support from the Fathers. It is a very recent and modern rhetorical invention that did not even cross the minds of the numerous Fathers who expressed belief that Mary was made pure by God from the first moment of her existence. Sin never touched Mary.

Second, as there are really only two types of people, not distinguished by the false and artificial distinction you have proposed of WHEN people receive the Graces (should we have another category for people who were sanctified in their mother’s womb – like Sts. John and Jeremiah? Were they demi-gods, too?), it is actually your own version of Mary that is quite unacceptable.  Your Mary is a Pelagian invention who does not need Grace in order to be holy in the eyes of God, a novelty that has no room in Catholicism nor historic Orthodoxy. Not even the Latin Saints of the Middle Ages who refused the introduction of the Eastern Feast of the Conception into the West were ever so creative as to make this modern and novel argument of a Pelagian version of Mary (the comments of St. Jacob of Sarug are being discussed by brother Mina and myself, and I daresay his comments, taken in context, in no way lend credence to this Pelagian version of Mary you support).

Third, even after proving to you that the IC does not deprive Mary of her free will, you once again bring up a similarly unfounded claim that Mary did not throughout her life give a free-will response to the Grace in her.  At any time during her life, Mary had the possibility of choosing to reject the Grace that was given to her – that is the thing you don’t understand and perhaps unconsciously misrepresent about the Catholic teaching.  Mary and Eve were “utterly equal” before their respective decisions, as St. Ephrem wrote.  They both had the Grace of sinlessness, and both had the possibility of freely rejecting the Grace in them.  The beautiful thing about Mary is that she responded to the Grace positively throughout her life. 

I would be guilty as charged, if the straw horses that you are busy knocking down were indeed real. My Mary is definitely not a Pelagian conception (Pelagius after all simply denied the original sin).
Then you need to read up on Pelagius a little more.  His teaching was condemned by the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, so you should at least be knowledgeble on what it is the Church rejects about his teaching.  His teaching not only denied original sin, but also denied that Grace is not necessary to attain to a holiness acceptable to God (there are other points, but as far as our topic is concerned, those are the relevant ones).

Quote
She was an extraordinary human, but a human nevertheless. As such, she needed God's saving grace as much as anybody.

That's exactly what the dogma of the IC says, so you are obviously misrepresenting the teaching of the IC.  It is useless for you to claim that she needed God's saving Grace, yet SIMULTANEOUSLY assert that she did not need Grace to attain a holiness acceptable to God before the Annunciation.  Your version of Mary is a Pelagian creature.  The only way you will prove otherwise is if you admit that Mary had Grace even BEFORE the Annunciation, which calls into focus the issue of WHEN she received that Grace.  In any case, this definitely brings in the possibility that Mary received these Graces at her conception, which is what the dogma of the IC teaches.  You can claim otherwise, but you can't deny that it is a possibility and that it occurred before the Annunciation, which makes the dogma at least a legitimate theologoumenon, and not a heresy (which has always been my only point).

Quote
Now, it is one thing to say that the mind of the Church or the Holy Fathers tell us that Mary, although by nature a sinner, did not actually sin after the Lord sanctified her (choose a datapoint from the Holy Scriptures). I can live with this belief even if it is not in the Bible precisely because it does not contradict the Holy Scriptures. I have no problem with a sinner being so full of grace that he simply does not sin, even though he knows he is capable of sinning and must continue in the holy struggle.
Sin never touched Mary.  PERIOD.  

Quote
However, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in essence says that Mary was never by nature a sinner: the plain meaning of being free from the stain of original sin from the moment of conception can only mean  that.
So what?  That does not mean (1) it was not of Grace, nor does it mean that (2) she had no capacity to sin, nor that (3) her sinlessness was not the result of a free-will response to the awesome Grace given her.  These latter ideas are not contained in the dogma, but is your own invention.

Quote
2. The reasonable consequences of this dogma have included the worship of Mary by some, as if she is God,
Quote
That’s relative. Easterns freely exclaim, “Mary save us,” something not even Latins would do. “Is Mary a god that you think she can save us?” a Protestant might ask. Please don’t make these inconsistent arguments against Catholics. As the Lord said, don’t judge, or the judgment you have pronounced on others will be turned back on you.  In any case, who has actually made a demi-god out of Mary?  Is it those who have created a self-sufficient Mary requiring no Grace to be holy in God’s eyes whereby He chose her, or is it Catholics who teach that Mary did indeed need Grace – like everyone else - to be holy in the eyes of God?

Quote
As I demonstrated, your Pelagian straw horse will not work.

No. You did not demonstrate anything.  You merely evaded the matter by saying "she is not" without giving any reason.  Either the holiness she had throughout her life - EVEN BEFORE THE ANNUNCIATION was of Grace AND free will, or of free will alone.  The latter teaching is Pelagian, and it is the one that has been consistently claimed by the Orthodox here.  The former is the patristic and Catholic teaching.  

Quote
Orthodox people who pray to Mary to "save" them do not necessarily believe that she can do so on her own. Orthodox theology is solid on this point, although some prayer formulations and some language from some our saints do come very close to the edge. I do not think that one has to pray to the Holy Theotokos, any Saint, or our dearly departed ones to be saved. We ask for the intercession of the living and the dead members of the Holy Body of our Lord because the Holy Scriptures instruct us to do so. Granted that there are many Orthodox who believe that the Holy Theotokos is better able to intercede for us. With Orthodox, I don't believe it is matter of doctrine as much as it is a matter of piety.
Yes, that is what the CC teaches as well.  All of Mary's prerogatives are of Grace, not of her own power.

Quote
OTH, what is the poor, uneducated and unlettered Latino peasant to do when the priests are offering up prayers to Jesus and His Mother who is without sin and also crowned as the Queen of Heaven, called co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, etc...? Why, I do think that they worship her the same way as they worship her son. And, it is no wonder that the Vicar of Christ, in this case Pope Leo X, can contradict himself in one paragraph (Ad Diem Illum, 1904): "We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace - a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces." Please tell me how ordinary people are not justified in thinking that "productive power of grace" is in practical terms different from "supreme Minister of the distribution of graces"?
I suppose the poor, uneducated, unlettered Eastern Orthodox peasant will have the same reaction whenever they hear their priests say "Mary save us."

Quote
Quote
and, on the other hand, the debasement of her example to believers as the examplar par excellence of belief and trust in God.
Quote
Rather, the debasement is in your creation of a Pelagian exemplar of Mary.

Looking past your obsession with Pelagianism, which I have assured you that I am not a fan of, allow me to explain.
Your claims are meaningless because you assert that Mary did not need Grace in order to be holy before the Annunciation (unless you are willing to admit that she had this Grace before then).  The teaching of the IC grants her this Grace.  All you can offer is a Pelagian creation (unless, as stated, you admit that Mary had Grace even before the Annunciation).

Quote
The principal distinction of the Holy Theotokos is that as a normal human being--that is a sinner-- she, through the Grace of God, became an extraordinary human being worthy of emulation. I believe this is one of the main definitions of a Saint, no? The very reason to emulate her vanishes with Immaculate Conception.
No, it doesn't.  Does one need to possess the possibility of sinning in order to be fully human?  Well, Mary had that possibility, so she was fully human.  You can't refute what I stated.  Your claim is based on a misunderstanding of concupiscence, and you have yet to refute my patristic explanation of concupiscence.

Quote
Quote
3. The dogma is refuted by the plain text of the Holy Scriptures. It is one thing to resort to the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils when the Scriptures need explaining. It is another thing where there is no need to because the Scriptures are definitive.
Quote
What Scriptures? The ones that Protestants use against the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness? I don’t see how that gets you anywhere.  You were already refuted earlier in your use of these verses.

Funny, although I addressed my reply to you, Papist replied with a question, which I subsequently answered.
And I answered you, but you have yet to give an actual response.  All you have done, as in other cases, is evade my response and simply repeat your unfounded claims.

Quote
BTW, don't you think that it is bad form to argue against my point by saying that these verses are also used by Protestants?

It's the truth that they use those verses to argue against the patristic teaching of Mary's sinlessness. I don't see why you would object, unless this is another example of evasion on your part.

Quote
First, I believe the Holy Scriptures belong to humanity. Second, these particular verses are plain and simple and hardly require further elucidation, which you have not done either. You simply dismiss them out of hand.
I refuted you based on your own interpretation that the passages do not refer to "actively sinning," but rather the fact that humanity has "the possibility of sinning." I demonstrated to you that Mary still had the possibility of sinning, according to a proper and patristic understanding of the concupiscence. But the simple matter is that you can't respond , so the best you can do is complain that I did not respond to you - even though I did.  

Quote
Let me ask you brother what have you got against the Word of God that you seemingly prefer the words of men (saintly and learned but men nevertheless)?
 Protestants would tell you that you have given a wily interpretation of those verses, because they use it to indicate "actively sinning." The OBVIOUS meaning of those passages is the Protestant understanding.  But you need to explain it away by referring to the Fathers.  So I would ask you the same question - why would you prefer the words of men (saintly and learned but men nevertheless) against the Word of God?  Remember the Lord's exhortation about judging someone lest that judgment be turned back on you (and quite easily so).

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #620 on: May 07, 2009, 01:23:25 AM »
Dear brother Cleveland,

They don't have to know as much about Catholicism as they do about their Orthodoxy to make such a claim;
Is that generally the standard here in this website - that you don't really need to know about what Catholicism actually teaches in order to criticize it and claim it is teaching heresy?  Is that the general attitude of Eastern Orthodox apologetics?  That's a sincere question.

Quote
as to "why don't they back it up" I can tell you why I've avoided the substantive portion of this debate: some of us have hopped on this merry-go-round before, and have had our arguments ignored or skipped for a debate of points not relevant to the main ones.  At some point, fatigue sets in when people don't actually listen to what you're saying (and supporting with evidence).  I was doing this song-and-dance in 10th grade with teachers more than twice my age who had advanced degrees in Catholic Theology; I learned then about the intricate side-steps and have become quite weary of them.
I think I've addressed everything as much as I can.  And many of my responses are not met, but simply avoided.  But regardless of those other points, is it too much to ask exactly what it is about the issue of original sin that is so different between the EO and the CC.  Would a separate thread focused on Original Sin be appropriate?  Are there other threads already that address the matter?  St. Palamas' teaching on original sin is something new to me, and I was surprised how practically identical it is to my understanding as a Catholic and Oriental, given the constant claims of modern EO otherwise.  So is it too much to ask how St. Palamas' teaching differs from the Catholic teaching?  I mean, even given the links you recently provided, there is no difference IMO, so perhaps someone else can point it out.  Remember, the topic would be, "St. Palamas teaching compared with the CC teaching."

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #621 on: May 07, 2009, 01:34:48 AM »
You haven't been reading evidently.
All I've seen are reasons why this or that person does not accept it.  NO ONE has yet proven that it is heresy or that it is not a legitimate theologoumenon.

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #622 on: May 07, 2009, 02:56:09 AM »
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

2) St. Palamas states that Mary was sinless by nature.

3) St. Palamas, like St. Proclus of Constantinople in the fifth century, makes an intimate and causal connection between Mary's sinlessness and Jesus' own.  This is pretty interesting because not even the Catholic dogma of the IC admits that much (though many indeed contend that the dogma of the IC at least implies it).

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #623 on: May 07, 2009, 06:39:18 AM »
You haven't been reading evidently.
All I've seen are reasons why this or that person does not accept it.  NO ONE has yet proven that it is heresy or that it is not a legitimate theologoumenon.

A theologoumenon is whether cows and elephants and dogs go to heaven.  To call such an important doctrine about the All-Holy Mother of God a theologoumenon is a great insult to her.  It is an insult to her from either side of the fence.   Either it is true and must be accepted as the Church's authentic tradition and therefore as dogma obligatory on all right-believing Christians, or it is false and must be rejected.

So please!  Do not say it can be a theologoumenon!

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #624 on: May 07, 2009, 06:39:19 AM »
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

If you trace your way back to the quote I provided you will see that it comes from Fr Lev Gillet.   Fr Lev was a Roman Catholic priest and monk who became Orthodox back in the day.   He remained so devoted to Roman Catholicism, continuing to spend large amounts of time in European Catholic monasteries and lecturing all over Europe in favour of union that there was speculation he had never converted to Orthodoxy at all and he was a Roman implant or double agent sent by the Vatican to undermine Orthodoxy.  So he had no great axe to grind against the Immaculate Conceoption by misrepresenting Gregory Palamas.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #625 on: May 07, 2009, 08:13:56 AM »
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

That the sermon in on the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple (not the Conception of St. Anne) should have told you something.

So should have this:
Quote
Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death.

Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.

Quote
A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

It is first incumbent on proponents of the IC to first show that St. Palamas believed it.  Because it's not in this sermon.

Quote

2) St. Palamas states that Mary was sinless by nature.

Where?


Quote
3) St. Palamas, like St. Proclus of Constantinople in the fifth century, makes an intimate and causal connection between Mary's sinlessness and Jesus' own.  This is pretty interesting because not even the Catholic dogma of the IC admits that much (though many indeed contend that the dogma of the IC at least implies it).

Blessings,
Marduk

Where's that here?

Btw,

Quote
She Who is manifest as the Holy of Holies, Who has a body even purer than the spirits purified by virtue


seems to contradict your Manichean views of the IC.
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 #626 on: May 07, 2009, 08:16:21 AM »
My argument has not degraded.
 

It surely has.

It's just that there are people like brother Mickey who like to exaggerate what I say and knock down the straw man.  


All you have left at this pont--is to accuse people of knocking down "straw men".  

I've never claimed it was a teaching of Orthodoxy "as a whole."  


Amen.



Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #627 on: May 07, 2009, 08:26:27 AM »
No one has yet proven that it is heresy or that it is not a legitimate theologoumenon.

LOL! Does "legitimate theologoumenon" mean "almost doctrine".  :laugh:

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #628 on: May 07, 2009, 08:40:02 AM »

You did not demonstrate anything.

You merely evaded the matter...

Your claims are meaningless...

All you can offer is a Pelagian creation...

You can't refute what I stated.

...you have yet to give an actual response.

All you have done, as in other cases, is evade my response and simply repeat your unfounded claims.

...unless this is another example of evasion on your part.

But the simple matter is that you can't respond...

...the best you can do is complain that I did not respond to you...

Protestants would tell you that you have given a wily interpretation of those verses...

But you need to explain it away

This is classic markud.  You feel that if you insult someone and/or tell them enough times in your avalanche of words that they are wrong---that people may begin to believe your claims. How very sad.

I refuted you based on your own interpretation

And then puff yourself up for good measure. Sheesh.



Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #629 on: May 07, 2009, 09:54:03 AM »
No one has yet proven that it is heresy or that it is not a legitimate theologoumenon.

LOL! Does "legitimate theologoumenon" mean "almost doctrine".  :laugh:
I know what you mean. Other than saying St. Gregory "may" have taught it, which I have yet to see, nothing has been shown. But, apparently, it has been taught since the times of the Apostles....