Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 232972 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 #720 on: May 27, 2009, 12:06:51 PM »
So, dear Papist, we're not Pelagian. We believe that we are all potential sinners, but we become guilty only when we actually sin. This way, Baptism is still necessary, infants need no extra-grace from God to avoid limbo, and Mary was just prevented from committing sins after her birth because she was led and assisted by God's grace... Our tradition explains this through the narration of Mary as a baby being nourished directly by angels and living separately from the outer world...

Hope this helps you in understanding our faith.

Bravo!  :)

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #721 on: May 27, 2009, 12:10:35 PM »
GRACE, people focuss! we are talking about the angel salute .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #722 on: May 27, 2009, 01:08:45 PM »
I`m reading now : "Gregory of Palama : Virgin Mary , Peter Ath , mon Xeni and other writings" , and i`m surprised of his mariology , wich can easily be consider as one of the catholics . Big words , and overreactions from what I understood(personal opinion) I didn`t understood big deal out of what i read from it about now.Coming later with a preview about it. I`m a little tired i didn`t read all , but i think it might be a great preview . I see something like Mary is the limit between created and uncreated , "she is the limit, border [methorion] between created and uncreated , and no one could come to God , only tough Her and trough the mediator She gave birth.As the flames , fires heated into a bottle or other transparent material produce more light , that no one could look at." a fragment from it translated by me from romanian to english. Palama says that Mary was chosen from eternity to bear Jesus , and i`m not sure but i think he mentions Her from the Creation , or makes a comparision regarding Her from the Creation time . I got some things on my head , and i`m tired my mind didn`t stayed on the text i read , i will re-read it soon , and all .
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 01:40:09 PM by Dan-Romania »
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #723 on: May 28, 2009, 09:22:42 AM »
It`s one of the best Mariology material I have read untill now , I am not finished . Indeed Palama was a great theologian , he also spoke about created and uncreated energies i think . He speak about Mary from a different perspective , and it`s beautiful material.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #724 on: June 02, 2009, 05:32:41 AM »
Why was Mary full of grace ? Luke 1:28 "Hail Mary , full of grace".
This user no longer posts here.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #725 on: June 02, 2009, 02:49:38 PM »
Mary wasn't "full of grace" because of a special creation. Every individual at conception is in a state of grace, a condition which necessarily - or naturally if you prefer - is brought over time to a corruption and decay known as 'sin', due to the fall of the world with humanity. The fact that the Most Blessed God-bearer was called "full of grace" just reflects her "preservation" from this decay, a sort of ascetical cooperation (synergy) between God's grace and Mary's faith. Men cannot - as pelagians said - reach perfection without God's help; but they are not also bound exclusively to God's will to save the elected ones (as RC augustinians say)! Humans have always a potential to abandon to God's redemptive grace. Mary was not fabricated - or endowed with some special form of grace at conception! She just ascetically fought since birth against the earthly passions until the time she was called to become the Ever- Virgin and All-Holy Mother of God.
This exalts even better the figure of Mary in Orthodoxy... it recognizes her a merit for the role God elected her for.

In Christ,   Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #726 on: June 02, 2009, 02:57:36 PM »
I think Palama said Mary was somehow a special vessel chosen by God . I must say I like the salute full of grace , it takes me to a place ... I can`t describe it , but most assurdely would like to know `why , how` ? Why full of grace , I think this words have a lot of meaning.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #727 on: June 03, 2009, 09:09:18 AM »
I think Palama said Mary was somehow a special vessel chosen by God . I must say I like the salute full of grace , it takes me to a place ... I can`t describe it , but most assurdely would like to know `why , how` ? Why full of grace , I think this words have a lot of meaning.
I think Palamas could even be wrong. After all not all of his opinions have ever been formally 'accepted' as Orthodox. Apart for his vision of the uncreated divine energies, of course.
I also like this title which is part of the Holy Scripture and of Orthodox tradition (as our prayers says: "Rejoice, o Virgin Mother of God, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, thou art blessed amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou have begotten the Saviour of our souls"). But the title is not meant - or at least doesn't imply - any Immaculate Conception. I'm not saying it could not be true; I just think certain things are better to be left to our personal speculation and - of course - to God who knows everything. The method of studying the Bible and Tradition to "explain everything" is typically Western. Orthodoxy prefers to keep what is certain and to leave the rest to God. I so loved this approach to the Faith that I chose Orthodoxy as my spiritual home...

In Christ,    Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #728 on: June 03, 2009, 09:38:53 AM »
[I also like this title which is part of the Holy Scripture and of Orthodox tradition (as our prayers says: "Rejoice, o Virgin Mother of God, Mary, full of grace,

The translation "full of grace" stems from a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate (by Jerome) when he worked on the Vulgate and used 'gratia plena.'

For those of us who are accustomed to Slavonic or one of the Slav languages our translation is closer to the Greek and does not mean 'full of grace.'

Bogoroditse Devo, raduysya,  blagodatnaya Maria....

"Blagodatnaya" has the meaning of "graced" but not "full of grace"

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #729 on: June 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM »
[I also like this title which is part of the Holy Scripture and of Orthodox tradition (as our prayers says: "Rejoice, o Virgin Mother of God, Mary, full of grace,

The translation "full of grace" stems from a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate (by Jerome) when he worked on the Vulgate and used 'gratia plena.'

For those of us who are accustomed to Slavonic or one of the Slav languages our translation is closer to the Greek and does not mean 'full of grace.'

Bogoroditse Devo, raduysya,  blagodatnaya Maria....


"Blagodatnaya" has the meaning of "graced" but not "full of grace"

Bucură-te, ceea ce eşti plină de har in romanian / wich mean Hail thou wich are full of grace .
The term full of grace takes me thinking about the virtues of Mary , wich are resembled in Apocalypse at the New Jerusalem , trough valuable stones ; It also takes me with the taught to Ezekiel 28 , when it speaks about the beauty of the cheruvim Lucifer and how all the stones were set on him.The words full of grace makes me think to the beauty of the Virgin , inside and outside , as the beauty of the garden of Eden , of the paradise , her being full of gifts from the Holy Spirit , full of good virtues , this is my opinion . I make the resemblance with the beauty of the cheruvim ,and the New Jerusalem. Peace.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #730 on: June 03, 2009, 02:23:21 PM »
I don't know anything of your past and of your mind, my brother, but still it seems you're extremely influenced by Roman Catholic mariolatry. Your continuous and repetitive words of exhaltation for the Virgin makes me think you're stepping outside of the boundaries of hyperdulia, which is the ordinary cult for the Mother of God.
Of course I'm not the right person to judge a brother in the faith, but maybe you should consult your spiritual father and ask him whether your understanding and super-love for the Blessed Virgin isn't getting you outside of Orthodoxy.
We love the Ever-Virgin... nobody will discuss it. But we love her as our Mother, and not as out lover... We esteem her for her motherly love protecting and guiding us, and not for her superhuman characteristics, you know?

In Christ,    Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #731 on: June 03, 2009, 04:02:48 PM »
I don't know anything of your past and of your mind, my brother, but still it seems you're extremely influenced by Roman Catholic mariolatry. Your continuous and repetitive words of exhaltation for the Virgin makes me think you're stepping outside of the boundaries of hyperdulia, which is the ordinary cult for the Mother of God.
Of course I'm not the right person to judge a brother in the faith, but maybe you should consult your spiritual father and ask him whether your understanding and super-love for the Blessed Virgin isn't getting you outside of Orthodoxy.
We love the Ever-Virgin... nobody will discuss it. But we love her as our Mother, and not as out lover... We esteem her for her motherly love protecting and guiding us, and not for her superhuman characteristics, you know?

In Christ,    Alex
We don't practice mariolotry and think that you slander is unjustified, dishonest, and down right rude.
"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 #732 on: June 03, 2009, 04:15:07 PM »
[I also like this title which is part of the Holy Scripture and of Orthodox tradition (as our prayers says: "Rejoice, o Virgin Mother of God, Mary, full of grace,

The translation "full of grace" stems from a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate (by Jerome) when he worked on the Vulgate and used 'gratia plena.'

For those of us who are accustomed to Slavonic or one of the Slav languages our translation is closer to the Greek and does not mean 'full of grace.'

Bogoroditse Devo, raduysya,  blagodatnaya Maria....

"Blagodatnaya" has the meaning of "graced" but not "full of grace"
The translation has to do with the actual tense here. The tanslation is in fact justified. I will elaborate later.
"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 AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #733 on: June 03, 2009, 05:01:49 PM »
Sorry, maybe I was rude, but I must say I tried to "contain" my desire to attack even strongier this exaggerated exhaltation for the Mother of God. One day my grandmother, a pious Roman Catholic, said that "Mary is greater then Jesus". I was going to have a heart-attack. She said that we pray to Mary and not to Jesus because Mary protects us today while Jesus did his work 2000 years ago once and for all. When I said that it was insane, she answered she was thus taught at catechism (now, she was born in 1934). So at that time there were RC priests who were misled by the extreme comparison between Christ and Mary. The title co-redemptrix which is making breach in RC circles of course didn't help more recently. If you look for a direct comparison, I can personally verify that there are more people going to pilgrimage in Marian sanctuaries (here in Italy, Loreto and Caravaggio are the best known) then at church on sundays. I heard many of them saying that "they believe in Mary" but they often doubt or reject Christ's divinity... still confessing themselves "Catholics". What a sadness...

In Christ,   Alex

Quote
The translation has to do with the actual tense here. The tanslation is in fact justified. I will elaborate later.
on this I find myself in agreement with you. The expression "full of grace" is correct when we understand the grammatical form of the verb better. Still I consider it not to be a proof for Immaculate Conception, anyway.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 05:07:18 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo »
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #734 on: June 04, 2009, 04:42:55 AM »
Mary was a handmaid of God as many call Her. She was a humble and faithfull woman , a meek and peacefull woman.Her faithfullness and fear of God are represented trough her virginity , as a promise or something she confide to God , as her devotion to serve God.Her faith and humility is presented trough her words and what she said to Gabriel : Let it be to me according to your words. We know the same angel gave the good news to Zecheriah but he didn`t believe him.In Luke verse 30 the Angel says to Mary in romanian : 30.      Şi îngerul i-a zis: Nu te teme, Marie, căci ai aflat har la Dumnezeu.  Wich means : "(...) you have found grace at God." In verse 39 it says that Mary left into a mountain area of Juda and she enter into the house of Elizabeth and when Elisabeth heard the salute of Mary the child from her womb jumped into her womb and she(Elizabeth) was filled with Holy Spirit(v40-41). There is where we first see Mary named as "the Mother of God" and as the angel Elizabeth says to her "blessed are you among women" and in verse 45 Elizabeth reveals Mary`s faith at the words of the angel "blessed are you who believe". Then in verse 48 Mary says "the Lord seeked to my humility" and she prophecied "from now on all generations shall call me blessed". Also she says in verse 47 "my heart rejoice in God , my Saviour" . Mary was the woman who gave birth and raised Jesus . In Isaiah 7:14-15 is says that the Virgin will be with child , and that the child we feed with milk and honey untill the day he will know how to make the evil perish.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #735 on: June 04, 2009, 08:11:24 AM »
I don't know anything of your past and of your mind, my brother, but still it seems you're extremely influenced by Roman Catholic mariolatry. Your continuous and repetitive words of exhaltation for the Virgin makes me think you're stepping outside of the boundaries of hyperdulia, which is the ordinary cult for the Mother of God.
Of course I'm not the right person to judge a brother in the faith, but maybe you should consult your spiritual father and ask him whether your understanding and super-love for the Blessed Virgin isn't getting you outside of Orthodoxy.
We love the Ever-Virgin... nobody will discuss it. But we love her as our Mother, and not as out lover... We esteem her for her motherly love protecting and guiding us, and not for her superhuman characteristics, you know?

In Christ,    Alex
We don't practice mariolotry and think that you slander is unjustified.

Can you comment on Maximillian Kolbe and Mark Miravalle, quoted above?
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 AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #736 on: June 04, 2009, 09:19:37 AM »
Sometimes I even think that Muhammad was not so wrong in condemning Christians. In the Quran it is prohibited to worship the "Trinity" as a union of three persons: God, Jesus christ and MARY...
The doctrine of the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Mary seems to fall under this assault by the Quran. Maybe the prophet of muslims had understood better Roman Catholic theology (with an anticipation of centuries) then us who communed with them  :laugh:

In Christ,    Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #737 on: June 04, 2009, 11:56:16 AM »
so how do you see the greeting of the angel, AlexOfBergamo?
This user no longer posts here.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #738 on: June 04, 2009, 12:02:15 PM »
The translation "full of grace" stems from a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate (by Jerome) when he worked on the Vulgate and used 'gratia plena.'

For those of us who are accustomed to Slavonic or one of the Slav languages our translation is closer to the Greek and does not mean 'full of grace.'

Bogoroditse Devo, raduysya,  blagodatnaya Maria....

"Blagodatnaya" has the meaning of "graced" but not "full of grace"

Quote
so how do you see the greeting of the angel

We have already gone through this many times Dan-romania.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #739 on: June 04, 2009, 12:06:21 PM »
If you are not interested than don`t post , I`m interested and i don`t think we`ve discuss it "so many times" and the subject is not clear for me.Let`s not start a silly off-topic discussion again ..
This user no longer posts here.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #740 on: June 04, 2009, 03:21:52 PM »
so how do you see the greeting of the angel, AlexOfBergamo?


Sorry I'm late to answer you, my brother. I'll try to be as clear as possible.
The RC doctrine of Original Sin states that because of Adam and Eve we are all bound to two terrible condemnations: death and concupiscence. Death is the extinction of bodily life, while concupiscence is the natural tendency of men to sin, which nobody could avoid.
Now, the EO position on Ancestral Sin states that death and concupiscence are natural consequences (and not punishments) for the sin of Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" - i.e. the effective punishment - comes when, pushed by concupiscence, we embrace sin and thus sign our condemnation as Adam and Eve also did.
Saying that Mary is full of grace just means that she inherited our human condition (and thus death and concupiscence) but by ascetical fight against sin, she was protected and guided by God's grace in a manner which has never been partaken by others.
It is evident from the Scripture that Mary at least one time "doubted" of God's plan ("How is that possible? I know no man") and that she even reproached God in the person of Jesus when he preached at the temple. Thus, Mary was weak and could even be tempted to sin as we did. If she hadn't resisted, she might have sinned.
Maybe you could say that even Jesus was tempted. That's not really true. In the desert he immediately rejected all of Satan's provocations, and in the Getsemani he clearly said "Father, If you can, push this cup far from me" and "Not my shall be done, but yours". Even Christ's cry on the cross "My God, My God, why did you abandon me?" is a question for us - the answer in fact would be rhetorical: "for the sins of the world".

Definitely I don't think the title "full of grace" assumes anything more but that God elected her over every other human being to  be the purest creature in the world; but he had not to program her for that, but only to guide her through her life to keep her pure.
I also reject the idea that Mary's immaculate conception is necessary to understand Christ's incarnation. I think Christ was created immediately pure and sinless both in body and soul at the time of his conception, and of course he needed no preparation for that.
Of course I might be wrong, but I guess nobody here will accept a definition using wrong terms such as "original sin" when we reject these doctrines as heresies, don't you think? That Mary was pure "at least" at the moment of Christ's conception is evident, but when she became thus it is not known and can't be dogmatized.

In Christ,    Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #741 on: June 04, 2009, 06:12:26 PM »
It is evident from the Scripture that Mary at least one time "doubted" of God's plan ("How is that possible? I know no man") and that she even reproached God in the person of Jesus when he preached at the temple. Thus, Mary was weak and could even be tempted to sin as we did. If she hadn't resisted, she might have sinned.

In what way were either of these actions of the Theotokos "sin"?  ???

In the first instance, was she "doubting God's plan" or simply asking how it was to be accomplished?  And did she not have the right to do so?  Remember this was an angel of God speaking to her, not God Himself.

In the second instance, wasn't she simply behaving like any good, concerned mother would under the circumstances?  What exactly was the sin?
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Riddikulus

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,788
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #742 on: June 04, 2009, 08:23:24 PM »
It is evident from the Scripture that Mary at least one time "doubted" of God's plan ("How is that possible? I know no man") and that she even reproached God in the person of Jesus when he preached at the temple. Thus, Mary was weak and could even be tempted to sin as we did. If she hadn't resisted, she might have sinned.

In what way were either of these actions of the Theotokos "sin"?  ???

In the first instance, was she "doubting God's plan" or simply asking how it was to be accomplished?  And did she not have the right to do so?  Remember this was an angel of God speaking to her, not God Himself.

In the second instance, wasn't she simply behaving like any good, concerned mother would under the circumstances?  What exactly was the sin?

I agree with your comments, theistgal, and I have never heard of the Theotoko's question to the angel described as doubt. This might be off-topic, but I think it's important to clarify. St Zachariah and the Theotokos were both visited by the angel, and both were given marvelous news, but their responses were quite different. After Gabriel explained to St Zachariah what God was going to do for him and his wife, he was met with the response, “How can I know this?” Because of this doubt Gabriel pronounced a temporary punishment on Zachariah, which would be lifted later when the angel’s words would be proved true.

The Theotokos' response of “How shall this be?” isn't the same thing, at all. There is no doubt in the question and that is evidenced in that no punishment fell on her, only a gracious explanation by the same angel that was sent to St Zachariah. There’s a significant difference between the two, for the Theotokos' response doesn’t question the possibility of the fulfillment of the message; she already accepts the fact that it "shall be" as the angel said; unlike St Zachariah. She simply required some necessary information about this conception which would exclude the involvement of a man. Quite a reasonable question for anyone to ask, I would think. Anyway, Zachariah’s doubt was punished, albeit temporarily, and the Theotokos' faith and acquiescence were rewarded.

Edited for clarity. (as always)

« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 08:27:40 PM by Riddikulus »
I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

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

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #743 on: June 05, 2009, 04:41:53 AM »
so how do you see the greeting of the angel, AlexOfBergamo?


Sorry I'm late to answer you, my brother. I'll try to be as clear as possible.
The RC doctrine of Original Sin states that because of Adam and Eve we are all bound to two terrible condemnations: death and concupiscence. Death is the extinction of bodily life, while concupiscence is the natural tendency of men to sin, which nobody could avoid.
Now, the EO position on Ancestral Sin states that death and concupiscence are natural consequences (and not punishments) for the sin of Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" - i.e. the effective punishment - comes when, pushed by concupiscence, we embrace sin and thus sign our condemnation as Adam and Eve also did.
Saying that Mary is full of grace just means that she inherited our human condition (and thus death and concupiscence) but by ascetical fight against sin, she was protected and guided by God's grace in a manner which has never been partaken by others.
It is evident from the Scripture that Mary at least one time "doubted" of God's plan ("How is that possible? I know no man") and that she even reproached God in the person of Jesus when he preached at the temple. Thus, Mary was weak and could even be tempted to sin as we did. If she hadn't resisted, she might have sinned.
Maybe you could say that even Jesus was tempted. That's not really true. In the desert he immediately rejected all of Satan's provocations, and in the Getsemani he clearly said "Father, If you can, push this cup far from me" and "Not my shall be done, but yours". Even Christ's cry on the cross "My God, My God, why did you abandon me?" is a question for us - the answer in fact would be rhetorical: "for the sins of the world".

Definitely I don't think the title "full of grace" assumes anything more but that God elected her over every other human being to  be the purest creature in the world; but he had not to program her for that, but only to guide her through her life to keep her pure.
I also reject the idea that Mary's immaculate conception is necessary to understand Christ's incarnation. I think Christ was created immediately pure and sinless both in body and soul at the time of his conception, and of course he needed no preparation for that.
Of course I might be wrong, but I guess nobody here will accept a definition using wrong terms such as "original sin" when we reject these doctrines as heresies, don't you think? That Mary was pure "at least" at the moment of Christ's conception is evident, but when she became thus it is not known and can't be dogmatized.

In Christ,    Alex

Dear brother , I was never insinuating trough what I wrote about Mary and the discussion between her and the angel that she was "Immaculated Conceived". The question of Mary "how shall this be since i know no man" was asked before she feared her virginity , and as Riddikulus stated there is a difference between Maria and Zachariah.First trough the announciation the angel makes to both of them , a barren birth was not something new , but giving the birth of the Messiah and the son of God is the only thing new under the sun. The second trough the attitude they had towards the announciation , Zachariah said : "How will I know all this , cause me and my wife are old. He was asking for a sign to be sure this will happen. The attitude and the answer of the virgin was "how shall this be since I know no man." "How shall this be" how will this accomplish,how shall this be , "since I know no man" , and I am not married , and it was a disgrace a dishonour to have a child without being married. It was gravely punished in the Law of Israel , and let`s not forget that Joseph , being a just man, planned to leave her in hidden so that she will not be punished.The words `since I know no man` shows that it was disgraceful for a woman to have a child outside mariage , from adultery . Remmeber what the pharisees said about Jesus : you are born in adultery and sins and you teach us? It was something unlawfull and disgraceful , that is why Mary asked the angel that question , and the question was asked for the details of her birth. The final result of the two announciation were : Mary said "I am the handmaid of God , let it be to me according to your words" and Zachariah`s words : "How will I know all this , cause me and my wife are old" , he asked for a sign and because of his request and unbelief he was mute untill the birth of his child. Elizabeth being under the Holy Spirit said about Mary : "Blessed are you who believe the things that were told to you from God". About her reproaching Jesus when she preached at the temple again it was not a sin . If you refer to chapter 2 from Luke , Mary was worried as a mother for her child . I don`t think we ought to make Mary a sinner to make Jesus above Mary.Of course Jesus is the Saviour of the Church and of the body , and the Saviour of Mary.I know it is hard to have a good perspective about the Mother of God , esspecially after some exaltations wich are made to her from some catholic Churches.I don`t refute totally the Mariology of the catholics , I think that there is a possibility some catholic parishes , churches might give Mary the proper honour . Regarding the Immaculated Conception , hmm ... I don`t think that is the case. In the OT the prophets speak beautifull about Her. Mariology must be relateted in the spirit of humility , and that is proper , but not descending into the other extreme of minimizing or trying to find sins in her.

Peace.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #744 on: June 05, 2009, 07:38:56 AM »
Sorry for that, my brother.
I totally misunderstood your point because of my linguistical difficulties. I beg your pardon for that. Anyway I still think the RC attitude to over-estimate Mary (as in the case of the Co-Redemptrix) is often too much... she is exalted and made equal to Jesus in too many ways, and I can't tolerate the diminution of Christ's role in favour of his mother's. I find the Orthodox position more balanced... We certainly give her a high honour and sing hymns and prayers to her continuously.... I guess that's enough.

In Christ,    Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #745 on: June 05, 2009, 07:54:25 AM »
I totally misunderstood your point because of my linguistical difficulties. I beg your pardon for that. Anyway I still think the RC attitude to over-estimate Mary (as in the case of the Co-Redemptrix) is often too much...

Alexander, I agree,

If only we Orthodox would hold fast to our traditional position.  But so often when dialoguing with Catholics we are tempted to try and offer too much of an explanation.  When faced with the precision of Catholic definitions, we sometimes think that we have to respond in kind - if Catholics have their precision defintions, then we must have ours.  Well, the fact is that we don't.  And we don't have to compete with Catholics matching definition for definition.

Here is something from "The Orthodox Church" by Bp Kallistos...

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas,
for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs
to the Church’s inner Tradition:

‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries
which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness ... The Mother of God
was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the
housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world,
the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so
much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us
therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of
God’

V. Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall


Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #746 on: June 05, 2009, 01:20:29 PM »
Sorry for that, my brother.
I totally misunderstood your point because of my linguistical difficulties. I beg your pardon for that. Anyway I still think the RC attitude to over-estimate Mary (as in the case of the Co-Redemptrix) is often too much... she is exalted and made equal to Jesus in too many ways, and I can't tolerate the diminution of Christ's role in favour of his mother's. I find the Orthodox position more balanced... We certainly give her a high honour and sing hymns and prayers to her continuously.... I guess that's enough.

In Christ,    Alex

         Mary`s role is kind of bonded to Jesus , she is where Jesus is . She sits at the right hand of God , as Jesus is . She is the throne of Jesus . And where Jesus is , there is His throne. She stands at the right hand of God . Both human natures are at the right hand of God . Man and Woman . Jesus at the right hand of the Father and Mary at the right hand of Jesus. As psalmist David says : "at thy right did the queen stand , dressed in gold" .

     She is like the throne of Solomon , like the vessel of mannah , the house of wisedom , her womb became more spacious than paradise . She is the one trough wich the Word has comed into this world , a chosen vessel . The image of the psaltist David is the same as the image of Solomon who haid a throne for himself and a throne for his mother, who stood at the right hand of him(Solomon).Mary is the bed of the wedding on wich the wedding is consumed , the city of God. The best images of Mary`s role are in the Song of Solomon , where He compares his wife with his bed in romanian(lectica) Wich is like a throne-bed on wich the kings could lay on , with four courners.

    Mary is the Wife of the Godhead , and her beauty are all her children , wich are the Bride of Jesus.The image of the wedding in Cana it`s reflecting the image of the Wedding between God and earth , and reconciliation of the earth with God . That image stands as a picture of Mary`s role, and it is a prefiguration of the Wedding from above.

    I dare to say that there cannot be any exaltation of Mary`s role , except the idea that she didn`t needed a Saviour wich was not the case , and her being Immaculated Conceived , wich stands against the theology of Christ being a fully god-man. About the city of God , the throne of God , the queen in ophir David speaks great things and says he will praise her in all times and that all nations will praise her forever and ever. Also in Revelation the throne of God is represented and the Ark of Convenant , and people singing chants and praising God and His throne . Also in Revelation i think it says all people shall come to bow in front of the Lord and his throne . We don`t have to interpret this roles and distinctions of Mary literall . They are metaphorical to make us understand best . She is the New Jerusalem and the Mother of all the Christians , but this is metaforical . We are not entering Mary`s womb and are not rebirth , that represents more of us being citisiens of heaves , to who she is queen and the king is Jesus. We are not owe to think and to interprate all this literall . And maybe I can`t talk and explain other distinction acorded to Mary with the grace of God if you want.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #747 on: June 06, 2009, 05:42:20 AM »
Dear brother Alex,

I don't know anything of your past and of your mind, my brother, but still it seems you're extremely influenced by Roman Catholic mariolatry. Your continuous and repetitive words of exhaltation for the Virgin makes me think you're stepping outside of the boundaries of hyperdulia, which is the ordinary cult for the Mother of God.
Let me play a little devil's advocate here.  Orthodox are fond of saying "Mary, save us." 
Question 1: How is that not any less mariolatry than the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea.  In other words, what danger is there in the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea that is not likewise contained in the exaltation "Mary, save us"?

Question 2: I already know what the rationalization is to explain why the exaltation, "Mary, save us," does not detract from Christ being our savior.  My quesiton is: are you able to apply the same consideration and benefit of the doubt to the Latin Catholic "Co-redemptrix" idea?

It doesn't seem fair or Christian for Orthodox to constantly accuse the Latins of something, when that selfsame accusation can be turned on the Orthodox themselves.  It's about the principle of the "log in the eye."

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #748 on: June 06, 2009, 06:00:10 AM »
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox, and don't say the whole thread, I'm about done reading Mardukm thesis posts.
No one rebutted my quotes of EO Fathers earlier many pages ago.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not cancel Mary's free will.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not make Mary less human.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not contradict the teaching that Christ took on our full humanity.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not contradict the patristic doctrine of original sin.

No one rebutted my explanation of why St. Jacob of Sarug does not contradict the teaching of the IC.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not detract from Jesus' own totally unique conception.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not necessitate that Sts. Hannah and Eliakim were also IC'd.

In effect, I achieved what I set out to do as I explicitly stated WAAAAAY in the beginning of this thread -- that is, to demonstrate that the IC is not a heresy, but can be regarded a legitimate theologoumenon.  That's was my purpose here - despite the exaggerated claims a few have tried to impose on my motives - and I've done that.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #749 on: June 06, 2009, 06:20:50 AM »
The RC doctrine of Original Sin states that because of Adam and Eve we are all bound to two terrible condemnations: death and concupiscence. Death is the extinction of bodily life, while concupiscence is the natural tendency of men to sin, which nobody could avoid.
Now, the EO position on Ancestral Sin states that death and concupiscence are natural consequences (and not punishments) for the sin of Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" - i.e. the effective punishment - comes when, pushed by concupiscence, we embrace sin and thus sign our condemnation as Adam and Eve also did.
Actually, the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin faithfully follows the Alexandrine Tradition.  The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin states that there are three consequences of Original Sin - spiritual death (separation from God), physical death/corruptibility, and concupisence.  The Catholic doctrine does not view physical death/corruptibility as a condemnation.  Rather, it is, in faithful compliance to the Alexandrine Tradition, the NATURAL state of our created bodies.  The first sin of our parents was not create physical death.  Rather, it caused the GRACE of immortality and incorruptibility to be lost, and humanity simply reverted to its NATURAL state of mortality and corruptibility.  Nor does Catholic teaching view concupisence as a condemnation.  In fact, the Catholic teaching is that concupiscence is not even condemnable as sin.  So, I don't know where you got your understanding of the Catholic doctrine from, but it doesn't seem to be from a Catholic source.  It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) it is a teriibly twisted version influenced by EO polemics. If you are doing so, I would urge you to stop looking to EO sources to explain Catholic doctrine.  Read Catholic Magisterial documents, and the Catechism if you want a real explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches.  When you compare EO SOURCES (and not MODERN EO polemics) with Catholic teaching, you will find that Catholics have much more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy than modern EO polemicists like to pretend.

I have already explained all this much earlier and rather fully, and no one refuted anything I stated.  I wish you would take the time to look over the thread.

I also find it strange that you excluded spiritual death from your list of consequences.  I'm not sure your definition is exactly orthodox according to EO standards (though I'm certainly  no expert on what EO'xy). 

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #750 on: June 06, 2009, 06:51:28 AM »
So, dear Papist, we're not Pelagian. We believe that we are all potential sinners, but we become guilty only when we actually sin. This way, Baptism is still necessary, infants need no extra-grace from God to avoid limbo, and Mary was just prevented from committing sins after her birth because she was led and assisted by God's grace... Our tradition explains this through the narration of Mary as a baby being nourished directly by angels and living separately from the outer world...

Hope this helps you in understanding our faith.
Not really.  You CLAIM that infant Baptism is necessary, yet you have not explained WHY it is necessary.  Nothing you've written here explains why infant Baptism is necessary.  In fact, since Scripture states that Baptism is for the remission of sins, and you imply that infants can't sin, then your statements would contradict the constant and unanimous patristic teaching that infant baptism IS necessary.  In that sense, your position would be Pelagian.  I don't think you are Pelagian, but your explanation here lends to that conclusion.  So I would like a more detailed explanation of what you believe about infant baptism.  To be more concise - Do you think that infants have anything that needs to be washed away in the bath of regeneration?  If not, why is infant baptism necessary?  If so, what is it that is being washed away?

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #751 on: June 06, 2009, 06:55:33 AM »
Dear brother Alex,

Mary wasn't "full of grace" because of a special creation. Every individual at conception is in a state of grace, a condition which necessarily - or naturally if you prefer - is brought over time to a corruption and decay known as 'sin', due to the fall of the world with humanity.
This is getting serious.  The highlighted portion of your statement is one of the propositions of Pelagius that has been condemned by the Church in 3 Ecumenical Councils.  Is this what you are being taught by your EO teachers?

Greatly concerned,
Marduk

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #752 on: June 06, 2009, 07:31:09 AM »
I totally misunderstood your point because of my linguistical difficulties. I beg your pardon for that. Anyway I still think the RC attitude to over-estimate Mary (as in the case of the Co-Redemptrix) is often too much...

Alexander, I agree,

If only we Orthodox would hold fast to our traditional position.  But so often when dialoguing with Catholics we are tempted to try and offer too much of an explanation.  When faced with the precision of Catholic definitions, we sometimes think that we have to respond in kind - if Catholics have their precision defintions, then we must have ours.  Well, the fact is that we don't.  And we don't have to compete with Catholics matching definition for definition.

Here is something from "The Orthodox Church" by Bp Kallistos...

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas,
for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs
to the Church’s inner Tradition:

‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries
which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness ... The Mother of God
was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the
housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world,
the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so
much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us
therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of
God’

V. Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall


I completely agree with you too and I loved that quotation.

Now, dear brother Marduk, let me answer your innuendo. I'm sorry if I can't reply to your answers...  but I'll come back to reply as soon as I can.
In order to analyse your accusations of Pelagianism, I'll take as a starting point the definition of Pelagianism according to Catholic Encyclopedia. There is said Pelagius believed that:
1.Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2.Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3.Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4.The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5.The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6.Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
On point 1: we believe that Adam was to become  immortal if he hadn't sinned. NO HERESY
On point 2: I personally believe that Adam's sin affected all of humanity, in that it introduced concupiscence and made us lose the  gift of immortality. NO HERESY
On point 3: we believe that the condition of children is not identical to that of Adam before the sin, in that they are bound to concupiscence (but no actual sin or personal condemnation for a sin they never committed) Once again, NO HERESY
On point 4: we deny entirely this doctrine. NO HERESY
On point 5: we take the Gospel as the only and full path to heaven. NO HERESY
On point 6: there has been no son of man before Jesus born without seen. NO HERESY
Curiously enough, this same definition of Pelagianism shows how the IC contradicts point 6... since you believe that at least one individual (Mary) was born without sin...
 On the question of Baptism for infants: it is necessary since children begin to sin soon after their birth, when their natural concupiscence begins to work, corrupting their souls. The fact that some Churches in the past delayed Baptism even to the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females clearly shows how no urgency for baptism is needed in the first days of their lives. After all, even RC's don't baptize children immediately at their births, do they?
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #753 on: June 06, 2009, 07:33:36 AM »
Dear brother Alex,

I don't know anything of your past and of your mind, my brother, but still it seems you're extremely influenced by Roman Catholic mariolatry. Your continuous and repetitive words of exhaltation for the Virgin makes me think you're stepping outside of the boundaries of hyperdulia, which is the ordinary cult for the Mother of God.
Let me play a little devil's advocate here. 

LOL.  Isn't  that your day job?


Quote
Orthodox are fond of saying "Mary, save us." 
Question 1: How is that not any less mariolatry than the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea.  In other words, what danger is there in the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea that is not likewise contained in the exaltation "Mary, save us"?

Because she isn't the only saint we say that to.  The Latin mariatatry only puts her in the same category with Christ, hence the "Co-" part.

Again, for the record, let us state THE ORTHODOX DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CO-REDEMPTION.  I repleat that, because of often repeated claims that we believed in the IC until it was proclaimed.


Quote
Question 2: I already know what the rationalization is to explain why the exaltation, "Mary, save us," does not detract from Christ being our savior.  My quesiton is: are you able to apply the same consideration and benefit of the doubt to the Latin Catholic "Co-redemptrix" idea?

There is no doubt to which to attribute a benefit:the ravings of Kolbe, the images of Miravalle of the Holy Spirit being trapped in the Immaculate heart of Mary until the pope releases Him by proclaiming this dogma, etc....we know where this is going.


Quote
It doesn't seem fair or Christian for Orthodox to constantly accuse the Latins of something, when that selfsame accusation can be turned on the Orthodox themselves.  It's about the principle of the "log in the eye."

No, its the principle of warning your brother.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #754 on: June 06, 2009, 07:38:37 AM »
I totally misunderstood your point because of my linguistical difficulties. I beg your pardon for that. Anyway I still think the RC attitude to over-estimate Mary (as in the case of the Co-Redemptrix) is often too much...

Alexander, I agree,

If only we Orthodox would hold fast to our traditional position.  But so often when dialoguing with Catholics we are tempted to try and offer too much of an explanation.  When faced with the precision of Catholic definitions, we sometimes think that we have to respond in kind - if Catholics have their precision defintions, then we must have ours.  Well, the fact is that we don't.  And we don't have to compete with Catholics matching definition for definition.

Here is something from "The Orthodox Church" by Bp Kallistos...

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas,
for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs
to the Church’s inner Tradition:

‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries
which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness ... The Mother of God
was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the
housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world,
the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so
much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us
therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of
God’

V. Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall


I completely agree with you too and I loved that quotation.

Now, dear brother Marduk, let me answer your innuendo. I'm sorry if I can't reply to your answers...  but I'll come back to reply as soon as I can.
In order to analyse your accusations of Pelagianism, I'll take as a starting point the definition of Pelagianism according to Catholic Encyclopedia. There is said Pelagius believed that:
1.Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2.Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3.Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4.The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5.The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6.Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
On point 1: we believe that Adam was to become  immortal if he hadn't sinned. NO HERESY
On point 2: I personally believe that Adam's sin affected all of humanity, in that it introduced concupiscence and made us lose the  gift of immortality. NO HERESY
On point 3: we believe that the condition of children is not identical to that of Adam before the sin, in that they are bound to concupiscence (but no actual sin or personal condemnation for a sin they never committed) Once again, NO HERESY
On point 4: we deny entirely this doctrine. NO HERESY
On point 5: we take the Gospel as the only and full path to heaven. NO HERESY
On point 6: there has been no son of man before Jesus born without seen. NO HERESY
Curiously enough, this same definition of Pelagianism shows how the IC contradicts point 6... since you believe that at least one individual (Mary) was born without sin...
 On the question of Baptism for infants: it is necessary since children begin to sin soon after their birth, when their natural concupiscence begins to work, corrupting their souls. The fact that some Churches in the past delayed Baptism even to the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females clearly shows how no urgency for baptism is needed in the first days of their lives. After all, even RC's don't baptize children immediately at their births, do they?


I'll just add to your excellent response that in the Patristic age many delayed their baptism until later in life, partly it seems from fear of sinning after baptism.  This greater fear of sins after baptism then all those committed before doesn't follow either Orthodox nor Latin understanding, but it makes more sense in the context of Orthodoxy than the context of Latin theology (indeed, there it makes no sense at all).
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #755 on: June 06, 2009, 07:47:46 AM »
The RC doctrine of Original Sin states that because of Adam and Eve we are all bound to two terrible condemnations: death and concupiscence. Death is the extinction of bodily life, while concupiscence is the natural tendency of men to sin, which nobody could avoid.
Now, the EO position on Ancestral Sin states that death and concupiscence are natural consequences (and not punishments) for the sin of Adam and Eve. "Original Sin" - i.e. the effective punishment - comes when, pushed by concupiscence, we embrace sin and thus sign our condemnation as Adam and Eve also did.
Actually, the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin faithfully follows the Alexandrine Tradition.  The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin states that there are three consequences of Original Sin - spiritual death (separation from God), physical death/corruptibility, and concupisence.  The Catholic doctrine does not view physical death/corruptibility as a condemnation.  Rather, it is, in faithful compliance to the Alexandrine Tradition, the NATURAL state of our created bodies.  The first sin of our parents was not create physical death.  Rather, it caused the GRACE of immortality and incorruptibility to be lost, and humanity simply reverted to its NATURAL state of mortality and corruptibility.  Nor does Catholic teaching view concupisence as a condemnation.  In fact, the Catholic teaching is that concupiscence is not even condemnable as sin.  So, I don't know where you got your understanding of the Catholic doctrine from, but it doesn't seem to be from a Catholic source.  It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) it is a teriibly twisted version influenced by EO polemics. If you are doing so, I would urge you to stop looking to EO sources to explain Catholic doctrine.  Read Catholic Magisterial documents, and the Catechism if you want a real explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches.  When you compare EO SOURCES (and not MODERN EO polemics) with Catholic teaching, you will find that Catholics have much more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy than modern EO polemicists like to pretend.

I have already explained all this much earlier and rather fully, and no one refuted anything I stated.  I wish you would take the time to look over the thread.

I also find it strange that you excluded spiritual death from your list of consequences.  I'm not sure your definition is exactly orthodox according to EO standards (though I'm certainly  no expert on what EO'xy). 

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem Marduk is that your modernist catechism (modernist in the sense that it is new, and in a different spirit from the thousand+ before) is contradicted by a whole paper trail of imprimature and nihil obstant, papal bulls, and other VATICAN SOURCES.

Many of us, unlike you, were raised and taught by the Vatican.  So we know first hand what the Vatican puts out for her followers.  Yes, she has mended her ways in many ways the last half century (also gone wayward in some ways too).  But we have over 10 centuries of experience with the Vatican, so let's just see how those new ways take.
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 AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #756 on: June 06, 2009, 07:51:44 AM »
Quote
Let me play a little devil's advocate here.  Orthodox are fond of saying "Mary, save us."
Question 1: How is that not any less mariolatry than the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea.  In other words, what danger is there in the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea that is not likewise contained in the exaltation "Mary, save us"?
I forgot to answer this. Don't you know the difference between "to redeem" and "to rescue"? They are both synonims for "to save", but they've got two different meanings. Jesus redeems us, the saints (and Mary) rescue us through their intercessions.

In Christ,   Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #757 on: June 06, 2009, 07:57:52 AM »
Quote
It doesn't seem fair or Christian for Orthodox to constantly accuse the Latins of something, when that selfsame accusation can be turned on the Orthodox themselves.  It's about the principle of the "log in the eye."
Now read what ialmisry and I just answered, meditate that... and look for the boomerang effect, especially on "point 6" on original sin before Christ.
We are entirely Orthodox, while you RC's deny this substantial point of condemnation against Pelagianism. Who's the heretic here?
In Christ,   Alex
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #758 on: June 06, 2009, 08:01:43 AM »
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox, and don't say the whole thread, I'm about done reading Mardukm thesis posts.
No one rebutted my quotes of EO Fathers earlier many pages ago.

Yes, e.g. with the quotes of your Latin Father Bernhardt.
So everyone knows what Bernard of Clairveaux had to say:

Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not cancel Mary's free will.

Ditto

Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not make Mary less human.

Read Bernard above.

Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not contradict the teaching that Christ took on our full humanity.

Ditto.

Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not contradict the patristic doctrine of original sin.

Ditto.

No one rebutted my explanation of why St. Jacob of Sarug does not contradict the teaching of the IC.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not detract from Jesus' own totally unique conception.

No one rebutted my explanation of why the IC does not necessitate that Sts. Hannah and Eliakim were also IC'd.

In effect, I achieved what I set out to do as I explicitly stated WAAAAAY in the beginning of this thread -- that is, to demonstrate that the IC is not a heresy, but can be regarded a legitimate theologoumenon.  That's was my purpose here - despite the exaggerated claims a few have tried to impose on my motives - and I've done that.

Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]

I got tired of writing "ditto."  In a nutshell,
I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:
Quote
The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix        

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: These words fell from the lips of the Immaculata herself. Hence, they must tell us in the most precise and essential manner who she really is.

In her apparition at Lourdes she does not say: "I was conceived immaculately," but "I am the Immaculate Conception." This points out not only the fact that she was conceived without original sin, but also the manner in which this privilege belongs to her. It is not something accidental; it is something that belongs to her very nature. For she is Immaculate Conception in (her very) person. (2)

The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)
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 #759 on: June 06, 2009, 08:44:12 AM »
Deleted because of repeat post.  Does this happen to anyone else?  Everytime I press "Modify" it automatically posts another copy of my response.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 09:05:07 AM by Mardukm »

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #760 on: June 06, 2009, 08:44:43 AM »
On point 3: we believe that the condition of children is not identical to that of Adam before the sin, in that they are bound to concupiscence (but no actual sin or personal condemnation for a sin they never committed) Once again, NO HERESY
No, you specifically stated that babies are born in a state of grace.  That is Pelagianism.  You don't seem to have read the entire article on Pelagianism.  The list you gave was not from Pelagius himself, but one of his co-horts named Celestius.  Pelagius' heresy went deeper than those 6 points.  The whole basis of his heresy was his denial of DIVINE GRACE and the belief that man, by his OWN natural power, could become holy in the eyes of God.  Pelagius' heresy (as distinct from the basics of Celestius' own opinion) as regards point#3 is that he believed exactly as you stated - that every person is born in a NATURAL state of grace, and did not need DIVINE intervention to be holy.  Thus, he denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism.  You claim that Baptism is necessary, yet you simultaneously claim that babies are born in a state of grace, which are contradictory statements.  What I am asking of you is the source of your belief.  Is it your own interpretation, or were you taught by your EO teachers that babies are born in a state of Grace?  The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox and patristic teaching is that babies are not born in a state of grace, but rather that it is baptism that confers this much-needed grace on individuals. 

Quote
On point 6: there has been no son of man before Jesus born without seen. NO HERESY
Curiously enough, this same definition of Pelagianism shows how the IC contradicts point 6... since you believe that at least one individual (Mary) was born without sin...
Well, you would have a point, if your relation of point#6 was accurate. In fact, what point #6 states is not that one is born without sin, but rather merely that there were men without sin before the advent of Christ.  Why you needed to change the actual text in order to make your point. ???  ???  Doesn't that demonstrate right away that you don't really have an argument against the IC based on this?

In any case, as stated, the whole basis of Pelagianism is his denial of grace.  In order to truly understand what was condemned, you need to relate point #6 to that fact (recall that the points you enumerated are not actually from Pelagius, but from his co-hort Celestius).  So point#6 is not ad dictum a condemnation against the belief that men were without sin even before the advent of Christ (otherwise, the Church would be condemning itself for its ancient belief in the sinlessness of Sts. Jeremiah and the Forerunner).  Rather, the condemnation is about the Pelagian belief that men were able to be sinless EVEN WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD.

Quote
On the question of Baptism for infants: it is necessary since children begin to sin soon after their birth, when their natural concupiscence begins to work, corrupting their souls. The fact that some Churches in the past delayed Baptism even to the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females clearly shows how no urgency for baptism is needed in the first days of their lives. After all, even RC's don't baptize children immediately at their births, do they?
I never realized that's what EO believe - that children are baptized soon after their birth because they are actual sinners.  In my Oriental Tradition, we baptize to cleanse babies of original sin (among other reasons) and do not believe that small babies are capable of sinning.  I learned the same as a Catholic.  What you have just stated is really foreign to me, and I've never read anything resembling such a belief from the early Fathers.  I want to ask you again - is this your own personal belief, or is this what your EO teachers have taught you?

The fact that some Churches in the past delayed baptism is because of the belief that it should match the Jewish prescriptions for circumcision, as Scripture states that baptism replaces circumcision.  The delay in no way occurred because the Church somehow did not believe in the utter importance of Baptism of babies and that such baptism was for the sake of their very salvation.  The fact that the Church changed its practice is evidence to the contrary of your statement that no urgency existed.

And as to brother Isa's claim that many delayed their baptism in the early Church --- SO WHAT?  That was the decision of individual Christians, not the teaching of the Church.  You see, in the early Church, the Sacrament of confession was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely.  People were afraid that they might die without a chance to go to confession, and a person who is baptized would have a greater condemnation than one who was not.  Since Baptism was understood to remit sin, then people opted to wait.  But, once gain, this was the choice of individual Christians, but it was not the teaching of the Church that people should delay their baptisms.  So Isa's example was a departure from Christian practice, and never considered a norm, but may have been allowed by economy.

As regards to Catholic baptism, the Church teaches that babies are to be baptized ASAP with no unreasonable delay.

Hope to have a response from you soon.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 09:03:01 AM by Mardukm »

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #761 on: June 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM »
St. Bernard...Ditto...Ditto...

Like I said:
Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #762 on: June 06, 2009, 09:14:19 AM »
Quote
Let me play a little devil's advocate here.  Orthodox are fond of saying "Mary, save us."
Question 1: How is that not any less mariolatry than the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea.  In other words, what danger is there in the Latin Catholic "Co-Redemptrix" idea that is not likewise contained in the exaltation "Mary, save us"?
I forgot to answer this. Don't you know the difference between "to redeem" and "to rescue"? They are both synonims for "to save", but they've got two different meanings. Jesus redeems us, the saints (and Mary) rescue us through their intercessions.
On the face, the fact of rescuing through intercessory prayer is not evident from the statement "Mary, save us."  On the face of it, it seems Mary is the one saving or rescuing by her own power, not God through the aid of intercessory prayer.  So any person not immediately privy to the explanation could easily accuse Orthodox of Mariolatry.  The danger is there, no less than the Co-redemptrix idea (which I myself don't particularly like).

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 #763 on: June 06, 2009, 09:28:35 AM »
On the face, the fact of rescuing through intercessory prayer is not evident from the statement "Mary, save us."  On the face of it, it seems Mary is the one saving or rescuing by her own power, not God through the aid of intercessory prayer.  So any person not immediately privy to the explanation could easily accuse Orthodox of Mariolatry.  The danger is there, no less than the Co-redemptrix idea (which I myself don't particularly like).

How many people here make regular use of the Canon to our Guardian Angel?  Before Communion?   It is just full of mariolatry.  Perhaps the most outstanding example is:

"Saved by thee, O pure Virgin, we confess thee to be supremely the Mother of God, and with the Fleshless Choir we magnify thee."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #764 on: June 06, 2009, 09:30:11 AM »
St. Bernard...Ditto...Ditto...

Like I said:
Quote
No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.


They simply pulled the rug under your claims of "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" even in the bosom of the Vatican.  What more is necessary?  Explaining that problem away doesn't prop it back up.  In particular as you still haven't shown how your novel slant on the IC, that it only involves the soul of the Theotokos, contradicting your MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, jives with your "ensoulment" excuse for the Latin opposition to 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