Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 202821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #855 on: June 07, 2009, 10:14:19 PM »
No, it's  not that they are willing to deny that.  It's that they probably understand that the dogma of the IC does not necessarily lead to that conclusion - i.e., that the IC somehow deprives Mary of her basic human nature.  

I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.
Why quibble over words?  In the past, you, as well as a few others, have always made this point about her being conceived differently with an explicit view towards asserting that she has a different nature than us.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #856 on: June 07, 2009, 10:16:41 PM »
Dearest Father Deacon Lance,


Then why did she die, since she was free of original sin?

Since, according to the IC, she was created full of the graces of sinlessness since the first moment of her existence, when did she have the time to exercise that free-will?

She remained subject to the laws of nature just as her Son voluntarily subjected himself to them for our sake.

How does being free of sin interfere with free will?  Adam and Eve were free of sin before the fall and it did not interfere with theirs.
This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread.  Brother Isa did not have a response back then.  He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

the future is now.  I've already responded.  I'll repeat the response now.

The response was to this claim:
Her free-will response to the Graces of sinlessness PRIOR to the Annunciation were the cause of her being given the Graces she received AT the Annunciation.

There is no free will response to the IC.  The IC interferes as, unlike the Annunciation and Incarnation, there is no moment to exercise free will: she is simply from the moment of her conception/creation/existence whatever, she is "sinless" by divine fiat, not any fiat of her own.  And if God could so create her, and were it fitting that He so do, it would be fitting that He similarly save ALL the progeny of Adam and Eve likewise.  Potuit, decuit ergo fecit.

If she were sinless, as has been brought up many a time, death would have no hold on her by nature, not by her Son's resurrection.  She would not die.
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #857 on: June 07, 2009, 10:22:25 PM »
I actually did, but you might have missed it (I actually found the text of the sermon and presented it here, remember?).  IIRC, one of the main points was St. Palamas' statement that Mary's NATURE was unsullied even since her conception by St. Anne (he even says that holiness reached its perfection in Sts. Hannah and Eliakim for the very purpose of conceiving Mary).

That message of yours is here, message #630
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg318769.html#msg318769

Your argumentation using two or three quotes from Saint Gregory Palamas is far from convincing.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #858 on: June 07, 2009, 10:30:24 PM »
I actually did, but you might have missed it (I actually found the text of the sermon and presented it here, remember?).  IIRC, one of the main points was St. Palamas' statement that Mary's NATURE was unsullied even since her conception by St. Anne (he even says that holiness reached its perfection in Sts. Hannah and Eliakim for the very purpose of conceiving Mary).

That message of yours is here, message #630
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg318769.html#msg318769

Your argumentation using two or three quotes from Saint Gregory Palamas is far from convincing.
But then, again, while I might have a few in support of my position, you have absolutely NONE to support your rejection of it as a heresy from St. Palamas. I'll admit my interpretation might not be convincing to some.  But you have to admit it is a possible interpretation.  Thus, as far as St. Palamas is concerned, it proves my point that it is a legitimate theologoumenon (the only point I have ever wanted to make in this forum).

Still, I'll repeat, no one has addressed the numerous other quotes from Eastern Fathers that EXPLICITLY assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #859 on: June 07, 2009, 10:35:40 PM »
Dearest Father Deacon Lance,


Then why did she die, since she was free of original sin?

Since, according to the IC, she was created full of the graces of sinlessness since the first moment of her existence, when did she have the time to exercise that free-will?

She remained subject to the laws of nature just as her Son voluntarily subjected himself to them for our sake.

How does being free of sin interfere with free will?  Adam and Eve were free of sin before the fall and it did not interfere with theirs.
This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread.  Brother Isa did not have a response back then.  He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

the future is now.  I've already responded.  I'll repeat the response now.

The response was to this claim:
Her free-will response to the Graces of sinlessness PRIOR to the Annunciation were the cause of her being given the Graces she received AT the Annunciation.

There is no free will response to the IC.  The IC interferes as, unlike the Annunciation and Incarnation, there is no moment to exercise free will: she is simply from the moment of her conception/creation/existence whatever, she is "sinless" by divine fiat, not any fiat of her own.  And if God could so create her, and were it fitting that He so do, it would be fitting that He similarly save ALL the progeny of Adam and Eve likewise.  Potuit, decuit ergo fecit.
Already addressed sufficiently during my past discussion with brother Mina. You did not respond back then; you cannot respond now. You're at point #8 of your typical method of arguing.

Quote
If she were sinless, as has been brought up many a time, death would have no hold on her by nature, not by her Son's resurrection.  She would not die.
Already addressed sufficiently in my past discussion with brother Mina.  You did not respond back then; you cannot respond now. You're at point #8 of your tactic right now.

I'll pray for you.

Blessings

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #860 on: June 07, 2009, 10:49:22 PM »
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin. Rather she concieved and created like Adam and Eve were in the Garden with no defects in their soul. Thus Mary, pre-fallen Adam, and pre-fallen eve all were created alike with God's grace in them. We also know that being created in such a way did stop Adam nor Eve form maintaining a free will. In fact we see that Eve does a free will and uses it to disobdy God. Adam follows in like manner.
The difference between Adam/Eve and Mary is that Mary chose, by the Grace of God, to obey God and remain in his friendship. The opposite of what Adam and Eve chose. We can clearly see that Adam and Eve had free will and used it in one way, and Mary had free will and she chose to use it in another.

Well, I can understand how Eastern Orthodox consider the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to limit the meaning of free will for Mary. For an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Mary was granted God's favor, the indwelling/overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, the motherhood of the Word, sanctifying grace, and the status as Panagia all because of her autonomous choice to cooperate with God. On the other hand, for a Roman Catholic, Mary was granted many if not all of these privileges because of God's predestining choice of her. Thus, at the very least, the awesomeness of Mary's will is somewhat shortchanged.

But I understand your complaint and recognize your defense of Mary's free will in the context of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #861 on: June 07, 2009, 10:49:37 PM »
[Still, I'll repeat, no one has addressed the numerous other quotes from Eastern Fathers that EXPLICITLY assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

You have conquered us, O noble Egyptian.   Nobody can refute your arguments.  

It is true, from the moment that the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854 the Orthodox set to work to remove all the texts in the liturgical services for the Feast which taught the Immaculate Conception.   While there were riots against the changes in Athens and Moscow from the faithful, the hierarchs did their work and removed all IC references from the liturgical deposit and the hymnography.  In a few short years in the 1850s and 1860s we succeeded in obliterating our former teaching of the IC.

For a Church which is so disorganised and where lack of communication between Churches is the order of the day,  we managed the impossible, the global obliteration of our 2000 year old teaching.  Amazing.   ;D
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 10:51:37 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #862 on: June 07, 2009, 10:56:09 PM »


I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.

Oh my, I would never place myself on equal status with Our Most Holy Mother. The ark of the new covenant, most holy and pure, Sancta Maria.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #863 on: June 07, 2009, 10:59:04 PM »
This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread.  Brother Isa did not have a response back then.  He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

Way back then did you not promise to present us with proof from Saint Gregory Palamas that he believed in the Immaculate Conception.  You never did produce it, you know.  Any chance...?
I actually did, but you might have missed it (I actually found the text of the sermon and presented it here, remember?).  IIRC, one of the main points was St. Palamas' statement that Mary's NATURE was unsullied even since her conception by St. Anne (he even says that holiness reached its perfection in Sts. Hannah and Eliakim for the very purpose of conceiving Mary).  That is a great difference from merely saying that Mary never sinned.  St. Palamas stated that her VERY NATURE was NEVER blemished in any way (i.e., UNsullied).

You mean this?
And why is it so hard for some EO to take a CONTEXTUAL reading of a text, instead of little snippets.  You do that a lot, if not all the time.

I would paste more of the context, but since St. Gregory expounds quite a bit on the paragraph above, there is the question of length. But for example, between your prooftext "unsulied nature" below and the paragraph quoted above:

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.

How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?

Btw:
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?

Quote
 But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
The Armenians do NOT believe in the IC, as a dogma or as a theologoumenon. I have already quoted from their Catholicos' OFFICIAL (you raised the issue of "non-official Catholic sites") on that issue.  Please quote SOMETHING to make your case.

It is also rather odd for you to worry about the Armenians being heretics in the OO communion, when you have been downplaying disbelief in the IC as grounds for heresy in your communion.

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

Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Use of that title is still a little, shall we say, uncommon among them.

Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration.

So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep.

Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns.

So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.
You would think that with all those proof texts for the IC laying around in the East, someone would have come up with it.  And yet that didn't happen: England had to dream it up, export it to the Vatican, who imposed it on the East.  No Copt, no Armenian, no Syriac, no Assyrian, no Ruumi believed the IC until they submitted to Rome.  Since they continue to say the same liturgical texts as their ancestors, it seems to reason their ancestors didn't see the IC in there either.


Quote
BTW, I made an important addition/revision to my prior post to you. It brings up a very important matter I would ask that you consider, so please read it.  Thanks.

Maybe I'm missing it.  Which post?
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 ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #864 on: June 07, 2009, 11:00:35 PM »

You have conquered us, O noble Egyptian.   Nobody can refute your arguments.  

It is true, from the moment that the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854 the Orthodox set to work to remove all the texts in the liturgical services for the Feast which taught the Immaculate Conception.   While there were riots against the changes in Athens and Moscow from the
It was defined, not proclaimed. There is a big difference.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #865 on: June 07, 2009, 11:01:51 PM »
[Still, I'll repeat, no one has addressed the numerous other quotes from Eastern Fathers that EXPLICITLY assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

You have conquered us, O noble Egyptian.   Nobody can refute your arguments.  

It is true, from the moment that the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854 the Orthodox set to work to remove all the texts in the liturgical services for the Feast which taught the Immaculate Conception.   While there were riots against the changes in Athens and Moscow from the faithful, the hierarchs did their work and removed all IC references from the liturgical deposit and the hymnography.  In a few short years in the 1850s and 1860s we succeeded in obliterating our former teaching of the IC.

For a Church which is so disorganised and where lack of communication between Churches is the order of the day,  we managed the impossible, the global obliteration of our 2000 year old teaching.  Amazing.   ;D
Nah! I wouldn't say you obliterated it.  There are those - the remnant  ;D - who still admit it is a legitimate theolgoumenon.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #866 on: June 07, 2009, 11:16:10 PM »
[Still, I'll repeat, no one has addressed the numerous other quotes from Eastern Fathers that EXPLICITLY assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

You have conquered us, O noble Egyptian.   Nobody can refute your arguments.  

It is true, from the moment that the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854 the Orthodox set to work to remove all the texts in the liturgical services for the Feast which taught the Immaculate Conception.   While there were riots against the changes in Athens and Moscow from the faithful, the hierarchs did their work and removed all IC references from the liturgical deposit and the hymnography.  In a few short years in the 1850s and 1860s we succeeded in obliterating our former teaching of the IC.

For a Church which is so disorganised and where lack of communication between Churches is the order of the day,  we managed the impossible, the global obliteration of our 2000 year old teaching.  Amazing.   ;D
Nah! I wouldn't say you obliterated it.  There are those - the remnant  ;D - who still admit it is a legitimate theolgoumenon.

Yes, like Salpy:
If you want to go to CAF, there is a father deacon there named Diak who has had contact with an Armenian priest who personally believes in the IC.  As your Catholicos states, it is not an article of Faith in your Church, but that's all he says about it.

So there's this discussion forum where someone says they know a priest who believes in IC.  That means nothing.  I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant I know who says they know someone who knows a priest who forbids people from reading the Bible. 

Even if this "father deacon" (obviously not an Armenian Orthodox--we don't call our deacons that) really does know a priest who said he believes that, it means nothing.  One priest doesn't represent the Church.  Also, as I said, a lot of Armenians mistake the phrase "Immaculate Conception" to mean something other than what it means in your Church.  Indeed the title of this thread indicates that it is misunderstood by many.  Especially with non-native speakers of English, you get people who think it means the Mother of God was conceived in a miraculous way (as in her parents were very old and infertile,) or they think it means the Virgin Birth of Christ.  I wasn't there for the conversation that took place between this deacon and the priest.  So I can't tell you what he really believes.  All I know is that this is not a teaching of our Church. 

Quote
Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" precludes anyone believing it, albeit as theologoumenon (i.e., not as an article of Faith)?

My problem here is that I don't know what the word "theologoumenon" means.  I've seen the word a few times since I have been here, but I don't know what it is.  I've only seen it used by EO's.

With regard to what individual Armenians believe, there are Armenians out there who believe in just about anything.  There was a guy at my church a few years ago who got involved with some Oneness Pentecostals and then started going around telling people that it is acceptable in the Armenian Church to not believe in the Holy Trinity.  I am also sure that the Armenian Vassula crowd believes in IC, as well as all the other Latin innovations that my Church has rejected over the centuries.  One of those ladies likes to go around telling people that the Pope in Rome is the "vicar of Christ," whatever that means.

Is that what theologoumenon means?  Is it a fancy Greek word for BS?  If that is the case, then yes, it's theologoumenon.  What it is not, however, is a legitimate teaching of my Church.
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 #867 on: June 07, 2009, 11:16:51 PM »
You mean 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.

How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?
Oh! Sorry! St. Palamas is obviously referring to one who is without sin NATURALLY - i.e., not by Grace.  Your interpretation obviously contradicts the constant teaching of the Church on the sinlessness of Mary, St. Jeremiah, and St. John the Forerunner.  I didn't respond only because I thought any apostolic Christian reading that would immediately see the error of your interpretation.


Btw:
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?[/quote]
No. Like I said, the only ones I could find from Medieval times were from the English Church. I was hoping to find one from the Eastern Church, but have not.

Quote
Quote
 But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
Nope.  You're referring to statements that give to Mary some magnanimous titles.  I was referrring, as I stated, to the quotes I gave that EXPLICITLY state that Mary was formed or created without stain.  I believe brother Papist even gave one from your favorite Saint, too.  No responses then, no responses now.

Quote
BTW, I made an important addition/revision to my prior post to you. It brings up a very important matter I would ask that you consider, so please read it.  Thanks.

Maybe I'm missing it.  Which post?
[/quote]
The post to Father Ambrose directly before the one from which you got my quote above.

I'll pray for you.

Blessings

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #868 on: June 07, 2009, 11:18:26 PM »

You have conquered us, O noble Egyptian.   Nobody can refute your arguments.  

It is true, from the moment that the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854 the Orthodox set to work to remove all the texts in the liturgical services for the Feast which taught the Immaculate Conception.   While there were riots against the changes in Athens and Moscow from the
It was defined, not proclaimed. There is a big difference.

For the point Father is making, no, there's not.  There is no Eastern proclamation for the IC as defined by the Vatican.
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 #869 on: June 07, 2009, 11:20:44 PM »
Yes, like Salpy:
Sister Salpy is OO, not EO.  You know me well enough to know that when I way "Eastern" I am NOT talking about the Oriental Tradition or Churches.  In any case, I stand by my prior comments on the matter regarding the Armenians.  Sister Salpy has not produced one iota of evidence that the teaching of the IC is a heresy.

 

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #870 on: June 07, 2009, 11:22:51 PM »
It was defined, not proclaimed. There is a big difference.

The definition was promulgated/proclaimed.   ;)

"Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God."

http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm



Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #871 on: June 07, 2009, 11:34:17 PM »
You mean 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.

How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?
Oh! Sorry! St. Palamas is obviously referring to one who is without sin NATURALLY - i.e., not by Grace.

If it is so obvious, you of course can quote St. Gregory's words to that effect, no?

Quote
 Your interpretation obviously contradicts the constant teaching of the Church on the sinlessness of Mary, St. Jeremiah,

Sinless of Jeremiah?  Another novelty? I've never heard that one.


Quote
and St. John the Forerunner.

Don't recall that one either, though the Gospel tells us that his parents were "blameless" and "rigthteous before God."

Of course, now you have a problem as the definition (i.e. the part that supposed is without question is "infallible) of Ineffibilis Deus says "by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God," (singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio) the Theotokos was IC'd.  If SS. Jeremiah and John are in on that, it's not singular now, is it?

Quote
 I didn't respond only because I thought any apostolic Christian reading that would immediately see the error of your interpretation.

Ditto.

Quote
Quote
Btw:
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?
No. Like I said, the only ones I could find from Medieval times were from the English Church. I was hoping to find one from the Eastern Church, but have not.

Hmmmm.  And what do we conclude from that.....

Quote
Quote
Quote
But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
Nope.  You're referring to statements that give to Mary some magnanimous titles.  I was referrring, as I stated, to the quotes I gave that EXPLICITLY state that Mary was formed or created without stain.  I believe brother Papist even gave one from your favorite Saint, too.  No responses then, no responses now.

I think that last part is supposed to be in green.

No, I think it more explidient (i.e. less a waste of my time) to point out that all the East never saw the IC in all those quotes that Vatican sees, especially after the English translations.  And then there's that fact that the Conception of St. Anne never became a major feast day, as opposed to the Birth, Entry into the Temple, Conception/Annunciation and the Dormition.

As Father Ambrose points out, it is amazing how us EO, OO and even Nestorians got together and wipped the IC from our collective ecclesiastical memory.  A conspiracy not even Dan Brown would imagine....
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 11:35:15 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #872 on: June 07, 2009, 11:35:00 PM »
It was defined, not proclaimed. There is a big difference.

The definition was promulgated/proclaimed.   ;)

"Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God."

http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm



is the word 'definition' synonymous with 'innovation'? ;)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 11:36:04 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #873 on: June 07, 2009, 11:38:39 PM »
It was defined, not proclaimed. There is a big difference.

The definition was promulgated/proclaimed.   ;)

"Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God."

http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm



is the word 'definition' synonymous with 'innovation'?

LOL.  It is when it is defining something new.

The Faith was delievered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).  We don't have the doctrinal drift called "development of doctrine" by others.
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 #874 on: June 07, 2009, 11:57:28 PM »
You mean 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.

How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?
Oh! Sorry! St. Palamas is obviously referring to one who is without sin NATURALLY - i.e., not by Grace.

If it is so obvious, you of course can quote St. Gregory's words to that effect, no?
Yes, he stated that Mary's very nature was unsullied by sin THROUGH GRACE.

Quote
Quote
 Your interpretation obviously contradicts the constant teaching of the Church on the sinlessness of Mary, St. Jeremiah,

Sinless of Jeremiah?  Another novelty? I've never heard that one.
Oh! I guess that is only a Tradition in the Oriental Church.  That's from St. Athanasius.


Quote
Quote
and St. John the Forerunner.

Don't recall that one either, though the Gospel tells us that his parents were "blameless" and "rigthteous before God."
Same with this one.  The Oriental Tradition is from St. Athanasius.  Both are contained in his writing against the Arians (I think it's Book 3).

Quote
Of course, now you have a problem as the definition (i.e. the part that supposed is without question is "infallible) of Ineffibilis Deus says "by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God," (singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio) the Theotokos was IC'd.  If SS. Jeremiah and John are in on that, it's not singular now, is it?
The singular grace was that she received it at conception.  St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the grace of sinlessness in their mother's womb.

Quote
Quote
 I didn't respond only because I thought any apostolic Christian reading that would immediately see the error of your interpretation.

Ditto.
You're responding now, and I've refuted you.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Btw:
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?
No. Like I said, the only ones I could find from Medieval times were from the English Church. I was hoping to find one from the Eastern Church, but have not.

Hmmmm.  And what do we conclude from that.....
As Father Ambrose stated, it's possible your Church might have gone around destroying the manuscripts in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the teaching is still evident in other sermons (such as the one we discussed from St. Palamas.  Another is the one from St. Andrew of Crete that I quoted earlier - and there are others as well as other proofs [such as the existence of a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Ukraine]).  I don't think the EO would do that, and Fr. Ambrose I'm sure was joking around.  Maybe the simple answer is that the Sermons have never been translated and put on the Net.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
Nope.  You're referring to statements that give to Mary some magnanimous titles.  I was referrring, as I stated, to the quotes I gave that EXPLICITLY state that Mary was formed or created without stain.  I believe brother Papist even gave one from your favorite Saint, too.  No responses then, no responses now.

No, I think it more explidient (i.e. less a waste of my time)...[/quote]
"More expedient" doesn't equate to "true."  Would you like me to give you JUST A FEW of those quotes to see if you can rationalize them away just for the sake of "expedience?"

Blessings with prayers,
Marduk
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 11:58:08 PM by Mardukm »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #875 on: June 07, 2009, 11:59:02 PM »
Yes, like Salpy:
Sister Salpy is OO, not EO.  You know me well enough to know that when I way "Eastern" I am NOT talking about the Oriental Tradition or Churches.

Yes, I know that's a pet project of yours, claiming some alleged affinity between the OO's and the Latins.  Yet to seen it demonstrated.


Quote
 In any case, I stand by my prior comments on the matter regarding the Armenians.  Sister Salpy has not produced one iota of evidence that the teaching of the IC is a heresy.

She didn't have to.  I had already produced the evidence from the Catholicos' official site:
Dear brother Marc Hanna,

I notice you are an OO who has links to the Copts and Armenians. I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).  I'm not sure if you are more Coptic than Armenian in your sensibilities, but you should know that the Armenians generally accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, though not as a dogma.  Is that is why you are so polite about the matter. :)  You probably had/have to deal with the fact that Armenians accept the IC.
Their Catholicos doesn't (see below).
Quote
In any case, you have pointed out (quite logically, I might add, which is a very worthy OO trait :) ) that the designation of the Theotokos as ALL-HOLY and IMMACULATE according to the Fathers does not necessary mean that she was in such wise from the moment of her conception.  However, aside from the fact that the Armenians do admit the holiness and purity of Mary from the moment of her conception, please consider this logical argument:

The prophets are generally set apart from God for their holy purpose from the womb of their mothers.  This is evident everywhere in Scripture.  Orthodox and Catholics generally both recognize that St. John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb.  These are prophets, brother, and their sanctification from their time in their mother's womb indicates the specialness of God's purpose for them.  Now I ask you this:  HOW MUCH MORE FOR SHE WHO WAS DESTINED FROM THE FIRST MOMENT OF HER BEING TO BE THE NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT TO BE MADE PURE FROM HER MOTHER'S WOMB?
"potuit, decuit ergo fecit" was a non-proof in the 13th cent.  It hasn't been proven in 8 centuries.

Quote
Meditate on the words of the Liturgy for the Feast of the Conception (December 9), and you will see how fitting it is for the Mother of God to have been given all the graces of the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception.  Actually, you do not have to do much meditating.  The Liturgy is quite explicit that she was given such graces from the moment of her conception.

Then why no celebration in the first millenium?

The Website of the Catholicos of the Armenians has a different explanation:
Quote
This commemoration takes place on December 9, and has come to be observed by the Eastern churches only during recent centuries. The Catholic Church observes it on December 8. The feast is observed regardless of the day on which it falls. In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church declared as a doctrine of faith that St. Mary's conception was immaculate, thoroughly free of the original sin of Adam. However, our church and other churches do not accept articles of faith discovered or developed during recent times, and whatever is exclusively Christ God's cannot be attributed to any human creature.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=7762&pid=7736&lng=en

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

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

Again, consistent misrepresentations of what I stated.  I won't go so far as to call you a liar (like sister Salpy does when she's mad).  I HAVE NEVER stated, as you claim, that "the Armenians teach it." All I've ever stated is that it is a theologoumenon in the Armenian Church

Theologoumen=something we don't teach but believe.  LOL.  Now does make the word into a fancy term for BS, as Salpy astutely noted.

Is that what theologoumenon means?  Is it a fancy Greek word for BS?  If that is the case, then yes, it's theologoumenon.  What it is not, however, is a legitimate teaching of my Church.
Theologoumenon, simply put, means that members are free to believe it or reject it  Theologoumenon means that it is not an article of Faith.  Theologoumenon also means, however, that the belief is NOT CONDEMNED.

The IC has been condemened ever since the idea appeared, even by the Latins.


Quote
(while fully admitting it is not a belief as far as the AMERICAN Armenian Church is concerned).

LOL.  Hedging, hedging, hedging.  My, my, the lengths of jesuitry.  I posted the statement on the IC from the Armenian Catholicos' website.  He's not in America, if you don't know, but Armenia.  Has been for the last, say, 17 centuries.

Yes, I know that you claim that he didn't mean what it said, but for those of us who follow lex orandi, lex credendi and say what we mean and mean what we say, he was crystal clear enough.

Btw, as a comparison of the Vatican's formula of union with the Armenians, see post:
Dear brother Isa,

So basically, you don't trust brother DerGhazar because of his ecumenical spirit.
LOL.  Because of his muddled ecclesiology.

The Catholicos of Armenia has a different view of Latin-Armenian relationships:
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=60&pid=10&lng=en
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:00:34 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #876 on: June 08, 2009, 12:07:24 AM »
is the word 'definition' synonymous with 'innovation'?

LOL.  It is when it is defining something new.

The Faith was delievered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).  We don't have the doctrinal drift called "development of doctrine" by others.
Like always, that's your opinion.. That is just 'begging the question'.  It depends entirely on the context, and that is not the case here. My case is simple; the sentence didn't included jargon denoting innovative beliefs, but an explanation of an existent belief.

 Development of doctrine should be another thread. It is not the topic of discussion here.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:09:51 AM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #877 on: June 08, 2009, 12:12:05 AM »
You mean 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.

How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?
Oh! Sorry! St. Palamas is obviously referring to one who is without sin NATURALLY - i.e., not by Grace.

If it is so obvious, you of course can quote St. Gregory's words to that effect, no?
Yes, he stated that Mary's very nature was unsullied by sin THROUGH GRACE.

"Except for God there is no one who is without sin, except those who are without sin by grace."

No, I missed that in the sermon.

Quote
Quote
Quote
 Your interpretation obviously contradicts the constant teaching of the Church on the sinlessness of Mary, St. Jeremiah,

Sinless of Jeremiah?  Another novelty? I've never heard that one.
Oh! I guess that is only a Tradition in the Oriental Church.  That's from St. Athanasius.

You wonted mind if I get that from someone in the Oriental Tradition, like Mina or Ekhristosanesti?

Btw, when do we celebrate the IC of St. Jeremiah?


Quote
Quote
Quote
and St. John the Forerunner.

Don't recall that one either, though the Gospel tells us that his parents were "blameless" and "rigthteous before God."
Same with this one.  The Oriental Tradition is from St. Athanasius.  Both are contained in his writing against the Arians (I think it's Book 3).

Mind providing the quote, or at least a sure reference?

Quote
Quote
Of course, now you have a problem as the definition (i.e. the part that supposed is without question is "infallible) of Ineffibilis Deus says "by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God," (singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio) the Theotokos was IC'd.  If SS. Jeremiah and John are in on that, it's not singular now, is it?
The singular grace was that she received it at conception.  St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the grace of sinlessness in their mother's womb.

Oh?  Where did the Theotokos' conception take place?

Quote
Quote
 
Quote
I didn't respond only because I thought any apostolic Christian reading that would immediately see the error of your interpretation.

Ditto.
You're responding now, and I've refuted you.

LOL.  I'll let the readers decide that.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Btw:
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?
No. Like I said, the only ones I could find from Medieval times were from the English Church. I was hoping to find one from the Eastern Church, but have not.

Hmmmm.  And what do we conclude from that.....
As Father Ambrose stated, it's possible your Church might have gone around destroying the manuscripts in the 19th century.
LOL.  By that time most of them had been carted away to the West.

Quote
Nevertheless, the teaching is still evident in other sermons (such as the one we discussed from St. Palamas.


You speak as if you proved it was in St. Gregory's speech.  It's not.

Quote
Another is the one from St. Andrew of Crete that I quoted earlier - and there are others as well as other proofs [such as the existence of a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Ukraine]).


Aren't the Ukrainians the largest group in the East who have submitted to the Vatican?

Quote
I don't think the EO would do that, and Fr. Ambrose I'm sure was joking around.  Maybe the simple answer is that the Sermons have never been translated and put on the Net.
I'll buy that, once you give some indication that any sermons were preached on the Conception of St. Anne.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
Nope.  You're referring to statements that give to Mary some magnanimous titles.  I was referrring, as I stated, to the quotes I gave that EXPLICITLY state that Mary was formed or created without stain.  I believe brother Papist even gave one from your favorite Saint, too.  No responses then, no responses now.

No, I think it more explidient (i.e. less a waste of my time)...
"More expedient" doesn't equate to "true."  Would you like me to give you JUST A FEW of those quotes to see if you can rationalize them away just for the sake of "expedience?"

Knock yourself out.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:15:07 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #878 on: June 08, 2009, 12:17:55 AM »
is the word 'definition' synonymous with 'innovation'?

LOL.  It is when it is defining something new.

The Faith was delievered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).  We don't have the doctrinal drift called "development of doctrine" by others.
Like always, that's your opinion.. That is just 'begging the question'.  It depends entirely on the context, and that is not the case here. My case is simple; the sentence didn't included jargon denoting innovative beliefs, but an explanation of an existent belief.

That hadn't, as easily proved by documentation (it was condemned as an innovation when it first appeared), existed for long.

 
Quote
Development of doctrine should be another thread. It is not the topic of discussion here.

But until the proclamation, or definition if you prefer, of the Co-Redemptriax and the Quasi-Incarnation of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception, it is the best example of "development of doctrine" as its development is documented.
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 #879 on: June 08, 2009, 12:21:24 AM »
Yes, like Salpy:
Sister Salpy is OO, not EO.  You know me well enough to know that when I way "Eastern" I am NOT talking about the Oriental Tradition or Churches.

Yes, I know that's a pet project of yours, claiming some alleged affinity between the OO's and the Latins.  Yet to seen it demonstrated.
Done at CAF.  Here, I just don't have the time right now.  In any case, much of Latin theology was derived from the Alexandrian Church.  Working towards understanding and unity is a much more holy endeavor than your own pet project of sowing discord and misunderstanding.

Quote
She didn't have to.  I had already produced the evidence from the Catholicos' official site:
You mean the one that MERELY states that it is "not an article of faith?"

The rest of your post doesn't really address the matter of misunderstanding the IC.  If you want to start a post elsewhere about the rest of the content of your post, I'll be happy to address them sometime next week.

Blessings with prayers,
Marduk

P.S. I must be off for a while.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #880 on: June 08, 2009, 12:26:07 AM »
Yes, like Salpy:
Sister Salpy is OO, not EO.  You know me well enough to know that when I way "Eastern" I am NOT talking about the Oriental Tradition or Churches.

Yes, I know that's a pet project of yours, claiming some alleged affinity between the OO's and the Latins.  Yet to seen it demonstrated.
Done at CAF.  Here, I just don't have the time right now.  In any case, much of Latin theology was derived from the Alexandrian Church.  Working towards understanding and unity is a much more holy endeavor than your own pet project of sowing discord and misunderstanding.

You mean clarifying what is really being sold?

Funny, never saw it proved at CAF, though I saw it questioned plenty.

Quote
Quote
She didn't have to.  I had already produced the evidence from the Catholicos' official site:
You mean the one that MERELY states that it is "not an article of faith?"

The rest of your post doesn't really address the matter of misunderstanding the IC.  If you want to start a post elsewhere about the rest of the content of your post, I'll be happy to address them sometime next week.

Alleged misunderstanding.  We understand it quite fine, and accordingly reject the IC.  Including the Armenians, no matter what Dcn. Ter has told you.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:26:55 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Dan-Romania

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
  • Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #881 on: June 08, 2009, 02:43:45 AM »
ialmisry i read some homilies of Palamas about Mary , he is as good as any catholic theologian ; I can see how he could easily believe the IC.I would dare to say that he might exalt Mary even more.While i didn`t read his view on her birth I can`t say clear but I incline to believe he was one of the IC fans.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #882 on: June 08, 2009, 04:18:02 AM »
As Father Ambrose stated, it's possible your Church might have gone around destroying the manuscripts in the 19th century.

O Lord, forgive me, I've done it again, used British irony with an American audience and found it goes right over their heads.  When will I learn not to speak British to non-Brits?




Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #883 on: June 08, 2009, 04:25:30 AM »
Development of doctrine should be another thread. It is not the topic of discussion here.

I would see development of doctrine as germane to this discussion though.   Obvioulsly there was a significant development of doctrine with the IC, from the outright denials by Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans (as well as Teresa of Avila's divine revelation of its falsity) to its present status as a dominant dogma.

And there is the reverse side of the coin - the degradation and destruction of doctrine, which some here believe has taken place in Orthodoxy where the IC was once believed and has now been abandoned.
 ???

Offline Riddikulus

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,788
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #884 on: June 08, 2009, 05:43:55 AM »
ialmisry i read some homilies of Palamas about Mary , he is as good as any catholic theologian ; I can see how he could easily believe the IC.I would dare to say that he might exalt Mary even more.While i didn`t read his view on her birth I can`t say clear but I incline to believe he was one of the IC fans.

...in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”. (4)

http://curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #885 on: June 08, 2009, 08:22:51 AM »
ialmisry i read some homilies of Palamas about Mary , he is as good as any catholic theologian ; I can see how he could easily believe the IC.I would dare to say that he might exalt Mary even more.While i didn`t read his view on her birth I can`t say clear but I incline to believe he was one of the IC fans.

...in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”. (4)

http://curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

Quote
reproduce it here once again because I am of the strong opinion that
IF we can resolve this particular issue between us, Catholic and
Orthodox, will find the rest or our differences beginning to melt as
though they were never there in any real way.

Alas, with development of doctrine the Vatican has already gone on to Co-Redemptrix and after that no doubt the Quasi-Incarnation of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception.  Do we want to go down that wide road with them?  It would seem the the Bernard and Bonventure's of the East were more successful.

The idea that is attributed to St. Gregory, that of the constant line of preparation in the line of Mary, is of course Orthodox. And many of the ideas expressed in the link are too.  However, there isn't much distinction being made between general All-Holiness, and the specific question of Ancestral Sin:the former does not necessarily mean the latter.

Some other interesting bits:
Quote
The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A
confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk
in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour
the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The
Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The
Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin
from the moment of her conception".

St. Peter and the Academy, as is well, know were censured for their Latin views: the catechism was approved only after the Council of Iasi revised it, over St. Peter's protests.

Polotsk, isn't that the headquarters of our friend Joasaphat Kuntsevych?

As for the Old Ritualists, somewhere here we had something on the claim that they believed in the IC.
Quote
More recently still,
Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the
"impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most
Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne." It was a theologian of the
Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about
As I posted above, there are those among the Vatican's followers promoting the conception of the Virgin without the intercourse of her parents.  Perhaps the Metropolitan DOES know what he is talking about.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 08:25:06 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Dan-Romania

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
  • Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #886 on: June 08, 2009, 08:57:05 AM »
ialmisry i read some homilies of Palamas about Mary , he is as good as any catholic theologian ; I can see how he could easily believe the IC.I would dare to say that he might exalt Mary even more.While i didn`t read his view on her birth I can`t say clear but I incline to believe he was one of the IC fans.

...in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”. (4)

http://curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

I can see how he could have said that , concerning the concepts he had about Mariology . Anyway, so what? There were catholics who were against it and orthodox who were pro-it and maybe still are today.For me , I think the truth is somewhere in the middle - East part :) . I don`t think that Mary was preserved by the stain of the original sin . I believe though that she was a chosen vessel , who found grace in front of God between all women. I think she was full of grace and qualities wich were completed at the Pentecost with the descending of the Holy Spirit . The shadow of Holy Spirit represents in my eyes purity , meekness such as a dove . The full of grace term represents in my eyes her virtues trough wich she earn favour with God.The term grace in romanian is "har" wich also means "gift" "harul de a face ceva" "the gift of making something" wich means "being talented on doing something".I think the graces Mary had were the virtues and gifts from God necessary for her to give birth to Jesus , but not even those graces were enough.That is the why Spirit needed to descend and over-shadow her and purify her.Mary received other graces and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.The spirit wich completed her virtues and dress her. This is my opinion , wich is not fixated , but somewere around here. I`m not 100%.
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
  • Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #887 on: June 08, 2009, 09:01:34 AM »
I just feel the IC is wrong , feel it this really strong .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #888 on: June 08, 2009, 04:08:46 PM »
Development of doctrine should be another thread. It is not the topic of discussion here.

I would see development of doctrine as germane to this discussion though.   Obvioulsly there was a significant development of doctrine with the IC, from the outright denials by Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans (as well as Teresa of Avila's divine revelation of its falsity) to its present status as a dominant dogma.

And there is the reverse side of the coin - the degradation and destruction of doctrine, which some here believe has taken place in Orthodoxy where the IC was once believed and has now been abandoned.
 ???
hehe that left me dumbfounded
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 04:13:25 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #889 on: June 09, 2009, 05:12:32 PM »

... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.

Well, I think it has somewhat to do with the RC/Augustinian conception of original sin, which conceives of at the very least "the stain of original sin" if not even "the inherited guilt of the sin of Adam". Because of this emphasis, I think the RC's figured that the Word could not have been conceived of flesh marred by the stain of original sin without Him somehow inheriting unholiness Himself. Given that such would have been simply impossible, and given somehow being bound to the Augustinian conception of original sin, I think the "logical conclusion" for them was that Mary was conceived exempt from original sin.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #890 on: June 09, 2009, 05:19:12 PM »


I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.

Oh my, I would never place myself on equal status with Our Most Holy Mother. The ark of the new covenant, most holy and pure, Sancta Maria.

IH is not talking about her person in general. You would place your own conception on equal status with that of Mary?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #891 on: June 09, 2009, 05:21:50 PM »

Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

Did Adam and Eve have this before the Fall?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #892 on: June 09, 2009, 05:28:01 PM »
... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.
The point is that she is the Holy Ark of the Covenant made of the "purest" and "finest" of material just as the true Ark. To a Catholic, the rejection of the Immacaulate Conception just doesn't add up.

Mary is Panagia (all-holy) in the tradition of rejecting the IC. She is rendered to be perfectly holy, it's just that this happens at a time later than her conception.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #893 on: June 09, 2009, 05:31:00 PM »
Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.

As with Papist you have an inaccurate understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology.   The absence of concupiscence (the result of the absence of original sin) in the Mother of God does not mean the elimination of *all* of her free will; I thought I had made that clear.   It means the absence of free will to sin.  Free will to sin can only be driven by concuspiscence and nothing else. She actually had no inner faculty which brought her free will into action with regard to choosing sin.

So the Mother of God had less free will than the ordinary human.


Ah, so what we really have going on here is that you don't understand Catholic theolgoy because you believe that the lack of concuspisence takes away Mary's ability to sin. I can provide two examples that prove that this premise is false: Adam and Eve. Neither were created with concupiscence but both freely chose to sin. The lack of concupisence in a person does not take away that person's ability to sin. Rather, it just means that they do not have the same attachment and drive to sin that you and I have. Thus, when Adam and Eve sinned it was so much graver because their wills were much more free than ours.

As much as I don't agree with the IC for other reasons, I recognize that you have provided an able defense here again. Lack of concupiscence does not necessarily mean inability to sin.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #894 on: June 09, 2009, 05:34:59 PM »
That is exactly what i taught IC is , and it is an heresy , you can`t prove it elsewhere . It was not a dogma of the Seven Councils , it was added by RCC , and became an dogma of RCC somewere in 19th century afaik . Let`s be serious the RCC has departed from the faith of Peter wich confessed  Jesus Christ and true faith . The rock on wich the Church was build .
Let's be serious. You making a silly arguement.
If she really is the "All holy", "Immaculate", "All pure" then the Immaculate concpetion makes much more sense than its rejection.

I don't see it. What about her status as all-holy makes the doctrine of her being conceived exempt of the ancestral curse more sensible than the doctrine of her being purified from it by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit later on in life before the conception of the Word?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 05:35:26 PM by deusveritasest »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #895 on: June 09, 2009, 05:41:06 PM »

Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.

I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #896 on: June 09, 2009, 05:42:17 PM »
Does anyone have any sayings from the fathers on this topic?  Just so we can all agree, let's limit these saying to those pre 5th century.

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).
Mary is free even from every stain of sin. That is every stain that is caused by sin. Original sin or concupiscence/the privation of Grace, is the stain left in us by the fall of man. Yet Mary is free even from this because she is free of every stain of sin.

I have never seen an EO recognize the language of "the stain of original sin".

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #897 on: June 09, 2009, 05:44:35 PM »


In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

This sentence seems to be a contradiction. If she was "All Holy" then she would have to be exempt from the corruption of original sins. Otherwise it seems that the title "holy" with out the word "all" would be more appropriate.

You missed out on the reality that he's talking about two different periods of time. "All-holy" is a reference to the current status of the Mother of God, not necessarily her status of when she was conceived.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #898 on: June 09, 2009, 05:46:21 PM »
I think we need to take a real look at perspective here.  When referring to Mary in the past tense we may refer to her as All-holy even if there was a time when she was not, just as Paul was not a saint when he persecuted the church and consented to Stephen's murder.  Furthermore, to be born in sin and to sin are two entirely different things, just as one can be tempted by the acts of another but not allow that temptation to become manifest as a sin within oneself, eg, Christ's 40 days in the desert where He was tempted by Satan but did not Himself commit a sinful act of being tempted in that He desired that which He was being tempted with.  Mary could have inherited corruption and still conducted herself her entire life without committing sin and be free from the stain of sin.

Papist, I like the quotes which you provided, they give us much reference to the venerability of our mother, but without the modern interpretations I don't see how they conclusively result in immaculate conception.
Of course I am going to have to disgree but we will start with agreeing. First, I agree that Paul, once a sinner, was made holy later. The same is true of Sts. Peter, Gregory, Seraphim, etc. ect. ect. But none of them is all Holy. What is the difference between them and our All Holy Mother? As, st. Ephraim says, that was not even a stain of any sin in her. Thus not even original sin could have touched her. Otherwise she be just another Holy one like the rest of the saints. Instead, she is the "All Holy", "All Immaculate", "All Pure". I think the IC is implicit in these titles and in what the Fathers have said, as I explained above.
Of course I do not begrudge those who disagree with me.

And this is why some EO believe that Mary never personally sinned. This is the pivotal difference.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #899 on: June 09, 2009, 05:48:47 PM »
remember St Gregory Nazianzen referred to Christ's humanity mixing with His Godhead, yet we don't condemn him as a heretic and we don't support such a theology.

I'd be interested in hearing more about what you're referencing here.