Author Topic: A question on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 123596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
A question on the Immaculate Conception
« on: September 11, 2009, 06:44:18 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,667
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 06:56:10 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

Yes, it is accurate.   A majority even of the late medeival Latin theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, did not uphold the immaculate conception.   Even in the 19th century there was still a large amount who held it to be innovation.   The pronouncement of the dogma was defended by also coming out with the new doctrine of the magesterium, i.e. that the teaching of the church progresses, and that its lack of belief in this was simply because it was not time for the magesterium to reveal it yet. 

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 07:27:41 PM »


Can anybody supply the Latin word used by Pope Saint Leo for "faultiness"?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2009, 03:17:00 AM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?" 

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 03:19:44 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2009, 03:36:43 AM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?" 

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2009, 04:41:57 AM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?

Yes, although the translation seems able to "swing both ways" I think this is the more likely one.  I think that this is supported by the argument from silence, because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2009, 06:05:54 PM »

because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

What makes you think that?

If this, perhaps, was a belief that was taken for granted at the time, what makes you think anyone would have thought it worth commenting on?
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline BoredMeeting

  • Loving the Life of a Council Member
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 722
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2009, 02:49:48 PM »
Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?
It is quite clear that it was. Nothing else makes any sense.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,696
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2009, 06:15:58 PM »
Grace and Peace,

Is this honestly the best place you could think of to ask a serious question regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I mean really do you believe that you are going to get an objective answer here?  :laugh:
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,239
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2009, 07:03:40 PM »
Grace and Peace,

Is this honestly the best place you could think of to ask a serious question regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I mean really do you believe that you are going to get an objective answer here?  :laugh:

Some people must think so, since the "Immaculate Conception" tag leads one to 2559+ posts on the subject here at OC.net - this doesn't include untagged threads, or ones where the tagger misspelled the name.
"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"
Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,379
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2009, 07:07:42 PM »
Grace and Peace,

Is this honestly the best place you could think of to ask a serious question regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I mean really do you believe that you are going to get an objective answer here?  :laugh:

Some people must think so, since the "Immaculate Conception" tag leads one to 2559+ posts on the subject here at OC.net - this doesn't include untagged threads, or ones where the tagger misspelled the name.
Its either objective or some people just like pointing their fingers and saying, "look, those aweful Catholics believe in the Immactulate Conception."  ;)
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,239
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2009, 07:14:38 PM »
Some people must think so, since the "Immaculate Conception" tag leads one to 2559+ posts on the subject here at OC.net - this doesn't include untagged threads, or ones where the tagger misspelled the name.
Its either objective or some people just like pointing their fingers and saying, "look, those aweful Catholics believe in the Immactulate Conception."  ;)

Aw, shucks.  If the threads weres about point fingers and saying "look at those awful Catholics" they would be 5,000+ posts, not 2,560.
"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"
Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,379
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2009, 07:31:25 PM »
Some people must think so, since the "Immaculate Conception" tag leads one to 2559+ posts on the subject here at OC.net - this doesn't include untagged threads, or ones where the tagger misspelled the name.
Its either objective or some people just like pointing their fingers and saying, "look, those aweful Catholics believe in the Immactulate Conception."  ;)

Aw, shucks.  If the threads weres about point fingers and saying "look at those awful Catholics" they would be 5,000+ posts, not 2,560.
LOL>  ;D
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,582
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2009, 08:24:28 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?

Yes, although the translation seems able to "swing both ways" I think this is the more likely one.  I think that this is supported by the argument from silence, because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

I tried to look at this phrase in context but the entire sentence does not make much sense. This is from http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml: "The LORD assumed His mother's nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours."

The latin words "nec in" are translated as "nor in" but there are other possibilities, aren't there? I thought, in my very limited (and ancient) exposure to Latin, that "nec" usually negated whatever followed it, so that can it be translated to say ""not in the case of"?

The straight translation provided by Father Ambrose is plausible but the entire sentence still does not make sense, to wit "The LORD assumed His mother's nature,  without fault: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours." In this instance "nec in" is problematic as the second phrase after the colon should have amplified the first instead of apparently contradicting it--may be something like "...without fault: the LORD Jesus Christ's wonderful birth, as He was born of the virgin womb, makes His nature unlike ours."

Offline John Larocque

  • Catholic
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 530
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2009, 09:48:28 PM »
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia noted that Cardinal Newman had problems with what some of the early Church fathers said on the Virgin Mary, including a reference to St. John Chrysostom.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

Quote
It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, "Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings", London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.

There's about 15 pages of material such as the following:

Quote
Thus on the whole, all three Fathers, St. Basil and St. Cyril explicitly, and St. Chrysostom by implication, consider that on occasions she was, or might be, exposed to violent temptation to doubt; but two Fathers consider that she actually did sin, though she sinned lightly; the sin being doubt, and on one occasion, according to St. Basil; and on two occasions, the sin being vainglory, according to St. Chrysostom. However, the strong language of these fathers is not directed against our Lady's person, so much as against her nature. They seem to have participated with Ambrose, Jerome, and other Fathers, in that low estimation of woman's nature which was general in their times

Sure enough the text of his book can be found online.  There's also a bit more here
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 09:50:29 PM by John Larocque »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2009, 10:57:46 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?

Yes, although the translation seems able to "swing both ways" I think this is the more likely one.  I think that this is supported by the argument from silence, because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

I tried to look at this phrase in context but the entire sentence does not make much sense. This is from http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml: "The LORD assumed His mother's nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours."

The latin words "nec in" are translated as "nor in" but there are other possibilities, aren't there? I thought, in my very limited (and ancient) exposure to Latin, that "nec" usually negated whatever followed it, so that can it be translated to say ""not in the case of"?

The straight translation provided by Father Ambrose is plausible but the entire sentence still does not make sense, to wit "The LORD assumed His mother's nature,  without fault: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours." In this instance "nec in" is problematic as the second phrase after the colon should have amplified the first instead of apparently contradicting it--may be something like "...without fault: the LORD Jesus Christ's wonderful birth, as He was born of the virgin womb, makes His nature unlike ours."

You're missing a key point here. Whether the grammar indicates that the nature is unlike ours or if it does not is actually determined by the presence of absence of the "nor". Given the translation as it is, it is saying that Christ's nature is not unlike ours. Given the phrasing you suggested at the end of your post, the grammar would indicate that it is unlike ours.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Liz

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 989
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2009, 09:45:50 AM »
Grace and Peace,

Is this honestly the best place you could think of to ask a serious question regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I mean really do you believe that you are going to get an objective answer here?  :laugh:

This is remarkably similar to what someone replied when I first came on here with a serious question. In my humble opinion, it's a pretty patronizing and unhelpful thing to say, even in fun. What's wrong with non-objective, well-considered answers?

Btw, 'faultiness' could easily mean 'capacity to fail'. Mary was human and therefore capable of sin, even if she did not sin. 'Nec' can be translated 'and not' or 'and neither', and that's how it's being used in the above example.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 09:48:20 AM by Liz »

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2009, 02:08:08 PM »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2009, 05:30:56 PM »
I am interested to see Orthodox reaction against this article:

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-3/


To get a "handle" on this article we have to know something of the quite unique life and personality of its author, Fr Lev Gillet.  Fr Gillet was one of the rare pioneering converts from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy in the 1920s nearly all of whom were eccentrics in one way or another.  He retained all his life a strong love for both Western and Eastern traditions and monasticism in particular.   He was sometimes accused of not truly converting to Orthodoxy but of being a Roman Catholic subversive within Orthodoxy: this was not true.

To read a brief life of this rather extraordinary convert monk...

http://www.jacwell.org/spring_summer2000/father_lev_gillet.htm

Memory Eternal, Fr Lev!



Offline Dan-Romania

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
  • Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2009, 11:17:18 AM »
non culpa , means without fault; i don`t see how non culpa could be translated as faultiness;
This user no longer posts here.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2010, 11:47:47 AM »
Grace and Peace,

Is this honestly the best place you could think of to ask a serious question regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I mean really do you believe that you are going to get an objective answer here?  :laugh:
An Orthodox one.
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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2010, 01:45:57 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation. 

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?

Yes, although the translation seems able to "swing both ways" I think this is the more likely one.  I think that this is supported by the argument from silence, because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

I tried to look at this phrase in context but the entire sentence does not make much sense. This is from http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml: "The LORD assumed His mother's nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours."

The latin words "nec in" are translated as "nor in" but there are other possibilities, aren't there? I thought, in my very limited (and ancient) exposure to Latin, that "nec" usually negated whatever followed it, so that can it be translated to say ""not in the case of"?

The straight translation provided by Father Ambrose is plausible but the entire sentence still does not make sense, to wit "The LORD assumed His mother's nature,  without fault: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours." In this instance "nec in" is problematic as the second phrase after the colon should have amplified the first instead of apparently contradicting it--may be something like "...without fault: the LORD Jesus Christ's wonderful birth, as He was born of the virgin womb, makes His nature unlike ours."

You're missing a key point here. Whether the grammar indicates that the nature is unlike ours or if it does not is actually determined by the presence of absence of the "nor". Given the translation as it is, it is saying that Christ's nature is not unlike ours. Given the phrasing you suggested at the end of your post, the grammar would indicate that it is unlike ours.

The key points that everyone generally misses, even Catholics is that the "stain" of original sin is understood as the weakening of the will and the darkening of the intellect.

So that when the Virgin is conceived [when her personhood comes into being] she enters into being possessed of mankind's original integrity of will and intellect/nous.

As to the rest of her nature it remains human and subject to all post lapsarian weaknesses.

The Catholic teaching on the human AND the divine natures of the Christ is that they are perfect; unlike his mother's nature Jesus's human nature is perfect. 

In that way Jesus CHOOSES to die; His is a GENUINELY and ACCURATELY voluntary passion, and not just something that would eventually happen to him in any event.  THIS is what Leo is referring to in the Tome.

You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 

You might consider what I say above for a few seconds before you dump it.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2010, 08:18:06 PM »


You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 
Christ is Risen, Alleluia

I hope not!  In the eyes of Catholics the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand - Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, Universal Pontifical Jurisdiction.  :laugh:

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2010, 08:38:41 PM »


You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 
Christ is Risen, Alleluia

I hope not!  In the eyes of Catholics the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand - Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, Universal Pontifical Jurisdiction.  :laugh:

There's most likely more than one explanation for the firm refusal to actually look at the formal teaching.

I'll let you name them.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2010, 08:59:50 PM »


You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 
Christ is Risen, Alleluia

I hope not!  In the eyes of Catholics the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand - Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, Universal Pontifical Jurisdiction.  :laugh:

There's most likely more than one explanation for the firm refusal to actually look at the formal teaching.

Dear Mary,

My apologies, dear sister.  Of course I did not mean to include you in "In the eyes of Catholics..."   Since you are yourself a Byzantine Catholic I realise that your theology is Orthodox and that Byzantine Catholics are as mystified by some aspects of Roman Catholic theology as are the Orthodox.   :laugh:

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2010, 09:23:18 PM »


You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 
Christ is Risen, Alleluia

I hope not!  In the eyes of Catholics the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand - Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, Universal Pontifical Jurisdiction.  :laugh:

There's most likely more than one explanation for the firm refusal to actually look at the formal teaching.

Dear Mary,

My apologies, dear sister.  Of course I did not mean to include you in "In the eyes of Catholics..."   Since you are yourself a Byzantine Catholic I realise that your theology is Orthodox and that Byzantine Catholics are as mystified by some aspects of Roman Catholic theology as are the Orthodox.   :laugh:

My theology is Catholic.  And there are reasons for that too, and I have named some of them here.

I do understand the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and does not do to theology what Orthodoxy or some Orthodox claim it does. 

The sooner we find a way to agree on some of these things the sooner you will be able to say without mocking me "I realize that your theology is Orthodox"...and perhaps, you might even be able to accept me at the chalice.  I won't even need instructions on how to receive.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2010, 09:37:38 PM »

 The sooner we find a way to agree on some of these things the sooner you will be able to say without mocking me "I realize that your theology is Orthodox"...

I was not mocking you.  I know Byzantine Catholics who make efforts to maintain an Orthodox theology.  The trouble is that they are derailed and deflected by the pervading majority Roman Catholic theology and they are also undermined sometimes if they have clergy who are nominally "Byzantine" Catholic but have been in Roman Catholic seminaries and have, willy-nilly, a Roman Catholic outlook and approach.

Quote
and perhaps, you might even be able to accept me at the chalice.  I won't even need instructions on how to receive.

Yes, that will depend on probably two things.  Either 1) you move into Orthodoxy or 2) the Pope does and you accompany him.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,108
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2010, 09:48:32 PM »
I do understand the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and does not do to theology what Orthodoxy or some Orthodox claim it does.

You're simply revising the "catholic" view in the light of Orthodox Catholicism's criticisms. I'm getting so tired of this. First everyone was doing it with the filioque. Now everyone's doing it with the Immaculate Conception.

Go ahead and explain to me how you also don't believe in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, and how we've entirely misunderstood Papal prerogatives on this matter. Are you simply "in communion" with him but not subject to him?

Yes, I know, you're able to breath the fresh air above the dense fog of shallow polemics.  ::) Congratulations. The differences are real; they are not imagined. Your relativistic synthesis is the fantastical delusion.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 09:49:14 PM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2010, 10:40:12 PM »
I do understand the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and does not do to theology what Orthodoxy or some Orthodox claim it does.

You're simply revising the "catholic" view in the light of Orthodox Catholicism's criticisms. I'm getting so tired of this. First everyone was doing it with the filioque. Now everyone's doing it with the Immaculate Conception.

Go ahead and explain to me how you also don't believe in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, and how we've entirely misunderstood Papal prerogatives on this matter. Are you simply "in communion" with him but not subject to him?

Yes, I know, you're able to breath the fresh air above the dense fog of shallow polemics.  ::) Congratulations. The differences are real; they are not imagined. Your relativistic synthesis is the fantastical delusion.

I have given you the formal teaching of the Catholic Church on both purgation and the Immaculate Conception, and will happily point you to an Orthodox layman's teaching on the filioque.

None of it is revisionist or delusional.

Your note says far more about you than it does about the objective reality of Catholic teaching.

Mary
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 10:42:01 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2010, 10:55:24 PM »
I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"

This is from Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation? If so, then what is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

The Latin text of Pope Saint Leo doesn't really seem to support the English translation.  

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

"Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa.."

Oh. Are you thinking that the Latin says that "the Lord assumed His mother's nature, without fault" with no indication that it was speaking of her faultiness?

Yes, although the translation seems able to "swing both ways" I think this is the more likely one.  I think that this is supported by the argument from silence, because if Saint Leo had meant to say that the Mother of God had some "faultiness" there would have been some commentary about that from the bishops at Chalcedon, from other Fathers and theologians.

I tried to look at this phrase in context but the entire sentence does not make much sense. This is from http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml: "The LORD assumed His mother's nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours."

The latin words "nec in" are translated as "nor in" but there are other possibilities, aren't there? I thought, in my very limited (and ancient) exposure to Latin, that "nec" usually negated whatever followed it, so that can it be translated to say ""not in the case of"?

The straight translation provided by Father Ambrose is plausible but the entire sentence still does not make sense, to wit "The LORD assumed His mother's nature,  without fault: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the virgin's womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours." In this instance "nec in" is problematic as the second phrase after the colon should have amplified the first instead of apparently contradicting it--may be something like "...without fault: the LORD Jesus Christ's wonderful birth, as He was born of the virgin womb, makes His nature unlike ours."

You're missing a key point here. Whether the grammar indicates that the nature is unlike ours or if it does not is actually determined by the presence of absence of the "nor". Given the translation as it is, it is saying that Christ's nature is not unlike ours. Given the phrasing you suggested at the end of your post, the grammar would indicate that it is unlike ours.

The key points that everyone generally misses, even Catholics is that the "stain" of original sin is understood as the weakening of the will and the darkening of the intellect.

So that when the Virgin is conceived [when her personhood comes into being] she enters into being possessed of mankind's original integrity of will and intellect/nous.

As to the rest of her nature it remains human and subject to all post lapsarian weaknesses.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Quote

The Catholic teaching on the human AND the divine natures of the Christ is that they are perfect; unlike his mother's nature Jesus's human nature is perfect.  

In that way Jesus CHOOSES to die; His is a GENUINELY and ACCURATELY voluntary passion, and not just something that would eventually happen to him in any event.  THIS is what Leo is referring to in the Tome.

You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one.  

No.  We'll simply reject the IC for the innovation it is, and move on with our lives.


Quote
You might consider what I say above for a few seconds before you dump it.

M.
We've see it a couple times before:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.450.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.0.html

Some favorites of mine:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg328462/topicseen.html#msg328462
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg308413.html#msg308413
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 10:55:57 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 Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,108
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2010, 10:56:27 PM »
I have given you the formal teaching of the Catholic Church on both purgation and the Immaculate Conception, and will happily point you to an Orthodox layman's teaching on the filioque.

None of it is revisionist or delusional.

Your note says far more about you than it does about the objective reality of Catholic teaching.

You have given my your opinion on the matter, and nothing more. Your statements are not paraphrasing any sort of an official Vatican document, nor quoting a prominent theologian, nor anything else. It's your own personal formula; your own rationalization.

All of our posts reflect our own understanding, so it's not like you've "called me out" on anything. It's like saying: "What you've said is what you've said." Reminds me of Yoda's spiritual teachings. The Catechism of your church is about as "objective" a reality as the Vatican can muster, and it does not say what you just said.

My post reveals my irritation at the airiness of your posts, as if your somehow are above all the merely semantic babbling which has troubled hundreds of minds on both sides without cause. The solution is simple, if only we'd all listen. It's just so condescending and ridiculous. "Come, release your mind into Uniate bliss, where perfect harmony exists..."
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 10:59:40 PM by Alveus Lacuna »


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2010, 11:04:06 PM »


You guys will argue yourselves dizzy over this one. 
Christ is Risen, Alleluia

I hope not!  In the eyes of Catholics the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand - Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, Universal Pontifical Jurisdiction.  :laugh:

There's most likely more than one explanation for the firm refusal to actually look at the formal teaching.

Dear Mary,

My apologies, dear sister.  Of course I did not mean to include you in "In the eyes of Catholics..."   Since you are yourself a Byzantine Catholic I realise that your theology is Orthodox and that Byzantine Catholics are as mystified by some aspects of Roman Catholic theology as are the Orthodox.   :laugh:

My theology is Catholic. 

Not, in the sence of "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Quote
And there are reasons for that too, and I have named some of them here.

I do understand the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and does not do to theology what Orthodoxy or some Orthodox claim it does.
One can argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, and yet 2+2 still=4.


Quote
  The sooner we find a way to agree on some of these things the sooner you will be able to say without mocking me "I realize that your theology is Orthodox"...and perhaps, you might even be able to accept me at the chalice.  I won't even need instructions on how to receive.
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.
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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2010, 11:05:07 PM »
I have given you the formal teaching of the Catholic Church on both purgation and the Immaculate Conception, and will happily point you to an Orthodox layman's teaching on the filioque.

None of it is revisionist or delusional.

Your note says far more about you than it does about the objective reality of Catholic teaching.

You have given my your opinion on the matter, and nothing more. Your statements are not paraphrasing any sort of an official Vatican document, nor quoting a prominent theologian, nor anything else. It's your own personal formula; your own rationalization.

All of our posts reflect our own understanding, so it's not like you've "called me out" on anything. It's like saying: "What you've said is what you've said." Reminds me of Yoda's spiritual teachings. The Catechism of your church is about as "objective" a reality as the Vatican can muster, and it does not say what you just said.

My post reveals my irritation at the airiness of your posts, as if your somehow are above all the merely semantic babbling which has troubled hundreds of minds on both sides without cause. The solution is simple, if only we'd all listen. It's just so condescending and ridiculous. "Come, release your mind into Uniate bliss, where perfect harmony exists..."

 :laugh:  Just because you don't see it as part of the predictable formula does not make what I have said inaccurate or a figment of my own imagination.  You are a hoot!.

Yes.  I have formal training.

I have told you what the Catholic Church formally teaches about the stain of original sin and then by extension the meaning of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

Informing me that what I have said is a figment of my imagination only reveals the poverty of your own knowledge of Catholic teaching.

M.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 11:06:17 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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2010, 11:07:12 PM »
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.

Fortunately not all Orthodox faithful agree with you. 

M.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2010, 11:16:20 PM »
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.

Fortunately not all Orthodox faithful agree with you. 

M.

If they believed in the IC, they wouldn't be faithful to Orthodoxy. As we say on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy "Remove nothing, add nothing."
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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2010, 11:19:56 PM »
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.

Fortunately not all Orthodox faithful agree with you. 

M.

If they believed in the IC, they wouldn't be faithful to Orthodoxy. As we say on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy "Remove nothing, add nothing."

Well they commune in Orthodoxy, and they would beg to differ with you.  Apparently things have not changed on that score for the past thousand years.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2010, 11:30:26 PM »
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.

Fortunately not all Orthodox faithful agree with you. 

Sometimes we all need reminding that there is no Immaculate Conception for any of the earth-born save Jesus Christ.

The holy Mother of God was conceived in the same spiritual state as you and me, as the Dalai Lama and Pope Benedict XVI.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2010, 11:31:53 PM »
If you believe the IC, you are in strong need of catechesis.

Fortunately not all Orthodox faithful agree with you. 

M.

If they believed in the IC, they wouldn't be faithful to Orthodoxy. As we say on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy "Remove nothing, add nothing."

Well they commune in Orthodoxy,

So did Judas.

Quote
and they would beg to differ with you. 

They can differe with me all they like: they're only going to answer on how they differed from the Faith delievered once and for all to the saints.

Quote
Apparently things have not changed on that score for the past thousand years.
???
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: 39,586
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2010, 11:55:32 PM »
Back to the OP:

Gaddis and Price translate it: "There was taken from the mother of the Lord nature but not sin"
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA19&dq=acts+of+chalcedon+mother's+nature&hl=en&ei=t_bcS8JPgfQ13PH86Qc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
which would have some expectation that taking nature from her would include sin, were it not for the exception made, i.e. the Divine Son, not His mother.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 11:57:07 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 Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,108
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2010, 12:49:56 AM »
:laugh:  Just because you don't see it as part of the predictable formula does not make what I have said inaccurate or a figment of my own imagination.  You are a hoot!

Yes.  I have formal training.

I have told you what the Catholic Church formally teaches about the stain of original sin and then by extension the meaning of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

Informing me that what I have said is a figment of my imagination only reveals the poverty of your own knowledge of Catholic teaching.

Do you not see how ridiculous your comments are? "Oh, you're simply using that predicable old formula. Silly little traditionalist misunderstandings." (Pats me on the head while wistfully pitying my ignorance.)

Oh, and congratulations on your formal training as well. Are you aware that many of us have our M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s? We don't merely broadcast our training in a general way though, we display it by citing sources, backing assertions, you know, all of that satanic scholasticism.  ;)

You are right about my poverty. I don't know much of anything, and I'm a really big sinner. Pray for me.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 12:50:39 AM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2010, 07:48:54 AM »
:laugh:  Just because you don't see it as part of the predictable formula does not make what I have said inaccurate or a figment of my own imagination.  You are a hoot!

Yes.  I have formal training.

I have told you what the Catholic Church formally teaches about the stain of original sin and then by extension the meaning of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

Informing me that what I have said is a figment of my imagination only reveals the poverty of your own knowledge of Catholic teaching.

Do you not see how ridiculous your comments are? "Oh, you're simply using that predicable old formula. Silly little traditionalist misunderstandings." (Pats me on the head while wistfully pitying my ignorance.)

Oh, and congratulations on your formal training as well. Are you aware that many of us have our M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s? We don't merely broadcast our training in a general way though, we display it by citing sources, backing assertions, you know, all of that satanic scholasticism.  ;)

You are right about my poverty. I don't know much of anything, and I'm a really big sinner. Pray for me.

As I would hope you would pray for me.

As far as what I have said here about the stain of original sin and the Immaculate Conception, it is ancient teaching.  It is Catholic teaching.  It may sound unlike that to which you have become accustomed but that does not make me delusional. 

You see I don't care about my training either, but I will indeed repell all of your efforts to demean me as a woman with some intelligence and training by calling me delusional.  Do I have impressive credentials and degrees like you fellows can claim?  Not at all.  But I am well trained and formed in the faith by those who not only have great knowledge but who have consecrated their lives to monastic prayer and contemplation.

As our hierarchs come closer and closer to seeing and yielding the truths about these issues then there may come a time when you will have to change your habituated manner of thinking about things, as will many Catholics have to give up some of their perceptions and convictions about what "truth" is and how it works in our lives.

Whether or not the Immaculate Conception is an innovation is deeply disputed in Orthodoxy, whether you like that fact or not. 

You will not demean me here simply because you cannot stop the truth with mere assertions.

Mary


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2010, 08:16:07 AM »
Saint Joseph, the Immaculatus, Never Sinned. 

He, like his spouse, was cleansed of original sin not at his physical conception but at his spiritual conception.

In private revelations to Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil, the Virgin Mary appeared under the title of Our Lady of America, the Immaculate Virgin. On some occasions, Saint Joseph also appeared, and he spoke to her, saying:

“It is true my daughter, that immediately after my conception,
I was, through the future merits of Jesus and because of my
exceptional role of future Virgin-Father, cleansed from the stain
of original sin.”

http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/joseph-never-sinned.htm

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2010, 08:22:02 AM »

Whether or not the Immaculate Conception is an innovation is deeply disputed in Orthodoxy, whether you like that fact or not. 

You will not demean me here simply because you cannot stop the truth with mere assertions.
Christ is Risen!

Mary, to say that it is deeply disputed in Orthodoxy is in itself is merely an assertion.  I would say from my own reading that it attracts minimal attention in Orthodoxy.   Could you offer some references?