OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 11:49:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A question on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 97648 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1215 on: May 24, 2010, 03:17:52 PM »


"Russian Catholic Church": is Cross a Russian name?  Under the Melkites in Australia. Talk about convoluted.

Interesting, as the boldface contradicts your precious dogma.

The Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception clearly states that the Mother of God still must act in the conformation of her human will to the will of God, and that is clearly what is indicated in the text that you indicated.  She is saved by an anticipatory grace, not an overweening one.  

Yes, I am aware that the Vatican's forensics can divide, subdivide and subcategorize grace more than the Omnipresent has energies, but such acrobatics don't get around your own citation "Something had to come from within man," something which the IC snuffs out.

Quote
You are certainly free to impute an irresistible grace to Catholic Vatican Latin
fixed that for you
Quote
teaching but you're wrong to do so.

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 03:20:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #1216 on: May 24, 2010, 03:31:27 PM »

The bolded-face sentences about St Nicholas Cabasilas's understanding of the purity and sinlessness of the Theotokos and her decisive assent to God in the Annunciation raises what for me is the most interesting, and perhaps unanswerable, question--the mystery of grace and freedom in the life of the Theotokos.  Fr Cross insists that Cabasilas's understanding is not Pelagian, but how is it not Pelagian?  

The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity:  If God can conceive Mary immaculate, why doesn't he do so with everyone?  But this criticism can also be reversed and turned back on the Orthodox position:  If every human being since Adam has enjoyed the freedom to live the kind of purity and sinlessness as exemplified in Mary, why haven't they?  The popular answer is "They have freely chosen not to do so,"  but I find this answer inadequate.  It would seem to suggest that fallen humans, without baptism and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, really do have the power and freedom to save themselves, if only they would just work hard enough at the task.  Yet isn't this the Pelagian error?  

We look at the maiden Miriam and see her doing what nobody before her had been able to do, and even more remarkably, nobody after her has been able to do, despite the recreation of human nature in Christ and the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit.  Excepting Christ himself, Mary and Mary alone has been able to surrender her heart and soul to God wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and perfectly and to live an ascetical life of utter purity and perfect righteousness.  (St John the Baptist may have come close to the sinlessness of the Theotokos, yet Mary surpasses him, does she not?)  Yes, Mary was still mortal, and so she still needed a Savior to bring her into the immortality of resurrection, but apparently she did not need a Savior to save her from sin.  

So how is Mary not an exception?  If solidarity with sinful humanity is our decisive concern, then must not the Theotokos be a sinner like the rest of us, just as the Protestants contend?  This, I think, is the question posed to Orthodoxy by the Latin Church.      

I believe that the Orthodox understanding of synergism is often presented too simplistically, especially in popular presentations.  God, we are told, does not coerce anyone but rather respects the freedom of each individual.  We must freely cooperate with grace.  And Catholic theologians agree.  But when we say this, we also need to remember that God is not a creature; he is not an entity or being within the universe he has made.  He does not occupy the universe in any way (putting aside, for the moment, the mystery of the Incarnation).  God's free actions within the universe (however they are to be understood--and it's no easy matter conceptualizing what it even means to say that God acts within the universe) do not and cannot compete with the free actions of human creatures.  Divine agency does not interfere with human agency, precisely because the uncreated Creator utterly transcends the world he has made.  

At least as we typically understand causality, God is not the "cause" of my free actions.  I am the cause of my actions.  But God is the transcendent and uncreated source of my freedom.  God does not need to give me "space" for me to be free.  My freedom flows from his eternal creative act.  He is more present to me than I am to myself.  My freedom is not independent of God but reposes utterly upon God.  Because of God's creative and sustaining work, I am free from other creatures but I am never free from God.  My independence does not contradict my radical dependence upon God.  Similarly, when we speak of our cooperating with divine grace, we cannot think of this cooperation as being akin to the way we cooperate with other free agents.  It's not as if I and God are pulling the same rope.  That would bring the action of God down to the level of creatures.  If we give this matter more than just a few seconds thought, we will realize how easy it is for us to fall into the error of thinking of God as a god, as an entity (albeit an infinitely powerful one) within the universe.      

How does any of this relate to the issue we are now discussing?  It seems to me that one reason, perhaps the most important reason, the IC is dismissed is because of the preconception that divine grace and human freedom are mutually exclusive.  But perhaps the exact opposite is the truth!  Might it not be the case that I am most free when God by grace is directly acting in my life?  If this is true, then the extraordinary freedom and holiness of the Theotokos as described by St Nicholas Cabasilas, St Gregory Palamas, St John Damascene, and other Eastern saints can only be "explained" by divine grace.  Of course, nothing really is explained.  We are simply confronted by mystery.

Perhaps the real difference between East and West on this question is simply a matter of perspective--the East is looking at Mary from the human point of view and the West is looking at Mary from the divine point of view.  Just a thought.
Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #1217 on: May 24, 2010, 04:09:01 PM »

Quite frankly, I really don't see any worthwhile point in continuing the discussion on this thread. A clear stalemate was reached long ago. Both sides have repeatedly stated their respective views without any acceptable resolution. This matter is not likely to be satisfactorily resolved as long as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches retain their different theological positions regarding the Immaculate Conception.

In acknowledging this blatant fact, it seems as if this debate continues solely for the sake of non-productive argument, often conducted with a stunning absence of true Christian charity. As such, I find this never ending exchange a very wearisome waste of time and energy that would be better spent in devoutly practicing our own Faith to the best of our ability, rather than in fruitless attempts to convince others that our differing opinions are more valid than theirs. In the end, we won't be held responsible and accountable before God for what others choose to believe, but only for what each of us personally chooses to believe.

That having been said, I now return to my simple life of prayer, wishing all parties in this debate the great gift of abundant spiritual blessings from the Father of Lights!

"Nothing is so characteristically Christian as being a peacemaker. I cannot persuade myself that without offering love to others and peace towards all, I can be called a worthy servant of Jesus Christ." St. Basil the Great

"Instead of condemning others, strive to reach inner peace. Keep silent, refrain from judgment. This will raise you above the deadly arrows of slander, insult and outrage and will shield your glowing hearts against all evil." St. Seraphim of Sarov

As ever, a humble monk ~

Cosmos

Dear Father,

This is a wonderful post and superb advice.  I am going to follow your lead.

Peace to all!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1218 on: May 24, 2010, 04:29:18 PM »

Bump

A few of the contributors in this discussion have insisted that the Immaculate Conception, in its dogmatic expression, is dependent upon so-called scholastic constructs.

The following is an ostensibly Orthodox catechetical teaching. Can anyone tell me if this discussion and the definitions contained within are acceptable tenets of Orthodoxy?

If not can you point out what is not Orthodox?  

Also, and only if it is Orthodox,  could you tell me what you see as exceptional between this definition and Catholic teaching or so-called scholastic teaching or Augustinian teaching on original sin?

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

THE FALL

The biblical story of the Fall prefigures the entire tragic history of the human race. It shows us who we were and what we have become. It reveals that evil entered the world not by the will of God but by fault of humans who preferred diabolical deceit to divine commandment. From generation to generation the human race repeats Adam’s mistake in being beguiled by false values and forgetting the true ones — faith in God and verity to Him.

Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God. Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin. But neither could the devil force them to do evil. The sole responsibility for the Fall is borne by humans themselves, for they misused the freedom given to them.

What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God. The root of pride is egocenticity, the state of being turned in on oneself, self-love, lust for oneself. Before the Fall, God was the only object of the humans’ love; but then there appeared a value outside of God: the tree was suddenly seen to be ‘good for food’, ‘a delight to the eyes’, and something ‘to be desired’ (Gen.3:6). Thus the entire hierarchy of values collapsed: my own ‘I’ occupied the first place while the second was taken by the object of ‘my’ lust. No place has remained for God: He has been forgotten, driven from my life.

The forbidden fruit failed to bring happiness to the first people. On the contrary, they began to sense their own nakedness: they were ashamed and tried to hide from God. This awareness of one’s nakedness denotes the privation of the divine light-bearing garment that cloaked humans and defended them from the ‘knowledge of evil’. Adam’s first reaction after committing sin was burning sensation of shame. The second reaction was his desire to hide from the Creator. This shows that he had lost all notion of God’s omnipresence and would search for any place where God was ‘absent’.

However, this was not a total rupture with God. The Fall was not a complete abandonment: humans could repent and regain their former dignity. God goes out to find the fallen Adam; between the trees of Paradise He seeks him out asking ‘Where are you?’ (Gen.3:9). This humble wandering of God through Paradise prefigures Christ’s humility as revealed to us in the New Testament, the humility with which the Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. God has no need to go forth and look for Adam: He can call down from the heavens with a voice of thunder or shake the foundations of the earth. Yet He does not wish to be Adam’s judge, or his prosecutor. He still wants to count him as an equal and puts His hope in Adam’s repentance. But instead of repenting, Adam utters words of self-justification, laying the blame for everything on his wife: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen.3:12). In other words, ‘It was You who gave me a wife; it is You who is to blame’. In turn, Eve lays the blame for everything on the serpent.

The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts; while their body lost its original lightness and was transformed into heavy sinful flesh. After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life.

Not only humanity but also the entire world changed as a result of the Fall. The original harmony between people and nature had been broken; the elements had become hostile; storms, earthquakes and floods could destroy life. The earth would no longer provide everything of its own accord; it would have to be tilled ‘in the sweat of your face’, and would produce ‘thorns and thistles’. Even the animals would become the human being’s enemy: the serpent would ‘bruise his heel’ and other predators would attack him (Gen.3:14-19). All of creation would be subject to the ‘bondage of decay’. Together with humans it would now ‘wait for freedom’ from this bondage, since it did not submit to vanity voluntarily but through the fault of humanity (Rom.8:19-21).

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. They were guilty of pride and disobedience, while their son Cain committed fratricide. Cain’s descendants soon forgot about God and set about organizing their earthly existence. Cain himself ‘built a city’. One of his closest descendants was ‘the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle’; another was ‘the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe’; yet another was ‘the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron’ (Gen.4:17-22). The establishment of cities, cattle-breeding, music and other arts were thus passed onto humankind by Cain’s descendants as a surrogate of the lost happiness of Paradise.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

JESUS CHRIST, THE ‘NEW ADAM’

The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying (kenosis).

St Paul calls Christ the ‘second Adam’, contrasting Him with the ‘first’: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: ‘Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross’.

Few people accepted the second Adam or believed in Him when He down to earth. The Incarnate Jesus, Who suffered and was raised, became a ‘a stumbling block to Jews and folly [Greek, skandalon] to Gentiles’ (1 Cor.1:23). Declaring Himself to be God and making Himself equal to God, Jesus scandalize Jews and was accused in blasphemy. As to the Greeks, Christianity was folly for them because Greek thought sought a logical and rational explanation for everything; it was not within its power to know a suffering and dying God. For many centuries Greek wisdom built a temple to ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). It was incapable of understanding how an unknowable, incomprehensible, all-powerful, almighty, omniscient and omnipresent God could become a mortal, suffering, weak human person. A God, Who would be born of a Virgin, a God Who would be in swaddling clothes, Who would be put to sleep and be fed with milk: all of this seemed absurd to the Greeks.

Even among the Christians of the first centuries, the mystery of godmanhood was explained in a different ways. In the second century the Docetists claimed that Christ’s human nature was merely transparent: it only seemed that He suffered and died on the cross, while God in fact, being passionless, could not suffer at all. The Docetists considered all that was material and corporeal to be evil and could not concede that God had put on sinful and evil flesh, that He had united Himself with dust. The other extreme was that of Arianism which denied Christ’s Divinity and reduced the Son of God to the level of created being. How were extremes to be avoided and how was the Church to find a legitimate explanation for the mystery of Christ?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1219 on: May 24, 2010, 04:29:46 PM »

Bump

The bolded-face sentences about St Nicholas Cabasilas's understanding of the purity and sinlessness of the Theotokos and her decisive assent to God in the Annunciation raises what for me is the most interesting, and perhaps unanswerable, question--the mystery of grace and freedom in the life of the Theotokos.  Fr Cross insists that Cabasilas's understanding is not Pelagian, but how is it not Pelagian?  

The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity:  If God can conceive Mary immaculate, why doesn't he do so with everyone?  But this criticism can also be reversed and turned back on the Orthodox position:  If every human being since Adam has enjoyed the freedom to live the kind of purity and sinlessness as exemplified in Mary, why haven't they?  The popular answer is "They have freely chosen not to do so,"  but I find this answer inadequate.  It would seem to suggest that fallen humans, without baptism and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, really do have the power and freedom to save themselves, if only they would just work hard enough at the task.  Yet isn't this the Pelagian error?  

We look at the maiden Miriam and see her doing what nobody before her had been able to do, and even more remarkably, nobody after her has been able to do, despite the recreation of human nature in Christ and the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit.  Excepting Christ himself, Mary and Mary alone has been able to surrender her heart and soul to God wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and perfectly and to live an ascetical life of utter purity and perfect righteousness.  (St John the Baptist may have come close to the sinlessness of the Theotokos, yet Mary surpasses him, does she not?)  Yes, Mary was still mortal, and so she still needed a Savior to bring her into the immortality of resurrection, but apparently she did not need a Savior to save her from sin.  

So how is Mary not an exception?  If solidarity with sinful humanity is our decisive concern, then must not the Theotokos be a sinner like the rest of us, just as the Protestants contend?  This, I think, is the question posed to Orthodoxy by the Latin Church.      

I believe that the Orthodox understanding of synergism is often presented too simplistically, especially in popular presentations.  God, we are told, does not coerce anyone but rather respects the freedom of each individual.  We must freely cooperate with grace.  And Catholic theologians agree.  But when we say this, we also need to remember that God is not a creature; he is not an entity or being within the universe he has made.  He does not occupy the universe in any way (putting aside, for the moment, the mystery of the Incarnation).  God's free actions within the universe (however they are to be understood--and it's no easy matter conceptualizing what it even means to say that God acts within the universe) do not and cannot compete with the free actions of human creatures.  Divine agency does not interfere with human agency, precisely because the uncreated Creator utterly transcends the world he has made.  

At least as we typically understand causality, God is not the "cause" of my free actions.  I am the cause of my actions.  But God is the transcendent and uncreated source of my freedom.  God does not need to give me "space" for me to be free.  My freedom flows from his eternal creative act.  He is more present to me than I am to myself.  My freedom is not independent of God but reposes utterly upon God.  Because of God's creative and sustaining work, I am free from other creatures but I am never free from God.  My independence does not contradict my radical dependence upon God.  Similarly, when we speak of our cooperating with divine grace, we cannot think of this cooperation as being akin to the way we cooperate with other free agents.  It's not as if I and God are pulling the same rope.  That would bring the action of God down to the level of creatures.  If we give this matter more than just a few seconds thought, we will realize how easy it is for us to fall into the error of thinking of God as a god, as an entity (albeit an infinitely powerful one) within the universe.      

How does any of this relate to the issue we are now discussing?  It seems to me that one reason, perhaps the most important reason, the IC is dismissed is because of the preconception that divine grace and human freedom are mutually exclusive.  But perhaps the exact opposite is the truth!  Might it not be the case that I am most free when God by grace is directly acting in my life?  If this is true, then the extraordinary freedom and holiness of the Theotokos as described by St Nicholas Cabasilas, St Gregory Palamas, St John Damascene, and other Eastern saints can only be "explained" by divine grace.  Of course, nothing really is explained.  We are simply confronted by mystery.

Perhaps the real difference between East and West on this question is simply a matter of perspective--the East is looking at Mary from the human point of view and the West is looking at Mary from the divine point of view.  Just a thought.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1220 on: May 24, 2010, 05:27:58 PM »

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

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
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,217


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1221 on: May 24, 2010, 11:57:29 PM »

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg438381.html#msg438381

Quote
My goal in this was never to say that the east had defined a doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

That is one more of your unparalleled exaggerations, picked up and trumpeted by others.

But that does not make it true at all. 

I laid out the points in this discussion that I was trying to make and I laid them out explicitly and unless they have been removed by the management they are still here in the thread.

Pressing the point that Orthodoxy has had a doctrine of Immaculate Conception just like the papal Church was not my point at all. 

Suggesting strongly that there is a patristic witness that was followed by the west that originated in the east to the fulness of grace of the Theotokos from the moment of her becoming certainly was what I was doing.


According to this post, elijahmaria is now denying that she argued for the existence of a doctrine of Immaculate Conception in the Orthodox Church.

Below is a compilation of her posts (or relevant extracts from them) in this thread which clearly contradict this new view. Additional comments of mine are purely indicative and explanatory, not analytical. Other than this, I have allowed elijahmaria's own words speak for themselves:

Reply#42:
Quote
Whether or not the Immaculate Conception is an innovation is deeply disputed in Orthodoxy, whether you like that fact or not. 

#48: (on whether the IC is accepted among the Orthodox)
Quote
Only personal ones in my walking around and also in my interactions with some of the more low key and uncontentious folks I know on the Internet.    There are proportionally, in my own personal experience, more Orthodox people I know who accept the Immaculate Conception than there are those who say it is some sort of heretical or heterodox teaching. They are sorry that it was dogmatized without the participation of the east but they do not contest the content of the teaching.  They are Slavs and Greeks alike and they are not indifferent faithful at all.  They as intelligent questions so I know they are not mentally challenged.

#94:
Quote
As I said earlier, I find more cradle Orthodox who are sympathetic. And I don't even listen any more when I am told the Orthodox Church says this or that is heresy from the west.  That's all just personal opinion and the elevation of local councils to temporary universal status...

#105:
Quote
Liturgical Texts that Indicate the Uniqueness of the Immaculata:

Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.

(Here, EM reproduces liturgical text from the Orthodox vigils of the Nativity of the Mother of God and of the Entry into the Temple, attempting to show that these texts are evidence that the IC is part of Orthodox tradition)

#151:
Quote
It is apparent in the history of the two confessions, Catholic and Orthodox, that the Greeks and Slavs did not always reject the Immaculate Conception.  In fact while the theologians were fussing over details there was a great deal of popular acceptance that I still see today at least among the Slavs in my own lived experience.

#165:
Quote
And you still have not addressed any of the historical assertions in the documents I've presented that documented both the Greek and the Slavic belief in the Immaculate Conception. So if you can find data to support, however thinly, your own position, I am sure you can find the data referenced in those articles.  You do have access to all kinds of folks who help you with your research...or so you have mentioned.
(these documents quote various post-schism Orthodox figures purportedly supporting the IC)

#179:
EM reproduces an essay by Fr Casimir Kucharek, which contains this paragraph:

Quote
The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the “novel” doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

#547:
Quote
Not all of the following can be explained away as her virginity and as I have said before if the Orthodox Church wants to deny the immaculate conception then she really needs to do a re-write of some of these hymns:
(EM follows this by reproducing text from the Vigil to the Entry into the Temple feast, as she did in post #105)

#549
Quote
There was no need to mention a conception in these.  The implication is clear that she is all holy, most holy, more filled with the Holy Spirit than any other human being:

Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious
than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be
praised in song.

Her holiness is beyond that which is human.  She is extraordinary.
Put these hymns together with the evidences mentioned in many of the posts here from the Fathers and leaders of the early Church....
And you have a VERY difficult time saying that the teaching is absolutely false.

I don't care if there's no smoking gun...that says "conception". There was no smoking gun when the technical term "Trinity" came into being. There was no smoking gun when the technical term "Incarnation" came into being either. So there is precedent for defining things that had hitherto never been referenced in those precise terms before.

#665
(in response to LBK’s posting of the text for the Orthodox vigil for the Conception of the Mother of God)
Quote
If that text is seriously a part of the liturgy then that is a crying shame because it does not even accurately address the actual teaching of the Immaculate Conception but some perversion of the teaching that has no bearing on what I believe.

#671
Quote
I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously. 
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.
Like I said.  I'll hang with St. John Damascene. And don't forget boys, I am eastern Catholic and I use the same liturgical books you do...every day.
(Requests for EM to provide details on the origin /publication details of the Orthodox liturgical material she says she uses were met with hostile refusal)

#846
Quote
I have presented indicators that there are 20th century clergy, one of them who was Orthodox, who have indicated that there is a tradition stretching back hundreds of years prior to the western dogmatic constitution that attest to the spiritual purity of the Virgin that extends to the generation of the Theotokos from the inception of her being. 

#958
Quote
I appreciate the fact that you wish to defend the apparent rejection of the Immaculate Conception on the part of many Orthodox faithful, but it is pretty clear that there's little to nothing that has been written or discussed concerning the teaching on the part of Orthodoxy in any formal way.

#980
Quote
Nonetheless these hymns from the Feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos do stand in testimony against those arguments against the Immaculate Conception that would indicate that she was never filled with the Holy Spirit till the Annunciation.  It also mitigates against those who say that she was not filled with the Holy Spirit throughout her life but had to grow in holiness.  It also mitigates against those who argue that the Theotokos was not filled with the Holy Spirit till the angel brought her food in the Holy of Holies.

#1013
Quote
It is customary for the Vatican to contact Orthodox patriarchs when preparing to make a dogmation teaching.  The following is from Father Casimir's book again.  Note the concluding text in bold:

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. [Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie "L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale", p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas' (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception ("In nativitatem" [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; "In dormitionem" [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today ("De hypapante"; "De annuntiatione"; "De dormitione" [PG 151]; also "In Christi genealogiam" and "In praesentationem" [edit. K. Sophocles, "Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai", Athens, 1861]). Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the "Staroviery" (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. [Cf. N. Subbotin, "Materialy dlja istorii Roskola", Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p. 457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

(Later posts showed that the text of the bolded section did not at all correspond with the original document)

#1072
Quote
There are still many loose ends here in terms of the assertion that there have historically been Orthodox believers who are reported to have preached and taught the Immaculate Conception.

#1077
Quote
I have neither the language skills nor the material resources to do any of it.  But the references are there so I suspect that when the issue comes up formally, IF it ever comes up formally in our bilateral discussions all will become much more clear.  The credence I give to the sources comes directly from my interaction with cradle Orthodox who assure me that there is a history of the belief in Orthodoxy.

#1153
Quote
I don't see anywhere that universal Orthodoxy says that the Immaculate Conception is actually heretical...much less how it might be heretical. Generally when a Church names a heresy it explains how and then goes about correcting the errors. At least that is how it happens in these more civilized days. So I don't think there's solid proof yet of universal Orthodoxy calling the Immaculate Conception heresy.

(This statement was then disproved in post #1154)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 12:11:03 AM by LBK » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1222 on: May 25, 2010, 12:18:35 AM »


The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity


No, Father, I believe you are mistaken.  In their letter to Pope Leo XIII the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople term the Immaculate Conception an "heretical innovation" because it is only Christ who is conceived pure and immacuate.

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1223 on: May 25, 2010, 12:25:03 AM »

The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg438381.html#msg438381

Quote
My goal in this was never to say that the east had defined a doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

That is one more of your unparalleled exaggerations, picked up and trumpeted by others.

But that does not make it true at all. 

I laid out the points in this discussion that I was trying to make and I laid them out explicitly and unless they have been removed by the management they are still here in the thread.

Pressing the point that Orthodoxy has had a doctrine of Immaculate Conception just like the papal Church was not my point at all. 

Suggesting strongly that there is a patristic witness that was followed by the west that originated in the east to the fulness of grace of the Theotokos from the moment of her becoming certainly was what I was doing.


According to this post, elijahmaria is now denying that she argued for the existence of a doctrine of Immaculate Conception in the Orthodox Church.

Below is a compilation of her posts (or relevant extracts from them) in this thread which clearly contradict this new view. Additional comments of mine are purely indicative and explanatory, not analytical. Other than this, I have allowed elijahmaria's own words speak for themselves:

Reply#42:
Quote
Whether or not the Immaculate Conception is an innovation is deeply disputed in Orthodoxy, whether you like that fact or not. 

#48: (on whether the IC is accepted among the Orthodox)
Quote
Only personal ones in my walking around and also in my interactions with some of the more low key and uncontentious folks I know on the Internet.    There are proportionally, in my own personal experience, more Orthodox people I know who accept the Immaculate Conception than there are those who say it is some sort of heretical or heterodox teaching. They are sorry that it was dogmatized without the participation of the east but they do not contest the content of the teaching.  They are Slavs and Greeks alike and they are not indifferent faithful at all.  They as intelligent questions so I know they are not mentally challenged.

#94:
Quote
As I said earlier, I find more cradle Orthodox who are sympathetic. And I don't even listen any more when I am told the Orthodox Church says this or that is heresy from the west.  That's all just personal opinion and the elevation of local councils to temporary universal status...

#105:
Quote
Liturgical Texts that Indicate the Uniqueness of the Immaculata:

Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.

(Here, EM reproduces liturgical text from the Orthodox vigils of the Nativity of the Mother of God and of the Entry into the Temple, attempting to show that these texts are evidence that the IC is part of Orthodox tradition)

#151:
Quote
It is apparent in the history of the two confessions, Catholic and Orthodox, that the Greeks and Slavs did not always reject the Immaculate Conception.  In fact while the theologians were fussing over details there was a great deal of popular acceptance that I still see today at least among the Slavs in my own lived experience.

#165:
Quote
And you still have not addressed any of the historical assertions in the documents I've presented that documented both the Greek and the Slavic belief in the Immaculate Conception. So if you can find data to support, however thinly, your own position, I am sure you can find the data referenced in those articles.  You do have access to all kinds of folks who help you with your research...or so you have mentioned.
(these documents quote various post-schism Orthodox figures purportedly supporting the IC)

#179:
EM reproduces an essay by Fr Casimir Kucharek, which contains this paragraph:

Quote
The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the “novel” doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

#547:
Quote
Not all of the following can be explained away as her virginity and as I have said before if the Orthodox Church wants to deny the immaculate conception then she really needs to do a re-write of some of these hymns:
(EM follows this by reproducing text from the Vigil to the Entry into the Temple feast, as she did in post #105)

#549
Quote
There was no need to mention a conception in these.  The implication is clear that she is all holy, most holy, more filled with the Holy Spirit than any other human being:

Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious
than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be
praised in song.

Her holiness is beyond that which is human.  She is extraordinary.
Put these hymns together with the evidences mentioned in many of the posts here from the Fathers and leaders of the early Church....
And you have a VERY difficult time saying that the teaching is absolutely false.

I don't care if there's no smoking gun...that says "conception". There was no smoking gun when the technical term "Trinity" came into being. There was no smoking gun when the technical term "Incarnation" came into being either. So there is precedent for defining things that had hitherto never been referenced in those precise terms before.

#665
(in response to LBK’s posting of the text for the Orthodox vigil for the Conception of the Mother of God)
Quote
If that text is seriously a part of the liturgy then that is a crying shame because it does not even accurately address the actual teaching of the Immaculate Conception but some perversion of the teaching that has no bearing on what I believe.

#671
Quote
I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously. 
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.
Like I said.  I'll hang with St. John Damascene. And don't forget boys, I am eastern Catholic and I use the same liturgical books you do...every day.
(Requests for EM to provide details on the origin /publication details of the Orthodox liturgical material she says she uses were met with hostile refusal)

#846
Quote
I have presented indicators that there are 20th century clergy, one of them who was Orthodox, who have indicated that there is a tradition stretching back hundreds of years prior to the western dogmatic constitution that attest to the spiritual purity of the Virgin that extends to the generation of the Theotokos from the inception of her being. 

#958
Quote
I appreciate the fact that you wish to defend the apparent rejection of the Immaculate Conception on the part of many Orthodox faithful, but it is pretty clear that there's little to nothing that has been written or discussed concerning the teaching on the part of Orthodoxy in any formal way.

#980
Quote
Nonetheless these hymns from the Feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos do stand in testimony against those arguments against the Immaculate Conception that would indicate that she was never filled with the Holy Spirit till the Annunciation.  It also mitigates against those who say that she was not filled with the Holy Spirit throughout her life but had to grow in holiness.  It also mitigates against those who argue that the Theotokos was not filled with the Holy Spirit till the angel brought her food in the Holy of Holies.

#1013
Quote
It is customary for the Vatican to contact Orthodox patriarchs when preparing to make a dogmation teaching.  The following is from Father Casimir's book again.  Note the concluding text in bold:

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. [Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie "L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale", p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas' (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception ("In nativitatem" [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; "In dormitionem" [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today ("De hypapante"; "De annuntiatione"; "De dormitione" [PG 151]; also "In Christi genealogiam" and "In praesentationem" [edit. K. Sophocles, "Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai", Athens, 1861]). Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the "Staroviery" (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. [Cf. N. Subbotin, "Materialy dlja istorii Roskola", Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p. 457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

(Later posts showed that the text of the bolded section did not at all correspond with the original document)

#1072
Quote
There are still many loose ends here in terms of the assertion that there have historically been Orthodox believers who are reported to have preached and taught the Immaculate Conception.

#1077
Quote
I have neither the language skills nor the material resources to do any of it.  But the references are there so I suspect that when the issue comes up formally, IF it ever comes up formally in our bilateral discussions all will become much more clear.  The credence I give to the sources comes directly from my interaction with cradle Orthodox who assure me that there is a history of the belief in Orthodoxy.

#1153
Quote
I don't see anywhere that universal Orthodoxy says that the Immaculate Conception is actually heretical...much less how it might be heretical. Generally when a Church names a heresy it explains how and then goes about correcting the errors. At least that is how it happens in these more civilized days. So I don't think there's solid proof yet of universal Orthodoxy calling the Immaculate Conception heresy.

(This statement was then disproved in post #1154)

Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #1224 on: May 25, 2010, 12:49:58 AM »


The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity


No, Father, I believe you are mistaken.  In their letter to Pope Leo XIII the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople term the Immaculate Conception an "heretical innovation" because it is only Christ who is conceived pure and immacuate.

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

The wording of his encyclical is perhaps ecclesiastically interesting but theologically irrelevant.   The encyclical does not present, and certainly does not elaborate, a substantive argument against the IC teaching.  It simply denies it.  If you want to know why Orthodox theologians have problems with the IC, this is definitely not the document to look to.   At best, all the reader can take from the encyclical is that the Patriarch rejects the IC because it is an innovation, just as he rejects other Catholic beliefs and practices as innovations.  I'm sure that the Patriarch had good reasons to write the encyclical when he did, but let's not pretend that it is a theologically substantive piece of writing.  It ain't.  I know it has polemical value (a weapon that can be unearthed in polemical debates like this) but its theological worth is limited.   In any case, the encyclical only represents the personal opinion of one Patriarch. and as so many Orthodox like to remind Catholics today, he isn't the Pope.  

« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 12:50:40 AM by akimel » Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,217


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1225 on: May 25, 2010, 12:59:50 AM »

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.

Quote
The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

Methinks the reason you don't respond to me is because I have, on more than one occasion, exposed the contradictions in your posts using irrefutable sources, particularly in exposing the interpolation of a Byzantine Catholic Litia containing hymnography proclaiming the immaculate conception. The Orthodox vigil for the Conception of the Mother of God has never been of a high enough rank to warrant a Litia, according to both the Jerusalem/Sabbaite and the Greek typikons. It is the Byzantine Catholic church, in submission to Rome, which has inserted this hymnography into its service, against Papal decree.

Quote
So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Are you denying that the words in the quote boxes are yours and those of the sources which support your cause? As I have stated previously in posts #1106 and 1137:

"Mary, you can keep quoting selected Fathers until the end of time, but the fact remains that the consensus patrum as reflected by, and proclaimed in, the liturgical deposit of the Orthodox Church does not, in any of the feasts of the Mother of God, nor in any Theotokia or prayers written about her mention, or suggest, that she was immaculately conceived. For any Orthodox clergyman to preach or teach otherwise is heresy. Period.

It is one thing for you to stand fast to your Roman Catholic beliefs. You have every right to do so. It is quite another to try to pin a heresy on the Orthodox as a historic doctrine which was later suppressed. You have no right to do so, yet, you continue to push your view in the face of irrefutable liturgical and historical evidence.

Your refusal to recognise this is truly baffling.  Huh"




« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 01:04:42 AM by LBK » Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #1226 on: May 25, 2010, 01:10:03 AM »

Mary Didn't come here to learn what we Orthodox believe in About the Blessed Most Holy Orthodox Theotokos...She Came here to push, Preach some Strange unknown mary that we never knew ,and we reject wholeheartedly..... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1227 on: May 25, 2010, 01:20:27 AM »


The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity


No, Father, I believe you are mistaken.  In their letter to Pope Leo XIII the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople term the Immaculate Conception an "heretical innovation" because it is only Christ who is conceived pure and immacuate.

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

The wording of his encyclical is perhaps ecclesiastically interesting but theologically irrelevant.   The encyclical does not present, and certainly does not elaborate, a substantive argument against the IC teaching.  It simply denies it.  If you want to know why Orthodox theologians have problems with the IC, this is definitely not the document to look to.   At best, all the reader can take from the encyclical is that the Patriarch rejects the IC because it is an innovation, just as he rejects other Catholic beliefs and practices as innovations.  I'm sure that the Patriarch had good reasons to write the encyclical when he did, but let's not pretend that it is a theologically substantive piece of writing.  It ain't.  I know it has polemical value (a weapon that can be unearthed in polemical debates like this) but its theological worth is limited.   In any case, the encyclical only represents the personal opinion of one Patriarch. and as so many Orthodox like to remind Catholics today, he isn't the Pope.  



Father,

I understand that you are trying to be enthusiastically supportive of your faith but in doing that you are making a faux argument against the Orthodox.

It matters little that the Patriarch and bishops of Constantinople did not add a lengthy addendum to their letter with theological argumentation against the Immaculate Conception.

It was sufficient for them to point out that it is an innovation unknown in the Church and that only Jesus Christ was conceived purely and immaculately.

If the absence of argumentation destroys their plain statement, then what should we make of the various Orthodox statements condemning the ordination of women (I am thinking of official Russian statements.)  Will you argue that they are meaningless because the statements are simply expressed and there is no supporting argumentation offered?   Would we be obliged to accept the ordination of women, following your logic?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 01:21:53 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1228 on: May 25, 2010, 01:30:23 AM »


The strongest Orthodox argument against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it makes Mary into the great exception and separates her from the rest of humanity


No, Father, I believe you are mistaken.  In their letter to Pope Leo XIII the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople term the Immaculate Conception an "heretical innovation" because it is only Christ who is conceived pure and immacuate.

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

In any case, the encyclical only represents the personal opinion of one Patriarch. and as so many Orthodox like to remind Catholics today, he isn't the Pope.



Again, Father, you are mistaken.  The encyclical is not only the response of one Patriarch.  It carries the signatures of another 12 bishops, including Dorotheos of Belgrade.

In addition to that, the encyclical has universal authority throughout the Orthodox world and is viewed as one of the "Symbolical Books" of Orthodoxy.

Your attempts to downplay it are understandable but they do not sit well with reality.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1229 on: May 25, 2010, 08:06:29 AM »

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 08:07:24 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1230 on: May 25, 2010, 08:21:22 AM »

    * "...being Himself at once God and man, His flesh and soul were and are holy - and beyond holy. God is holy, just as He was and is and shall be, and the Virgin is immaculate, without spot or stain, and so, too, was that rib which was taken from Adam. However the rest of humanity, even though they are His brothers and kin according to the flesh, yet remained even as they were, of dust, and did not immediately become holy and sons of God."

        - St. Symeon the New Theologian, Discourse XIII in On the Mystical Life, vol. 2, trans. Alexander Golitzin (SVS Press, 1996)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another quote to indicate that the Mother of God was not ordinary in the order of holiness. 

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1231 on: May 25, 2010, 08:44:59 AM »

    * "...being Himself at once God and man, His flesh and soul were and are holy - and beyond holy. God is holy, just as He was and is and shall be, and the Virgin is immaculate, without spot or stain, and so, too, was that rib which was taken from Adam. However the rest of humanity, even though they are His brothers and kin according to the flesh, yet remained even as they were, of dust, and did not immediately become holy and sons of God."

        - St. Symeon the New Theologian, Discourse XIII in On the Mystical Life, vol. 2, trans. Alexander Golitzin (SVS Press, 1996)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another quote to indicate that the Mother of God was not ordinary in the order of holiness. 

I do not think that anybody has said the Mother of God is ordinary in her holiness. 

"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1232 on: May 25, 2010, 10:11:24 AM »

The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.

Logged

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
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,217


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1233 on: May 25, 2010, 10:15:25 AM »

Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.

Quote
and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.


Oh dear.

"Grossly dishonest" in my presenting your own words and the words of those (such as Gillet and Kucharek) who support your views?

"Grossly dishonest" in my posting the very hymnody of the Orthodox Church for the Conception of the Mother of God, and the ranking for this feast according to the two great Typika of the Church?

"Grossly dishonest" for showing the Litia hymnody for this feast is a Byzantine Catholic interpolation, and never part of Orthodox liturgical tradition?

"Ongoing bullying"? Remember, this is a discussion forum, and I have kept the language in my posts as dispassionate as possible, without resorting to insults and invective. You have asserted that the IC was for 1500 years an Orthodox doctrine, I have responded to this allegation. Moreover, simple, polite requests, such as the one I made asking you for the source of your Orthodox liturgical references were met with a hostile refusal out of all proportion to the tenor of the request.

"False witness"? Words and phrases quoted out of context can indeed be misconstrued, but I have reproduced entire posts of yours, or significant-sized extracts, precisely to avoid being accused of quoting out of context or cherry-picking.






« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 10:16:28 AM by LBK » Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #1234 on: May 25, 2010, 10:18:54 AM »

"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1235 on: May 25, 2010, 10:26:43 AM »

Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1236 on: May 25, 2010, 10:32:37 AM »

Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1237 on: May 25, 2010, 10:38:17 AM »

"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

A few of the contributors in this discussion have insisted that the Immaculate Conception, in its dogmatic expression, is dependent upon so-called scholastic constructs.

The following is an ostensibly Orthodox catechetical teaching. Can anyone tell me if this discussion and the definitions contained within are acceptable tenets of Orthodoxy?

If not can you point out what is not Orthodox? 

Also, and only if it is Orthodox,  could you tell me what you see as exceptional between this definition and Catholic teaching or so-called scholastic teaching or Augustinian teaching on original sin?

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

THE FALL

The biblical story of the Fall prefigures the entire tragic history of the human race. It shows us who we were and what we have become. It reveals that evil entered the world not by the will of God but by fault of humans who preferred diabolical deceit to divine commandment. From generation to generation the human race repeats Adam’s mistake in being beguiled by false values and forgetting the true ones — faith in God and verity to Him.

Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God. Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin. But neither could the devil force them to do evil. The sole responsibility for the Fall is borne by humans themselves, for they misused the freedom given to them.

What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God. The root of pride is egocenticity, the state of being turned in on oneself, self-love, lust for oneself. Before the Fall, God was the only object of the humans’ love; but then there appeared a value outside of God: the tree was suddenly seen to be ‘good for food’, ‘a delight to the eyes’, and something ‘to be desired’ (Gen.3:6). Thus the entire hierarchy of values collapsed: my own ‘I’ occupied the first place while the second was taken by the object of ‘my’ lust. No place has remained for God: He has been forgotten, driven from my life.

The forbidden fruit failed to bring happiness to the first people. On the contrary, they began to sense their own nakedness: they were ashamed and tried to hide from God. This awareness of one’s nakedness denotes the privation of the divine light-bearing garment that cloaked humans and defended them from the ‘knowledge of evil’. Adam’s first reaction after committing sin was burning sensation of shame. The second reaction was his desire to hide from the Creator. This shows that he had lost all notion of God’s omnipresence and would search for any place where God was ‘absent’.

However, this was not a total rupture with God. The Fall was not a complete abandonment: humans could repent and regain their former dignity. God goes out to find the fallen Adam; between the trees of Paradise He seeks him out asking ‘Where are you?’ (Gen.3:9). This humble wandering of God through Paradise prefigures Christ’s humility as revealed to us in the New Testament, the humility with which the Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. God has no need to go forth and look for Adam: He can call down from the heavens with a voice of thunder or shake the foundations of the earth. Yet He does not wish to be Adam’s judge, or his prosecutor. He still wants to count him as an equal and puts His hope in Adam’s repentance. But instead of repenting, Adam utters words of self-justification, laying the blame for everything on his wife: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen.3:12). In other words, ‘It was You who gave me a wife; it is You who is to blame’. In turn, Eve lays the blame for everything on the serpent.

The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts; while their body lost its original lightness and was transformed into heavy sinful flesh. After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life.

Not only humanity but also the entire world changed as a result of the Fall. The original harmony between people and nature had been broken; the elements had become hostile; storms, earthquakes and floods could destroy life. The earth would no longer provide everything of its own accord; it would have to be tilled ‘in the sweat of your face’, and would produce ‘thorns and thistles’. Even the animals would become the human being’s enemy: the serpent would ‘bruise his heel’ and other predators would attack him (Gen.3:14-19). All of creation would be subject to the ‘bondage of decay’. Together with humans it would now ‘wait for freedom’ from this bondage, since it did not submit to vanity voluntarily but through the fault of humanity (Rom.8:19-21).

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. They were guilty of pride and disobedience, while their son Cain committed fratricide. Cain’s descendants soon forgot about God and set about organizing their earthly existence. Cain himself ‘built a city’. One of his closest descendants was ‘the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle’; another was ‘the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe’; yet another was ‘the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron’ (Gen.4:17-22). The establishment of cities, cattle-breeding, music and other arts were thus passed onto humankind by Cain’s descendants as a surrogate of the lost happiness of Paradise.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

JESUS CHRIST, THE ‘NEW ADAM’

The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying (kenosis).

St Paul calls Christ the ‘second Adam’, contrasting Him with the ‘first’: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: ‘Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross’.

Few people accepted the second Adam or believed in Him when He down to earth. The Incarnate Jesus, Who suffered and was raised, became a ‘a stumbling block to Jews and folly [Greek, skandalon] to Gentiles’ (1 Cor.1:23). Declaring Himself to be God and making Himself equal to God, Jesus scandalize Jews and was accused in blasphemy. As to the Greeks, Christianity was folly for them because Greek thought sought a logical and rational explanation for everything; it was not within its power to know a suffering and dying God. For many centuries Greek wisdom built a temple to ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). It was incapable of understanding how an unknowable, incomprehensible, all-powerful, almighty, omniscient and omnipresent God could become a mortal, suffering, weak human person. A God, Who would be born of a Virgin, a God Who would be in swaddling clothes, Who would be put to sleep and be fed with milk: all of this seemed absurd to the Greeks.

Even among the Christians of the first centuries, the mystery of godmanhood was explained in a different ways. In the second century the Docetists claimed that Christ’s human nature was merely transparent: it only seemed that He suffered and died on the cross, while God in fact, being passionless, could not suffer at all. The Docetists considered all that was material and corporeal to be evil and could not concede that God had put on sinful and evil flesh, that He had united Himself with dust. The other extreme was that of Arianism which denied Christ’s Divinity and reduced the Son of God to the level of cre
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,217


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1238 on: May 25, 2010, 10:51:12 AM »

Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

You are the author of this list - it is your job, not mine, to find it. Here's a suggestion: Do a keyword search through the "search" function. I can't do this for you, as I have no idea what you wrote in this list.  Smiley

You can protest all you like, it matters not to me. I stand by everything I have written in this thread. I have put words in the mouth of no-one, yet you have attempted to put words in the mouth of the Orthodox Church in your claim of the centuries-long acceptance, then rejection, of the IC as Orthodox doctrine.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 10:55:44 AM by LBK » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1239 on: May 25, 2010, 10:57:28 AM »

"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

Perhaps you can explain something for me first:
Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1240 on: May 25, 2010, 11:00:40 AM »


Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

A few of the contributors in this discussion have insisted that the Immaculate Conception, in its dogmatic expression, is dependent upon so-called scholastic constructs.

The following is an ostensibly Orthodox catechetical teaching. Can anyone tell me if this discussion and the definitions contained within are acceptable tenets of Orthodoxy?

If not can you point out what is not Orthodox? 

Also, and only if it is Orthodox,  could you tell me what you see as exceptional between this definition and Catholic teaching or so-called scholastic teaching or Augustinian teaching on original sin?

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

THE FALL

The biblical story of the with dust. The other extreme was that of Arianism which denied Christ’s Divinity and reduced the Son of God to the level of cre

Mary, there is a concurrent thread on original sin where this same text is reproduced.  Maybe you could have a look there and see what response there has been?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1241 on: May 25, 2010, 11:06:14 AM »

Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

You are the author of this list - it is your job, not mine, to find it. Here's a suggestion: Do a keyword search through the "search" function. I can't do this for you, as I have no idea what you wrote in this list.  Smiley

The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

You are thereby culpable nonetheless.  And I do continue to publicly protest.

Mary
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1242 on: May 25, 2010, 11:09:38 AM »

elijahmaria,

I have done a search for this list and cannot find it myself.  Please provide a link to it so we may review it, otherwise you have 24 hours to withdraw your own accusation of false witness against LBK.

-Schultz, Religious Topics moderator
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 11:09:51 AM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,217


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1243 on: May 25, 2010, 11:13:42 AM »

Quote
The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

On the contrary. The posts I selected were those which were directly relevant to your assertion that the IC was a historic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Many of your other posts concerned themselves with matters peripheral to this, such as the nature of baptism, which translations of the Psalter you preferred, and others.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1244 on: May 25, 2010, 11:29:15 AM »

Quote
The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

On the contrary. The posts I selected were those which were directly relevant to your assertion that the IC was a historic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Many of your other posts concerned themselves with matters peripheral to this, such as the nature of baptism, which translations of the Psalter you preferred, and others.

Like the employment history of others:
"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

Perhaps you can explain something for me first:
Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1245 on: May 25, 2010, 12:53:24 PM »

elijahmaria,

I have done a search for this list and cannot find it myself.  Please provide a link to it so we may review it, otherwise you have 24 hours to withdraw your own accusation of false witness against LBK.

-Schultz, Religious Topics moderator


That's fine.  I don't have time or energy for this kind of thing.

I will state categorically that I do not assert that universal Orthodoxy has always had a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

I withdraw my public complaint that she is bearing false witness based on the list that I offered because if you cannot find it then it is not there and I am not going to waste my time looking.

I do reserve the right to tell her that if she continues, it IS false witness because I have stated categorically that is NOT what I am doing or intend to do.

Mary

Here is one explicit list.  There is a later one as well...if I can find it.   But it has always been my intention, here and in any other venue,  to address the arguments presented by Orthodox and others against the Immaculate Conception and NOT to demonstrate that the Orthodox have had a formal doctrinal teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.

The only thing you really can do now is just flat out tell me I am a liar.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


The fact remains that the hymnody mentions great purity, but it does not say how the Theotokos was purified and to what degree and at what stage.  The Orthodox leave those mattered unanswered, while the RCC struggles to give defining language and clear instruction.

The fact remains that the terminology 'Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary' does not exist in Eastern Christianity.  You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the fact we don't even see signs of a spirited debate on the topic throughout any age prior to its adoption in the RCC should tell us volumes.  Let us not forget that Greeks argue about everything!  laugh  No argument means that it never, ever really came up as an idea, either to be agreed or disagreed with.

Since there isn't sign of any debate on the topic, then we really do need a 'smoking gun' text that says, 'Yes, the Universal Church accepted this doctrine.'  Mary can come up with any number of obscure quotes and ambiguous hymns, but in the end it leaves us with the same problem: no sign that the Orthodox Church ever accepted this teaching at a Synodal level.

I think this is fair and accurate.  IMHO, Mary has over-stated her case significantly.  One cannot and should not expect to find the "doctrine" of the Immaculate Conception in the Eastern tradition, because the "doctrine" is itself predicated upon a specific and historically conditioned construals of original sin and sanctifying grace.  These specific construals simply are not available to Eastern theological reflection.  Catholics, therefore, over-state their case when they assert that the Eastern Church at one time believed in the Immaculate Conception.  This is historically anachronistic, and the Orthodox rightly deny the claim.
  

I beg to differ, Father.

1.  Orthodox faithful tend to indicate that the Immaculate Conception is not human.  I have argued against that fact and demonstrated the illogic of that reasoning.

2. Orthodox faithful indicate that the Virgin is human just as we are and struggles just as we do against sin, and perhaps sinned herself during life.   I have taken their own hymnody and indicated that Orthodoxy liturgically proclaims the exceptional holiness of the Virgin for ALL TIME and in GREATEST MEASURE.

3.  I have presented indicators that there are 20th century clergy, one of them who was Orthodox, who have indicated that there is a tradition stretching back hundreds of years prior to the western dogmatic constitution that attest to the spiritual purity of the Virgin that extends to the generation of the Theotokos from the inception of her being.  

4.  I have challenged the need to find the term Immaculate Conception in the ancient Church IF hymns and other teachings indicate that she has been full of the Holy Spirit for all time...indicating that she has never been touched by sin of any kind.

5.  I have challenged your assertion that the Immaculate Conception depends on some western form of understanding original sin.  You have yet to demonstrate that one.

So if any of this is an overstatement, please indicate which is the overstatement and how it is an overstatement.

Mary

elijahmaria,
Thank you for finding this list.  LBK and others can now get back to the argument at hand with this list fresh in their minds and the rest of us can now get back to watching the beating of the dead horse that is this thread.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 01:47:57 PM by Schultz » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1246 on: May 25, 2010, 01:39:02 PM »

I am still hoping that Father Al Kimel or someone from the Orthodox community here will read the selections from Archbishop Hilarion on the ancestral sin and tell me what the Catholic Church teaches that is different from what is contained in the Archbishops little catechetical teaching....please.

Mary

"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

A few of the contributors in this discussion have insisted that the Immaculate Conception, in its dogmatic expression, is dependent upon so-called scholastic constructs.

The following is an ostensibly Orthodox catechetical teaching. Can anyone tell me if this discussion and the definitions contained within are acceptable tenets of Orthodoxy?

If not can you point out what is not Orthodox? 

Also, and only if it is Orthodox,  could you tell me what you see as exceptional between this definition and Catholic teaching or so-called scholastic teaching or Augustinian teaching on original sin?

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

THE FALL

The biblical story of the Fall prefigures the entire tragic history of the human race. It shows us who we were and what we have become. It reveals that evil entered the world not by the will of God but by fault of humans who preferred diabolical deceit to divine commandment. From generation to generation the human race repeats Adam’s mistake in being beguiled by false values and forgetting the true ones — faith in God and verity to Him.

Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God. Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin. But neither could the devil force them to do evil. The sole responsibility for the Fall is borne by humans themselves, for they misused the freedom given to them.

What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God. The root of pride is egocenticity, the state of being turned in on oneself, self-love, lust for oneself. Before the Fall, God was the only object of the humans’ love; but then there appeared a value outside of God: the tree was suddenly seen to be ‘good for food’, ‘a delight to the eyes’, and something ‘to be desired’ (Gen.3:6). Thus the entire hierarchy of values collapsed: my own ‘I’ occupied the first place while the second was taken by the object of ‘my’ lust. No place has remained for God: He has been forgotten, driven from my life.

The forbidden fruit failed to bring happiness to the first people. On the contrary, they began to sense their own nakedness: they were ashamed and tried to hide from God. This awareness of one’s nakedness denotes the privation of the divine light-bearing garment that cloaked humans and defended them from the ‘knowledge of evil’. Adam’s first reaction after committing sin was burning sensation of shame. The second reaction was his desire to hide from the Creator. This shows that he had lost all notion of God’s omnipresence and would search for any place where God was ‘absent’.

However, this was not a total rupture with God. The Fall was not a complete abandonment: humans could repent and regain their former dignity. God goes out to find the fallen Adam; between the trees of Paradise He seeks him out asking ‘Where are you?’ (Gen.3:9). This humble wandering of God through Paradise prefigures Christ’s humility as revealed to us in the New Testament, the humility with which the Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. God has no need to go forth and look for Adam: He can call down from the heavens with a voice of thunder or shake the foundations of the earth. Yet He does not wish to be Adam’s judge, or his prosecutor. He still wants to count him as an equal and puts His hope in Adam’s repentance. But instead of repenting, Adam utters words of self-justification, laying the blame for everything on his wife: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen.3:12). In other words, ‘It was You who gave me a wife; it is You who is to blame’. In turn, Eve lays the blame for everything on the serpent.

The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts; while their body lost its original lightness and was transformed into heavy sinful flesh. After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life.

Not only humanity but also the entire world changed as a result of the Fall. The original harmony between people and nature had been broken; the elements had become hostile; storms, earthquakes and floods could destroy life. The earth would no longer provide everything of its own accord; it would have to be tilled ‘in the sweat of your face’, and would produce ‘thorns and thistles’. Even the animals would become the human being’s enemy: the serpent would ‘bruise his heel’ and other predators would attack him (Gen.3:14-19). All of creation would be subject to the ‘bondage of decay’. Together with humans it would now ‘wait for freedom’ from this bondage, since it did not submit to vanity voluntarily but through the fault of humanity (Rom.8:19-21).

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. They were guilty of pride and disobedience, while their son Cain committed fratricide. Cain’s descendants soon forgot about God and set about organizing their earthly existence. Cain himself ‘built a city’. One of his closest descendants was ‘the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle’; another was ‘the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe’; yet another was ‘the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron’ (Gen.4:17-22). The establishment of cities, cattle-breeding, music and other arts were thus passed onto humankind by Cain’s descendants as a surrogate of the lost happiness of Paradise.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

JESUS CHRIST, THE ‘NEW ADAM’

The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying (kenosis).

St Paul calls Christ the ‘second Adam’, contrasting Him with the ‘first’: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: ‘Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross’.

Few people accepted the second Adam or believed in Him when He down to earth. The Incarnate Jesus, Who suffered and was raised, became a ‘a stumbling block to Jews and folly [Greek, skandalon] to Gentiles’ (1 Cor.1:23). Declaring Himself to be God and making Himself equal to God, Jesus scandalize Jews and was accused in blasphemy. As to the Greeks, Christianity was folly for them because Greek thought sought a logical and rational explanation for everything; it was not within its power to know a suffering and dying God. For many centuries Greek wisdom built a temple to ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). It was incapable of understanding how an unknowable, incomprehensible, all-powerful, almighty, omniscient and omnipresent God could become a mortal, suffering, weak human person. A God, Who would be born of a Virgin, a God Who would be in swaddling clothes, Who would be put to sleep and be fed with milk: all of this seemed absurd to the Greeks.

Even among the Christians of the first centuries, the mystery of godmanhood was explained in a different ways. In the second century the Docetists claimed that Christ’s human nature was merely transparent: it only seemed that He suffered and died on the cross, while God in fact, being passionless, could not suffer at all. The Docetists considered all that was material and corporeal to be evil and could not concede that God had put on sinful and evil flesh, that He had united Himself with dust. The other extreme was that of Arianism which denied Christ’s Divinity and reduced the Son of God to the level of cre
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1247 on: May 25, 2010, 01:47:27 PM »

I am still hoping that Father Al Kimel or someone from the Orthodox community here will read the selections from Archbishop Hilarion on the ancestral sin and tell me what the Catholic Church teaches that is different from what is contained in the Archbishops little catechetical teaching....please.

Mary


Not until I get an answer.
Quote
The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

On the contrary. The posts I selected were those which were directly relevant to your assertion that the IC was a historic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Many of your other posts concerned themselves with matters peripheral to this, such as the nature of baptism, which translations of the Psalter you preferred, and others.

Like the employment history of others:
"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

Perhaps you can explain something for me first:
Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1248 on: May 25, 2010, 02:11:26 PM »

elijahmaria,
Thank you for finding this list.  LBK and others can now get back to the argument at hand with this list fresh in their minds and the rest of us can now get back to watching the beating of the dead horse that is this thread.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator


Mr. Shultz,

You are welcome. 

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

May it ever be so!

Mary
Logged

Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #1249 on: May 25, 2010, 02:12:49 PM »

Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1250 on: May 25, 2010, 02:23:54 PM »

elijahmaria,
Thank you for finding this list.  LBK and others can now get back to the argument at hand with this list fresh in their minds and the rest of us can now get back to watching the beating of the dead horse that is this thread.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator


Mr. Shultz,

You are welcome. 

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

May it ever be so!

Mary

It's really held the attention of just four or five people who keep arguing the same points with one another over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The rest of us just pop in every now and then to laugh.

Please, carry on.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1251 on: May 25, 2010, 02:42:27 PM »

elijahmaria,
Thank you for finding this list.  LBK and others can now get back to the argument at hand with this list fresh in their minds and the rest of us can now get back to watching the beating of the dead horse that is this thread.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator


Mr. Schultz,

You are welcome.  

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

May it ever be so!

Mary

It's really held the attention of just four or five people who keep arguing the same points with one another over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The rest of us just pop in every now and then to laugh.

Please, carry on.

This describes every Internet list I've ever owned, every blog combox I've ever seen, every Forum of this nature, etc.  It is the nature of all semi-private venues of Internet communication save for games....and even then in an alliance of 30-60 members only about 8 of them communicate with any degree of regularity on Skype or whatever IM source they are using to play the game.

I pray some day you see the sobriety in this particular topic, Mr. Schultz, even if you continue to laugh at Catholics.

M.

PS: Pardon my misspelling of your name!  I caught it just now.



« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 02:43:54 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1252 on: May 25, 2010, 02:46:06 PM »

I pray some day you see the sobriety in this particular topic, Mr. Schultz, even if you continue to laugh at Catholics.

M.

Please show where I've laughed at Catholics for believing in Catholic dogma.  Believe you me, I've spent more time laughing at my co-religionists than at the Catholics here on this board, even after I was chrismated this past November.

The only thing I find amusing are the ways in which people argue for/against a position.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,583


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1253 on: May 25, 2010, 02:47:31 PM »

elijahmaria,
Thank you for finding this list.  LBK and others can now get back to the argument at hand with this list fresh in their minds and the rest of us can now get back to watching the beating of the dead horse that is this thread.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator


Mr. Schultz,

You are welcome.  

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

May it ever be so!

Mary

It's really held the attention of just four or five people who keep arguing the same points with one another over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The rest of us just pop in every now and then to laugh.

Please, carry on.

This describes every Internet list I've ever owned, every blog combox I've ever seen, every Forum of this nature, etc.  It is the nature of all semi-private venues of Internet communication save for games....and even then in an alliance of 30-60 members only about 8 of them communicate with any degree of regularity on Skype or whatever IM source they are using to play the game.

I pray some day you see the sobriety in this particular topic, Mr. Schultz, even if you continue to laugh at Catholics.
He's not laughing at Catholics.  He's laughing, just as I am laughing, at those four or five people, Orthodox and Catholic alike, who insist on keeping this thread going with their merry-go-round arguments.  I've not seen anyone advance a new argument on this topic since about Page 3.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1254 on: May 25, 2010, 02:47:54 PM »

How does this text differ from the age old Catholic teaching of original sin?

Is this to be considered part of Orthodox tradition?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

THE FALL

The biblical story of the Fall prefigures the entire tragic history of the human race. It shows us who we were and what we have become. It reveals that evil entered the world not by the will of God but by fault of humans who preferred diabolical deceit to divine commandment. From generation to generation the human race repeats Adam’s mistake in being beguiled by false values and forgetting the true ones — faith in God and verity to Him.

Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God. Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin. But neither could the devil force them to do evil. The sole responsibility for the Fall is borne by humans themselves, for they misused the freedom given to them.

What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God. The root of pride is egocenticity, the state of being turned in on oneself, self-love, lust for oneself. Before the Fall, God was the only object of the humans’ love; but then there appeared a value outside of God: the tree was suddenly seen to be ‘good for food’, ‘a delight to the eyes’, and something ‘to be desired’ (Gen.3:6). Thus the entire hierarchy of values collapsed: my own ‘I’ occupied the first place while the second was taken by the object of ‘my’ lust. No place has remained for God: He has been forgotten, driven from my life.

The forbidden fruit failed to bring happiness to the first people. On the contrary, they began to sense their own nakedness: they were ashamed and tried to hide from God. This awareness of one’s nakedness denotes the privation of the divine light-bearing garment that cloaked humans and defended them from the ‘knowledge of evil’. Adam’s first reaction after committing sin was burning sensation of shame. The second reaction was his desire to hide from the Creator. This shows that he had lost all notion of God’s omnipresence and would search for any place where God was ‘absent’.

However, this was not a total rupture with God. The Fall was not a complete abandonment: humans could repent and regain their former dignity. God goes out to find the fallen Adam; between the trees of Paradise He seeks him out asking ‘Where are you?’ (Gen.3:9). This humble wandering of God through Paradise prefigures Christ’s humility as revealed to us in the New Testament, the humility with which the Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. God has no need to go forth and look for Adam: He can call down from the heavens with a voice of thunder or shake the foundations of the earth. Yet He does not wish to be Adam’s judge, or his prosecutor. He still wants to count him as an equal and puts His hope in Adam’s repentance. But instead of repenting, Adam utters words of self-justification, laying the blame for everything on his wife: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen.3:12). In other words, ‘It was You who gave me a wife; it is You who is to blame’. In turn, Eve lays the blame for everything on the serpent.

The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts; while their body lost its original lightness and was transformed into heavy sinful flesh. After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life.

Not only humanity but also the entire world changed as a result of the Fall. The original harmony between people and nature had been broken; the elements had become hostile; storms, earthquakes and floods could destroy life. The earth would no longer provide everything of its own accord; it would have to be tilled ‘in the sweat of your face’, and would produce ‘thorns and thistles’. Even the animals would become the human being’s enemy: the serpent would ‘bruise his heel’ and other predators would attack him (Gen.3:14-19). All of creation would be subject to the ‘bondage of decay’. Together with humans it would now ‘wait for freedom’ from this bondage, since it did not submit to vanity voluntarily but through the fault of humanity (Rom.8:19-21).

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. They were guilty of pride and disobedience, while their son Cain committed fratricide. Cain’s descendants soon forgot about God and set about organizing their earthly existence. Cain himself ‘built a city’. One of his closest descendants was ‘the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle’; another was ‘the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe’; yet another was ‘the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron’ (Gen.4:17-22). The establishment of cities, cattle-breeding, music and other arts were thus passed onto humankind by Cain’s descendants as a surrogate of the lost happiness of Paradise.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

JESUS CHRIST, THE ‘NEW ADAM’

The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying (kenosis).

St Paul calls Christ the ‘second Adam’, contrasting Him with the ‘first’: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: ‘Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross’.

Few people accepted the second Adam or believed in Him when He down to earth. The Incarnate Jesus, Who suffered and was raised, became a ‘a stumbling block to Jews and folly [Greek, skandalon] to Gentiles’ (1 Cor.1:23). Declaring Himself to be God and making Himself equal to God, Jesus scandalize Jews and was accused in blasphemy. As to the Greeks, Christianity was folly for them because Greek thought sought a logical and rational explanation for everything; it was not within its power to know a suffering and dying God. For many centuries Greek wisdom built a temple to ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). It was incapable of understanding how an unknowable, incomprehensible, all-powerful, almighty, omniscient and omnipresent God could become a mortal, suffering, weak human person. A God, Who would be born of a Virgin, a God Who would be in swaddling clothes, Who would be put to sleep and be fed with milk: all of this seemed absurd to the Greeks.

Even among the Christians of the first centuries, the mystery of godmanhood was explained in a different ways. In the second century the Docetists claimed that Christ’s human nature was merely transparent: it only seemed that He suffered and died on the cross, while God in fact, being passionless, could not suffer at all. The Docetists considered all that was material and corporeal to be evil and could not concede that God had put on sinful and evil flesh, that He had united Himself with dust. The other extreme was that of Arianism which denied Christ’s Divinity and reduced the Son of God to the level of creature.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1255 on: May 25, 2010, 02:51:40 PM »

I pray some day you see the sobriety in this particular topic, Mr. Schultz, even if you continue to laugh at Catholics.

M.

Please show where I've laughed at Catholics for believing in Catholic dogma.  Believe you me, I've spent more time laughing at my co-religionists than at the Catholics here on this board, even after I was chrismated this past November.

The only thing I find amusing are the ways in which people argue for/against a position.

Just in case, Mr. Schultz, just in case....that was a tease.

I am seriously curious at the insistence that there is something in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception that depends upon some medieval speculation upon the nature of the ancestral sin or some error of Augustine that mysteriously became codified in Catholic teaching....but we cannot say where or how that happened.

And yet when confronted with the same teaching from an Orthodox source....I find no one has anything at all to say.

Don't you find that amusing, Mr. Schultz?

I like the name Schultz if you haven't figured it out yet.

M.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1256 on: May 25, 2010, 02:52:50 PM »

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

Eh, I think we all know that there are more popular, and less relevant, topics on the Internet than this one.  Heck, the Random Postings thread likely has more posts in it than all IC threads on here combined.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

I think we'd probably word that statement differently, which is indicative of our differences in POV on the subject.  Something more along the lines of, "The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God (Queen of, and more spacious than, Heaven; Ever Virgin; Most Pure, Spotless), is reflective of its vital faith in the Trinity and the Incarnate Son of God, and it is certainly central to our presentation of faith and prayerful devotion as members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1257 on: May 25, 2010, 02:58:27 PM »

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

Eh, I think we all know that there are more popular, and less relevant, topics on the Internet than this one.  Heck, the Random Postings thread likely has more posts in it than all IC threads on here combined.

This isn't the Random Postings thread? Huh
Logged

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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1258 on: May 25, 2010, 03:00:08 PM »

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.
Eh, I think we all know that there are more popular, and less relevant, topics on the Internet than this one.  Heck, the Random Postings thread likely has more posts in it than all IC threads on here combined.
This isn't the Random Postings thread? Huh

LOL.  I needed that; well played, sir!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 03:00:20 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1259 on: May 25, 2010, 03:07:11 PM »

If this topic actually was a dead horse it would not be the one topic to draw immediate interest and hold attention for so long on any Internet venue that I've ever encountered live or in archival form.

Eh, I think we all know that there are more popular, and less relevant, topics on the Internet than this one.  Heck, the Random Postings thread likely has more posts in it than all IC threads on here combined.

The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God is vital to faith, and that is something that is inherent and intrinsic to our identity as Catholics, Orthodox and papal.

I think we'd probably word that statement differently, which is indicative of our differences in POV on the subject.  Something more along the lines of, "The Church's disposition toward the Most Holy Mother of God (Queen of, and more spacious than, Heaven; Ever Virgin; Most Pure, Spotless), is reflective of its vital faith in the Trinity and the Incarnate Son of God, and it is certainly central to our presentation of faith and prayerful devotion as members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Speaking only for myself Father, all that rests easily in the "goes without saying category." 

I plead economy.

M.
Logged

Tags: Immaculate Conception Tome of Leo one will cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.377 seconds with 72 queries.