OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 06:01:50 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 98231 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2010, 08:56:22 AM »

Christos Voskrese!
Saint Joseph, the Immaculatus, Never Sinned. 

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

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

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

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

LOL. I had forgotten about them.
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 #46 on: May 02, 2010, 11:46:28 AM »

I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

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

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

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

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

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

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

From reading this thread, I gather that no consensus was achieved on the most accurate translation of Leo's text, though it appears that real question has been raised about the NPNF English translation.  Has anyone compared the Latin text and the Greek text of the Tome?  It would be interesting to know whether the Greek text speaks of Mary's faultiness.  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 11:47:23 AM by akimel » Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2010, 04:53:57 PM »

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

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

Talk about our posts revealing our own insecurities rather than the "objective reality."  Shocked  I never, at any point in any of my posts, made reference to your gender. You're obviously the one with that insecurity, you silly little girl.

By the way, I was raised in one of the Vatican's parishes, so I don't need you teaching me about the objective reality of Catholic [sic] teaching. I know what I and everyone else was taught about original sin, and it involves guilt, plain and simple.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 04:54:19 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2010, 04:57:36 PM »


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

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

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



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...though I cannot really tell from here if they are delusional.

I live, if you remember, in the black gold bosom of east coast US Orthodoxy, and eastern Catholicism so I am not without a pretty good grasp of both populations in PA and NY, at least, which is hardly "least" in terms of the concentrations of Orthodoxy in the US.  And most all of the cradle Orthodox faithful that I encounter have no difficulty with grasping the intent and meaning of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2010, 04:59:53 PM »

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

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

Talk about our posts revealing our own insecurities rather than the "objective reality."  Shocked  I never, at any point in any of my posts, made reference to your gender. You're obviously the one with that insecurity, you silly little girl.

By the way, I was raised in one of the Vatican's parishes, so I don't need you teaching me about the objective reality of Catholic [sic] teaching. I know what I and everyone else was taught about original sin, and it involves guilt, plain and simple.

You have several problems that are way above my pay grade.

Pray for me, and I will pray for you.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2010, 05:09:28 PM »

I was just reading the Tome of Leo for rather unrelated purposes, but this quote struck me as related to the debate over the Immaculate Conception:

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

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

" Is this agreed upon as an accurate translation?"

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

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

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

From reading this thread, I gather that no consensus was achieved on the most accurate translation of Leo's text, though it appears that real question has been raised about the NPNF English translation.  Has anyone compared the Latin text and the Greek text of the Tome?  It would be interesting to know whether the Greek text speaks of Mary's faultiness.  
It says He took nature, not sin, from His mother.
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2010, 05:14:44 PM »


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

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

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



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...though I cannot really tell from here if they are delusional.

I live, if you remember, in the black gold bosom of east coast US Orthodoxy, and eastern Catholicism so I am not without a pretty good grasp of both populations in PA and NY, at least, which is hardly "least" in terms of the concentrations of Orthodoxy in the US.  And most all of the cradle Orthodox faithful that I encounter have no difficulty with grasping the intent and meaning of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary
Well, that's amazing, because I'm here in the Latin heartland of the US, the Archdiocese of Chicago, and the vast majority (and I mean the VAST) confuse the IC with the Virgin Birth.  So the Orthodox of PA do better than the Latins of Chicago, do they?
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 #52 on: May 02, 2010, 05:18:56 PM »


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

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

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



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...though I cannot really tell from here if they are delusional.

I live, if you remember, in the black gold bosom of east coast US Orthodoxy, and eastern Catholicism so I am not without a pretty good grasp of both populations in PA and NY, at least, which is hardly "least" in terms of the concentrations of Orthodoxy in the US.  And most all of the cradle Orthodox faithful that I encounter have no difficulty with grasping the intent and meaning of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary
Well, that's amazing, because I'm here in the Latin heartland of the US, the Archdiocese of Chicago, and the vast majority (and I mean the VAST) confuse the IC with the Virgin Birth.  So the Orthodox of PA do better than the Latins of Chicago, do they?

Apparently they do. 

Mary
Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2010, 05:22:43 PM »

You have several problems that are way above my pay grade.

I think it's safe to say that we're done here. At least it's been a fruitful exchange! God bless these cordial ecumenical dialogues !  Grin
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2010, 06:17:11 PM »


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

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

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



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...though I cannot really tell from here if they are delusional.

I live, if you remember, in the black gold bosom of east coast US Orthodoxy, and eastern Catholicism so I am not without a pretty good grasp of both populations in PA and NY, at least, which is hardly "least" in terms of the concentrations of Orthodoxy in the US.  And most all of the cradle Orthodox faithful that I encounter have no difficulty with grasping the intent and meaning of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary
Well, that's amazing, because I'm here in the Latin heartland of the US, the Archdiocese of Chicago, and the vast majority (and I mean the VAST) confuse the IC with the Virgin Birth.  So the Orthodox of PA do better than the Latins of Chicago, do they?

Apparently they do. 

Mary
Amazing that they're not building temples to the IC over there then.  We have tons here.  As a matter of fact, isn't that your national shrine in DC?
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 #55 on: May 02, 2010, 08:25:36 PM »


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. 

Christ is Risen!

Have they really grasped the content of the teaching?

The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.   

Because they would not seem, from what you write, to perceive this, they do NOT understand.

[ And most all of the cradle Orthodox faithful that I encounter have no difficulty with grasping the intent and meaning of the Immaculate Conception.


If they truly did grasp its intent and meaning, they would be aware of why it is heretical for the Orthodox.

The thing is, either Mary was immaculately conceived or she was not.  It's a matter of basic truth.  People cannot say - oh, you are free to believe one or the other.  And especially they cannot say this since one view was dogmatised by an infallible definition which removed the element of choice about not believing.

One view is truth.  One view is heresy.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2010, 09:41:14 PM »


The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.   
One view is truth.  One view is heresy.

Apparently Bishop Kallistos W. didn't get the memo, but I find that is par for the course:

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

But Orthodox honour Mary, not only because she is Theotokos, but because she is Panagia, All-Holy. Among all God’s Creatures, she is the supreme example of synergy or cooperation between the purpose of the deity and the free will of man. God, who always respects human liberty, did not wish to become incarnate without the free consent of His Mother. He Waited for her voluntary response: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Mary could have refused; she was not merely passive, but an active participant in the mystery. As Nicholas Cabasilas said: ‘The Incarnation was not only the work of the Father, of His Power and His Spirit ... but it was also the work of the will and faith of the Virgin ... Just as God became incarnate voluntarily, so He wished that His Mother should bear Him freely and with her full consent’ (On the Annunciation, 4-5 (Patrologia Orientalis, vol, 19, Paris, 1926, p. 488)).

If Christ is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve, whose went submission to the will of God counterbalanced Eve’s disobedience in Paradise. ‘So the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a Virgin, bound by her unbelief, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by her faith’ (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3, 22, 4). ‘Death by Eve, life by Mary’ (Jerome, Letter 22, 21).

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.

But Orthodoxy, while for the most part denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, firmly believes in her Bodily Assumption (Immediately after the Pope proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma in 1950, a few Orthodox (by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic Church) began to express doubts about the Bodily Assumption and even explicitly to deny it; but they are certainly not representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole). Like the rest of mankind, Our Lady underwent physical death, but in her case the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated: after death her body was taken up or ‘assumed’ into heaven and her tomb was found to be empty. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives already in the Age to Come. Yet she is not thereby utterly separated from the rest of humanity, for that same bodily glory which Mary enjoys now, all of us hope one day to share.

Belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the hymns sung by the Church on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep.’ But Orthodoxy, unlike Rome, has never proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma, nor would it ever wish to do so. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas, for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs to the Church’s inner Tradition: ‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness ... The Mother of God was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world, the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God’ (V. Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall, p. 35).
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2010, 09:56:35 PM »


The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.  
One view is truth.  One view is heresy.

Apparently Bishop Kallistos W. didn't get the memo, but I find that is par for the course:


I wondered if you would bring in the doughty Metropolitan!  

Unfortunately, after years of sterling service to the Church, the Metropolitan is falling into some dodgy errors.  His assertion that women priests are a possibility for the Orthodox comes to mind.  I would say that he spends far too much time in the UK in the company of Anglicans (the High Church variety who have both women priests and immaculate conception) and he is allowing himself to take on too much of their wishy-washy ethos.  We saw this at Lambeth where  Met. Kallistos made a dreadfully wimpy speech to please and appease the Anglicans whereas your own Cardinal Kasper made a staunch speech telling the Anglicans where they are going wrong.  It was Kasper who earnt the applause and respect of the Anglicans at Lambeth, not Met. Kallistos.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 10:05:16 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,554


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #58 on: May 02, 2010, 10:03:51 PM »

Irish Hermit, I, too, grieve at the sliding of Met. Kallistos's pronouncements in recent years.  Cry  May he regain the theological and doctrinal rigor which made him so valuable in bringing Orthodoxy to the English-speaking world in the past.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #59 on: May 02, 2010, 10:28:54 PM »

Irish Hermit, I, too, grieve at the sliding of Met. Kallistos's pronouncements in recent years.  Cry 

Yes, that makes three of us (actually, there are many, many more).  I cannot recommend any longer his "Orthodox Church," though the last "Orthodox Way" was still a classic.

Quote
May he regain the theological and doctrinal rigor which made him so valuable in bringing Orthodoxy to the English-speaking world in the past.
Amen!
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2010, 12:15:13 AM »

Yes, that makes three of us (actually, there are many, many more).  I cannot recommend any longer his "Orthodox Church," though the last "Orthodox Way" was still a classic.

What do you recommend in its stead for inquirers?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2010, 12:18:15 AM »


The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.  
One view is truth.  One view is heresy.

Apparently Bishop Kallistos W. didn't get the memo, but I find that is par for the course:


I wondered if you would bring in the doughty Metropolitan!  

Unfortunately, after years of sterling service to the Church, the Metropolitan is falling into some dodgy errors.  His assertion that women priests are a possibility for the Orthodox comes to mind.  I would say that he spends far too much time in the UK in the company of Anglicans (the High Church variety who have both women priests and immaculate conception) and he is allowing himself to take on too much of their wishy-washy ethos.  We saw this at Lambeth where  Met. Kallistos made a dreadfully wimpy speech to please and appease the Anglicans whereas your own Cardinal Kasper made a staunch speech telling the Anglicans where they are going wrong.  It was Kasper who earnt the applause and respect of the Anglicans at Lambeth, not Met. Kallistos.

Given the date of his comment on the Immaculate Conception, I'd say he hasn't been Orthodox for many years.  I expect that if you are true to form...he'd be long gone!!

Is someone slipping or don't you dump your heretics as fast as you say that you do?

M.
Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2010, 12:36:22 AM »

Is someone slipping or don't you dump your heretics as fast as you say that you do?

Sassy and feisty! Welcome to the forum, Mary!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2010, 12:52:33 AM »


The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.   
One view is truth.  One view is heresy.

Apparently Bishop Kallistos W. didn't get the memo, but I find that is par for the course:


I wondered if you would bring in the doughty Metropolitan! 

Unfortunately, after years of sterling service to the Church, the Metropolitan is falling into some dodgy errors.  His assertion that women priests are a possibility for the Orthodox comes to mind.  I would say that he spends far too much time in the UK in the company of Anglicans (the High Church variety who have both women priests and immaculate conception) and he is allowing himself to take on too much of their wishy-washy ethos.  We saw this at Lambeth where  Met. Kallistos made a dreadfully wimpy speech to please and appease the Anglicans whereas your own Cardinal Kasper made a staunch speech telling the Anglicans where they are going wrong.  It was Kasper who earnt the applause and respect of the Anglicans at Lambeth, not Met. Kallistos.

Given the date of his comment on the Immaculate Conception, I'd say he hasn't been Orthodox for many years.  I expect that if you are true to form...he'd be long gone!!

Is someone slipping or don't you dump your heretics as fast as you say that you do?

Some years back Bishop Kallistos was taken off the "lecture circuit" by the EP.  Does anyone else remember that and remember the reason he was grounded?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2010, 01:27:35 AM »


The teaching says that Mary was conceived differently to the rest of us, in a different spiritual state to all the human race.   This contradicts the teaching of the Church that all of us, including Mary, are conceived identically.  This is the theological essence of the heresy of the Immaculate Conception.  
One view is truth.  One view is heresy.

Apparently Bishop Kallistos W. didn't get the memo, but I find that is par for the course:


I wondered if you would bring in the doughty Metropolitan!  

Unfortunately, after years of sterling service to the Church, the Metropolitan is falling into some dodgy errors.  His assertion that women priests are a possibility for the Orthodox comes to mind.  I would say that he spends far too much time in the UK in the company of Anglicans (the High Church variety who have both women priests and immaculate conception) and he is allowing himself to take on too much of their wishy-washy ethos.  We saw this at Lambeth where  Met. Kallistos made a dreadfully wimpy speech to please and appease the Anglicans whereas your own Cardinal Kasper made a staunch speech telling the Anglicans where they are going wrong.  It was Kasper who earnt the applause and respect of the Anglicans at Lambeth, not Met. Kallistos.

Given the date of his comment on the Immaculate Conception, I'd say he hasn't been Orthodox for many years.  I expect that if you are true to form...he'd be long gone!!

Is someone slipping or don't you dump your heretics as fast as you say that you do?

M.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2010, 01:30:39 AM »

Yes, that makes three of us (actually, there are many, many more).  I cannot recommend any longer his "Orthodox Church," though the last "Orthodox Way" was still a classic.

What do you recommend in its stead for inquirers?

Bulgakov's "The Orthodox Church" (it has very little of his Sophiology heresy about it, and that only if you know what you are looking at.  IIRC the same Synod that denounced it as heresy, still cleared this work as OK for the Faithful).
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 #66 on: May 03, 2010, 05:58:56 AM »

Yes, that makes three of us (actually, there are many, many more).  I cannot recommend any longer his "Orthodox Church," though the last "Orthodox Way" was still a classic.

What do you recommend in its stead for inquirers?

Bulgakov's "The Orthodox Church" (it has very little of his Sophiology heresy about it, and that only if you know what you are looking at.  IIRC the same Synod that denounced it as heresy, still cleared this work as OK for the Faithful).

You mean the same Bulgakov that was trashed as a heretic on the flagship Orthodox blog, Ora et Labora?

M.
Logged

DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2010, 06:16:03 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...
Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2010, 06:31:50 AM »

Yes, that makes three of us (actually, there are many, many more).  I cannot recommend any longer his "Orthodox Church," though the last "Orthodox Way" was still a classic.
What do you recommend in its stead for inquirers?
Bulgakov's "The Orthodox Church" (it has very little of his Sophiology heresy about it, and that only if you know what you are looking at.  IIRC the same Synod that denounced it as heresy, still cleared this work as OK for the Faithful).
You mean the same Bulgakov that was trashed as a heretic on the flagship Orthodox blog, Ora et Labora?
M.

Mary, is this what you have in mind?

"In a subsection called “Father Bulgakov and the Deans,” Fr Plekon reflects on the tributes and criticisms from three Deans: Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr Boris Bobrinskoi, and Fr Thomas Hopko. Plekon writes that Schmeann, in a tribute in 1971 presented his estimation in “three images”: as priest, as man of prayer, and as celebrant of the Liturgy. It’s my estimation that if we are to have a positive appreciation of Bulgakov we should follow the lines mentioned by Schmemann, ignoring largely Bulgakov’s theological legacy, the hubris of which is considerable: “His was a theological mind bold enough to try to formulate in positive terms the Incarnation, which the Council of Chalcedon over a millenium and a half earlier could only describe as ‘without separation, division, confusion.’” I generally distrust those who try to go beyond the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

"Let us accept Bulgakov the man, and leave aside Bulgakov the theologian."


Paris School: Myth or Reality?
on Ora et Labora

http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/04/paris-school-myth-or-reality.html


Palamas, Florovsky, Bulgakov, and Sophiology
on Ora et Labora

http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2009/05/palamas-florovsky-bulgakov-and.html
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2010, 07:18:48 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2010, 07:50:35 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.

The trouble with using weird code terms like "original justice" is that one must be in the inner circle to know what it means.

For Aquinas original justice was the pre lapsarian preservation from corruptibility, i.e., from death.

What does it mean to you?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2010, 08:28:56 AM »

Bulgakov's "The Orthodox Church" (it has very little of his Sophiology heresy about it, and that only if you know what you are looking at.  IIRC the same Synod that denounced it as heresy, still cleared this work as OK for the Faithful).

You mean the same Bulgakov that was trashed as a heretic on the flagship Orthodox blog, Ora et Labora?


Both Bulgakov and sophianism have indeed been condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR and MP):


1) A decree of the Moscow Patriarchate dated 24 August, 1935, No.93.


In this document the following is said: By our decision of 24 August, 1935, No.93 it was determined:

i) The teaching of Professor and Archpriest S.N. Bulgakov — which, by its peculiar and arbitrary (Sophian) interpretation, often distorts the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, which in some of its points directly repeats false teachings already condemned by conciliar decisions of the Church, and the possible deductions resulting from which could even prove dangerous to spiritual life — this teaching is to be recognized as alien to the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ, and all its faithful servants and children are to be cautioned against an acceptance of this teaching.

ii) Those Orthodox Reverend Archpastors, clergy and laity who have indiscreetly embraced Bulgakov’s teaching and who have promoted it in their preaching and works, either written or printed, are to be called upon to correct the errors committed and to be steadfastly faithful to “sound teaching”.

-oOo-

2) A Decision of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the 17/30 October 1935 concerning the new teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia, the Wisdom of God.


The first three points of this Decision state:

i) To recognize the teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia the Wisdom of God as heretical.

ii) To inform Metropolitan Yevlogy of this Decision of the Council and to request that he admonish Archpriest Bulgakov with the intention of prompting him to publicly renounce his heretical teaching concerning Sophia and to make a report about the consequences of such admonition to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

iii) In the event that Archpriest Bulgakov does not repent, the present Decision of the Council which condemns the heresy of Sophianism is to be made known to all Autocephalous Churches.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2010, 08:40:46 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.

The trouble with using weird code terms like "original justice" is that one must be in the inner circle to know what it means.

For Aquinas original justice was the pre lapsarian preservation from corruptibility, i.e., from death.

What does it mean to you?

 Cool I have no idea what blog post you picked this up from but I am here to tell you that they flunked THEO 101, Aquinas on Nature and Grace!!

This is the ignorance that I tell you masks what is real and true.

The issue is NOT what Mary thinks or teaches.  What I offer here is what the Catholic Church teaches.  So it is what I told you before:  what the Church refers to as the stain of original sin is the loss of original justice and that means just what I had said:  The stain of original sin is the darkening of the nous or intellect and the weakening of the will.

If you are at all interested, though I doubt any will be,  you might pursue what follows. It is part of an excellent 7 part series on Aquinas and Original Justice and Original Sin.  But to keep on presenting the kind of truly ignorant assertion as that presented above does nothing to make Orthodoxy or the Orthodox look competent:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-2/

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-4/

Original sin as a kind of habit

In the first article, Aquinas teaches that original sin is a kind of habit. By ‘habit’ he means “a disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed well or ill, either in regard to itself or in regard to another.2  To show that original sin is a kind of habit, he first quotes from St. Augustine who says:

   
  • n account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act.3

Aquinas notes that since an aptitude is a kind of habit, therefore original sin is a kind of habit.

But what kind of habit is original sin? Aquinas distinguishes between two ways in which something may have a habit. In the first way, a power of the soul is disposed to an act. In other words, a power of the soul has a disposition to act in a certain way. This is the way in which virtues are habits. But according to Aquinas, this is not the way that original sin is a habit; original sin is not a disposition of a power to an act.

The second way in which a habit can be in something is as a disposition of a complex nature [naturae ex multis compositae] whereby that nature is well or ill disposed to something, particularly when that disposition has become like a second nature. Aquinas gives two examples of this way of having a habit: sickness and health. A healthy disposition is not in itself a disposition of any particular power in the body, but rather of the body as a whole. Likewise, a sickly disposition is not a disposition in a particular power of the body; a sickly disposition is rather a disposition of the whole body. Similarly, for Aquinas, original sin is an inordinate (i.e. disordered) disposition of the soul, “even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health.”4

This second way of possessing a habit is the way in which original sin is a habit. It is an inordinate disposition that results from the destruction of that harmony in which consisted the essence of original righteousness [Est enim quaedam inordinata dispositio proveniens ex dissolutione illius harmoniae in qua consistebat ratio originalis iustitiae]. He repeats this when he says, “In like manner, when the harmony of original justice is destroyed, the various powers of the soul have various opposite tendencies.”5

What does he mean by “harmony of original justice”? Aquinas answers this question in Summa Theologica I Q.95 a.1 co. where he explains that man was made by God in such a way that man’s reason was subject to God, man’s lower powers were perfectly subject to his reason, and man’s body also was perfectly subject to his soul. The first subjection (i.e. the subjection of man’s reason to God) was the cause of the latter two subjections. This harmonized hierarchy of ordered subjections is for Aquinas the essence or form (ratio) of original justice. This harmony is called original justice because justice is giving to each its due, and when each of the powers in an ordered hierarchy gives to its superior what is due, this is therefore a just state or condition.

This harmony is not essential to man as man. A man is still a man without it. In other words, a fallen man is still a man. A fallen man does not ipso facto become a different species. Therefore original justice does not belong to the nature of man, but is something given to man in addition to his nature. Since original justice is not intrinsic to man’s nature, it must therefore be a supernatural gift. Hence Aquinas refers to it as a supernatural endowment of grace [supernaturale donum gratiae]. If, however, Adam had not sinned, this ordered subjection of the will to God, and of the lower powers of the soul to reason, and of the body to the soul, would have been transmitted to his offspring. Therefore not only nature but also grace would have been transmitted to Adam’s offspring through his semen. The implication of Aquinas’s theology on this point is that the sexual act was intended to be a sacramental act.6

When Adam sinned by his free will, which is a power of reason, he turned away from obedience to God, and therefore failed to give God His due. As a result of this act of injustice, the lower two subjections (i.e. the subjection of the lower powers of the soul to reason, and the subjection of body to soul) were destroyed. Even the harmony between man and woman was lost, as was the harmony between man and man (e.g. Cain and Abel), and that between man and nature, for nature was originally subject to man.

Aquinas argues that original sin is not a pure privation, but also a corrupt habit, because of the inordinate disposition of the lower ‘parts’ of the soul (inordinatam dispositionem partium animae).7  The original justice that Adam and Eve had been given by God “prevented inordinate movements” [prohibebat inordinatos motus] of these lower powers.8  So in the fallen state, the lower powers of the soul not only lack the disposition to give to reason what is due to it, but have inclinations toward that which is contrary to what reason would command.

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

The Soul’s Twofold Comeliness

Concerning the stain of the soul, Aquinas writes:

    A stain [macula] is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man’s soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions.3

Aquinas says that the human soul has a twofold comeliness [nitorem]. This term means brightness, radiance or beauty. One way in which the human soul has comeliness is by the refulgence [refulgentia] or reflection in it of the natural light of reason. The more perfectly the lower powers of the soul are ordered to the soul’s highest power, i.e. reason, such that they submit to it, the more perfectly the natural light of reason is reflected throughout the soul. The other way in which the human soul has comeliness is by the refulgence of the Divine light, i.e. wisdom and grace [sapientiae et gratiae], by which man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions.4

The wisdom Aquinas refers to here is not natural wisdom, i.e. an intellectual virtue that could be acquired by the unaided power of human reason. Aquinas is here referring to the supernatural gift of wisdom, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and which follows upon the supernatural gift of charity.5 It is worth considering this gift of wisdom more carefully. Concerning this supernatural wisdom Aquinas writes:

    As stated above (Article 1), wisdom denotes a certain rectitude of judgment according to the Eternal Law. Now rectitude of judgment is twofold: first, on account of perfect use of reason, secondly, on account of a certain connaturality with the matter about which one has to judge [connaturalitatem quandam ad ea de quibus iam est iudicandum]. Thus, about matters of chastity, a man after inquiring with his reason forms a right judgment, if he has learnt the science of morals, while he who has the habit of chastity judges of such matters by a kind of connaturality.6

Aquinas notes that there are two ways in which right judgment can take place. One is by the perfect use of reason [by 'perfect' here he simply means proper], and the other is by a connaturality to that of which one is to judge. ‘Connaturality’ means a kind of sharing of the same nature, in some respect. In the encounter of that which is connatural to oneself, one finds that one already knows the other insofar as one knows one’s own nature.7 The encounter of that which is connatural to oneself allows one to judge concerning the other by ’seeing’ the other within (i.e. by the light of) one’s own nature, either one’s primary nature (i.e. human nature) or one’s second nature (i.e. acquired nature in the sense of acquired habits), or even one’s participation in the divine nature.

As an example of the difference between judging by reasoning and judging by connaturality, Aquinas describes two ways in which someone may judge rightly regarding what should be done in a matter of chastity. One man by deduction reasons from first principles to determine correctly what is the chaste action to be done. Another man, let us say, has no formal training in the science of ethics but has the virtue of chastity. This man reaches the same correct conclusion about what is the chaste action to be done, yet he reaches this conclusion without reasoning through a syllogism. He simply sees this action as what chastity requires in these circumstances. The virtue of chastity in his soul as a kind of second nature works ‘upward’ through his cogitative faculty, such that even without deliberation or deduction he sees clearly the chaste course of action by a kind of connaturality with chastity and the circumstances before him, even though he may not be able to explain why that is the chaste course of action.8 His virtuous disposition toward chastity illumines to his intellect the chaste action to be done.

In a similar way, argues Aquinas, the supernatural gift of wisdom allows a man to judge rightly about Divine things, by a kind of connatural seeing without deliberation. He writes:

    Accordingly it belongs to the wisdom that is an intellectual virtue to pronounce right judgment about Divine things after reason has made its inquiry, but it belongs to wisdom as a gift of the Holy Ghost to judge aright about them on account of connaturality with them …. Now this sympathy or connaturality for Divine things is the result of charity, which unites us to God, according to 1 Corinthians 6:17: “He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.” Consequently wisdom which is a gift, has its cause in the will, which cause is charity, but it has its essence in the intellect, whose act is to judge aright, as stated above (I-II, 14, 1).9

By the natural wisdom that is a virtue of the intellect a man may reason correctly to conclusions about Divine things. But there is also a supernatural wisdom which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and by this gift one judges rightly concerning Divine things through a kind of connaturality with them. This connaturality with divine things, according to Aquinas, is the result of the theological virtue of charity, which is a supernatural gift along with faith and hope. Since by the natural love of friendship the beloved is one in spirit with the lover, so a fortiori by the supernatural gift of charity the beloved is one in spirit with the divine Lover. Aquinas quotes 1 Corinthians 6:17 in support of this conclusion.10 The one who has the supernatural gift of charity loves God above all other things. And with that love of God comes a mutual indwelling: “He that abides in charity abides in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)

Concerning this mutual indwelling that results from charity, Aquinas says, “Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the beloved to be in the lover, and vice versa.”11 Through this mutual indwelling we have a kind of connaturality with God, and this connaturality with God allows us to judge rightly concerning divine things.12 If we lose the virtue of charity, necessarily we lose this connaturality with God, and so also we lose this divine gift of wisdom. Because charity is incompatible with mortal sin,13 therefore this divine gift of wisdom is incompatible with mortal sin.14 So for Aquinas, all who have sanctifying grace have this divine gift of wisdom,15 by which they are guided in their actions not only by the natural light of reason, but also by the Divine light visible to them through their connaturality with God on account of the mutual indwelling that arises from the supernatural virtue of charity.

Sin Causes a Stain on the Soul

How then does the loss of the refulgence of both the light of natural reason and the Divine light produce a stain in the soul? Aquinas writes:

    Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul [macula animae].16

When a person sins, he turns away both from reason and from the Divine law. Aquinas explains that there are two rules or standards by which the human will is measured: “one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak.”17 By turning away from both of these lights, and loving something inordinately, a kind of stain in the soul results, as he explains:

    [T]he act of the will consists in a movement towards things themselves, so that love attaches the soul to the thing loved [ita quod amor conglutinat animam rei amatae]. Thus it is that the soul is stained, when it cleaves inordinately [quando inordinate inhaeret], according to Hosea 9:10: “They . . . became abominable as those things were which they loved.”18

We know that a man cannot have two ultimate masters. (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13) This explains the sense in which we are not to love the world. The Apostle John writes, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15) Why is that? Love by its very nature attaches the soul to the thing loved. But love for something can be inordinate in two generically different ways: in itself contrary to love for God and neighbor, or compatible with love for God and neighbor but contrary to the perfect expression of love for God and neighbor.19 Inordinate love of the former sort is a love that prefers some created thing over God. But to love a creature more than one loves God is not to love God as God, but is rather to reject God as God. Therefore, when the soul cleaves inordinately to some created good in this way, that soul, in that particular way, turns away both from reason and from loving God. And by turning away from reason and from God, this soul loses the twofold refulgence of comeliness it possesses in the state of grace. That loss of comeliness is what Aquinas refers to as the stain in the soul.

Explanation of the Stain in the Soul

What exactly is the stain in the soul? Aquinas writes:

    The stain is neither something positive in the soul, nor does it denote a pure privation: it denotes a privation of the soul’s brightness [nitoris] in relation to its cause, which is sin; wherefore diverse sins occasion diverse stains. It is like a shadow, which is the privation of light through the interposition of a body, and which varies according to the diversity of the interposed bodies.20

The stain is neither something positive nor a pure privation [privationem solam]. A pure or simple privation is a kind of corruption of being.21 But the stain in the soul is a complex [non simplex] privation, a privation of the soul’s comeliness in relation to the sin that caused this privation. In that respect, the stain in the soul is like a shadow that takes the shape of the object that is blocking the light. The manner in which the soul has turned away from reason and from God, in that very manner deprives the soul of its comeliness. Murder, for example, produces a different stain in the soul than does adultery or blasphemy, according as each by its inordinate love for something other than God causes a different sort of ’shadow’ in the soul. The stain in the soul takes the ’shape’ of the idol that is put in the place of God by that sin.

Here it is important to point out the significance of the distinction between mortal and venial sins, in relation to the stain in the soul.22 According to Aquinas, mortal sin, but not venial sin, produces a stain in the soul. He writes:

    Now, just as in the body there is a twofold comeliness, one resulting from the inward disposition of the members and colors, the other resulting from outward refulgence supervening, so too, in the soul, there is a twofold comeliness, one habitual and, so to speak, intrinsic, the other actual like an outward flash of light. Now venial sin is a hindrance to actual comeliness, but not to habitual comeliness, because it neither destroys nor diminishes the habit of charity and of the other virtues, as we shall show further on (II-II, 24, 10; 133, 1, ad 2), but only hinders their acts. On the other hand a stain denotes something permanent in the thing stained, wherefore it seems in the nature of a loss of habitual rather than of actual comeliness. Therefore, properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in the soul. If, however, we find it stated anywhere that it does induce a stain, this is in a restricted sense, in so far as it hinders the comeliness that results from acts of virtue.23

Aquinas explains that the comeliness of the soul is twofold in another respect: intrinsic and extrinsic. The soul’s intrinsic comeliness is by the refulgence of its intrinsic dispositions. The soul’s extrinsic comeliness is by the refulgence of particular actions performed by this soul. Venial sin, by its very nature, does not destroy the habit of charity. Therefore, venial sin does not destroy the intrinsic comeliness of the soul, even though it hinders its extrinsic comeliness, by hindering charitable acts. But a stain, properly speaking, refers to something more permanent, not merely external or temporary. Therefore the stain on the soul refers to the loss of intrinsic comeliness rather than of extrinsic comeliness. But according to Aquinas one act of mortal sin destroys the virtue of charity in the soul.24 Moreover, the loss of charity entails the loss of grace and supernatural wisdom.25 Therefore it follows that for Aquinas, while venial sin does not produce a stain in the soul, one act of mortal sin destroys the intrinsic comeliness of the soul, and thereby creates a stain in the soul.

The Stain in the Soul Persists after the Act of Sin is Past

According to Aquinas, the stain in the soul remains after the cessation of the sinful act. He writes:

    The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated above (Article 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement. Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases, but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.26

Aquinas explains that the stain in the soul is not caused fundamentally by the sinful action per se, but by the inordinate attachment of the will to something other than God. This inordinate attachment underlies the act and endures beyond it. So long as this inordinate attachment remains, the stain remains in the soul. But the cessation of the sinful act does not remove this inordinate attachment. Rather, this inordinate attachment remains in the will after the cessation of the sinful action, unless by a contrary movement the will is attached to God in love as its highest good. When the will turns to God in love, then the soul is reattached to God, because love attaches the soul to the thing loved, as explained above. Only then is the twofold refulgence of the natural light of reason and the Divine light restored to the soul, and the stain thus removed. But this movement of the will, turning from inordinate love of the world to love of God, is possible only by grace. Thus only by grace can the stain in the soul be removed.


Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2010, 09:28:56 AM »


 Cool I have no idea what blog post you picked this up from but I am here to tell you that they flunked THEO 101, Aquinas on Nature and Grace!!

This is the ignorance that I tell you masks what is real and true.

Better not to use blogs unless the author is trustworthy.  Better to go to the source, in this case, Aquinas.

"... as stated in the I, 97, A1, 2, ad 4, immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice."

"If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve's sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying."

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 81
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2010, 09:36:26 AM »


 Cool I have no idea what blog post you picked this up from but I am here to tell you that they flunked THEO 101, Aquinas on Nature and Grace!!

This is the ignorance that I tell you masks what is real and true.

Better not to use blogs unless the author is trustworthy.  Better to go to the source, in this case, Aquinas.

"... as stated in the I, 97, A1, 2, ad 4, immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice."

"If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve's sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying."

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 81

You've truncated the teaching.

What you are showing here is what is CONSEQUENTIAL to the stain of sin.

What I have shown you is what the Church, and Aquinas, says that the stain of sin IS and what parts of the person it effects FIRST...

Once the ancestral sin occurred, the will and the intellect can be restored by justifying grace...but we are still liable for the consequences which are corruption and death.

The Immaculate Conception teaches that the Lady Full of Grace was born in a soul-state of original justice.  The rest of her carried the consequences of the ancestral sin.  She suffered.  She died.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2010, 09:50:36 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.
ah, but the torturous road the Vatican has to go to get there: only by His divinity that the Son Who knew no sin, became sin for us. Hence why the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.

"Original justice": I thought we were told on the myriad of threads on this issue that the Vatican doesn't hold original guilt.
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 #76 on: May 03, 2010, 10:05:50 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.
ah, but the torturous road the Vatican has to go to get there: only by His divinity that the Son Who knew no sin, became sin for us. Hence why the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.

"Original justice": I thought we were told on the myriad of threads on this issue that the Vatican doesn't hold original guilt.

What so-called problem is the Immaculate Conception said, by the Catholic Church, to solve?  Can you give me citations from the constitution itself?

As to your second point:

There is no personal sin-guilt in original sin.  There is a loss of original integrity and justice that is consequent to the original act.

Of course it is claimed that Universal Orthodoxy does not baptize to return the soul to original justice, or in simple terms to heal the rift that loss of original integrity produces between God and man...so apparently there is no teaching in Orthodoxy of sanctifying or justifying grace according to some.

Some Orthodox I know say there is sanctifying grace given in Baptism, some say not.  I have yet to see a simple catechetical explanation of Baptism in Orthodoxy that denies sanctifying grace and the ontological mark of the mystery.  Perhaps you can show me a teaching on Baptism where it is said there is no ontological change in the soul?

M.

Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2010, 10:09:52 AM »

The Immaculate Conception teaches that the Lady Full of Grace was born in a soul-state of original justice. 

I am not well versed in T. Aquinas. Is that where this language comes from?  I have never heard the term "born in a soul-state of original justice".  Can this language be found elsewhere?  Is it in the CCC?  Is it in any sort of infallible papal statement?

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #78 on: May 03, 2010, 10:17:10 AM »

...so apparently there is no teaching in Orthodoxy of sanctifying or justifying grace according to some.

Some Orthodox I know say there is sanctifying grace given in Baptism, some say not.  I have yet to see a simple catechetical explanation of Baptism in Orthodoxy that denies sanctifying grace

Christ is Risen!

The multiplication of categories and types of grace is something specific to Roman Catholicism. How many types of grace are there?  Ten and more?

I doubt if all that exists in your own Russian Byzantine Church.   Why do you insist on writing here as if you were a Roman Catholic?  So many of us would like to hear a Byzantine Catholic voice. 

Orthodoxy does not know of these divisions and simply believes that grace is God, one of His divine energies.  It's simpler.  Do Byzantine Catholics follow Orthodox or Roman Catholic teaching about this?

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #79 on: May 03, 2010, 10:19:50 AM »

The Immaculate Conception teaches that the Lady Full of Grace was born in a soul-state of original justice. 

I am not well versed in T. Aquinas. Is that where this language comes from?  I have never heard the term "born in a soul-state of original justice".  Can this language be found elsewhere?  Is it in the CCC?  Is it in any sort of infallible papal statement?

I think you raise an important point.  Unless this teaching has received some official formulation then Catholics are able to change or discard it in the next generation.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2010, 10:30:08 AM »

Its official, the Vatican has declared that Mary is God...

Following this logic all the way through then Adam and Eve were "God" as well, because that is what the Immaculate Conception indicates.  It indicates that the Theotokos came into being with her original justice intact, as it was for Adam and Eve.  And that is ALL that it teaches.

M.

The trouble with using weird code terms like "original justice" is that one must be in the inner circle to know what it means.

For Aquinas original justice was the pre lapsarian preservation from corruptibility, i.e., from death.

What does it mean to you?

 Cool I have no idea what blog post you picked this up from but I am here to tell you that they flunked THEO 101, Aquinas on Nature and Grace!!

This is the ignorance that I tell you masks what is real and true.

The issue is NOT what Mary thinks or teaches.  What I offer here is what the Catholic Church teaches. 

You mean the Vatican.  The Catholic Church doesn't teach any such thing.

Quote
So it is what I told you before:  what the Church refers to as the stain of original sin is the loss of original justice and that means just what I had said:  The stain of original sin is the darkening of the nous or intellect and the weakening of the will.

If you are at all interested, though I doubt any will be,  you might pursue what follows. It is part of an excellent 7 part series on Aquinas and Original Justice and Original Sin.  But to keep on presenting the kind of truly ignorant assertion as that presented above does nothing to make Orthodoxy or the Orthodox look competent:

Sorry the the summersaults of Scholasticism don't succeed to seduce us.

Quote

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-2/

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-4/

Original sin as a kind of habit

In the first article, Aquinas teaches that original sin is a kind of habit. By ‘habit’ he means “a disposition whereby that which is disposed is disposed well or ill, either in regard to itself or in regard to another.2  To show that original sin is a kind of habit, he first quotes from St. Augustine who says:

   
  • n account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act.3

Aquinas notes that since an aptitude is a kind of habit, therefore original sin is a kind of habit.

But what kind of habit is original sin? Aquinas distinguishes between two ways in which something may have a habit. In the first way, a power of the soul is disposed to an act. In other words, a power of the soul has a disposition to act in a certain way. This is the way in which virtues are habits. But according to Aquinas, this is not the way that original sin is a habit; original sin is not a disposition of a power to an act.

The second way in which a habit can be in something is as a disposition of a complex nature [naturae ex multis compositae] whereby that nature is well or ill disposed to something, particularly when that disposition has become like a second nature. Aquinas gives two examples of this way of having a habit: sickness and health. A healthy disposition is not in itself a disposition of any particular power in the body, but rather of the body as a whole. Likewise, a sickly disposition is not a disposition in a particular power of the body; a sickly disposition is rather a disposition of the whole body. Similarly, for Aquinas, original sin is an inordinate (i.e. disordered) disposition of the soul, “even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health.”4

This second way of possessing a habit is the way in which original sin is a habit. It is an inordinate disposition that results from the destruction of that harmony in which consisted the essence of original righteousness [Est enim quaedam inordinata dispositio proveniens ex dissolutione illius harmoniae in qua consistebat ratio originalis iustitiae]. He repeats this when he says, “In like manner, when the harmony of original justice is destroyed, the various powers of the soul have various opposite tendencies.”5

What does he mean by “harmony of original justice”? Aquinas answers this question in Summa Theologica I Q.95 a.1 co. where he explains that man was made by God in such a way that man’s reason was subject to God, man’s lower powers were perfectly subject to his reason, and man’s body also was perfectly subject to his soul. The first subjection (i.e. the subjection of man’s reason to God) was the cause of the latter two subjections. This harmonized hierarchy of ordered subjections is for Aquinas the essence or form (ratio) of original justice. This harmony is called original justice because justice is giving to each its due, and when each of the powers in an ordered hierarchy gives to its superior what is due, this is therefore a just state or condition.

This harmony is not essential to man as man. A man is still a man without it. In other words, a fallen man is still a man. A fallen man does not ipso facto become a different species. Therefore original justice does not belong to the nature of man, but is something given to man in addition to his nature. Since original justice is not intrinsic to man’s nature, it must therefore be a supernatural gift. Hence Aquinas refers to it as a supernatural endowment of grace [supernaturale donum gratiae]. If, however, Adam had not sinned, this ordered subjection of the will to God, and of the lower powers of the soul to reason, and of the body to the soul, would have been transmitted to his offspring. Therefore not only nature but also grace would have been transmitted to Adam’s offspring through his semen. The implication of Aquinas’s theology on this point is that the sexual act was intended to be a sacramental act.6

When Adam sinned by his free will, which is a power of reason, he turned away from obedience to God, and therefore failed to give God His due. As a result of this act of injustice, the lower two subjections (i.e. the subjection of the lower powers of the soul to reason, and the subjection of body to soul) were destroyed. Even the harmony between man and woman was lost, as was the harmony between man and man (e.g. Cain and Abel), and that between man and nature, for nature was originally subject to man.

Aquinas argues that original sin is not a pure privation, but also a corrupt habit, because of the inordinate disposition of the lower ‘parts’ of the soul (inordinatam dispositionem partium animae).7  The original justice that Adam and Eve had been given by God “prevented inordinate movements” [prohibebat inordinatos motus] of these lower powers.8  So in the fallen state, the lower powers of the soul not only lack the disposition to give to reason what is due to it, but have inclinations toward that which is contrary to what reason would command.

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

The Soul’s Twofold Comeliness

Concerning the stain of the soul, Aquinas writes:

    A stain [macula] is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man’s soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions.3

Aquinas says that the human soul has a twofold comeliness [nitorem]. This term means brightness, radiance or beauty. One way in which the human soul has comeliness is by the refulgence [refulgentia] or reflection in it of the natural light of reason. The more perfectly the lower powers of the soul are ordered to the soul’s highest power, i.e. reason, such that they submit to it, the more perfectly the natural light of reason is reflected throughout the soul. The other way in which the human soul has comeliness is by the refulgence of the Divine light, i.e. wisdom and grace [sapientiae et gratiae], by which man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions.4

The wisdom Aquinas refers to here is not natural wisdom, i.e. an intellectual virtue that could be acquired by the unaided power of human reason. Aquinas is here referring to the supernatural gift of wisdom, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and which follows upon the supernatural gift of charity.5 It is worth considering this gift of wisdom more carefully. Concerning this supernatural wisdom Aquinas writes:

    As stated above (Article 1), wisdom denotes a certain rectitude of judgment according to the Eternal Law. Now rectitude of judgment is twofold: first, on account of perfect use of reason, secondly, on account of a certain connaturality with the matter about which one has to judge [connaturalitatem quandam ad ea de quibus iam est iudicandum]. Thus, about matters of chastity, a man after inquiring with his reason forms a right judgment, if he has learnt the science of morals, while he who has the habit of chastity judges of such matters by a kind of connaturality.6

Aquinas notes that there are two ways in which right judgment can take place. One is by the perfect use of reason [by 'perfect' here he simply means proper], and the other is by a connaturality to that of which one is to judge. ‘Connaturality’ means a kind of sharing of the same nature, in some respect. In the encounter of that which is connatural to oneself, one finds that one already knows the other insofar as one knows one’s own nature.7 The encounter of that which is connatural to oneself allows one to judge concerning the other by ’seeing’ the other within (i.e. by the light of) one’s own nature, either one’s primary nature (i.e. human nature) or one’s second nature (i.e. acquired nature in the sense of acquired habits), or even one’s participation in the divine nature.

As an example of the difference between judging by reasoning and judging by connaturality, Aquinas describes two ways in which someone may judge rightly regarding what should be done in a matter of chastity. One man by deduction reasons from first principles to determine correctly what is the chaste action to be done. Another man, let us say, has no formal training in the science of ethics but has the virtue of chastity. This man reaches the same correct conclusion about what is the chaste action to be done, yet he reaches this conclusion without reasoning through a syllogism. He simply sees this action as what chastity requires in these circumstances. The virtue of chastity in his soul as a kind of second nature works ‘upward’ through his cogitative faculty, such that even without deliberation or deduction he sees clearly the chaste course of action by a kind of connaturality with chastity and the circumstances before him, even though he may not be able to explain why that is the chaste course of action.8 His virtuous disposition toward chastity illumines to his intellect the chaste action to be done.

In a similar way, argues Aquinas, the supernatural gift of wisdom allows a man to judge rightly about Divine things, by a kind of connatural seeing without deliberation. He writes:

    Accordingly it belongs to the wisdom that is an intellectual virtue to pronounce right judgment about Divine things after reason has made its inquiry, but it belongs to wisdom as a gift of the Holy Ghost to judge aright about them on account of connaturality with them …. Now this sympathy or connaturality for Divine things is the result of charity, which unites us to God, according to 1 Corinthians 6:17: “He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.” Consequently wisdom which is a gift, has its cause in the will, which cause is charity, but it has its essence in the intellect, whose act is to judge aright, as stated above (I-II, 14, 1).9

By the natural wisdom that is a virtue of the intellect a man may reason correctly to conclusions about Divine things. But there is also a supernatural wisdom which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and by this gift one judges rightly concerning Divine things through a kind of connaturality with them. This connaturality with divine things, according to Aquinas, is the result of the theological virtue of charity, which is a supernatural gift along with faith and hope. Since by the natural love of friendship the beloved is one in spirit with the lover, so a fortiori by the supernatural gift of charity the beloved is one in spirit with the divine Lover. Aquinas quotes 1 Corinthians 6:17 in support of this conclusion.10 The one who has the supernatural gift of charity loves God above all other things. And with that love of God comes a mutual indwelling: “He that abides in charity abides in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)

Concerning this mutual indwelling that results from charity, Aquinas says, “Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the beloved to be in the lover, and vice versa.”11 Through this mutual indwelling we have a kind of connaturality with God, and this connaturality with God allows us to judge rightly concerning divine things.12 If we lose the virtue of charity, necessarily we lose this connaturality with God, and so also we lose this divine gift of wisdom. Because charity is incompatible with mortal sin,13 therefore this divine gift of wisdom is incompatible with mortal sin.14 So for Aquinas, all who have sanctifying grace have this divine gift of wisdom,15 by which they are guided in their actions not only by the natural light of reason, but also by the Divine light visible to them through their connaturality with God on account of the mutual indwelling that arises from the supernatural virtue of charity.

Sin Causes a Stain on the Soul

How then does the loss of the refulgence of both the light of natural reason and the Divine light produce a stain in the soul? Aquinas writes:

    Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul [macula animae].16

When a person sins, he turns away both from reason and from the Divine law. Aquinas explains that there are two rules or standards by which the human will is measured: “one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak.”17 By turning away from both of these lights, and loving something inordinately, a kind of stain in the soul results, as he explains:

    [T]he act of the will consists in a movement towards things themselves, so that love attaches the soul to the thing loved [ita quod amor conglutinat animam rei amatae]. Thus it is that the soul is stained, when it cleaves inordinately [quando inordinate inhaeret], according to Hosea 9:10: “They . . . became abominable as those things were which they loved.”18

We know that a man cannot have two ultimate masters. (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13) This explains the sense in which we are not to love the world. The Apostle John writes, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15) Why is that? Love by its very nature attaches the soul to the thing loved. But love for something can be inordinate in two generically different ways: in itself contrary to love for God and neighbor, or compatible with love for God and neighbor but contrary to the perfect expression of love for God and neighbor.19 Inordinate love of the former sort is a love that prefers some created thing over God. But to love a creature more than one loves God is not to love God as God, but is rather to reject God as God. Therefore, when the soul cleaves inordinately to some created good in this way, that soul, in that particular way, turns away both from reason and from loving God. And by turning away from reason and from God, this soul loses the twofold refulgence of comeliness it possesses in the state of grace. That loss of comeliness is what Aquinas refers to as the stain in the soul.

Explanation of the Stain in the Soul

What exactly is the stain in the soul? Aquinas writes:

    The stain is neither something positive in the soul, nor does it denote a pure privation: it denotes a privation of the soul’s brightness [nitoris] in relation to its cause, which is sin; wherefore diverse sins occasion diverse stains. It is like a shadow, which is the privation of light through the interposition of a body, and which varies according to the diversity of the interposed bodies.20

The stain is neither something positive nor a pure privation [privationem solam]. A pure or simple privation is a kind of corruption of being.21 But the stain in the soul is a complex [non simplex] privation, a privation of the soul’s comeliness in relation to the sin that caused this privation. In that respect, the stain in the soul is like a shadow that takes the shape of the object that is blocking the light. The manner in which the soul has turned away from reason and from God, in that very manner deprives the soul of its comeliness. Murder, for example, produces a different stain in the soul than does adultery or blasphemy, according as each by its inordinate love for something other than God causes a different sort of ’shadow’ in the soul. The stain in the soul takes the ’shape’ of the idol that is put in the place of God by that sin.

Here it is important to point out the significance of the distinction between mortal and venial sins, in relation to the stain in the soul.22 According to Aquinas, mortal sin, but not venial sin, produces a stain in the soul. He writes:

    Now, just as in the body there is a twofold comeliness, one resulting from the inward disposition of the members and colors, the other resulting from outward refulgence supervening, so too, in the soul, there is a twofold comeliness, one habitual and, so to speak, intrinsic, the other actual like an outward flash of light. Now venial sin is a hindrance to actual comeliness, but not to habitual comeliness, because it neither destroys nor diminishes the habit of charity and of the other virtues, as we shall show further on (II-II, 24, 10; 133, 1, ad 2), but only hinders their acts. On the other hand a stain denotes something permanent in the thing stained, wherefore it seems in the nature of a loss of habitual rather than of actual comeliness. Therefore, properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in the soul. If, however, we find it stated anywhere that it does induce a stain, this is in a restricted sense, in so far as it hinders the comeliness that results from acts of virtue.23

Aquinas explains that the comeliness of the soul is twofold in another respect: intrinsic and extrinsic. The soul’s intrinsic comeliness is by the refulgence of its intrinsic dispositions. The soul’s extrinsic comeliness is by the refulgence of particular actions performed by this soul. Venial sin, by its very nature, does not destroy the habit of charity. Therefore, venial sin does not destroy the intrinsic comeliness of the soul, even though it hinders its extrinsic comeliness, by hindering charitable acts. But a stain, properly speaking, refers to something more permanent, not merely external or temporary. Therefore the stain on the soul refers to the loss of intrinsic comeliness rather than of extrinsic comeliness. But according to Aquinas one act of mortal sin destroys the virtue of charity in the soul.24 Moreover, the loss of charity entails the loss of grace and supernatural wisdom.25 Therefore it follows that for Aquinas, while venial sin does not produce a stain in the soul, one act of mortal sin destroys the intrinsic comeliness of the soul, and thereby creates a stain in the soul.

The Stain in the Soul Persists after the Act of Sin is Past

According to Aquinas, the stain in the soul remains after the cessation of the sinful act. He writes:

    The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated above (Article 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement. Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases, but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.26

Aquinas explains that the stain in the soul is not caused fundamentally by the sinful action per se, but by the inordinate attachment of the will to something other than God. This inordinate attachment underlies the act and endures beyond it. So long as this inordinate attachment remains, the stain remains in the soul. But the cessation of the sinful act does not remove this inordinate attachment. Rather, this inordinate attachment remains in the will after the cessation of the sinful action, unless by a contrary movement the will is attached to God in love as its highest good. When the will turns to God in love, then the soul is reattached to God, because love attaches the soul to the thing loved, as explained above. Only then is the twofold refulgence of the natural light of reason and the Divine light restored to the soul, and the stain thus removed. But this movement of the will, turning from inordinate love of the world to love of God, is possible only by grace. Thus only by grace can the stain in the soul be removed.
I don't have the time at present to plough through this (much of which is correct, btw), but will just note the fact that Aquinas did not believe the innovation of the IC.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2010, 11:01:47 AM »

...so apparently there is no teaching in Orthodoxy of sanctifying or justifying grace according to some.

Some Orthodox I know say there is sanctifying grace given in Baptism, some say not.  I have yet to see a simple catechetical explanation of Baptism in Orthodoxy that denies sanctifying grace

Christ is Risen!

The multiplication of categories and types of grace is something specific to Roman Catholicism. How many types of grace are there?  Ten and more?

I doubt if all that exists in your own Russian Byzantine Church.   

Is Elijahmaria a member of that rarity, the Russian Byzantine Church?"  I remember that rather confused, then at least nominally Orthodox, priest Frank Chrysostom went into submission to the Vatican.  At least that was honest: the reposting of his statements with the by line "of an Orthodox Priest" is not.
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 #82 on: May 03, 2010, 11:28:57 AM »

I don't have the time at present to plough through this (much of which is correct, btw), but will just note the fact that Aquinas did not believe the innovation of the IC.

Then I am sure you can offer citations as to why he took that position,  and also why the Catholic Church chose to declare in spite of those particular protestations.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2010, 11:33:07 AM »

I don't have the time at present to plough through this (much of which is correct, btw), but will just note the fact that Aquinas did not believe the innovation of the IC.

Then I am sure you can offer citations as to why he took that position,  and also why the Catholic Church chose to declare in spite of those particular protestations.

M.

Some blame the Franciscans - always a boisterous lot and hard to ignore.   laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2010, 12:13:54 PM »

I don't have the time at present to plough through this (much of which is correct, btw), but will just note the fact that Aquinas did not believe the innovation of the IC.

Then I am sure you can offer citations as to why he took that position,  and also why the Catholic Church chose to declare in spite of those particular protestations.

M.
Some blame the Franciscans - always a boisterous lot and hard to ignore.   laugh
LOL.  Father, you beat me to it. The Catholic Church has chosen not to declare it because it is heresy.  The Vatican chose to declare it because in falls in line with the descent into Mariolatry into which the Vatican has fallen, and into which mire (as evidenced by the Mediatrix nonsense and the semi-incarnate Immaculata) in continues to sink.

As to Aquinas, I've already provided the reasoning of his predecessor, Bernard of Clairveaux.  His reasons suffice: it was an innovation, strange to the teachings of the Apostles.

Before you claim that that is a cop out, may I remind you that you were basing your argument on what the IC is, on the teaching of someone who did not believe it, and yet you complain when we point out the logical consequences in theology necessitated by acceptance of the IC.  In for a penny, in for a pound.

I remember someone on CAF assured me that that the Holy Theotokos corrected Bernard in heaven.  I asked "in 1153, or 1854?" Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 12:14:22 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2010, 12:20:08 PM »

I don't have the time at present to plough through this (much of which is correct, btw), but will just note the fact that Aquinas did not believe the innovation of the IC.

Then I am sure you can offer citations as to why he took that position,  and also why the Catholic Church chose to declare in spite of those particular protestations.

M.
Some blame the Franciscans - always a boisterous lot and hard to ignore.   laugh
LOL.  Father, you beat me to it. The Catholic Church has chosen not to declare it because it is heresy.  The Vatican chose to declare it because in falls in line with the descent into Mariolatry into which the Vatican has fallen, and into which mire (as evidenced by the Mediatrix nonsense and the semi-incarnate Immaculata) in continues to sink.

As to Aquinas, I've already provided the reasoning of his predecessor, Bernard of Clairveaux.  His reasons suffice: it was an innovation, strange to the teachings of the Apostles.

Before you claim that that is a cop out, may I remind you that you were basing your argument on what the IC is, on the teaching of someone who did not believe it, and yet you complain when we point out the logical consequences in theology necessitated by acceptance of the IC.  In for a penny, in for a pound.

I remember someone on CAF assured me that that the Holy Theotokos corrected Bernard in heaven.  I asked "in 1153, or 1854?" Cheesy

What logic?  I've seen no logical refutation here.

You seem to be too busy.  And you don't seem to be able to answer my question except by an off-the-cuff response that any new convert to Orthodoxy would be able to generate without any help at all.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #86 on: May 03, 2010, 12:39:34 PM »

And you don't seem to be able to answer my question...

What is your specific question?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 03, 2010, 12:51:12 PM »

And you don't seem to be able to answer my question...

What is your specific question?

What I asked for Mickey and what they cannot give me because it does not exist is a citation from Aquinas that emphatically states that the Immaculate Conception is an absolute theological impossibility.

Aquinas was well aware that he had laid the groundwork for explaining not only the Immaculate Conception but also the fact that we are healed of all stain of the ancestral sin at Baptism and infused with a justifying or sanctifying grace, yet we are still subject to corruption and death.

So his message was/and remains that we must never teach that the Mother of God was not redeemed.  That is the real message from Aquinas but scholars split hairs for centuries over it and protestants have made hay over it, and continue to do so in Orthodoxy. 

But there is no statement from Aquinas as there was from St. Bernard who flat out said it is impossible. 

That's why I always ask people to cite one from Aquinas.  They can't because there isn't one.  Aquinas did say that whatever was decided he would accept what the Church taught.

That is why you will find more cradle Orthodox in sympathy with and comprehending the Immaculate Conception than you will find most Orthodox converts who tend to take their protestant biases with them.

M.

Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2010, 01:04:46 PM »

But there is no statement from Aquinas as there was from St. Bernard who flat out said it is impossible.  

Let us say that you are correct that Thomas Aquinas taught in favor of the RC doctrine of IC---is he correct?  Or is St Bernard correct?

That is why you will find more cradle Orthodox in sympathy with and comprehending the Immaculate Conception than you will find most Orthodox converts who tend to take their protestant biases with them.

I am a convert from the BCC (where you are currently).  Not only do I
not hear of cradle or convert Orthodox who accept the RC doctrine of IC---I met many, BC's who did not accept it.  Wink

You surmise that it is a protestant bias that is responsible for rejection of this doctrine.  But many learned men and women reject it because of it's absence from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 01:05:27 PM by Mickey » Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #89 on: May 03, 2010, 01:16:41 PM »

I am a convert from the BCC (where you are currently).  Not only do I
not hear of cradle or convert Orthodox who accept the RC doctrine of IC---I met many, BC's who did not accept it.  Wink
Indeed, a Byzantine Catholic friend pointed out to me that his Church rejected Vatican 1 as well as Vatican 2.
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 0.23 seconds with 72 queries.