Author Topic: A question on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 347662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #585 on: May 11, 2010, 09:11:35 AM »
This is an interesting approach and parallels that being advanced for the developing new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit in the Immaculata.  I imagine the two dogmas go hand in glove.

Yes Father...I was thinking the same thing.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #586 on: May 11, 2010, 09:20:04 AM »
I don't care if there's no smoking gun...that says "conception"

Of course you don’t.  But without the language of “conception”,  you have a very difficult time defending this odd doctrine.  :-\



No more difficulty than that which the Fathers had defending and Christianizing  the philosophical nuances of Trinity and Incarnation.

In fact there are no directly Marian philosophical concepts that need to be borrowed to explain the Immaculate Conception.  The only nuances in the teaching come from the already agreed upon Christological nuances.
Christ is Risen!

This is an interesting approach and parallels that being advanced for the developing new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit in the Immaculata.  I imagine the two dogmas go hand in glove.

This is just more dissembling.  What you speak of here is not real in terms of actual Catholic teaching.  You've grasped a word or phrase here and there, and concocted it out of fuzzy thought.  It has no place in a genuine dialogue about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

But that of course is its purpose.

M.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 09:20:34 AM by elijahmaria »

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #587 on: May 11, 2010, 09:23:11 AM »
This is just more dissembling.

Time will tell.  ;)

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #588 on: May 11, 2010, 09:27:46 AM »
I don't care if there's no smoking gun...that says "conception"

Of course you don’t.  But without the language of “conception”,  you have a very difficult time defending this odd doctrine.  :-\



No more difficulty than that which the Fathers had defending and Christianizing  the philosophical nuances of Trinity and Incarnation.

In fact there are no directly Marian philosophical concepts that need to be borrowed to explain the Immaculate Conception.  The only nuances in the teaching come from the already agreed upon Christological nuances.
Christ is Risen!

This is an interesting approach and parallels that being advanced for the developing new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit in the Immaculata.  I imagine the two dogmas go hand in glove.

This is just more dissembling.  What you speak of here is not real in terms of actual Catholic teaching.  You've grasped a word or phrase here and there, and concocted it out of fuzzy thought.  It has no place in a genuine dialogue about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

But that of course is its purpose.

M.

You're out of touch.  The Quasi-Incarnation of the Spiriti is being pushed by, for example, the Francisan Steubenville University.  Pick up the theological writing of Miravalle on the subject.  The sixth Marian dogma is already in the pipeline.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #589 on: May 11, 2010, 09:36:13 AM »
I don't care if there's no smoking gun...that says "conception"

Of course you don’t.  But without the language of “conception”,  you have a very difficult time defending this odd doctrine.  :-\



No more difficulty than that which the Fathers had defending and Christianizing  the philosophical nuances of Trinity and Incarnation.

In fact there are no directly Marian philosophical concepts that need to be borrowed to explain the Immaculate Conception.  The only nuances in the teaching come from the already agreed upon Christological nuances.
Christ is Risen!

This is an interesting approach and parallels that being advanced for the developing new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit in the Immaculata.  I imagine the two dogmas go hand in glove.

This is just more dissembling.  What you speak of here is not real in terms of actual Catholic teaching.  You've grasped a word or phrase here and there, and concocted it out of fuzzy thought.  It has no place in a genuine dialogue about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

But that of course is its purpose.

M.

You're out of touch.  The Quasi-Incarnation of the Spiriti is being pushed by, for example, the Francisan Steubenville University.  Pick up the theological writing of Miravalle on the subject.  The sixth Marian dogma is already in the pipeline.

As you and others here well know there is nothing that is part of Catholic teaching that equates to the so-called "Quasi-Incarnation of the Spiriti"...

Nothing. 

This is just a distraction from the discussion at hand.

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #590 on: May 11, 2010, 09:38:19 AM »
Bump---to put us back on track

From the Synaxarion for the feast of the Conception of the Mother of God (December 9):

After many years of childlessness and fervent prayer, an angel of the Lord announced to Joachim and Anna that that they would be the parents of a daughter, the Virgin Mary, who would bring blessings to the whole human race.  The Conception took place at Jerusalem.  The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of her Son.  Only Christ was born perfectly holy and sinless.  The Holy Virgin was like everyone else in her mortality and in being subject to temptation, although she committed no personal sins.  She was not a deified creature removed from the rest of humanity.  If this were the case, she would not have been truly human, and the nature that Christ took from her would not have been truly human either.  If Christ does not truly share our human nature, then the possibility of our salvation is in doubt.

No ifs, no buts, no ambiguity, no wiggle-room. This statement is no theologoumenon, but is from the liturgical deposit of the Church, and is therefore part of the sure and clear teaching of the Orthodox Church.

This would seem to conflict with what His Grace Bishop Maximos said in the quote I provided earlier, as well as St. John Chrysostom.

And if it does? The opinion of one saint (or even several) does not override the decision of the Church as a whole. The Orthodox Church's decisions are conciliar. Decisions are made by a group of people of one mind, not by one man by executive fiat. The Orthodox Church does not regard any of its saints as infallible. The word of one saint or even several does not a doctrine make. Many a time I have stated on this forum that individual Fathers and saints might contradict each other, but the consensus patrum of the Church is found in its liturgical and iconographic deposit. Some of the fundamental doctrines and dogmas are also expressed in the rulings of the Ecumenical and local Councils, which have then been expressed in hymnody and iconography.

If it's in the Vigil or in a canonical icon, that settles it.

And yet we affirm literally hundreds of times during the Paschal season (emphasis mine):

Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the Holy Lord Jesus, the only sinless One.  Your Cross to we worship, O Christ, and Your Holy Resurrection to we hymn and glorify.  For You are our God, we have no other but You, and we call upon Your most Holy name.  Come, all the faithful, let us worship the Holy Resurrection of Christ, for behold, through the Cross, joy has come into all the world.  Ever blessing the Lord we extol His Resurrection, for enduring the Cross for us He destroyed death by death.

As a Catholic, Father George, I understand this hymn to mean that Jesus was the only one, unlike ourselves, whose human person never needed to be redeemed.

All of us including his mother required redemption.  The matter of redemption is not the question for the Mother of God.  

It is the manner of her redemption not the fact of it.  And as you, yourself, said in paraphrase: God could have chosen to redeem us by any number of means.  

And so the Catholic Church teaches that she is redeemed by other means than the one he chose for the rest of us, and that he did so out of great love for the woman who was to give him flesh.

M.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #591 on: May 11, 2010, 09:43:01 AM »
Bump---to put us back on track

From the Synaxarion for the feast of the Conception of the Mother of God (December 9):

After many years of childlessness and fervent prayer, an angel of the Lord announced to Joachim and Anna that that they would be the parents of a daughter, the Virgin Mary, who would bring blessings to the whole human race.  The Conception took place at Jerusalem.  The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of her Son.  Only Christ was born perfectly holy and sinless.  The Holy Virgin was like everyone else in her mortality and in being subject to temptation, although she committed no personal sins.  She was not a deified creature removed from the rest of humanity.  If this were the case, she would not have been truly human, and the nature that Christ took from her would not have been truly human either.  If Christ does not truly share our human nature, then the possibility of our salvation is in doubt.

No ifs, no buts, no ambiguity, no wiggle-room. This statement is no theologoumenon, but is from the liturgical deposit of the Church, and is therefore part of the sure and clear teaching of the Orthodox Church.

This would seem to conflict with what His Grace Bishop Maximos said in the quote I provided earlier, as well as St. John Chrysostom.

And if it does? The opinion of one saint (or even several) does not override the decision of the Church as a whole. The Orthodox Church's decisions are conciliar. Decisions are made by a group of people of one mind, not by one man by executive fiat. The Orthodox Church does not regard any of its saints as infallible. The word of one saint or even several does not a doctrine make. Many a time I have stated on this forum that individual Fathers and saints might contradict each other, but the consensus patrum of the Church is found in its liturgical and iconographic deposit. Some of the fundamental doctrines and dogmas are also expressed in the rulings of the Ecumenical and local Councils, which have then been expressed in hymnody and iconography.

If it's in the Vigil or in a canonical icon, that settles it.

And yet we affirm literally hundreds of times during the Paschal season (emphasis mine):

Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the Holy Lord Jesus, the only sinless One.  Your Cross to we worship, O Christ, and Your Holy Resurrection to we hymn and glorify.  For You are our God, we have no other but You, and we call upon Your most Holy name.  Come, all the faithful, let us worship the Holy Resurrection of Christ, for behold, through the Cross, joy has come into all the world.  Ever blessing the Lord we extol His Resurrection, for enduring the Cross for us He destroyed death by death.

As a Catholic, Father George, I understand this hymn to mean that Jesus was the only one, unlike ourselves, whose human person never needed to be redeemed.

All of us including his mother required redemption.  The matter of redemption is not the question for the Mother of God.  

It is the manner of her redemption not the fact of it.  And as you, yourself, said in paraphrase: God could have chosen to redeem us by any number of means.  

And so the Catholic Church teaches that she is redeemed by other means than the one he chose for the rest of us, and that he did so out of great love for the woman who was to give him flesh.

M.
I hope no one uses the stupid "then you don't think shes human" argument. Its so silly it makes me wanna through fish.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #592 on: May 11, 2010, 09:43:40 AM »
This is an interesting approach and parallels that being advanced for the developing new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit in the Immaculata.  I imagine the two dogmas go hand in glove.

Yes Father...I was thinking the same thing.
Of course you are. You are a card carrying ambrosite.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #593 on: May 11, 2010, 09:44:26 AM »
and as I have said before if the Orthodox Church wants to deny the immaculate conception then she really needs to do a re-write of some of these hymns:

You are kidding, right?  None of these hymns point to any kind of immaculate conception.  You are reading them with a retroactive Latin mindset. ::)
OR.... You are reading them with the modern anti-latin mindset.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #594 on: May 11, 2010, 09:45:59 AM »
^ That is isegesis, not exegesis.  You're putting meaning into the text, specifically with the unsupported (with regards to the quoted material) "that extends well beyond her three years as she enters the Temple."
Not at all. None of those texts make any sense if she was conceived in original sin and you know it.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #595 on: May 11, 2010, 09:51:52 AM »
You're out of touch.  The Quasi-Incarnation of the Spiriti is being pushed by, for example, the Francisan Steubenville University.  Pick up the theological writing of Miravalle on the subject.  The sixth Marian dogma is already in the pipeline.

Is there not also a connection to the writings of Louis de Montfort?


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #596 on: May 11, 2010, 09:53:50 AM »
^ That is isegesis, not exegesis.  You're putting meaning into the text, specifically with the unsupported (with regards to the quoted material) "that extends well beyond her three years as she enters the Temple."
Not at all. None of those texts make any sense if she was conceived in original sin and you know it.
Yet we and the composers saw no such thing, and have no problem making sense of them.

What we can't make sense of is the claim that the Eastern Churches believed in the IC, and the West didn't, and then with the invention of the IC in England, we stopped believing it and you all started believing it.


I don't think anybody is very convinced that these texts from the Feast of the Entrance are laden with subliminal references to the Immaculate Conception.

There is nothing subliminal about them.  They are very direct statements and explicit.  They attest to her remarkable spotlessness and holiness that extends well beyond her three years as she enters the Temple.   She is far older in holiness than her years.  Spotless and stainless beyond her earthly age.



So why don't you provide us with the texts from the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary?   If the teaching is anywhere, it must be there.

May I venture to say why you don't dare provide these texts, from your own Ruthenian tradition --- because as has been shown on Byzcath, there are NO references, not even subliminal ones, to the IC in the Byzantine feast.   And so what happened?  The Catholics went ahead and created NEW entries for the text of this Feast, texts which explicitly mention the Immaculate Conception.  The necessity to do this is adequate proof that the genuine texts, the original texts as still used by the Orthodox, make no reference to the Immaculate Conception.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #597 on: May 11, 2010, 09:55:54 AM »
The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle 
   
December 01 2007 
Page 1 of 6

On February 17, 1941, the "Property" of the Immaculata, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo, eventually leading to his martyrdom in Auschwitz. During the few hours before his arrest, Fr. Maximilian was inspired to write the heart of his unparalleled mariological ponderings regarding the "Immaculate Conception."

The following are excerpts from this last written testimony:

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

Since human words are incapable of expressing divine realities, it follows that these words: "Immaculate," and "Conception" must be understood in a much more beautiful and sublime meaning than usual: a meaning beyond that which human reason at its most penetrating, commonly gives to them . . . Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?

Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Not Eve, molded from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). Not the Incarnate Word, who exists before all ages, and of whom we should use the word "conceived" rather than "conception." Humans do not exist before their conception, so we might call them created "conception." But you, O Mary, are different from all other children of Eve. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique Immaculate Conception.

. . . Creatures, by following the natural law implanted in them by God, reach their perfection, become like him, and go back to him. Intelligent creatures love him in a conscious manner; through this love they unite themselves more and more closely with him, and so find their way back to him. The creature most completely filled with this love, with God himself, was the Immaculata, who never contracted the slightest stain of sin, who never departed in the least from God's will. United to the Holy Spirit as his spouse, she is one with God in an incomparably more perfect way than can be predicated of any other creature.

What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.

In what does this life of the Spirit in Mary consist? He himself is uncreated Love in her; the Love of the Father and of the Son, the Love by which God loves himself, the very love of the Most Holy Trinity. He is a fruitful Love, a "Conception." Among creatures made in God's image the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all (cf. Mt. 19:6). In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being. He makes her fruitful, from the very instance of her existence, all during her life, and for all eternity.

This eternal "Immaculate Conception" (which is the Holy Spirit) produces in an immaculate manner divine life itself in the womb (or depths) of Mary's soul, making her the Immaculate Conception, the human Immaculate Conception. And the virginal womb of Mary's body is kept sacred for him; there he conceives in time—because everything that is material occurs in time—the human life of the Man-God. (1)

In a 1933 Letter from Nagasaki, St. Maximilian explains further that in the name, "Immaculate Conception," the Mother also gives us the secret of her very nature:

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

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

The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)


Does St. Maximilian go too far in speaking in this manner of the wonders of the Immaculate Conception? Or does he say too little? The Mariology disclosed by the saint of the Immaculata, generous and profound as it is, in no way exhausts the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. His unrivaled pneumatological discoveries prepare the way for a new comprehension of the inseparability of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception with the created Immaculate Conception. But the mystery continues. The brilliance of St. Maximilian's methodology in his return to Trinitarian Mariology specific to the Holy Spirit also propels us to ponder more deeply the other relationships of the Immaculata with her Triune God.

Perhaps least developed of these, from a Trinitarian perspective, is the relationship between the Immaculate Conception and the Heavenly Father. The Father-daughter relationship is one of the most precious of human relationships, and no other relationship captures more the love of the Creator for creation, and the appropriate reciprocal love of creation for the Creator than the relationship between the Eternal Father and Mary Immaculate. At the heart of this union of Perfect Daughter to Perfect Father, which represents and exemplifies how every creature should be united to its Creator, is the stainlessness and fullness of grace possessed by the Immaculate Daughter. This "stainless-fullness" is given to her by the Eternal Father through the Spirit and in view of the foreseen merits of the Son, which is the foundation of her perfect response of fiat-love to everything given to her and asked of her by her "Abba," God the Father of all mankind.

As the example of St. Maximilian makes clear, the dogmatic proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 does not end its doctrinal development, but rather encourages more unveiling and more appreciation of its sacred mystery. Certainly Contemporary Mariology would do well to follow the example of St. Maximilian in striving to incorporate a more Trinitarian perspective and methodology in relation to the Blessed Virgin if we seek to be true to the full glory of Mary Immaculate....

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/general-mariology/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix.html

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #598 on: May 11, 2010, 10:34:23 AM »
This is not the teaching of the Church...It is the inspiration of a saint who loved the Mother of God.

It is not sinful.  It is not doctrine.

Orthodoxy also teaches Marian mediation so there's no point in gasping over St. M. Kolbe, in any event.

Also in liturgical prayer!!,  Mother of God is referred to as the Bride of the Bridegroom [Christ] in Orthodoxy so that needs some explanation and St. M.Kolbe goes a way down the road in explaining how that is true.

So you may poke fun all you like but be sure that you notice the fingers pointing back at you.

M.

The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle 
   
December 01 2007 
Page 1 of 6

On February 17, 1941, the "Property" of the Immaculata, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo, eventually leading to his martyrdom in Auschwitz. During the few hours before his arrest, Fr. Maximilian was inspired to write the heart of his unparalleled mariological ponderings regarding the "Immaculate Conception."

The following are excerpts from this last written testimony:

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

Since human words are incapable of expressing divine realities, it follows that these words: "Immaculate," and "Conception" must be understood in a much more beautiful and sublime meaning than usual: a meaning beyond that which human reason at its most penetrating, commonly gives to them . . . Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?

Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Not Eve, molded from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). Not the Incarnate Word, who exists before all ages, and of whom we should use the word "conceived" rather than "conception." Humans do not exist before their conception, so we might call them created "conception." But you, O Mary, are different from all other children of Eve. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique Immaculate Conception.

. . . Creatures, by following the natural law implanted in them by God, reach their perfection, become like him, and go back to him. Intelligent creatures love him in a conscious manner; through this love they unite themselves more and more closely with him, and so find their way back to him. The creature most completely filled with this love, with God himself, was the Immaculata, who never contracted the slightest stain of sin, who never departed in the least from God's will. United to the Holy Spirit as his spouse, she is one with God in an incomparably more perfect way than can be predicated of any other creature.

What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.

In what does this life of the Spirit in Mary consist? He himself is uncreated Love in her; the Love of the Father and of the Son, the Love by which God loves himself, the very love of the Most Holy Trinity. He is a fruitful Love, a "Conception." Among creatures made in God's image the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all (cf. Mt. 19:6). In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being. He makes her fruitful, from the very instance of her existence, all during her life, and for all eternity.

This eternal "Immaculate Conception" (which is the Holy Spirit) produces in an immaculate manner divine life itself in the womb (or depths) of Mary's soul, making her the Immaculate Conception, the human Immaculate Conception. And the virginal womb of Mary's body is kept sacred for him; there he conceives in time—because everything that is material occurs in time—the human life of the Man-God. (1)

In a 1933 Letter from Nagasaki, St. Maximilian explains further that in the name, "Immaculate Conception," the Mother also gives us the secret of her very nature:

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

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

The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)


Does St. Maximilian go too far in speaking in this manner of the wonders of the Immaculate Conception? Or does he say too little? The Mariology disclosed by the saint of the Immaculata, generous and profound as it is, in no way exhausts the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. His unrivaled pneumatological discoveries prepare the way for a new comprehension of the inseparability of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception with the created Immaculate Conception. But the mystery continues. The brilliance of St. Maximilian's methodology in his return to Trinitarian Mariology specific to the Holy Spirit also propels us to ponder more deeply the other relationships of the Immaculata with her Triune God.

Perhaps least developed of these, from a Trinitarian perspective, is the relationship between the Immaculate Conception and the Heavenly Father. The Father-daughter relationship is one of the most precious of human relationships, and no other relationship captures more the love of the Creator for creation, and the appropriate reciprocal love of creation for the Creator than the relationship between the Eternal Father and Mary Immaculate. At the heart of this union of Perfect Daughter to Perfect Father, which represents and exemplifies how every creature should be united to its Creator, is the stainlessness and fullness of grace possessed by the Immaculate Daughter. This "stainless-fullness" is given to her by the Eternal Father through the Spirit and in view of the foreseen merits of the Son, which is the foundation of her perfect response of fiat-love to everything given to her and asked of her by her "Abba," God the Father of all mankind.

As the example of St. Maximilian makes clear, the dogmatic proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 does not end its doctrinal development, but rather encourages more unveiling and more appreciation of its sacred mystery. Certainly Contemporary Mariology would do well to follow the example of St. Maximilian in striving to incorporate a more Trinitarian perspective and methodology in relation to the Blessed Virgin if we seek to be true to the full glory of Mary Immaculate....

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/general-mariology/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix.html


Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #599 on: May 11, 2010, 10:37:38 AM »

Yes.  You and the ultramontanes have done a fine job explaining it.  ;D
Really? You are descending to petty name calling? How old are you?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #600 on: May 11, 2010, 10:47:14 AM »
Really? You are descending to petty name calling?

Huh?  ???  There is no name calling?   

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #601 on: May 11, 2010, 10:48:06 AM »

Also in liturgical prayer!!,  Mother of God is referred to as the Bride of the Bridegroom [Christ] in Orthodoxy so that needs some explanation ....


Much of this is metaphor and hyperbole.  Both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics delight in it and never expect Roman Catholics to impose dogma on it or to extract  dogma from it.


The response of the Catholic Melkites at Vatican II to the new title for the Mother of God "Mother of the Church" is very similar to the Orthodox response and highlights what I am trying to say.

We have no problem with heaping an infinite number of praises upon the Mother of God.


The Melkite response is well worth the read. Here is an extract.  I've placed the crux of it in BLUE:


It will have been noticed that during the passionate debates that characterized
the Council’s discussion of this schema “On the Virgin Mary,” Patriarch Maximos
and the Melkite Greek Fathers refused to intervene. They were astonished to
their very depths at the importance that was attached to recognizing or refusing
this new title “Mother of the Church” to the Theotokos.

Accustomed to the poetic language of their liturgy, in which the Virgin is saluted
with a thousand titles, they had no trouble in accepting this new title, if it is
interpreted in a large, liturgical, and poetic sense, or in refusing it, if it is interpreted
in a sense that is too realistic and too literal.



Mary and the Church

The preparatory doctrinal commission had begun by preparing an independent schema entitled: “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men.” On June 5, 1962, the patriarch wrote to praise two intentions expressed in the text, namely: no new title for the Virgin, no new Marian dogma. But already he had been struck by the absence in the text of patristic citations, above all Eastern ones, in a domain which the Eastern Fathers have explored superabundantly. Only popes are cited.


1) We agree entirely with the care demonstrated by the theological commission in not granting to the holy Mother of God any new titles that have not been accepted by the Tradition of the Church.


2) We equally agree with the care to avoid defining new Marian dogmas, in spite of the pressure, as blind as it is well intentioned, of certain groups of devotees of the Virgin. In this matter, as in so many others, we must never lose sight of our separated brethren, above all those of the East, and avoid that which, in our efforts to honor the Virgin, deepens the chasm that separates us from them. The Virgin surely is not pleased by a homage that unnecessarily contributes to the widening of the divisions among her children.


3) We would point out, with respect to the drafting of the notes, that one should not be content with citing popes, especially in a matter on which the Fathers of the Church have spoken so much and so well. We must avoid giving the impression that in the eyes of the theologians of the council only popes form the magisterium of the Church. With a unionist goal, it would even be good to cite in particular the Fathers of the Eastern Church.



It will have been noticed that during the passionate debates that characterized the Council’s discussion of this schema “On the Virgin Mary,” Patriarch Maximos and the Melkite Greek Fathers refused to intervene. They were astonished to their very depths at the importance that was attached to recognizing or refusing this new title “Mother of the Church” to the Theotokos. Accustomed to the poetic language of their liturgy, in which the Virgin is saluted with a thousand titles, they had no trouble in accepting this new title, if it is interpreted in a large, liturgical, and poetic sense, or in refusing it, if it is interpreted in a sense that is too realistic and too literal.


Nevertheless, Patriarch Maximos, urged to speak, began to prepare the intervention that we publish below. Finally, he decided not to deliver it. This was in the 1963 session.


Before entering into a study of this schema “Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary,” it is proper to ask ourselves this question: Is it necessary that this Second Vatican Council, already swamped with questions, devote a special dogmatic constitution to the most holy Mother of God?


For my part [the Melkite Patriarch], I do not think so. ...


Please go to (.pfd)
http://melkite.org/xCouncil/Council%20Chapter%204.doc

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #602 on: May 11, 2010, 10:59:24 AM »
Kolbe uses the phrase, "uncreated immaculate conception".

How strange.  ???

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #603 on: May 11, 2010, 11:02:54 AM »
Kolbe uses the phrase, "uncreated immaculate conception".

How strange.  ???
How is that strange. Your tradition teaches that created beings can some how become "uncreated".
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #604 on: May 11, 2010, 11:03:15 AM »
Really? You are descending to petty name calling?

Huh?  ???  There is no name calling?   
surrrrrrrrre
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #605 on: May 11, 2010, 11:04:34 AM »
The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle 

I believe that Latin apologist and author/theologian Scott Hahn is teaching similar things.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #606 on: May 11, 2010, 11:05:48 AM »
So all this is to simply tell me that when Orthodox liturgical hymns speak of the Theotokos as the spotless Bride of the Bridegroom....

It is just meaningless flattery.

Ok!!  I'll buy that.

Mary


Also in liturgical prayer!!,  Mother of God is referred to as the Bride of the Bridegroom [Christ] in Orthodoxy so that needs some explanation ....


Much of this is metaphor and hyperbole.  Both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics delight in it and never expect Roman Catholics to impose dogma on it or to extract  dogma from it.


The response of the Catholic Melkites at Vatican II to the new title for the Mother of God "Mother of the Church" is very similar to the Orthodox response and highlights what I am trying to say.

We have no problem with heaping an infinite number of praises upon the Mother of God.


The Melkite response is well worth the read. Here is an extract.  I've placed the crux of it in BLUE:


It will have been noticed that during the passionate debates that characterized
the Council’s discussion of this schema “On the Virgin Mary,” Patriarch Maximos
and the Melkite Greek Fathers refused to intervene. They were astonished to
their very depths at the importance that was attached to recognizing or refusing
this new title “Mother of the Church” to the Theotokos.

Accustomed to the poetic language of their liturgy, in which the Virgin is saluted
with a thousand titles, they had no trouble in accepting this new title, if it is
interpreted in a large, liturgical, and poetic sense, or in refusing it, if it is interpreted
in a sense that is too realistic and too literal.



Mary and the Church

The preparatory doctrinal commission had begun by preparing an independent schema entitled: “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men.” On June 5, 1962, the patriarch wrote to praise two intentions expressed in the text, namely: no new title for the Virgin, no new Marian dogma. But already he had been struck by the absence in the text of patristic citations, above all Eastern ones, in a domain which the Eastern Fathers have explored superabundantly. Only popes are cited.


1) We agree entirely with the care demonstrated by the theological commission in not granting to the holy Mother of God any new titles that have not been accepted by the Tradition of the Church.


2) We equally agree with the care to avoid defining new Marian dogmas, in spite of the pressure, as blind as it is well intentioned, of certain groups of devotees of the Virgin. In this matter, as in so many others, we must never lose sight of our separated brethren, above all those of the East, and avoid that which, in our efforts to honor the Virgin, deepens the chasm that separates us from them. The Virgin surely is not pleased by a homage that unnecessarily contributes to the widening of the divisions among her children.


3) We would point out, with respect to the drafting of the notes, that one should not be content with citing popes, especially in a matter on which the Fathers of the Church have spoken so much and so well. We must avoid giving the impression that in the eyes of the theologians of the council only popes form the magisterium of the Church. With a unionist goal, it would even be good to cite in particular the Fathers of the Eastern Church.



It will have been noticed that during the passionate debates that characterized the Council’s discussion of this schema “On the Virgin Mary,” Patriarch Maximos and the Melkite Greek Fathers refused to intervene. They were astonished to their very depths at the importance that was attached to recognizing or refusing this new title “Mother of the Church” to the Theotokos. Accustomed to the poetic language of their liturgy, in which the Virgin is saluted with a thousand titles, they had no trouble in accepting this new title, if it is interpreted in a large, liturgical, and poetic sense, or in refusing it, if it is interpreted in a sense that is too realistic and too literal.


Nevertheless, Patriarch Maximos, urged to speak, began to prepare the intervention that we publish below. Finally, he decided not to deliver it. This was in the 1963 session.


Before entering into a study of this schema “Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary,” it is proper to ask ourselves this question: Is it necessary that this Second Vatican Council, already swamped with questions, devote a special dogmatic constitution to the most holy Mother of God?


For my part [the Melkite Patriarch], I do not think so. ...


Please go to (.pfd)
http://melkite.org/xCouncil/Council%20Chapter%204.doc


Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #607 on: May 11, 2010, 11:06:06 AM »
surrrrrrrrre

Nice comeback Chris.... but please refrain from your false accusations.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #608 on: May 11, 2010, 11:06:45 AM »
surrrrrrrrre

Nice comeback Chris.... but please refrain from your false accusations.
I am not lying. Stop lying about whether or not I am lying. Thank you.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #609 on: May 11, 2010, 11:11:07 AM »
I am not lying.

You accused me of name calling.  That is a false accusation. Now please stop this nonsense and grow up. Kay?

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #610 on: May 11, 2010, 11:19:43 AM »
Both of you knock it off, please, or find yourselves warned.

-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #611 on: May 11, 2010, 11:20:50 AM »
Both of you knock it off, please, or find yourselves warned.

Thank you Shultz.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #612 on: May 11, 2010, 11:30:34 AM »
M.Kolbe goes a way down the road in explaining how that is true.

Yes...it seems like suspecta de hæresi, errore.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #613 on: May 11, 2010, 11:33:16 AM »
So all this is to simply tell me that when Orthodox liturgical hymns speak of the Theotokos as the spotless Bride of the Bridegroom....

It is just meaningless flattery.

Ok!!  I'll buy that.

Mary

Dear Mary,

The Akathist Hymn refers to her as "Unwedded Bride" or "Bride without Bridegroom," depending on the translation.


You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #614 on: May 11, 2010, 12:02:02 PM »
So all this is to simply tell me that when Orthodox liturgical hymns speak of the Theotokos as the spotless Bride of the Bridegroom....

It is just meaningless flattery.

Ok!!  I'll buy that.

Mary

Dear Mary,

The Akathist Hymn refers to her as "Unwedded Bride" or "Bride without Bridegroom," depending on the translation.




The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride and Christ is the Bridegroom is undisputed in some Orthodox venues and some clergy and bishops will affirm that teaching.

I am more than willing to accept that it is not accepted here, which explains why such a suggestion is seen as heresy.

I am perfectly willing, as I said, to yield to the fact that this teaching is rejected by the people on this board.

M.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #615 on: May 11, 2010, 12:10:41 PM »
The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride...

Unwedded bride.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #616 on: May 11, 2010, 12:20:51 PM »
So all this is to simply tell me that when Orthodox liturgical hymns speak of the Theotokos as the spotless Bride of the Bridegroom....

It is just meaningless flattery.

Ok!!  I'll buy that.

Mary

Dear Mary,

The Akathist Hymn refers to her as "Unwedded Bride" or "Bride without Bridegroom," depending on the translation.




The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride and Christ is the Bridegroom is undisputed in some Orthodox venues and some clergy and bishops will affirm that teaching.

I am more than willing to accept that it is not accepted here, which explains why such a suggestion is seen as heresy.

I am perfectly willing, as I said, to yield to the fact that this teaching is rejected by the people on this board.

M.

Dear Mary,

Please be fair: "some Orthodox venues" is hardly the totality of the Orthodox Church.  If we were to judge the entire RCC based on some of its 'venues,' you would certainly be enraged!   :o

Now, if you ask that we extend to you the right to defend the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the least you could do is extend the courtesy of allowing us to defend the Teachings of the Orthodox Church rather than, perhaps unintentionally, implying that we are here defending mere 'personal opinions' when you say, "that teaching is rejected by the the people on this board."  This is a very important distinction for you, and it is for us.  None of us here who reject the idea of the IC is acting contrary to the Synods we are under.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #617 on: May 11, 2010, 12:25:13 PM »
So all this is to simply tell me that when Orthodox liturgical hymns speak of the Theotokos as the spotless Bride of the Bridegroom....

It is just meaningless flattery.

Ok!!  I'll buy that.

Mary

Dear Mary,

The Akathist Hymn refers to her as "Unwedded Bride" or "Bride without Bridegroom," depending on the translation.




The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride and Christ is the Bridegroom is undisputed in some Orthodox venues and some clergy and bishops will affirm that teaching.

I am more than willing to accept that it is not accepted here, which explains why such a suggestion is seen as heresy.

I am perfectly willing, as I said, to yield to the fact that this teaching is rejected by the people on this board.

M.

Dear Mary,

Please be fair: "some Orthodox venues" is hardly the totality of the Orthodox Church.  If we were to judge the entire RCC based on some of its 'venues,' you would certainly be enraged!   :o

Now, if you ask that we extend to you the right to defend the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the least you could do is extend the courtesy of allowing us to defend the Teachings of the Orthodox Church rather than, perhaps unintentionally, implying that we are here defending mere 'personal opinions' when you say, "that teaching is rejected by the the people on this board."  This is a very important distinction for you, and it is for us.  None of us here who reject the idea of the IC is acting contrary to the Synods we are under.


Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 12:25:53 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #618 on: May 11, 2010, 12:33:55 PM »
Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.

Dear Mary,

There is a difference between what a person says or says that they heard and official doctrine, correct?  For example, does the Pope always infallibly speak, or only when he makes a pronouncement 'ex cathedra?'

We know the answer, and so you really can't use what you may have heard as evidence.  If this is the case, then we may use whatever we hear from RCC saints (who are, by nature of their sanctity, above cardinals and hierarchs and popes) to undermine your position, something you have rejected.

C'mon, Mary, I know you know how to play fair.  8)
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #619 on: May 11, 2010, 12:40:16 PM »
Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.

Dear Mary,

There is a difference between what a person says or says that they heard and official doctrine, correct?  For example, does the Pope always infallibly speak, or only when he makes a pronouncement 'ex cathedra?'

We know the answer, and so you really can't use what you may have heard as evidence.  If this is the case, then we may use whatever we hear from RCC saints (who are, by nature of their sanctity, above cardinals and hierarchs and popes) to undermine your position, something you have rejected.

C'mon, Mary, I know you know how to play fair.  8)


Well there is this one thing, Father, I can point to official documents over the centuries to show what has been adopted by the Church formally and what has not.  So that when I say it is not formal teaching, I am not guessing.  I have the texts to support what I say.

So I have conceded your point.  You and Father Ambrose don't teach that the Mother of God is also the Bride of Christ.  Other Orthodox clergy do.  So I will confine my discussion of that point of spirituality and theology to those places where it makes sense to do so and not do it here.

Mary


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #620 on: May 11, 2010, 12:47:15 PM »
Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.

Dear Mary,

There is a difference between what a person says or says that they heard and official doctrine, correct?  For example, does the Pope always infallibly speak, or only when he makes a pronouncement 'ex cathedra?'

We know the answer, and so you really can't use what you may have heard as evidence.  If this is the case, then we may use whatever we hear from RCC saints (who are, by nature of their sanctity, above cardinals and hierarchs and popes) to undermine your position, something you have rejected.

C'mon, Mary, I know you know how to play fair.  8)


Let me ask so I don't cause another kerfluffle...

Do you call the Church, The Bride of Christ?

Do you call priests and monastics, Brides of Christ?

Do you consider the Theotokos to be the mother of all humankind?

M.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 12:47:58 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #621 on: May 11, 2010, 12:55:10 PM »
Well there is this one thing, Father, I can point to official documents over the centuries to show what has been adopted by the Church formally and what has not.  So that when I say it is not formal teaching, I am not guessing.  I have the texts to support what I say.

So I have conceded your point.  You and Father Ambrose don't teach that the Mother of God is also the Bride of Christ.  Other Orthodox clergy do.  So I will confine my discussion of that point of spirituality and theology to those places where it makes sense to do so and not do it here.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Well, I think you are getting closer!  :)

It goes like this: there is no official Orthodox teaching that I am aware of, confirmed by any Synod let alone the entire Orthodox Church, that the Theotokos is the Bride of Christ as you have put forward.  Until there is, Fr. Ambrose and I and whoever else is here who stand against this phrase are doing so in obedience to the Orthodox Church as we have been taught.

Again, just as much aswe give you the right to speak for the RCC until such time as we can provide evidence that you do not, you ought to give us the same credit you grant yourself.

I have not argued that the IC is not a teaching of the RCC, and so I think you are not arguing a mere personal opinion.  We also are not arguing personal opinion.  You have not been able to produce any official, universal evidence that the Orthodox Church teaches what you have said.  Ergo, we also are not arguing matters of our own opinion, but what we have been taught by the Church.

See the difference, Mary?  I'm not asking you to concede anything other than to acknowledge that the same rights you grant yourself you ought to grant others.   :)
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #622 on: May 11, 2010, 12:57:25 PM »
Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.

Dear Mary,

There is a difference between what a person says or says that they heard and official doctrine, correct?  For example, does the Pope always infallibly speak, or only when he makes a pronouncement 'ex cathedra?'

We know the answer, and so you really can't use what you may have heard as evidence.  If this is the case, then we may use whatever we hear from RCC saints (who are, by nature of their sanctity, above cardinals and hierarchs and popes) to undermine your position, something you have rejected.

C'mon, Mary, I know you know how to play fair.  8)


Let me ask so I don't cause another kerfluffle...

Do you call the Church, The Bride of Christ?

Do you call priests and monastics, Brides of Christ?

Do you consider the Theotokos to be the mother of all humankind?

M.



Dear Mary,

For clarity's sake, what do you mean by 'you?'
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #623 on: May 11, 2010, 01:25:25 PM »
Excuse me but I am speaking specifically of Orthodox references to the Mother of God also as the Spotless Bride of Christ.  I have heard ROCOR priests refer to her in that manner, I have heard the Archbishop of ACROD speak of her in that manner, I have heard Greek Orthodox Metropolitans speak in that manner.

Here you tell me that you don't speak of her in that manner.

I have agreed.  You don't.

M.

Dear Mary,

There is a difference between what a person says or says that they heard and official doctrine, correct?  For example, does the Pope always infallibly speak, or only when he makes a pronouncement 'ex cathedra?'

We know the answer, and so you really can't use what you may have heard as evidence.  If this is the case, then we may use whatever we hear from RCC saints (who are, by nature of their sanctity, above cardinals and hierarchs and popes) to undermine your position, something you have rejected.

C'mon, Mary, I know you know how to play fair.  8)


Let me ask so I don't cause another kerfluffle...

Do you call the Church, The Bride of Christ?

Do you call priests and monastics, Brides of Christ?

Do you consider the Theotokos to be the mother of all humankind?

M.



Dear Mary,

For clarity's sake, what do you mean by 'you?'


Oh sorry!  In this case I was asking you personally specifically...

But if you'd like to tell me more, I'll be happy to listen.  There's no trap in this.  It is an honest inquiry into your personal use of concept, imagery and language.

M.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #624 on: May 11, 2010, 01:39:20 PM »

Oh sorry!  In this case I was asking you personally specifically...

But if you'd like to tell me more, I'll be happy to listen.  There's no trap in this.  It is an honest inquiry into your personal use of concept, imagery and language.

M.

Dear Mary,

The problem I see here on this thread is where opinion and official teaching have become confused, and so we are bashing each other's heads in over things that our Churches do not teach, lifting opinions over substance.  While I appreciate your honest enquiry, perhaps I will leave opinion to a time more in keeping with the nature of the dialog at hand.  I do not want to mix things up with opinion and teaching, if you know what I mean.

And, just as much as you, I submit all my opinions to the Church.

I hope you don't take this as a slight, but an acknowledgement that I do not want my answers, couched as opinions, to potentially muddy the waters for others who are also here.

I suspect you, as a long-time denizen of the Indy List as well as your own studies, have a fairly good grasp of what official Orthodox teachings are in this regard.  Though I am flattered that you would ask!   :)
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #625 on: May 11, 2010, 01:47:30 PM »

Oh sorry!  In this case I was asking you personally specifically...

But if you'd like to tell me more, I'll be happy to listen.  There's no trap in this.  It is an honest inquiry into your personal use of concept, imagery and language.

M.

Dear Mary,

The problem I see here on this thread is where opinion and official teaching have become confused, and so we are bashing each other's heads in over things that our Churches do not teach, lifting opinions over substance.  While I appreciate your honest enquiry, perhaps I will leave opinion to a time more in keeping with the nature of the dialog at hand.  I do not want to mix things up with opinion and teaching, if you know what I mean.

And, just as much as you, I submit all my opinions to the Church.

I hope you don't take this as a slight, but an acknowledgement that I do not want my answers, couched as opinions, to potentially muddy the waters for others who are also here.

I suspect you, as a long-time denizen of the Indy List as well as your own studies, have a fairly good grasp of what official Orthodox teachings are in this regard.  Though I am flattered that you would ask!   :)


I do NOT mind in the least that you defer.  And to be honest with you, this is one area where I would say based on long study and some breadth of experience that there is more that is real in these images, concepts and language in Orthodoxy than not. 

That understanding of universal Orthodoxy is not buttressed by my long standing membership on the Indiana Orthodox list, for however much I love may many of the traditions of ROCOR, I do not see or fully accept that ROCOR today is the pure womb of universal Orthodoxy.

That sets me apart immediately but I think there are grounds, that I have found within Orthodoxy,  for going ahead and staying apart from the idea that ROCOR is the pure womb of universal Orthodoxy for the time being.

That does not in any way detract from my having great sympathy for and spiritual solidarity with many conservative Orthodox concerns.

Mary

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #626 on: May 11, 2010, 01:53:55 PM »
The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride...

Unwedded bride.

Exactly Mickey!  Mary and Joseph were never married!  They were betrothed to each other!  In Jesus time there were two separate and distinct Jewish ceremonies....the betrothal & the marriage.  We within Orthodoxy still have those separate ceremonies but we usually combine them on the same day.  The betrothal takes place in the back of the church where the vows and the exchange of rings takes place.  This is where the couple promise to live and take care of each other.  The marriage ceremony (Crowning) takes place in front of the Iconostatsis where a blessing is given to a sexual union.  That is why St Joseph is known as St Joseph 'the betrothed' and St Mary remained ever virgin and most pure.

Orthodoc
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #627 on: May 11, 2010, 02:02:30 PM »
The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride...

Unwedded bride.

Exactly Mickey!  Mary and Joseph were never married!  They were betrothed to each other!  In Jesus time there were two separate and distinct Jewish ceremonies....the betrothal & the marriage.  We within Orthodoxy still have those separate ceremonies but we usually combine them on the same day.  The betrothal takes place in the back of the church where the vows and the exchange of rings takes place.  This is where the couple promise to live and take care of each other.  The marriage ceremony (Crowning) takes place in front of the Iconostatsis where a blessing is given to a sexual union.  That is why St Joseph is known as St Joseph 'the betrothed' and St Mary remained ever virgin and most pure.

Orthodoc

Isn't unwed bride oxymoronic then?  Why use Bride at all?

Mary

Offline Fr. George

  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,587
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #628 on: May 11, 2010, 02:02:53 PM »
The Orthodox teaching that the Theotokos is the Bride...

Unwedded bride.

Exactly Mickey!  Mary and Joseph were never married!  They were betrothed to each other!  In Jesus time there were two separate and distinct Jewish ceremonies....the betrothal & the marriage.  We within Orthodoxy still have those separate ceremonies but we usually combine them on the same day.  The betrothal takes place in the back of the church where the vows and the exchange of rings takes place.  This is where the couple promise to live and take care of each other.  The marriage ceremony (Crowning) takes place in front of the Iconostatsis where a blessing is given to a sexual union.  That is why St Joseph is known as St Joseph 'the betrothed' and St Mary remained ever virgin and most pure.

What I find in the Akathist:

"Rejoice, bridal room of ungamic union; rejoice, who unite believers to the Lord as Groom.  Rejoice, O beautiful nursemaid of virgins; rejoice, bridesmaid of souls that are holy, Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!"

That was the only marriage-type language I could find in my admittedly brief scanning of the Akathist Stanzas.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, & godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope & glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed & purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.  Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. (Titus 2:11-15)

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #629 on: May 11, 2010, 02:08:14 PM »
I do NOT mind in the least that you defer.  And to be honest with you, this is one area where I would say based on long study and some breadth of experience that there is more that is real in these images, concepts and language in Orthodoxy than not. 

That understanding of universal Orthodoxy is not buttressed by my long standing membership on the Indiana Orthodox list, for however much I love may many of the traditions of ROCOR, I do not see or fully accept that ROCOR today is the pure womb of universal Orthodoxy.

That sets me apart immediately but I think there are grounds, that I have found within Orthodoxy,  for going ahead and staying apart from the idea that ROCOR is the pure womb of universal Orthodoxy for the time being.

That does not in any way detract from my having great sympathy for and spiritual solidarity with many conservative Orthodox concerns.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Then, if I may, offer you this: look first to the Scriptures, then to the services.  For example, look at the various rites associated with monasticism and see how the rite describes the monastic life.  You will find your uncontroverted answers there.  As always, we look to the totality of the poetry rather than 'proof texting.'  For my part, I would say that poetic language is terrible for argumentation because the very nature of it is not in the word but in the flow, the rhythm, the cadence.  Taking out a line here ot there kills it utterly, because it is not made to argue or define, but rather to harmonize with that understanding that already dwells within the listener.

We can 'teach' with hymnody, but only to the extent that the understanding has already been given.  Poetry gives beauty to what is already powerful, but, as the Councils of the Church show us, we also need clear words as well.  Peotry is based on clarity, but once infused in poetry it is difficult to distill back.  It serves as a reminder of what was already known.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.