Author Topic: A question on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 266009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #90 on: May 03, 2010, 01:17:25 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.

And why is that necessary?  He is not infallible, so begging the question by accepting his/your suppositions isn't going to give the correct answer.  And again, he himself rejected it.  

Can't really do much for the mind that accepts "potuit, decuit ergo fecit" as sound.

Quote
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.

Then why didn't he believe it, if it was such a logical necessity?

Quote
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.
 
So I quess Aquinas wasn't as clear as his reputation claims.

Quote
That's why I always ask people to cite one from Aquinas.  

Well, when the Vatican is in a spot, it can always pull out a "vision" a la Bernadette. IIRC, there is some story of either Aquinas or Bernard appearing in a robe of white, with a black spot, which they identify to the "visionary" as their denial of the IC.



Quote
They can't because there isn't one.  Aquinas did say that whatever was decided he would accept what the Church taught.


The Church teaches the IC is a heresy.

Quote
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.
LOL.  Like Father Ambrose?  Father, how long were you under the Vatican?

That would explain all those Churches dedicated to the IC in Russia and Greece. ::)
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 Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,051
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #91 on: May 03, 2010, 01:19:05 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.  ;)
Indeed, a Byzantine Catholic friend pointed out to me that his Church rejected Vatican 1 as well as Vatican 2.

But they remain in communion with the author of both?  Habemus Papam!
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #92 on: May 03, 2010, 01:26:33 PM »
Indeed, a Byzantine Catholic friend pointed out to me that his Church rejected Vatican 1 as well as Vatican 2.

Well...I've never heard that one...they are required to accept both.  

As a Byzantine Catholic, I ususally heard alternate explanations of the RC doctrines which are not accepted by Holy Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 01:28:39 PM by Mickey »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #93 on: May 03, 2010, 01:30:42 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.  ;)

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.

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

What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...but the idea that the Virgin is quite differently graced from all other human beings is found throughout the Fathers.  This is a highly condensed list:

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

    * The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
    * Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
    * Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
    * Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for "Christ", not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
    * "Theodotus of Ancyra" terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
    * In refuting Pelagius "St. Augustine" declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
    * Mary was pledged to "Christ" (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
    * it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
    * she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
    * she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
    * when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
    * The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
    * To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
    * "Jacob of Sarug" says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #94 on: May 03, 2010, 01:35:09 PM »

The Church teaches the IC is a heresy.

LOL.  Like Father Ambrose?  Father, how long were you under the Vatican?

That would explain all those Churches dedicated to the IC in Russia and Greece. ::)

As I said earlier, I find more cradle Orthodox who are sympathetic. 

And I don't even listen any more when I am told the Orthodox Church says this or that is heresy from the west.  That's all just personal opinion and the elevation of local councils to temporary universal status...

M.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #95 on: May 03, 2010, 01:37:43 PM »
What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...

Wait a minute...now you are confusing me.  The RC doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception is it not?

Holy Orthodoxy Knows very well that The Panagia is all holy and immaculate.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 01:38:43 PM by Mickey »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #96 on: May 03, 2010, 01:53:43 PM »
What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...

Wait a minute...now you are confusing me.  The RC doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception is it not?

Holy Orthodoxy Knows very well that The Panagia is all holy and immaculate.

The specific language of that immaculateness indicates that it is very different from other humans AND there are indications that she was immaculate and never touched by sin of ANY kind EVER.  So if you all want to split hairs with the scholastics be my guest.  I'll stick with the Fathers and accept the Immaculate Conception as a beautiful gift from God to the Queen of Heaven.  I don't mind that in the least...even if it is Catholic.

M.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #97 on: May 03, 2010, 02:00:38 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.  ;)

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.

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

What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...but the idea that the Virgin is quite differently graced from all other human beings is found throughout the Fathers.  This is a highly condensed list:

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

    * The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
    * Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
    * Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
    * Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for "Christ", not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
    * "Theodotus of Ancyra" terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
    * In refuting Pelagius "St. Augustine" declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
    * Mary was pledged to "Christ" (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
    * it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
    * she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
    * she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
    * when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
    * The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
    * To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
    * "Jacob of Sarug" says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948.

This is good stuff!
"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 #98 on: May 03, 2010, 02:02:01 PM »
The specific language of that immaculateness indicates that it is very different from other humans AND there are indications that she was immaculate and never touched by sin of ANY kind EVER. 
She chose not to sin--her free will was not nullified.  She is the great example--not the great exception.

So if you all want to split hairs with the scholastics be my guest.
 

Believe me, I am not splitting hairs with the scholastics.  I cannot read people like Aquinas--it is too heady for me.  It seems that you are the one splitting hairs.  ???


I'll stick with the Fathers and accept the Immaculate Conception as a beautiful gift from God to the Queen of Heaven. 

But the Fathers do not address the RC doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception!  That is the whole point here---is it not?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #99 on: May 03, 2010, 02:02:51 PM »
What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...

Wait a minute...now you are confusing me.  The RC doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception is it not?

Holy Orthodoxy Knows very well that The Panagia is all holy and immaculate.

The specific language of that immaculateness indicates that it is very different from other humans AND there are indications that she was immaculate and never touched by sin of ANY kind EVER.  So if you all want to split hairs with the scholastics be my guest.  I'll stick with the Fathers and accept the Immaculate Conception as a beautiful gift from God to the Queen of Heaven.  I don't mind that in the least...even if it is Catholic.

M.
The point is really well made. I wonder if Eastern Orthodox Christians really believe that Mary was separated from Sanctifying Grace at any point in her life.
"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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #100 on: May 03, 2010, 02:15:46 PM »

The Church teaches the IC is a heresy.

LOL.  Like Father Ambrose?  Father, how long were you under the Vatican?

That would explain all those Churches dedicated to the IC in Russia and Greece. ::)

As I said earlier, I find more cradle Orthodox who are sympathetic. 

Then you people at Gallup should publish your findings.

Quote
And I don't even listen

We've noticed.

Quote
any more when I am told the Orthodox Church says this or that is heresy from the west.  That's all just personal opinion and the elevation of local councils to temporary universal status...
Since you all have been on your way out of the Church since Toledo, we don't need to bother with a council to denounce your heresy.  That's only necessary for those in the Church who don't belong there.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #101 on: May 03, 2010, 02:19:51 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.  ;)

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.

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

What is absent is the precise language of "conception"...but the idea that the Virgin is quite differently graced from all other human beings is found throughout the Fathers.  This is a highly condensed list:

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

    * The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
    * Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
    * Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
    * Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for "Christ", not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
    * "Theodotus of Ancyra" terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
    * In refuting Pelagius "St. Augustine" declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
    * Mary was pledged to "Christ" (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
    * it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
    * she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
    * she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
    * when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
    * The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
    * To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
    * "Jacob of Sarug" says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948.
I've dealt with aspects of this already:
This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread.  Brother Isa did not have a response back then.  He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

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

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

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

Quote
Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death.

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

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

Does anyone know it exists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Maybe I'm missing it.  Which post?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #102 on: May 03, 2010, 02:20:18 PM »
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.



________________________

I. It is generally agreed, I think, that the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception is one of the questions which make a clear and profound
division between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is this
really the case? We shall try to examine quite objectively what
Orthodox theological history has to teach us on this matter. Leaving
aside the patristic period we shall start on our quest in the time of
the Patriarch Photius.

II. It seems to me that three preliminary observations have to be made.

First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members
of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854.

Secondly, throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an
unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who
have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in the
fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links.
There is even an official document written against the Immaculate
Conception: the letter of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895;
we shall come later to a discussion of its doctrinal value.

Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

The question must be framed in precise theological terms. We do not
want to know if Mary's holiness surpasses all other holiness, or if
Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb. The question is: Was Mary,
in the words of Pius IX, "preserved from all stain of original sin at
the first moment of her conception" (in primo instanti suae
conceptionis)? Is this doctrine foreign to the Orthodox tradition? Is
it contrary to that tradition?

III. I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said
with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception
but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief.

First of all - the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the
Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is
not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that
of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point.
The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the
embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother's
womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as
an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation - therefore -
from the moment of her conception. (1)

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in
a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by "a
sanctifying action", ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me
that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the "in primo instanti" of
Roman theology. (2)

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula "immaculate conception" because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the "primus instans
conceptionis", and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas' solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary's ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem "on the limits between created and uncreated". (4)

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on
the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary's
sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace
"from the moment of her conception" and that as soon as she began to
exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her". We must
note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at
great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part
in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can,
therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine
theology of his time. (5)

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire,
has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation
of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was "all pure from the
first moment of her existence" (gegne theion euthus). (6)

It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the
Immaculate Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most
"Protestantizing" of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris
(+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said
that Mary "was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her
conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was
formed and when her soul was united to her body"; and further on he
writes: "As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she
is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified
in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the
One whom nothing can contain?" (7)

Gerasimo. patriarch of Alexandria (+1636) taught at the same time.
according to the Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the
Theotokos "was not subject to the sin of our first father" (ouk
npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic
theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652)
declared that "the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the
stain of original sin from the first moment of its creation by God and
union with the body." (8)

I am not unaware that other voices were raised against the Immaculate
Conception. Damascene the Studite, in the sixteenth century,
Mitrophanes Cristopoulos, patriarch of Alexandria and Dosithes,
patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventeenth century, all taught that
Mary was sanctified only in her mother's womb. Nicephorus Gallistus in
the fourteenth century and the Hagiorite in the eighteenth century
taught that Mary was purified from original sin on the day of the
Annunciation. But the opinions that we have heard in favour of the
Immaculate Conception are not less eminent or less well qualified.

It was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, of 8 December,
1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have turned
against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the
Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare:

"We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is
too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation
from Rome". (9)

But it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the
Immaculate Conception among the differences between Rome and the
Orthodox East. This text is the synodal letter written by the
Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in reply to the encyclical
Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of the
Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the
Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal
importance. Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet
it possesses none of the marks of infallibility, nor does
ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in its teachings as a matter
of conscience. and it leaves the ground quite clear for theological
and historical discussions on this point.

IV. Let us now consider more closely the attitude of the Russian
Church towards the question of the Immaculate Conception.

Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan
of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin "theory of the
epiklesis" (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case
of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the
history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from
the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as
a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A
confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk
in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour
the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The
Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The
Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin
from the moment of her conception". (12)

All this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising
influence. We have seen that much was written on the same lines in the
Greek East. When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were
launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
a protest was made by the Old Believers - a sect separated from the
official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient
rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official
declaration that "Mary has had no share in original sin". (13) To all
those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most
ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special
significance. In 1848, the "Dogmatic Theology" of the Archimandrite
Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy Synod as a manual for
seminaries, reproduced Palamas' curious theory of the progressive
purification of the Virgin's ancestors, a theory which has already
been mentioned and which proclaims Mary's exemption from original sin.
Finally, we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not
attacked by the most representative theologians of the time,
Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov.

It was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian
literature in opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It
was written by Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that
the Virgin was completely purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14)
In 1884, the Holy Synod included the question of the Immaculate
Conception in the programme of "polemical", that is to say, anti-Latin
theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has been
unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.

This attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent
confusion of Mary's immaculate conception with the virgin birth of
Christ. This confusion is to be found not only among ignorant people,
but also among many theologians and bishops. In 1898, Bishop
Augustine, author of a "Fundamental Theology", translated "immaculate
conception" by "conception sine semine". More recently still,
Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the
"impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most
Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne." It was a theologian of the
Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about. (15)

Footnotes:
1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis,
Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.

2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the
Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.

3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the
Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.

4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis
Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb', Athens 1861.

5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin
translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.

6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque
Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.

7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy
Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39
of the Metochion, fol. 93.

8. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131.
Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp.
336-342.

9. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of the
Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.

10. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in
the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University
of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.

11. See J. Gagarin, L'Eglise russe et L'immaculee conception, Paris 1876.

12. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890,
t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by
Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp.
164-167.

13. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza
(Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.

14. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l'immaculee conception d'apres
un theologien russe, in Echos d'Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an
analysis of Lebedev's monography.

15. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in
the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10
March 1912, p. 399. Morozov's reply is contained in the same
periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.




Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,279
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #103 on: May 03, 2010, 02:21:19 PM »
When the Mother of God is referred to as "spotless/immaculate" and "All-Pure/Holy", why does this have to mean that she was absolutely and completely without sin? We say that the hymnography is hyperbolic when we tell her that she is "our only hope", but in this case it's some hard fact that she never sinned in any way? It just seems like a stretch to me, considering that our own prayers tell us that Christ is the only sinless One.

I certainly don't care about calling attention to any specific sinfulness nor about denigrating her reputation, may God silence me for such a thing. I just don't see why the idea that Mary committed minor sins at certain points to be so offensive. She's still the Holy of Holies, and the dwelling place of our Lord.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #104 on: May 03, 2010, 02:52:36 PM »
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.



________________________

I. It is generally agreed, I think, that the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception is one of the questions which make a clear and profound
division between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is this
really the case? We shall try to examine quite objectively what
Orthodox theological history has to teach us on this matter. Leaving
aside the patristic period we shall start on our quest in the time of
the Patriarch Photius.

II. It seems to me that three preliminary observations have to be made.

First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members
of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854.

Secondly, throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an
unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who
have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in the
fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links.
There is even an official document written against the Immaculate
Conception: the letter of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895;
we shall come later to a discussion of its doctrinal value.

Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

The question must be framed in precise theological terms. We do not
want to know if Mary's holiness surpasses all other holiness, or if
Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb. The question is: Was Mary,
in the words of Pius IX, "preserved from all stain of original sin at
the first moment of her conception" (in primo instanti suae
conceptionis)? Is this doctrine foreign to the Orthodox tradition? Is
it contrary to that tradition?

III. I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said
with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception
but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief.

First of all - the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the
Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is
not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that
of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point.
The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the
embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother's
womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as
an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation - therefore -
from the moment of her conception. (1)

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in
a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by "a
sanctifying action", ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me
that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the "in primo instanti" of
Roman theology. (2)

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula "immaculate conception" because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the "primus instans
conceptionis", and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas' solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary's ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem "on the limits between created and uncreated". (4)

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on
the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary's
sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace
"from the moment of her conception" and that as soon as she began to
exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her". We must
note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at
great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part
in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can,
therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine
theology of his time. (5)

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire,
has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation
of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was "all pure from the
first moment of her existence" (gegne theion euthus). (6)

It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the
Immaculate Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most
"Protestantizing" of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris
(+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said
that Mary "was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her
conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was
formed and when her soul was united to her body"; and further on he
writes: "As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she
is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified
in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the
One whom nothing can contain?" (7)

Gerasimo. patriarch of Alexandria (+1636) taught at the same time.
according to the Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the
Theotokos "was not subject to the sin of our first father" (ouk
npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic
theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652)
declared that "the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the
stain of original sin from the first moment of its creation by God and
union with the body." (8)

I am not unaware that other voices were raised against the Immaculate
Conception. Damascene the Studite, in the sixteenth century,
Mitrophanes Cristopoulos, patriarch of Alexandria and Dosithes,
patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventeenth century, all taught that
Mary was sanctified only in her mother's womb. Nicephorus Gallistus in
the fourteenth century and the Hagiorite in the eighteenth century
taught that Mary was purified from original sin on the day of the
Annunciation. But the opinions that we have heard in favour of the
Immaculate Conception are not less eminent or less well qualified.

It was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, of 8 December,
1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have turned
against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the
Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare:

"We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is
too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation
from Rome". (9)

But it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the
Immaculate Conception among the differences between Rome and the
Orthodox East. This text is the synodal letter written by the
Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in reply to the encyclical
Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of the
Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the
Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal
importance. Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet
it possesses none of the marks of infallibility, nor does
ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in its teachings as a matter
of conscience. and it leaves the ground quite clear for theological
and historical discussions on this point.

IV. Let us now consider more closely the attitude of the Russian
Church towards the question of the Immaculate Conception.

Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan
of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin "theory of the
epiklesis" (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case
of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the
history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from
the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as
a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A
confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk
in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour
the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The
Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The
Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin
from the moment of her conception". (12)

All this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising
influence. We have seen that much was written on the same lines in the
Greek East. When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were
launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
a protest was made by the Old Believers - a sect separated from the
official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient
rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official
declaration that "Mary has had no share in original sin". (13) To all
those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most
ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special
significance. In 1848, the "Dogmatic Theology" of the Archimandrite
Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy Synod as a manual for
seminaries, reproduced Palamas' curious theory of the progressive
purification of the Virgin's ancestors, a theory which has already
been mentioned and which proclaims Mary's exemption from original sin.
Finally, we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not
attacked by the most representative theologians of the time,
Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov.

It was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian
literature in opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It
was written by Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that
the Virgin was completely purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14)
In 1884, the Holy Synod included the question of the Immaculate
Conception in the programme of "polemical", that is to say, anti-Latin
theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has been
unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.

This attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent
confusion of Mary's immaculate conception with the virgin birth of
Christ. This confusion is to be found not only among ignorant people,
but also among many theologians and bishops. In 1898, Bishop
Augustine, author of a "Fundamental Theology", translated "immaculate
conception" by "conception sine semine". More recently still,
Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the
"impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most
Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne." It was a theologian of the
Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about. (15)

Footnotes:
1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis,
Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.

2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the
Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.

3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the
Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.

4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis
Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb', Athens 1861.

5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin
translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.

6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque
Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.

7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy
Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39
of the Metochion, fol. 93.

8. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131.
Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp.
336-342.

9. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of the
Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.

10. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in
the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University
of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.

11. See J. Gagarin, L'Eglise russe et L'immaculee conception, Paris 1876.

12. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890,
t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by
Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp.
164-167.

13. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza
(Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.

14. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l'immaculee conception d'apres
un theologien russe, in Echos d'Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an
analysis of Lebedev's monography.

15. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in
the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10
March 1912, p. 399. Morozov's reply is contained in the same
periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.

Rather odd that someone who complained that
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.
to offer us something from a convert from the Vatican to Orthodoxy as representative of what Orthodox believe.

We've met Fr. Gillet several times before, e.g.:
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

If you trace your way back to the quote I provided you will see that it comes from Fr Lev Gillet.   Fr Lev was a Roman Catholic priest and monk who became Orthodox back in the day.   He remained so devoted to Roman Catholicism, continuing to spend large amounts of time in European Catholic monasteries and lecturing all over Europe in favour of union that there was speculation he had never converted to Orthodoxy at all and he was a Roman implant or double agent sent by the Vatican to undermine Orthodoxy.  So he had no great axe to grind against the Immaculate Conceoption by misrepresenting Gregory Palamas.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #105 on: May 03, 2010, 03:19:49 PM »
Liturgical Texts that Indicate the Uniqueness of the Imaculata:

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

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

From the Nativity:

From Small Vespers:

Come, all ye who love virginity, and who are friends of purity: come ye and
welcome with love the boast of virgins. She is the fountain of life that
gushes forth from the flinty rock; [Exodus 17:6] She is the Bush [Exodus
3:2] springing from barren ground and burning with the immaterial fire that
cleanses and enlightens our souls.

From Great Vespers:

Today the barren gates are opened and the virgin Door of God comes forth.
Today grace begins to bear its fruits, making manifest to the world the
Mother of God, through whom things on earth are joined with heaven, for the
salvation of our souls.

Today Ann the barren gives birth to the Child of God, foreordained from all
generations to be the habitation of the King of all and Maker, Christ our
God, in fulfillment of the divine dispensation. Through her we children of
earth have been formed anew, and restored from corruption to life without
end.

What is this sound of feasting that we hear? Joachim and Ann mystically keep
festival. `O Adam and Eve,' they cry, `rejoice with us today: for if by your
transgression ye closed the gate of Paradise to those of old, we have now
been given a glorious fruit, Mary the Child of God, who opens its entrance
to us all.'

From Matins:

O undefiled Theotokos, thy Son has set thee higher than all creation; He
magnifies thy birth from Ann and fills all with gladness on this day.

The Virgin, offspring of Joachim and Ann, has appeared to men, releasing all
from the bonds of sin.

Today God who rests upon the spiritual thrones has made for Himself a holy
throne upon earth. He who made firm the heavens in His wisdom has prepared a
living heaven in His love for man. For from a barren root He has made a
life-giving branch spring up for us, even His Mother. God of wonders and
hope of the hopeless, glory be to Thee, O Lord.

The holy parents of the Mother of God received from heaven a gift worthy of
God, a Throne higher than the very cherubim--she who in childbirth bore the
Word and the Creator.

O Mother of God, thou hast inherited according to the promise a birth worthy
of thy purity. For as a God-given fruit hast thou been granted to her who
before was fruitless. Therefore we and all the nations of the earth without
ceasing call thee blessed.

O holy Ann, mother of the Virgin, thou hast put forth from thy womb, against
all hope, a virgin flower according to the promise, a divine bud pure and
beautiful. Therefore as the root of our life do we call thee blessed.

O marvellous wonder! At the behest of the Almighty Maker of all, a fruit has
shone forth from a barren womb, that has wholly ended the world's barrenness
in good. Ye mothers, dance with the mother of the Theotokos and cry: `Hail,
thou who art full of grace: the Lord is with thee, granting great mercy to
the world through thee.'

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

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple


At Orthros the Magnificat is replaced by these words:

"Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with
amazement, seeing how the Virgin entered into the Holy of Holies" (p.
190 Menaion )

The kontakion of the feast:

"The All-pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Bridal Chamber and
Virgin, the sacred treasure of the glory of God, is led today into the
house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine
Spirit. Of her God's angels sing in praise: "She is indeed the
heavenly Tabernacle." (P. 195 Menaion)

From Small Vespers:

O ye gates of the sanctuary, into the Holy of Holies receive ye a Virgin,
the spotless Tabernacle of God the Almighty.

Ye virgins, joyfully bearing torches, attend the pure Virgin on her way, as
she enters the Holy of Holies, the Bride of the King of all.

The living Bridal Chamber of God the Word receives bread from the hands of a
divine angel, as she dwells in the Holy of holies.

From Great Vespers:

Led by the Holy Spirit, the holy Maid without spot is taken to dwell in the
Holy of Holies. By an angel is she fed, who is in truth the most holy Temple
of our Holy God. He has sanctified all things by her entry, and has made
godlike the fallen nature of fallen men.

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone to dwell in the
temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou
art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O Virgin all-undefiled,
to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy
Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O Mother of God without stain or blemish,
glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.

Ann, truly blessed by God's grace, led with gladness into the temple of the
Lord the pure and ever-Virgin, who is full of grace, and she called the
young girls to go before her, lamps in hand. `Go, Child,' she said, `to Him
who gave thee unto me; be unto Him an offering and a sweet smelling incense.
Go into the place which none may enter: learn its mysteries and prepare
thyself to become the pleasing and beautiful dwelling-place of Jesus, who
grants the world great mercy.'

From Matins:

From Eve of old the transgression came upon mankind, and now from Eve's
stock has flowered forth our restoration and incorruption, even the
Theotokos, who is brought today into the house of God.

Be glad today, O Joachim, and rejoice exceedingly in spirit, O Ann, who now
present unto the Lord your daughter, as a three-year old victim of
sacrifice, holy and utterly without spot.

The ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish, the tabernacle
that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the
holy temple.

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

Seeing the beauty of thy soul, O undefiled Virgin, Zacharias cried out with
faith: `Thou art our deliverance, thou art the joy of all. Thou art our
restoration, through whom the Incomprehensible appears comprehensible to
me.'

O Virgin all-undefiled, past understanding is thy wonders! Strange is the
manner of thy birth: strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most
marvellous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are
beyond the telling of mortal men.

A child in the flesh but perfect in soul, the holy Ark enters into the house
of God, there to feed upon divine grace.

The ranks of angels rejoiced exceedingly and spirits of the righteous were
glad, when the Mother of God was led into the sanctuary.

Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel
in the temple of the Lord.

Receiving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the
Saviour according to the flesh, increased in wisdom and grace.

O pure Theotokos, thou hast a clean and shining beauty of soul, and art
filled from heaven with the grace of God. Thou dost ever enlighten with
eternal light those who cry aloud in gladness: O pure Virgin, thou art truly
high above all.

Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement,
seeing how she entered marvelously into the Holy of Holies.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.

Angels and men, let us honour the entry of the Virgin, for in glory she has
gone into the Holy of Holies.



Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #106 on: May 03, 2010, 03:43:55 PM »
Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.

I'm sorry Mary...but I am still confused.  Your massive cutting and pasting does not show evidence of the RC doctrine of the IC.  ???

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #107 on: May 03, 2010, 03:50:11 PM »
Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.

I'm sorry Mary...but I am still confused.  Your massive cutting and pasting does not show evidence of the RC doctrine of the IC.  ???
I don't see how the idea that Mary may have been separated from Sanctifying Grace is consistent with any of the quotes that Mary has provided. The IC is the logical conclusion of what she has posted.
"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: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #108 on: May 03, 2010, 03:51:22 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 03:51:48 PM by Papist »
"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 #109 on: May 03, 2010, 04:04:24 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html


Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #110 on: May 03, 2010, 04:06:00 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html


It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.
"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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #111 on: May 03, 2010, 04:07:29 PM »
Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.

I'm sorry Mary...but I am still confused.  Your massive cutting and pasting does not show evidence of the RC doctrine of the IC.  ???

As long as you ignore meaning and simply insist on a literal and specific text that calls for the "Immaculate Conception" then you are going to have the dickens of a time defending the name "Trinity" or "Incarnation"...For both of those highly technical terms the meaning was first established in the tradition.  THEN the theological terms emerged.

This slavish insistence on finding the phrase "Immaculate Conception" in Scripture and Tradition does not bode well for the Christological developments and their defense.

M.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 35,736
  • the irregardless one
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #112 on: May 03, 2010, 04:22:05 PM »
It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.

I don't think that's a correct conclusion. IMO what you are doing would be similar to finding a half dozen Eastern Fathers who talk of purgation in the afterlife, and then concluding that the Orthodox believe in purgatory.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #113 on: May 03, 2010, 04:22:21 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html


It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.

You did note that they've just ignored the references offered in the article by Lev Gillet.  He must have made them up...oh!...I forgot.  Lev the Heretic can't be trusted!!

We can suggest Sergei the Heretic as a primer for inquirers in Orthodoxy...now that's ok...BUT...we can't even bother to try to refute Lev the Heretic.

You see how the game is played?

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #114 on: May 03, 2010, 04:24:21 PM »
It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.

I don't think that's a correct conclusion. IMO what you are doing would be similar to finding a half dozen Eastern Fathers who talk of purgation in the afterlife, and then concluding that the Orthodox believe in purgatory.

That would be almost as dumb as finding a reference in Scripture to the son of the living God and just assuming that Christ is the Incarnate son of God...

How absurd....

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 35,736
  • the irregardless one
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #115 on: May 03, 2010, 04:27:29 PM »
That would be almost as dumb as finding a reference in Scripture to the son of the living God and just assuming that Christ is the Incarnate son of God...

How absurd....

Actually it would be more like finding references in the Psalms about hating our enemies, and then assuming that we should hate our enemies. "Scripture says it, I believe it." Only now it becomes "A Church Father said it, I believe it." You can pull a hundred references if you want, that doesn't make it orthodox belief.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,675
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #116 on: May 03, 2010, 04:51:12 PM »
The problem that the Orthodox have with IC is not that she was sinless.  It is that she was solely born without original sin, original sin being defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.  It is that she "by a most singular grace and privilege"--not accorded to any other human being-- was "preserved from all stain of Original Sin," again, with the note that original sin is defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.   We do not believe anyone is born with the inherited guilt of Adam, so therefore no "singular grace" is needed. 

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #117 on: May 03, 2010, 04:53:38 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html

Mickey, may I suggest that the sinlessness, purity, and sanctity of the Theotokos is the essential point where our conversation should begin.   The Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, whatever its flaws may be, seeks to protect and acclaim the purity and sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin.  And more specifically, it seeks to "explain" how it was possible for this one maiden of Israel to do what no one since Adam & Eve had been able to do before--namely, to surrender to the will of God wholeheartedly and perfectly. 

One will not find in the Eastern tradition a "doctrine" of the Immaculate Conception, but one does find glorious acclamation of the perfect holiness and sinlessness of the Theotokos.  I commend to you Kallistos Ware's essay "'The Earthly Heaven': The Mother of God in the Teaching of St John of Damascus," in Mary for Earth and Heaven (2002), ed. McLoughlin & Pinnock.  St John, the Metropolitan explains, believed that "Mary underwent a special purification and hallowing at the moment of the annunciation, when 'the sanctifying power of the Spirit overshadowed, cleansed and consecrated her.  But this does not signify that, in John's view, she was sinful prior to the annuncation; on the contrary, he clearly considers that she was always pure and guiltless.  Moreover, he also states clearly that she was predestined from all eternity to be the Mother of God incarnate."

What is this but the Immaculate Conception in an Eastern idiom? 

Also see Maria Skobtsova's article "Veneration of the Mother of God" and Sergius Bulgakov's "A Brief Satement of the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church." 


Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #118 on: May 03, 2010, 06:10:59 PM »
The problem that the Orthodox have with IC is not that she was sinless.  It is that she was solely born without original sin, original sin being defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.  It is that she "by a most singular grace and privilege"--not accorded to any other human being-- was "preserved from all stain of Original Sin," again, with the note that original sin is defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.   We do not believe anyone is born with the inherited guilt of Adam, so therefore no "singular grace" is needed.  

But has the Catholic Church in fact defined original sin as "the inherited guilt of Adam"?  This may well have been how St Augustine, as well as many Western Christians since him, understood the matter; but it does not represent the irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church nor the teaching of many of its doctors and theologians.  

Read, e.g., the 1854 papal bull on the Immaculate Conception:  Inefabilis Deus.  Pope Pius speaks repeatedly of the stain of original sin, but he does not speak of guilt.  Now perhaps he personally and privately identified "the stain of original sin" with "the inherited guilt of Adam" (and that would have to be demonstrated); but that's not what the document says.  Certainly that's not how Cardinal Newman interpreted the dogmatic definition in 1864 (only ten years after the definition). As Newman explained to Fr Pusey, by the stain of original sin Catholics signify "the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation.  Mary could not merit, any more than they, the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God's free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it. And she had this special privilege, in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our Redeemer, to fit her mentally, spiritually for it; so that, by the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at hand, she might be 'full of grace,' prepared as far as a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her bosom."  

That Newman's interpretation of the IC dogma is not idiosyncratic is demonstrated by the fact that a similar interpretation of original sin and the Immaculate Conception was advanced by Pope John Paul II in his catechetical addresses.   John Paul explicitly distinguished original sin from personal guilt:

Quote
it is evident that original sin in Adam’s descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a “sin of nature,” only analogically comparable to “personal sin.” In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural “endowment” of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner “logic” of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this “initial state” of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called).

If original sin is properly understood as a deprivation of sanctifying grace, then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception must be understood, says John Paul, as an assertion of Mary's original holiness:

Quote
Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.  This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.  In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

This construal of the Immaculate Conception may still be vulnerable, e.g., to Bulgakov's criticism that it unnecessarily separates Mary from Israel and her forbears, as well as Bulgakov's vigorous attack on "sanctifying grace"; but it has the advantage of excluding any hint of Pelagianism, as if Mary was able to generate from within herself, by her own inner resources and power, what no man, or woman, had been able to do since humanity's expulsion from Paradise, namely, to surrender herself wholeheartedly, perfectly, sinlessly to the love and will of God Almighty.  The IC clearly secures the assent of Mary to the Annunciation in the grace and freedom of God.

It may well be that Eastern Christians will continue to see the IC dogma as an unnecessary, and indeed provocative, innovation; but I certainly see no grounds for regarding it as heretical.    Certainly it is no more heretical than St Gregory Palamas's views on the progressive purification of Mary's forbears.  
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 06:40:23 PM by akimel »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #119 on: May 03, 2010, 06:13:43 PM »
It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.

I don't think that's a correct conclusion. IMO what you are doing would be similar to finding a half dozen Eastern Fathers who talk of purgation in the afterlife, and then concluding that the Orthodox believe in purgatory.
Its what the Byzantine Liturgy says.
"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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #120 on: May 03, 2010, 07:22:35 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html


It doesn't say personal sin either. Soooo, it must mean all taint of sin. Thus, the IC. Sorry if you don't like the fact that your Church professes the IC, but such is life.

You did note that they've just ignored the references offered in the article by Lev Gillet.

The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members
of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception
as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854.

Secondly, throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an
unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who
have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in the
fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links.
There is even an official document written against the Immaculate
Conception: the letter of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895;

Happy?

Quote
 He must have made them up...oh!...I forgot.  Lev the Heretic can't be trusted!!
No, here it is:
Quote
XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Quote
We can suggest Sergei the Heretic as a primer for inquirers in Orthodoxy...now that's ok...BUT...we can't even bother to try to refute Lev the Heretic.

We need but quote him.

Quote
You see how the game is played?

By your side, not very well: "well, it doesn't say that X isn't...." arguments from silence on what is proper, so therefore necessary, so therefore happened....
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #121 on: May 03, 2010, 07:38:41 PM »
The problem that the Orthodox have with IC is not that she was sinless.  It is that she was solely born without original sin, original sin being defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.  It is that she "by a most singular grace and privilege"--not accorded to any other human being-- was "preserved from all stain of Original Sin," again, with the note that original sin is defined as the inherited guilt of Adam.   We do not believe anyone is born with the inherited guilt of Adam, so therefore no "singular grace" is needed.  

But has the Catholic Church in fact defined original sin as "the inherited guilt of Adam"?  This may well have been how St Augustine, as well as many Western Christians since him, understood the matter; but it does not represent the irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church nor the teaching of many of its doctors and theologians.  

Read, e.g., the 1854 papal bull on the Immaculate Conception:  Inefabilis Deus.  Pope Pius speaks repeatedly of the stain of original sin, but he does not speak of guilt.  Now perhaps he personally and privately identified "the stain of original sin" with "the inherited guilt of Adam" (and that would have to be demonstrated); but that's not what the document says.  Certainly that's not how Cardinal Newman interpreted the dogmatic definition in 1864 (only ten years after the definition). As Newman explained to Fr Pusey, by the stain of original sin Catholics signify "the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation.  Mary could not merit, any more than they, the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God's free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it. And she had this special privilege, in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our Redeemer,

here is where the potuit, decuit ergo fecit leads you astray.

Quote
to fit her mentally, spiritually for it; so that, by the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at hand, she might be 'full of grace,' prepared as far as a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her bosom."  

That Newman's interpretation of the IC dogma is not idiosyncratic is demonstrated by the fact that a similar interpretation of original sin and the Immaculate Conception was advanced by Pope John Paul II in his catechetical addresses.   John Paul explicitly distinguished original sin from personal guilt:

Quote
it is evident that original sin in Adam’s descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a “sin of nature,” only analogically comparable to “personal sin.” In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural “endowment” of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner “logic” of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this “initial state” of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called).

If original sin is properly understood as a deprivation of sanctifying grace, then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception must be understood, says John Paul, as an assertion of Mary's original holiness:

Quote
Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.  This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.  In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

Ya'll reading it into "full of grace."  We've dealt with that here too.
Dear brother Isa,

First, I want to ask Father Deacon Lance for forgiveness for presuming to answer for him.
Then why does St. Luke say ἐπελεύσεται...ἐπισκιάσει, in the future "will come on you....will overshadow you?"  Much is made over the tense of κεχαριτωμένη "full of grace,"
Father Deacon Lance is an EASTERN Catholic.

What does that have to do with anything?  He evidently believes in the IC, so I see no reason to make a distinction between him or any other follower of Pope Pius IX.


Quote
I'm sure he understands the ACTUAL meaning of the term often translated as "Full of Grace."

Somehow I recall him being Ukrainian.  That's would be Greek to him, unless he has studied Greek.

Quote
Given that, I think he will agree that receiving whatever Graces Mary received at her IC does not preclude receiving other Graces at the Annunciation.

But that's your problem with Ineffibilis Deus using the chapter in question as proof text of the IC: if there were other graces to be received, then Luke 1:28 can't be said to demand the IC because κεχαριτωμένη means "all divine graces."

Quote
Quote
Quote
Don't know.  It couldn't hurt.  Do we of the East not state that theosis continues forever, grace following upon grace.

I know WE do. I've gotten conflicting reports from those who sailing West up the Tiber.
They're not conflicting.  They are different expressions of the SAME Faith.

Saying white is black just makes things gray.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I believe both involve ontological change, or rather both are names for the same thing.

Then the baptized are not a new creation? Gal. 3:27, 6:15, 2 Cor. 5:17, Col. 3:11.
He already stated they are the SAME term that involve ontological change.  Why are you asking this question?

Because the grace we received on bended knee this morning was not the same we received at baptism.  They are NOT the SAME.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Some of the arguments that many Roman Catholic apologists put out for the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos is this word in St. Luke 1:28. The passage reads:
Quote
και εισλεθων προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου


Some say that the word suggests her receiving grace a long time ago, i.e. her "Immaculate Conception." What is the proper way to translate this and how can we gently correct those who put forth this argument?

In Christ,
Andrew

This just goes in circles: it is perfect, which as explained, means past action with present import.  However, since she HAD been chosen, said action could have been when Gabriel was sent, which would be LONG after her conception. There is no implication of it being a long time ago. The same word appears (though different tense, one that just says it happened) in Ephesians 1:6.

My favorite problem for the IC is explaining II Corinthians 5:21: if Christ became sin for us, what need was there for an immaculate Mother?  Then there is the problem that if she was immaculate, why did she die (this segways into the Coredemtrix, which is at least logically consistent although totally wrong.  Maximillian Kolbe has some scarry things to say on this).

Quote
This construal of the Immaculate Conception may still be vulnerable, e.g., to Bulgakov's criticism that it unnecessarily separates Mary from Israel and her forbears, as well as Bulgakov's vigorous attack on "sanctifying grace"; but it has the advantage of excluding any hint of Pelagianism, as if Mary was able to generate from within herself, by her own inner resources and power, what no man, or woman, had been able to do since humanity's expulsion from Paradise, namely, to surrender herself wholeheartedly, perfectly, sinlessly to the love and will of God Almighty.  The IC clearly secures the assent of Mary to the Annunciation in the grace and freedom of God.

By removing the choice from her.

Quote
It may well be that Eastern Christians will continue to see the IC dogma as an unnecessary, and indeed provocative, innovation; but I certainly see no grounds for regarding it as heretical.    Certainly it is no more heretical than St Gregory Palamas's views on the progressive purification of Mary's forbears.  
What's heretical about that?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #122 on: May 03, 2010, 07:42:29 PM »
And here is the IC.

Notice that it does not say "original" or "ancestral" sin.  ;)

The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader", who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin”. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html

Mickey, may I suggest that the sinlessness, purity, and sanctity of the Theotokos is the essential point where our conversation should begin.   The Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, whatever its flaws may be, seeks to protect and acclaim the purity and sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin.  And more specifically, it seeks to "explain"

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.


Quote
how it was possible for this one maiden of Israel to do what no one since Adam & Eve had been able to do before--namely, to surrender to the will of God wholeheartedly and perfectly. 

One will not find in the Eastern tradition a "doctrine" of the Immaculate Conception, but one does find glorious acclamation of the perfect holiness and sinlessness of the Theotokos.  I commend to you Kallistos Ware's essay "'The Earthly Heaven': The Mother of God in the Teaching of St John of Damascus," in Mary for Earth and Heaven (2002), ed. McLoughlin & Pinnock.  St John, the Metropolitan explains, believed that "Mary underwent a special purification and hallowing at the moment of the annunciation, when 'the sanctifying power of the Spirit overshadowed, cleansed and consecrated her.  But this does not signify that, in John's view, she was sinful prior to the annuncation; on the contrary, he clearly considers that she was always pure and guiltless.  Moreover, he also states clearly that she was predestined from all eternity to be the Mother of God incarnate."

What is this but the Immaculate Conception in an Eastern idiom?

Grasping at straws at trying to tie the IC to the East.


Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #123 on: May 03, 2010, 07:50:30 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
Check the Feast of the Dormition: subject to death.
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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #124 on: May 03, 2010, 07:51:45 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
Check the Feast of the Dormition: subject to death.
We believe that Mary died.
"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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #125 on: May 03, 2010, 07:56:02 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
Check the Feast of the Dormition: subject to death.
We believe that Mary died.
Then she was subject to the taint of sin. No sin, no death.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 07:56:26 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,279
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #126 on: May 03, 2010, 08:10:41 PM »
Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.
And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.

I'd hand it over to you as a slam dunk if this passage read "a body that was conceived without the taint of sin", or even "born without the taint of sin." This line is from the Entrance into the Temple, which the Vatican doesn't seem to push as a historical event anymore anyway. Again, if it were from the feast of her conception, then I would think a lot harder about what you are saying, but at this point I'm not convinced.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #127 on: May 03, 2010, 08:53:27 PM »
This construal of the Immaculate Conception may still be vulnerable, e.g., to Bulgakov's criticism that it unnecessarily separates Mary from Israel and her forbears, as well as Bulgakov's vigorous attack on "sanctifying grace"; but it has the advantage of excluding any hint of Pelagianism, as if Mary was able to generate from within herself, by her own inner resources and power, what no man, or woman, had been able to do since humanity's expulsion from Paradise, namely, to surrender herself wholeheartedly, perfectly, sinlessly to the love and will of God Almighty.  The IC clearly secures the assent of Mary to the Annunciation in the grace and freedom of God.

This is really the key to the whole thing Father Al.  This argument of Bulgakov against "sanctifying grace."   It is not peculiar to Father Sergei. 

The fundamental argument or root argument against the Immaculate Conception always reveals the underlying refusal to accept that Baptism fully restores original justice, and the continued insistence that concupiscence is sin rather than its etymological meaning of a disintegrated inclination to yield the will to the good. 

Pressing the argument never fails to reveal this at its root and frankly it happens even among Catholics as they attempt to probe more deeply into the meaning of Baptism and its relationship to the Immaculate Conception.  Eventually there is the "ah-ha!" moment when people see the connection between the Catholic teaching on sanctifying grace and the anticipatory redemptive grace of the Immaculate Conception.  At that point they can see just what it is that they are being asked to believe.  Some will accept it and some will not.   But it becomes clear that the reason they do not accept the Immaculate Conception is that fundamentally they do not accept a fully justifying grace at Baptism.

You saw that also in the discussion of purgation.  You yourself raised the question.

Mary

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #128 on: May 03, 2010, 08:58:14 PM »
Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.
And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.

I'd hand it over to you as a slam dunk if this passage read "a body that was conceived without the taint of sin", or even "born without the taint of sin." This line is from the Entrance into the Temple, which the Vatican doesn't seem to push as a historical event anymore anyway. Again, if it were from the feast of her conception, then I would think a lot harder about what you are saying, but at this point I'm not convinced.
That of course, is the problem.  The conception of St. Anne has never been a major feast, whereas the Birth and Entrance into the Temple of the Theotokos has been since the codification of the liturgical calendar.  Lex orandi, lex credendi.
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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #129 on: May 03, 2010, 09:40:33 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
Check the Feast of the Dormition: subject to death.
We believe that Mary died.
Then she was subject to the taint of sin. No sin, no death.
If that is what your conclusion is then you disagree with your own liturgy.
But no, death itself is not the taint of original sin: a fallen nature that tends towards sin is the taint.
"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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #130 on: May 03, 2010, 10:03:43 PM »


Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.



And here is the IC. Glad to see that the IC really is part of the EO faith. Perhaps we are closer than I thought.
Check the Feast of the Dormition: subject to death.
We believe that Mary died.
Then she was subject to the taint of sin. No sin, no death.
If that is what your conclusion is then you disagree with your own liturgy.
No, just your reading into (not even "reading of") it.

Quote
But no, death itself is not the taint of original sin: a fallen nature that tends towards sin is the taint.
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death"
"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. "
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 Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,675
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #131 on: May 03, 2010, 10:22:06 PM »
Death is at the core of the ancestral sin.   What is inherited is death, as Isa stated.   

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #132 on: May 03, 2010, 10:35:48 PM »
Death is at the core of the ancestral sin.   What is inherited is death, as Isa stated.   

Death is consequential to the loss of original justice which is the graced ability to perceive the divine light and to conform the human will to the divine will, and the graced strength of will to so conform. 

Original justice is theosis. 

Baptism returns the human soul to its original state of theosis, but all post lapsarian humans, including the Immaculate Conception must still die.

M.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,675
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #133 on: May 03, 2010, 10:38:18 PM »
The Council of Trent 5th session:
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

But let us look further, shall we:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Let's look at Vatican I:
I embrace and accept the whole and every part of what was defined and declared by the holy council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,675
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: A question on the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #134 on: May 03, 2010, 10:40:24 PM »
Justice is not equivalent to theosis.   

Death is at the core of the ancestral sin.   What is inherited is death, as Isa stated.   

Death is consequential to the loss of original justice which is the graced ability to perceive the divine light and to conform the human will to the divine will, and the graced strength of will to so conform. 

Original justice is theosis. 

Baptism returns the human soul to its original state of theosis, but all post lapsarian humans, including the Immaculate Conception must still die.

M.