Author Topic: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception  (Read 67617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #315 on: December 12, 2010, 07:22:26 PM »
Yesh, you people are responding faster than I can debate! 8 posts before I could reply to Fr. Ambrose!

Must be the fresh coffee after church!  ;D

Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up.


Behold how a priest is defamed on an Orthodox board!

And yet you would defame an Orthodox bishop on an Orthodox board. How is that any more honorable?


Here is an article about the change in Original Sin within Orthodoxy:

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin

Ignore this man.  He is some sort of vagante "bishop" and it would not be unreasonable to assume he has never been near a seminary.

What are you talking about!?  Neither your Church the OCA  nor mine, the Russian, recognises this man as an Orthodox bishop.  I cannot read the mind of my Patriarch but I think he would serve with the Pope before he would serve and commune with this man.  

The fact remains that a priest has been defamed on an Orthodox board, and several times, by the member known as "Papist."
You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it because I didn't want it to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed.  But since you bring it up, Fr. Ambrose, I'm going to be frank with you. I've grown weary of seeing you cop a martyr complex whenever it appears to help you control a thread. I, too, find many of your discussion tactics dishonest and have told you so quite a few times. I don't see Papist defaming you nor your priestly office by saying the same thing. I don't see that he's ever called you a liar, which would be a personal attack. He has simply implied that you're being dishonest, which is a criticism of your behavior, not of your person. If you wish to engage him in conversation, I would advise you to not take criticism of your tactics personally and to not cry that he's defaming a priest whenever he calls you out for being dishonest, especially when you take such liberties to accuse him of the same level of dishonesty. If he truly does attack you personally, the moderators will discipline him accordingly, as we have already done many times in the past, but, speaking only for myself and informally so at that, I don't see that he has done anything wrong here. You have accused him of dishonesty; he has merely returned the favor.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 07:32:44 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #316 on: December 12, 2010, 07:23:04 PM »

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)

,

Again we see the dishonest debating tactics of which Papist complains.  The attempt to use our own liturgical texts against us to "prove" that we believe a belief which we have never believed.  This is very low; can we imagine the Catholic representatives in the bilateral dialogue stooping to this kind of argumentation?

If you locate the posts of LBK in the other IC thread where Mary has produced these same texts you will find a cogent rebuttal and an orthodox understanding of these texts which Mary wants to hijack for the Roman Catholic agenda.

Those are interesting quotes. I would like to see the rebuttal, if you can find it, Father.

I admit that I am weary of the Catholic dishonesty in trying to use our liturgical texts against us.   People should be able to find LBK's messages by doing a forum search.  Look for posts by elijahmaria which contain such infrequent words as chamber and tabernacle.  That will lead you to LBK's posts.

I see that LBK has provided (message 313)  the texts for the feast of the Conception of the Mother of God by Saint Anne (as she did in the former thread.)  Even a rather cursory perusal of the texts shows that there is no concept of Immaculate Conception.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 07:31:55 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,439
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #317 on: December 12, 2010, 07:26:08 PM »

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)

,

Again we see the dishonest debating tactics of which Papist complains.  The attempt to use our own liturgical texts against us to "prove" that we believe a belief which we have never believed.  This is very low; can we imagine the Catholic representatives in the bilateral dialogue stooping to this kind of argumentation?

If you locate the posts of LBK in the other IC thread where Mary has produced these same texts you will find a cogent rebuttal and an orthodox understanding of these texts which Mary wants to hijack for the Roman Catholic agenda.

Those are interesting quotes. I would like to see the rebuttal, if you can find it, Father.
The quotations are interesting, but not because they support the later Western theory of the immaculate conception, because in fact they do not do that; instead, they are interesting because they reveal the poetic, hyperbolic, and proleptic nature of liturgical discourse.  As an Eastern Catholic I have no problem believing that the Holy Theotokos is all pure, while remaining unconcerned about trying to pinpoint a specific moment during her life for her achievement of purity, which in Byzantine tradition has been ascribed to different times and events in her life by different authors for more than one thousand years.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 07:30:08 PM by Apotheoun »
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #318 on: December 12, 2010, 07:29:30 PM »
Father Ambrose, should we bring up the Orthodox Christians in Romania and Bulgaria who were part of the AXIS?

I doubt if it is much use to debate with a man who has been discusing the Byzantine Enmpire and seems to believe that in the 1940s Romania and Bulgaria were part of Byzantium !!?  But if you wish to speak of them why don't you speak of the heroic Orthodox defence of the Jews and how not one Jew was lost in Bulgaria thanks to the actions of the Orthodox bishops who even laid down on railway lines and stopped the trains shipping Jews off to concentrationn camps.

Or the Patriarch, who from the pulpit of his cathedral on Pascha excommunicated the Czar (who was of German origin, hence why he dragged the country into the Axis) if he signed the law implementing the Nurenberg laws in Bulgaria, and anyone who cooperated with them.

Or that Bulgaria ended up with more Jews after the war than it had before.
Yeah, ignore the fact that Romania ( and "Orthodox" country) was part of the axis. lol
Noticed that you go on pass Bulgaria as if nothing had happened. Typical.

As for Romania, this is Romania before 1940

This is what was left, in white, of it once the Nazis, the "Apostolic Crown" (so named by the Vatican) of Hungary and the Soviet Union implimented the Molotov-Rippentrob Pact.

which undermined the legitimacy of the government, allowing Anton Ionescu to seize control
Quote
An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom [i.e. the terriotory that the Romanians acutally controlled], and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Antonescu
Things were also problmatic as King Carol kept up with his Jewish background (but baptised for the Vatican) mistress although the Patriarch had already excommunicated him and had forced his renouncing the throne already. He had been allowed back into the country and then back to inherit the throne by promising to renounce the relationship. Btw, the dynasty was a branch of the German Hohenzollerns, the Imperial Family, and communicants of the Vatican (the concordat his father concluded with the Vatican was unconstituional): his son was the first Romanian King baptized Orthodox, and the Patriarch was a member of the regency which governed in his minority. With the loss of terrioty, Carol lost legitimacy and control, and abdicated.  Ionescu ruled until King Mihai was able to unify the various factions (unfortunately, including the Communists) against him, at which point he suprised Ionescu at a palace meeting, declaring him dismissed and that Romania was entering the side of the allies.
Quote
Nonetheless, in stark contrast to many countries of Eastern and Central Europe, the majority of Romanian Jews (if restricted to rump Romania, outside the territories occupied in 1940 by Hungary and the Soviet Union) survived the war, although they were subject to a wide range of harsh conditions, including forced labor, financial penalties, and discriminatory laws. The number of victims, however, makes Romania count as, according to the Wiesel Commission, "Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, [responsible] for the deaths of more Jews than any country other than Germany itself".  The killing of Jews was unsystematic, taking place in some places and times but not in others - especially, far more intensively where the Romanian Army was acting as an occupying force rather than in Romania's own sovereign territory. Fortunately for the Romanian Jews, the Nazis never got a chance to take direct control of the process and "systematise" it, as they did in Hungary at mid-1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_Romania#Antonescu.27s_regime

Although Romania signed the Peace Treaty as an Ally, the Soviet Union (which had pushed for Russian claims on Moldavia, which had been seized from Romania by the Czar) demanded reparations, which Romania paid 6X the amount of the treaty, as the Soviet Union occupied what was left of Romania (the U.S.S.R. kept what it gained by the Molotov-Rippentrap pact) until 1958.

Btw, the Peace Treaty of Italy specifies Italy as an Axis power. Why's that?

And who signed the Lateran Treaty again, LOL?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 07:30:03 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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #319 on: December 12, 2010, 07:30:50 PM »
Yesh, you people are responding faster than I can debate! 8 posts before I could reply to Fr. Ambrose!

Must be the fresh coffee after church!  ;D

Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up.


Behold how a priest is defamed on an Orthodox board!

And yet you would defame an Orthodox bishop on an Orthodox board. How is that any more honorable?


Here is an article about the change in Original Sin within Orthodoxy:

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin

Ignore this man.  He is some sort of vagante "bishop" and it would not be unreasonable to assume he has never been near a seminary.

What are you talking about!?  Neither your Church the OCA  nor mine, the Russian, recognises this man as an Orthodox bishop.  I cannot read the mind of my Patriarch but I think he would serve with the Pope before he would serve and commune with this man. 

The fact remains that a priest has been defamed on an Orthodox board, and several times, by the member known as "Papist."
You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it because I didn't want it to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed.  But since you bring it up, Fr. Ambrose, I'm going to be frank with you. I've grown weary of seeing you cop a martyr complex whenever it appears to help you control a thread. I, too, find many of your discussion tactics dishonest and have told you so quite a few times. I don't see Papist defaming you nor your priestly office by saying the same thing. I don't see that he's ever called you a liar, which would be a personal attack. He has simply implied that you're being dishonest, which is a criticism of your behavior, not of your person. If you wish to engage him in conversation, I would advise you to not take criticism of your tactics personally and to not cry that he's defaming a priest whenever he calls you out for being dishonest. If he truly does attack you personally, the moderators will discipline him accordingly, as we have already done many times in the past, but, speaking only for myself and informally so at that, I don't see that he has done anything wrong here.

Thank you but your advice is misplaced. Examime this conversation and tell us why he is justified in calling me dishonest and to speak of me scornfully as "the likes of you."  Are not forum members protected from such personal attacks?    You'll need to go back to the messages about the Catholic and Muslism effect on Orthodoxy.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #320 on: December 12, 2010, 07:33:56 PM »
Yesh, you people are responding faster than I can debate! 8 posts before I could reply to Fr. Ambrose!

Must be the fresh coffee after church!  ;D

Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up.


Behold how a priest is defamed on an Orthodox board!

And yet you would defame an Orthodox bishop on an Orthodox board. How is that any more honorable?


Here is an article about the change in Original Sin within Orthodoxy:

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin

Ignore this man.  He is some sort of vagante "bishop" and it would not be unreasonable to assume he has never been near a seminary.

What are you talking about!?  Neither your Church the OCA  nor mine, the Russian, recognises this man as an Orthodox bishop.  I cannot read the mind of my Patriarch but I think he would serve with the Pope before he would serve and commune with this man. 

The fact remains that a priest has been defamed on an Orthodox board, and several times, by the member known as "Papist."
You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it because I didn't want it to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed.  But since you bring it up, Fr. Ambrose, I'm going to be frank with you. I've grown weary of seeing you cop a martyr complex whenever it appears to help you control a thread. I, too, find many of your discussion tactics dishonest and have told you so quite a few times. I don't see Papist defaming you nor your priestly office by saying the same thing. I don't see that he's ever called you a liar, which would be a personal attack. He has simply implied that you're being dishonest, which is a criticism of your behavior, not of your person. If you wish to engage him in conversation, I would advise you to not take criticism of your tactics personally and to not cry that he's defaming a priest whenever he calls you out for being dishonest. If he truly does attack you personally, the moderators will discipline him accordingly, as we have already done many times in the past, but, speaking only for myself and informally so at that, I don't see that he has done anything wrong here.

Thank you but your advice is misplaced. Examime this conversation and tell us why he is justified in calling me dishonest and to speak of me scornfully as "the likes of you."  Are not forum members protected from such personal attacks?    You'll need to go back to the messages about the Catholic and Muslism effect on Orthodoxy.
I've already read it and taken it into account. I've no need to read it again.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,439
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #321 on: December 12, 2010, 07:41:05 PM »
Accusations of dishonesty by either side in a debate really are irrelevant.  It would be nice if everyone would remember that people can honestly disagree with each other.  :D
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #322 on: December 12, 2010, 07:43:06 PM »
Yesh, you people are responding faster than I can debate! 8 posts before I could reply to Fr. Ambrose!

Must be the fresh coffee after church!  ;D

Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up.


Behold how a priest is defamed on an Orthodox board!

And yet you would defame an Orthodox bishop on an Orthodox board. How is that any more honorable?


Here is an article about the change in Original Sin within Orthodoxy:

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin

Ignore this man.  He is some sort of vagante "bishop" and it would not be unreasonable to assume he has never been near a seminary.

What are you talking about!?  Neither your Church the OCA  nor mine, the Russian, recognises this man as an Orthodox bishop.  I cannot read the mind of my Patriarch but I think he would serve with the Pope before he would serve and commune with this man. 

The fact remains that a priest has been defamed on an Orthodox board, and several times, by the member known as "Papist."
You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it because I didn't want it to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed.  But since you bring it up, Fr. Ambrose, I'm going to be frank with you. I've grown weary of seeing you cop a martyr complex whenever it appears to help you control a thread. I, too, find many of your discussion tactics dishonest and have told you so quite a few times. I don't see Papist defaming you nor your priestly office by saying the same thing. I don't see that he's ever called you a liar, which would be a personal attack. He has simply implied that you're being dishonest, which is a criticism of your behavior, not of your person. If you wish to engage him in conversation, I would advise you to not take criticism of your tactics personally and to not cry that he's defaming a priest whenever he calls you out for being dishonest. If he truly does attack you personally, the moderators will discipline him accordingly, as we have already done many times in the past, but, speaking only for myself and informally so at that, I don't see that he has done anything wrong here.

Thank you but your advice is misplaced. Examime this conversation and tell us why he is justified in calling me dishonest and to speak of me scornfully as "the likes of you."  Are not forum members protected from such personal attacks?    You'll need to go back to the messages about the Catholic and Muslism effect on Orthodoxy.
I've already read it and taken it into account. I've no need to read it again.

Do you agree with him that I was dishonest in the way I answered his question about Muslims and Catholics and their effect on Orthodoxy because I did not bring in the matter of Byzantine wars with Muslims (an entirely peripheral matter to what he and I were discussing.)   That is a toxic thing to say about any man, priest or not, and justice requires its rebuttal.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #323 on: December 12, 2010, 07:47:28 PM »

You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it


To answer your question.  No, I did not realise.  I was called to the door half way through writing my message (lunchtime here.)   I never thought to check if you had deleted your message.  It's honestly not something I ever do.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,588
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #324 on: December 12, 2010, 07:49:26 PM »
Bringing things back on track:

Here's the thread on the IC to which Irish Hermit referred to my efforts in debunking the notion that the IC was once, or continues to be, part of Orthodox teaching:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.0.html
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #325 on: December 12, 2010, 07:52:37 PM »
Accusations of dishonesty by either side in a debate really are irrelevant.  It would be nice if everyone would remember that people can honestly disagree with each other.  :D

I'm going to need this.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #326 on: December 12, 2010, 07:59:15 PM »
Yesh, you people are responding faster than I can debate! 8 posts before I could reply to Fr. Ambrose!

Must be the fresh coffee after church!  ;D

Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up.


Behold how a priest is defamed on an Orthodox board!

And yet you would defame an Orthodox bishop on an Orthodox board. How is that any more honorable?


Here is an article about the change in Original Sin within Orthodoxy:

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin

Ignore this man.  He is some sort of vagante "bishop" and it would not be unreasonable to assume he has never been near a seminary.

What are you talking about!?  Neither your Church the OCA  nor mine, the Russian, recognises this man as an Orthodox bishop.  I cannot read the mind of my Patriarch but I think he would serve with the Pope before he would serve and commune with this man. 

The fact remains that a priest has been defamed on an Orthodox board, and several times, by the member known as "Papist."
You do realize that I deleted my post, the one that you quote above? I deleted my post about 15 minutes before you quoted it because I didn't want it to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed.  But since you bring it up, Fr. Ambrose, I'm going to be frank with you. I've grown weary of seeing you cop a martyr complex whenever it appears to help you control a thread. I, too, find many of your discussion tactics dishonest and have told you so quite a few times. I don't see Papist defaming you nor your priestly office by saying the same thing. I don't see that he's ever called you a liar, which would be a personal attack. He has simply implied that you're being dishonest, which is a criticism of your behavior, not of your person. If you wish to engage him in conversation, I would advise you to not take criticism of your tactics personally and to not cry that he's defaming a priest whenever he calls you out for being dishonest. If he truly does attack you personally, the moderators will discipline him accordingly, as we have already done many times in the past, but, speaking only for myself and informally so at that, I don't see that he has done anything wrong here.

Thank you but your advice is misplaced. Examime this conversation and tell us why he is justified in calling me dishonest and to speak of me scornfully as "the likes of you."  Are not forum members protected from such personal attacks?    You'll need to go back to the messages about the Catholic and Muslism effect on Orthodoxy.
I've already read it and taken it into account. I've no need to read it again.

Do you agree with him that I was dishonest in the way I answered his question about Muslims and Catholics and their effect on Orthodoxy because I did not bring in the matter of Byzantine wars with Muslims (an entirely peripheral matter to what he and I were discussing.)   That is a toxic thing to say about any man, priest or not, and justice requires its rebuttal.
Fr. Ambrose, when you allege that your debate opponent is being dishonest, he has every right to say the same of you, and to cite examples to prove his point. In order to help bring this thread back to the topic of the IC, that's all I will say. I'm done with this tangent.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #327 on: December 12, 2010, 08:01:38 PM »
Or how about how you treated the Alaskan Natives? Oh, I suspect there are many more examples, but I am not as into this kind of thing as you are.
Why do you think the Orthodox did to the Alaskan Natives, and for that matter, the Pomo and Miwok (the Amerindian Nations near Fort Ross)?
You are right. We have dealth with that before. You guys think killing Catholics is OK.

You didn't miss the question, did you?
Why do you think the Orthodox did to the Alaskan Natives, and for that matter, the Pomo and Miwok (the Amerindian Nations near Fort Ross)?

http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=94

Quote
She told her subjects to treat the Aleuts well, but enforcement of her decree was non existent in the new, far, corner of the Russian Empire known as Russian America. In 1763, the Aleuts rebelled against the Russians. Four of seven Russian ships wintering at Unalaska were destroyed and their crews were killed. In revenge, the Russians demolished Aleut villages on Umnak, Samalga, and the Islands of Four Mountains. They killed all of the villagers.

Other rebellions such as the one at Unalaska were also punished harshly. Disturbances became rare. As time passed many of the Russian promyshlenniki took Aleut women, had children, and adopted a Native lifestyle during their time, in the islands. When British navigator James Cook sailed into Southwest Alaska waters in 1778, he recorded in his journal that Russians and Aleuts at one of the outposts he visited prayed together and shared the same large barracks built in Aleut style." Russian control, however, resulted not from this but from three other factors. The Aleut population was dispersed in small villages on separate islands. The villages were on small islands vulnerable to ships' cannon fire. The Aleuts had no weapons adequate to resist the Russians' firearms. The Russians soon enslaved the Aleuts. The fur traders, although they had no permanent settlements in the the islands, often occupied hunting camps at one location for one or two years at a time.

The low lying site at Three Saints Bay was almost under water after an earthquake. This, and a shortage of timber for building, influenced Baranov to move the settlement northeast on Kodiak Island. He called the new place St. Paul. It is today's city of Kodiak. As he re-established things there, Baranov received an unwelcome shipment from Shelikhov a bevy of priests and monks. The company owner, anxious to curry favor with the Russian court, had requested permission for a church mission to Russian America. Baranov, plagued with obtaining enough supplies for his own people, had little to spare. When the Russian clerics got to the Kodiak outpost they found none of the conveniences they had been promised. They became angry with Baranov and tried to discredit him in the eyes of the Russian court. Baranov, in turn, complained uselessly about the clerics' conduct. He left the most critical priests behind when he transferred his headquarters to New Archangel, today's Sitka, in Southeast Alaska.

Unlike most later American missionaries who thought Christianity could be successfully introduced only if Native beliefs were destroyed, Father Veniaminov respected the Aleut heritage. "You must win your converts by kindness, consideration, and the power of the Word, and under no circumstances by force or by bribery or by false promise," he told fellow priests. Aleuts called Veniaminov "The Good Father." When he left the Aleutian Islands to be Bishop of Alaska, he said that he owed the Aleuts "much more than they owe me for my work, and I will never forget them."

The Yakima reservation is actually a dry reservation now! It took a great deal of work on the tribal council's part, but it is now a dry rez.

Finding out the real story of the "Whitman Massacre" is pretty interesting as well.

One of the things that I really respect about Orthodoxy is how they dealt with the Alaskan indians.



I was struck by this part of the "PETITION FROM THE TLINGIT ORTHODOX CHIEFS TO THE U.S. PRESIDENT, 1897"

3) We do not want American saloons. We beg The Government to close them . . . We have brought cases to the local authorities here and the result is that the white man goes free and unpunished, but the Native suffers fines, imprisonment and punishment. We do not want the civilization that only does not stop saloons but encourages them . . .

The Diocese Bishop Nicholas of the Aleutians and Alaska, then resident in San Francisco added:
In part: Alaska stands in need of radical reform in all direction. This I wrote to you now. It is not enough that certain rights were secured to the country in the treaty of 1867, by which it was ceded to America by the Russian Government; those rights should be protected with firmness by the law and authorities. A limit most be sent to the abusers of the various companies, more especially those of the Alaska Commercial Co., which for over 30 years has had there the uncontrolled management of affairs and has reduced the country's hunting and fishing resources to absolute exhaustion, and the population to beggary and semi-starvation. A limit must be set to the abuses of officials who, as shown by the experience of many years, are sent there without any discrimination and exclusively on the recommendation of Alaska's immovable guardian . . .

Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm

When St. Tikhon arrived to take over from Bp. Nicholas, St. Alexander welcomed him with these words(Dec. 22, 1898):

You have now put your episcopal hand on the rudder ... O Master! There are many wild branches in the vineyard which the Lord has made your lot: childish whims and the stubborness of human hearts -- and the whims of children who lack their father's kindness ... Fatithlessness preys on the people's hearts here; our brothers, secluded by the heterodox milieu and oppressed by need, have fallen here, members of the holy Church. The Uniate hosts are blinded and scorn truth and veracity; for them, Orthodoxy is hateful! ... And in Alaska, there are the fervent tears of the unfairly-treated Orthodox sons of our Church! ... A difficult and sorrowful path, but is it not with such that the battle you will get your satisfaction? The Lord, who cares for all will not leave your zeal, love, cares in vain, but will allow us to see the moment when your flock will, in retun, for the care you show it, call your name blessed. Then the Lord who cares for all will accept their prayers, and, in return for the moments and spiritual difficulties and physical ills, will crown you with a heavenly reward ... where the labors are great, the crown is great too! May the Lord give you strength in this new apostolic labor!

Late June through early September, he dedicated to a 9,637-mile visitation of the largest and most accessible settlements in seaboard Alaska. In Sitka's St. Michael Cathedral, he communed with the spirit of his great predecessor, Abp. Innocent Veniaminov, venerating the altar cross with which he had blessed the faithful, celebrating on the antimension which he had signed, standing on the eagle run which his daughter Polyxenia had woven with her own hands....Following his first full year in America, Bp. Tikhon settled into a more realistic, somewhat less-taxing, if not perfectly-balanced schedule of alternate-year visitations to Alaska on the one hand and the rest of the Mission on the other. Holy Week and Pascha were kept in his cathedral, then it was time to travel. In May of 1900, he set sail for Alaska for 78 days, becoming the first bishop in fifty-five years to penetrate some parts of its vast hinterland. Of much of his 7,300-mile trip, an Alaskan veteran wrote: "The inconveniences of travel in this region often oppress even the local people who are used to them. How much more difficult must our travels have been for the Bishop, a novice. But not only did the Bishop never express fatigue or inconvenience, he even inspired cheerfulness in us by his good-natured attitude toward the various inconveniences." Aliutukhta, as the Natives called him, treated them as though they were his own children, ate with them and like them from a common pot, taught them, offered them gifts, administered medicine as he visited the sick, and most memorably celebrated spectacular services for them.
http://www.antiochian.org/Bishops/tikhon.htm


I've been trying to get as much information about the Kashaya Pomo, the Amerindians around Fort Ross. The secular sources attribute them surviving as a culture, with many still fluent in Pomo, to their being in Russian territory.


You've already met Peter the Aleut.
The lad in the center, in the red shirt is St. Peter the Aleut, martyred by your Spanish Inquisition in San Francisco.

He wasn't an immigrant: he went from the Aleutian Islands (the Czar's territory, by treaty with the Aleutians) to Fort Ross California (the Czar's territory, by treaty with the Kashaya Pomo), a native.

Half Aleut (his Father was Russian), was Father Jacob Netsvetov.  Again, not a an immigrant as he went from Alaska to Irkutsk and then to the Yukon, all in the Russian Empire.


An immigrant was St. Innoncent of Alaska, later Patriarch of Moscow.  He evangelized from Siberia through Alaska down to San Francisco.  He learned and wrote in the native languages works which he translated into Russian and were published for the Faithful there when he became senior hiearch of the Moscow Church.

They did their work well.

And it continues:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/29721.htm
Quote
RTE: One of the revelations in reading native Alaskan Orthodox history such as Alaskan Missionary Spirituality, or From Mask to Icon: Transformation in the Arctic, is how Orthodoxy was very much initially embraced and then kept alive by the native peoples, sometimes without seeing a priest for years. Twenty years ago, I remember Aleuts from Kodiak simply saying, “To be native is to be Orthodox.”

MIKHAIL: Yes, indeed. Fr. Michael Oleksa goes into great detail about this in his book Orthodox Alaska — how many elements of the pre-Christian Alaskan worldview were not abolished, but rather fulfilled in Orthodox Christianity.

RTE: Wonderful! How many languages and dialects are there in the native Orthodox population, and how many people still speak those languages? MIKHAIL: That’s a very good question. I cannot claim to be a scholar, but I can answer based on my experience with the texts, and having worked with the wonderful priests of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska who provided their expertise.

Numerically, the largest contingent of Native Alaskan speakers are the Yup’ik people, who number around 20,000 people, of whom 13,000 speak the language across various dialects. The Alutiiq (known as Kodiak-Aleut in Russian America) number around 3,000, of whom 500-1,000 still speak the language. Aleuts are divided linguistically into the Atkan and Eastern dialectal variants. The total population of the Aleut people is given as 3,000, with the vast majority being of Eastern-Aleut background. The Atkan-dialect of Aleut has approximately 60-80 fluent speakers, whereas the Eastern-Aleut dialect has about 300 fluent speakers. St. Innocent focused his efforts in writing for the Eastern-Aleut, while St. Jacob concentrated on developing the Atkan-Aleut and Yup’ik languages. The Tlingit population is estimated at around 17,000, of whom 500 are fluent in the language. The bulk of Tlingit literature was developed in Sitka by Reader Ivan Nadezhdin in the 1850’s, and by Fr. Vladimir Donskoi and Michael Sinkiel in the 1890’s. The Tanaina of central Alaska number around 1,000, with 100 fluent native-language speakers. In all cases, many more people understand the language but do not speak it.

The native languages all had a thriving press and literature through the 1800’s under the auspices of the Orthodox Church. However, in the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, the Protestant missions of Sheldon Jackson had a disastrous effect on native language vitality, and were clearly aimed at ripping out the roots of the Native Alaskan Orthodox cultures. Stories of faithful Aleut Orthodox being chained to the floors of their own homes by U.S. Territorial agents for speaking their language and courageously refusing to hand over their children to the Protestant boarding schools break the heart. Our native Alaskan Orthodox brothers were first-class confessors for their Holy Orthodox faith. They are heroes and defenders of Orthodox Christianity. In the midst of the turmoil of American “English-only” language policy throughout much of the 20th century, the native languages declined greatly. Much of the work of Sts. Innocent and Jacob was destroyed, but not completely. What we are seeing today is a veritable resurrection of our Alaskan brothers’ texts, their languages, their authentically Orthodox cultures. Their sacrifice is chronicled in such books as Alaskan Missionary Spirituality and Orthodox Alaska by Fr. Michael Oleksa. RTE: Sadly, the mistreatment went on well into the latter half of the 20th century. The Russian Orthodox priests who remained after the United States acquired Alaska had little influence to protect the native Orthodox, and even less after the 1917 Russian Revolution. I remember an Aleut Orthodox man who said that, as late as the 1960’s, when he was a young boy at school, the use of native language was still forbidden. If you were heard speaking it, a derogatory, humiliating sign was placed around your neck, which you wore until you heard another child speaking “native,” when you could pass the sign on to him. The child wearing the sign at the end of the day was beaten by the principal.

This should not have been, as the rights of the Orthodox were guarenteed by treaty:
Quote
Article II
In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article, are included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifies which are not private individual property. It is, however, understood and agreed, that the churches which have been built in the ceded territory by the Russian Government, shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the territory as may choose to worship therein. Any Government archives, papers, and documents relative to the territory and dominion aforesaid, which may now be existing there, will be left in the possession of the agent of the United States; but an authenticated copy of such of them as may be required, will be, at all times, given by the United States to the Russian Government, or to such Russian officers or subjects as they may apply for. 10

Article III
The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may from time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.”
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
“Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
http://books.google.ro/books?id=eQtcYqW8JBYC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=XiL1MLmcYf&sig=d1-RDRc69fR_ns1SZvKW99e248A&hl=ro&ei=ts_1SoGxB4aGMYeH-egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
http://books.google.ro/books?id=r6iwMR-xoEIC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=wWpj58-278&sig=skkYrQeL8lIU02A7sf0yP48XjeY&hl=ro&ei=FdT1SujZLZLiMYLQ4egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
“Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
http://books.google.ro/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC&pg=PA304&dq=Memory+Eternal+Tlingit+Orthodox+Chiefs+McKinley#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/pss/481921
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments

btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
“Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
http://books.google.ro/books?id=eQtcYqW8JBYC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=XiL1MLmcYf&sig=d1-RDRc69fR_ns1SZvKW99e248A&hl=ro&ei=ts_1SoGxB4aGMYeH-egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
http://books.google.ro/books?id=r6iwMR-xoEIC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=tlingit+orthodox+chiefs+to+president&source=bl&ots=wWpj58-278&sig=skkYrQeL8lIU02A7sf0yP48XjeY&hl=ro&ei=FdT1SujZLZLiMYLQ4egF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tlingit%20orthodox%20chiefs%20to%20president&f=false
“Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
http://books.google.ro/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC&pg=PA304&dq=Memory+Eternal+Tlingit+Orthodox+Chiefs+McKinley#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/pss/481921
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments

btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.

As to the rights that the natives had by treaty, I've posted elsewhere:
Quote
The issue is the status that the treaty created for the Orthodox, both European and Amerinidian, in US law, with legal title to the Church properties etc in Alaska, as successor of the HGS authority. (there are related matters, e.g. 1% of the sale price was paid per annum to the American Diocese until the revolution, etc.). There are lots of de jure issues from how the US constition and case law would interact with the treaty, but as the US, besides paying the money didn’t keep the terms of the treaty, that might be too large a digression. Instead we might look at how the “Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs” tried to assert their rights under the treaty (ironic, as the Tlingit converted as a nation AFTER the Russians left) petitioning the US president: “The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress….we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government.” Some 70 Orthodox residents of Sitka, Russian and Amerindian, petitioned the Russian ambassador in Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty. And Bishop Nicholai wrote to President McKinley: “Our church allows us only to remonstrate with the highest authority on behalf of the oppressed and innocently suffering . . . but never allows us to incite dozens to sedition or treason . . . And so, Mr. President, be indulgent and gracious to poor, hapless Alaska and show the Orthodox Church there is respect to which it is entitled, if not by its whole record in that country, yet at least by Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of 1867″ [i.e. the Cession Treaty]. The import of this is underlined by Jackson and others reply that the Orthdoox clergy were foreign agents of the czar etc. Alaska may have been on the other side of the continent but their place was in the polity headed in Washington.
 “Haa tuwunáagu yís for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory” By Richard Dauenhauer
Orthodox Alaska: a theology of mission By Michael Oleks
 “Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods Among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native Reponse,” Sergei Kan. Ethnohistory 32(3):196-223
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries” By Sergei Kan
btw, I've posted there on the legal problems the Vatican has here in the US:
Quote
The Supreme Court had already stated that (Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 17 How. 542, 547 (1854 CA) “The laws[enacted by the previous sovereign] of these territories [acquired by the US],….[are] never treated by this [US Supreme] Court as foreign laws, to be decided as a question of fact, but the Court held itself bound to notice them judicially, as much so as the laws of a state of the Union.” The Charters in force in Alaska, the Ecclesiastical Statute, etc. had lots to say about the jurisdiction of the HGS, the Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands and his auxiliary in Sitka, over the Diocese, the Churches, the Faithful etc, all of which did not contradict the First Amendment immediately became American law, and was treated as such. So though one might think that the 1st Amendment would preclude judicial notice of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church over the Amerindians, in fact the courts made such jurisdiction according to the Russian laws, “membership in the established [Russian Orthodox] Church” a sine que non for US citizenship for Amerindians.
As argued in the CA Supreme Court in 1856 (Nobili v. Redman 6 Cal. 325, ) “The former laws of California are not foreign laws. To the extent therefore in which the canon law was formerly recognized by the civil power and thereby made part of the municipal law, the Court will take judicial notice of it. In the case of Fremont v. The United States, (17 How. R. 357,) the Supreme Court say: “It is proper to remark, that the laws of these territories under which titles were claimed, were never treated by the Court as foreign laws to be decided as a question of fact. It was always held that the Court was bound judicially to notice them, as much so as the laws of a State of the Union.”"
In Nobili, the Latin church lost because the Court determined that she had no power to own property until decree of secularization of 1833 by Mexico (which declared the missions public land), “the limitations contained in it would not entitle the Church to the property sued for.” In our case, the Article 2 of the Cession Treaty (and the AK and Fed. case law relying on the canon law recognized by the Russian power) would be controlling. Such would be strengthened in 1868 by passage of the Citizen, Equal Protection, Due Process and Incorporation/Immunities and Privileges Clauses of the 14th Ammendment, and the decision of Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 (1872), the precedent for Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94.


http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/the-origins-of-the-myth-of-past-unity/#comments

Some where I think I posted an interesting Amerindian account of a Russian being beaten to death by the authorities at Fort Ross for mistreating his Amerindian wife.

If I can find it, there is a record of Shelikhov and Rezanov, on the infrequent visits to Alaska, metting out coporal punishment to company officials guilty of cruelty to the natives, bringing the officials back to Russia in chains.  With the renewal of the company's charter, the officials all had to recruited from the naval officers (hence disciplined men rather than the riff-raff who had been running things).  The next charter the Czar let St. Innocent write the provisions regarding the natives: given the treaty, all the Amerindians in AK should have been US citizens under the law St. Innocent established.
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: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #328 on: December 12, 2010, 08:02:34 PM »
Accusations of dishonesty by either side in a debate really are irrelevant.  It would be nice if everyone would remember that people can honestly disagree with each other.  :D

That is what the IC is.
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 LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,588
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #329 on: December 12, 2010, 08:04:31 PM »
Bringing things back on track:

Here's the thread on the IC to which Irish Hermit referred to my efforts in debunking the notion that the IC was once, or continues to be, part of Orthodox teaching:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.0.html

Page 15 of this thread is where I introduce the liturgical text of the Orthodox feast of the Conception of the Mother of God.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #330 on: December 12, 2010, 08:05:17 PM »
/\  Peter, I can see you are not au courant.  Here is the first accusation of dishonesty, not from me but from Papist in  message 271:

Papist: "Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #331 on: December 12, 2010, 08:09:29 PM »
Quote
IIRC Fr. Ambrose brought up that the Byzantine DL, as opposed to the Orthodox DL of Constantinople, has interpolations etc.  A while back I finally got a hold of the text of the service of Dec. 9 (the rarity of it should tell you something), which "the Conception of St. Anne" shares with the "Dedication of the Church of the Resurrection". Skimming through it, I don't recall seeing these words (of course, it can be translation.  I couldn't get the Greek). Can we get confirmation that the texts you cite are ones that some Orthodox Church actually use?

ialmisry, and all who are interested, here are links to the Greek hymnography of December 8 and 9, the Orthodox  - NOT Byzantine Catholic - forefeast and feast of the Conception of the Mother of God:

http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/08.uni.htm
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/09.uni.htm

EDIT: Please note, as I have previously on another IC thread, that there is no Litia for the Orthodox feast. The Byzantine Catholic feast is a full Vigil, with Litia and Polyeleos. The hymnography of this Litia, which is not part of the Orthodox liturgical deposit, explicitly proclaims the doctrine of the IC. So much for the Papal decree that the Eastern Catholics use the same liturgical deposit as the Orthodox, with no alteration or interpolation.




And in the original Greek!

Eucharisto LBK! I'll try to give it the look after I get back.
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 Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,872
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #332 on: December 12, 2010, 08:37:48 PM »
Quote
IIRC Fr. Ambrose brought up that the Byzantine DL, as opposed to the Orthodox DL of Constantinople, has interpolations etc.  A while back I finally got a hold of the text of the service of Dec. 9 (the rarity of it should tell you something), which "the Conception of St. Anne" shares with the "Dedication of the Church of the Resurrection". Skimming through it, I don't recall seeing these words (of course, it can be translation.  I couldn't get the Greek). Can we get confirmation that the texts you cite are ones that some Orthodox Church actually use?

ialmisry, and all who are interested, here are links to the Greek hymnography of December 8 and 9, the Orthodox  - NOT Byzantine Catholic - forefeast and feast of the Conception of the Mother of God:

http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/08.uni.htm
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/09.uni.htm

EDIT: Please note, as I have previously on another IC thread, that there is no Litia for the Orthodox feast. The Byzantine Catholic feast is a full Vigil, with Litia and Polyeleos. The hymnography of this Litia, which is not part of the Orthodox liturgical deposit, explicitly proclaims the doctrine of the IC. So much for the Papal decree that the Eastern Catholics use the same liturgical deposit as the Orthodox, with no alteration or interpolation.

I was quite up front about the fact that the Byzantine Catholic Church had raised the Feast to Vigil and added texts which the Orthodox don't use and therefore can't be used in this debate.

As to the Papal decrees, Feasts like the Immacualte Conception, Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, and Christ the King were added long before Vatican II and the mandate to delatinize.  To our credit most of these have been removed.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #333 on: December 12, 2010, 08:38:40 PM »
/\  Peter, I can see you are not au courant.  Here is the first accusation of dishonesty, not from me but from Papist in  message 271:

Papist: "Once Father Ambrose takes us down the rabbit hole of his dishonesty, then it is indeed hard to keep up."
[breaking my vow of silence, but only to acknowledge the correctness of the person I'm confronting]
Okay, I acknowledge that. Papist made the first accusation of dishonesty, and you responded by lobbing a counter-accusation. However, I don't see how that changes anything I said, since you still accused him of dishonesty. Besides, it all comes back to what I said earlier about not taking personal offense when someone accuses you of engaging in dishonest debate tactics and about not attempting to defend yourself against such accusations by asserting the authority and sanctity of your priestly office. The fact that you're a priest doesn't guarantee that everything you say on an Internet discussion board is truthful beyond question, nor does it absolve you of any responsibility for what you say here.
[renewing my vow of silence on this tangent]
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 11:30:00 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #334 on: December 12, 2010, 09:20:41 PM »
Quote
IIRC Fr. Ambrose brought up that the Byzantine DL, as opposed to the Orthodox DL of Constantinople, has interpolations etc.  A while back I finally got a hold of the text of the service of Dec. 9 (the rarity of it should tell you something), which "the Conception of St. Anne" shares with the "Dedication of the Church of the Resurrection". Skimming through it, I don't recall seeing these words (of course, it can be translation.  I couldn't get the Greek). Can we get confirmation that the texts you cite are ones that some Orthodox Church actually use?

ialmisry, and all who are interested, here are links to the Greek hymnography of December 8 and 9, the Orthodox  - NOT Byzantine Catholic - forefeast and feast of the Conception of the Mother of God:

http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/08.uni.htm
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/09.uni.htm

EDIT: Please note, as I have previously on another IC thread, that there is no Litia for the Orthodox feast. The Byzantine Catholic feast is a full Vigil, with Litia and Polyeleos. The hymnography of this Litia, which is not part of the Orthodox liturgical deposit, explicitly proclaims the doctrine of the IC. So much for the Papal decree that the Eastern Catholics use the same liturgical deposit as the Orthodox, with no alteration or interpolation.

I was quite up front about the fact that the Byzantine Catholic Church had raised the Feast to Vigil and added texts which the Orthodox don't use and therefore can't be used in this debate.
so that it is clear, Deacon, you were not the one I meant when I raised the issue. They know who they are. Or should.
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 Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,872
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #335 on: December 12, 2010, 09:59:07 PM »
Quote
IIRC Fr. Ambrose brought up that the Byzantine DL, as opposed to the Orthodox DL of Constantinople, has interpolations etc.  A while back I finally got a hold of the text of the service of Dec. 9 (the rarity of it should tell you something), which "the Conception of St. Anne" shares with the "Dedication of the Church of the Resurrection". Skimming through it, I don't recall seeing these words (of course, it can be translation.  I couldn't get the Greek). Can we get confirmation that the texts you cite are ones that some Orthodox Church actually use?

ialmisry, and all who are interested, here are links to the Greek hymnography of December 8 and 9, the Orthodox  - NOT Byzantine Catholic - forefeast and feast of the Conception of the Mother of God:

http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/08.uni.htm
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Dec/09.uni.htm

EDIT: Please note, as I have previously on another IC thread, that there is no Litia for the Orthodox feast. The Byzantine Catholic feast is a full Vigil, with Litia and Polyeleos. The hymnography of this Litia, which is not part of the Orthodox liturgical deposit, explicitly proclaims the doctrine of the IC. So much for the Papal decree that the Eastern Catholics use the same liturgical deposit as the Orthodox, with no alteration or interpolation.

I was quite up front about the fact that the Byzantine Catholic Church had raised the Feast to Vigil and added texts which the Orthodox don't use and therefore can't be used in this debate.
so that it is clear, Deacon, you were not the one I meant when I raised the issue. They know who they are. Or should.

Thank you, Isa.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #336 on: December 12, 2010, 10:44:28 PM »
Will somebody play with me?

 ;D

Or may anathema be upon all of you!  :D

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple

[omitted for sake of space]

++++++++++++++++
Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.
I'm quite familiar with these hymns, but I fail to see how they justify the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as this was articulated by Pope Pius IX in 1854. I don't see in any of these texts, not even the ones you highlighted for us, anything to suggest that the Theotokos was preserved free from every stain of original sin from the moment of her conception.

These texts take us a good bit closer to Catholic teaching than most Orthodox would like to go.

If the issue of original sin could be resolved mutually there would not be much left by way of good arguments against the teaching that the Mother of God was born in a state of original justice.

And there's nothing that really stands in the way of a profession of mutual understanding on the teaching of the loss of original justice, or its reclamation by Baptism in Christ the Redeemer King.

So I understand what you are saying but I am still not sold on the idea that there is this deep and impassible chasm.  After all the west took her understanding of both the unique holiness of the mother of God and also the loss and resumption of original justice from eastern sources.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #337 on: December 12, 2010, 10:44:30 PM »
LBK,

These are not Greek Catholic texts.  I have placed the citation for them at the end of the texts!!

I hope your note is not suggesting that I have lied.



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.

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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #338 on: December 12, 2010, 10:44:33 PM »
Apropos the teaching that Baptism regenerates the state of original justice in all humans, adult, child and infants:

Canons of the Council of Carthage (418)

CANON CVIII.

Synod against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius.

In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors, Honorius for the XIIth time and Theodosius for
the VIIIth, Augusti most exalted, on the Calends of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the
Basilica of Faustus. When Aurelius the bishop presided over the whole council, the deacons
standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together
in the holy synod of the Church of Carthage to define ---

CANON CIX. (Greek cxii. continued.)

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned
or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because
his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

CANON CX. (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

LIKEWISE it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs
should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam
no original sin, which needs to be removed by the layer of regeneration, from whence the
conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be
understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin is come into the
world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have "sinned," than the
Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of
faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore
are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation
may be cleansed by regeneration.

CANON CXI. (Greek cxiij.)
That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also affords aid that we sin no more.
LIKEWISE it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is
justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for
assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

CANON CXII. (Greek cxiij. continued.)

That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but also inspires us with a
desire that we may be able to accomplish what we know

ALSO, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us only
in not sinning by revealing to us and opening to our understanding the commandments, so that
we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but
that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him
be anathema. For when the Apostle says: "Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth" it were truly
infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but
have it not for that which edifieth, since in each case it is the gift of God, both to know what we
ought to do, and to love to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us.
For as of God it is written, "Who teacheth man knowledge," so also it is written, "Love is of
God."

CANON CXIII. (Greek cxiiii.)
That without the grace of God we can do no good thing.

It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only
that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our
free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even
without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake
concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me ye can do nothing," and
not "Without me ye could do it but with difficulty."

CANON CXIV. (Greek cxv.)
That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: "If we say that we have no sin we
deceive ourselves."

IT also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If we shall say that we have no sin we
deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," whosoever thinks that this should be so understood
as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so,
let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity," where it is sufficiently clear
that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall
say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us;" but when
he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" he sufficiently intimates that he who
affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.

CANON CXV. (Greek cxvi.)
That in the Lord's Prayer the Saints say for themselves: "Forgive us our trespasses."

IT has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord's prayer, the saints say,
"forgive us our trespasses," they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this
petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of the saints can
say, "Forgive me my trespasses," but "Forgive us our trespasses;" so that the just is understood to
seek this for others rather than for himself; let him be anathema. For holy and just was the
Apostle James, when he said, "For in many things we offend all." For why was it added "all,"
unless that this sentence might agree also with the psalm, where we read, "Enter not into
judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified;" and in the
prayer of the most wise Solomon: "There is no man that sinneth not;" and in the book of the holy
Job: "He sealeth in the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity ;"
wherefore even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times: "We have sinned, we
have done iniquity," and other things which there truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be
thought (as some have thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people's sins,
for he said further on: "When I shall pray and confess my sins and the sins of my people to the
Lord my God;" he did not wish to say our sins, but he said the sins of his people and his own
sins, since he as a prophet foresaw that those who were to come would thus misunderstand his
words.


CANON CXVI. (Greek cxvii.)
That the Saints say with accuracy, "Forgive us our trespasses."

LIKEWISE also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of the Lord's prayer,
when we say, "Forgive us our trespasses" are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth let
them be anathema. For who would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say
with his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his heart that he had no sins to be
forgiven.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #339 on: December 12, 2010, 10:44:36 PM »
Do you agree with him that I was dishonest in the way I answered his question about Muslims and Catholics and their effect on Orthodoxy because I did not bring in the matter of Byzantine wars with Muslims (an entirely peripheral matter to what he and I were discussing.)   That is a toxic thing to say about any man, priest or not, and justice requires its rebuttal.

How perfectly Latin of you!!  And that you would demand more than you would allow the Latin Church to freely and penitently offer to God...how appropriately plain as the nose on your face.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #340 on: December 12, 2010, 11:10:17 PM »

These texts take us a good bit closer to Catholic teaching than most Orthodox would like to go.


Again the attempt to turn our own texts against us by reading them through a Roman Catholic bias.  This surprises me since Mary is not a Roman Catholic but a Ruthenian Greek Catholic and her understanding of original sin and the non-immaculate conception should be close to what Apotheoun has written and what another contributor here has said a Melkite Greek priest terms the Great Deception. Is it honest to claim to be a Ruthenian and hold that theological heritage but to argue as a Roman Catholic?  Is that fair to Greek Catholics and their theology?   To me, who knew the old Roman Catholicism, it smacks too much of the triumphalism of the Roman rite with respect to the other rites in the Catholic Church.  I appeal to those who are more perceptive than I in discerning such things.

In order to thwart the incessant Roman Catholic attempts to conflate the Orthodox and Catholic understandings and to declare that we believe one and the same thing, the Orthodox teaching must be endlessly repeated:

You and I, and Fr MacGinnity, and Pope Benedict and the Dalai Lama, are all conceived in the same spiritual state as the holy Mother of God.


When the Catholics come to believe this, as do the Greek Catholics,  we shall be one further step along the road to unity.

[Disclaimer:  the above has been written with no dishonest intention]

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #341 on: December 12, 2010, 11:46:50 PM »
Will somebody play with me?

 ;D

Or may anathema be upon all of you!  :D

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple

[omitted for sake of space]

++++++++++++++++
Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.
I'm quite familiar with these hymns, but I fail to see how they justify the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as this was articulated by Pope Pius IX in 1854. I don't see in any of these texts, not even the ones you highlighted for us, anything to suggest that the Theotokos was preserved free from every stain of original sin from the moment of her conception.

These texts take us a good bit closer to Catholic teaching than most Orthodox would like to go.

Ortodox teaching is that of the Catholic Church.

No, they are not a bit closer to the Vatican's teaching. We sang them long before 1854 without a thought of the IC, and sing them still.  You have put in red, for instance, references to her being pure. We have the refrain constantly throughout the DL every Sunday "Commemorting Our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Holy Theotokos and Ever Virgin Maryj...."

Quote
If the issue of original sin could be resolved mutually there would not be much left by way of good arguments against the teaching that the Mother of God was born in a state of original justice.
because there would be no arguments for the IC, because there wouldn't be these "original justice" forensics.

Quote
And there's nothing that really stands in the way of a profession of mutual understanding on the teaching of the loss of original justice, or its reclamation by Baptism in Christ the Redeemer King.
But that all happening after her conception, it won't save the IC.

Quote
So I understand what you are saying but I am still not sold on the idea that there is this deep and impassible chasm.  After all the west took her understanding of both the unique holiness of the mother of God and also the loss and resumption of original justice from eastern sources.
And lost (or rather added) something in the translation.

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: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #342 on: December 13, 2010, 12:16:45 AM »
Apropos the teaching that Baptism regenerates the state of original justice in all humans, adult, child and infants:
So we can get the Orthodox understanding:
Prolegomena.

The holy regional Council which assembled in Carthage in the year 418 or 419 after Christ, in the twelfth year of the consulship of Emperor Honorius in Rome, and in the eighth year of Emperor Theodosius the Little, according to the secretum of the Church Faustus. The Fathers who distinguished themselves most at this Council were Bishop Aurelius, who presided over all the bishops of Carthage (and who is called a Pope in many places in the minutes of the same C. by the Fathers); Valentinus of the first seat of the country of Numidia; Augustinus the bishop of Hippona and legate of the province of Numidia; and the rest of the legates of all the provinces of Africa. The number of these, according to the minutes of the C. was 217, but according to Photius 225, and according to others 214. But there were present at this C. also legates of the bishop of Rome Zosimus, the names of whom were Faustinus, bishop of Picenum of the Pontetine Church of Italy, and Philip and Asellus, the presbyters. This Council, be it said, was held primarily in order to take action against Pelagius and Celestius his disciple, and against Donatus; and secondarily also to take action against Apiarius the presbyter of Sicca. It lasted six whole years. For beginning in the year 418, it finished in the year 424. It so happened that during this period three Popes held office in Rome, namely, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestius (although in the minutes of this Council a fourth Pope, Anastasius, is mentioned; and see its c. LXVI). So after the many examinations and tractaisms which it held, it also promulgated one hundred and forty-one Canons relating to the good order and constitution of the Church; they are those which follow, sealed and confirmed definitely and by name in c. II of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, but generally and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th, and by c. I of the 7th. Its c. LXXXIX is cited verbatim by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council; and by virtue of this confirmation they have acquired a force which is in a way ecumenical.

120. It has pleased the Council to decree that whoever calls Adam, the first man created, a mortal man so made that whether he sin or not he is bound to die in the body, that is, to depart from the body, not owing to his deserving this fate by reason of the sin, but because of a necessity inherent in his nature, let him be anathema.
(cc. CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
The present Canon overthrows the heresy of Pelagius, and of his disciple Celestius. For these men (as divine Augustine bears witness in his discourse concerning original sin, chapters 5 and 6), be it noted, were condemned because they believed and held that original sin is not begotten together with the human being, and that it is a mistake, not of his nature, but of his will, and consequently from this they concluded that even Adam died this physical death, not on account of his sin, which was done as a matter of choice, but owing to a necessity inherent in his nature, which was built to be mortal from the very beginning, and was bound to die whether Adam, sinned or did not sin by choice. Hence the present Council, in overthrowing this heretical view, anathematizes those persons who make this assertion For, if Adam actually were mortal by necessity of his nature, then: First’ God, who built it to be so, would have to be also the creator and cause of death. But God did not create death, according to Scripture. Secondly, that flesh which Adam had before the transgression ought not to have been any different from our own, but, on the contrary, would have had to be, like ours, gross and mortal and antitypal; seeing that we too who have been born after that transgression are in accordance with the same necessity of nature mortal, and at all events are destined to die. (Book of Wisdom, 1:13). But St. Gregory the Theologian (in his sermon on the birth of Christ) insists that this gross and antitypal flesh which we ha\e now is such as Adam had only after the transgression, and not before it. And thirdly, if death came from nature, how is it that St. Paul says that "through sin death entered the world" (Rom. 5:12); and Solomon says that "it was by the devil’s envy that death entered the world" (Wisdom 2:24)? So, according to this Canon, God created man not mortal by natural necessity, but by nature immortal. And since it is characteristic of whatever is good not to force anyone to be good, therefore and on this account He created man free and independent with respect to his soul, in order that he might be induced to be good as a matter of choice and remain good, not by the exercise of force and violence, but by virtue of self-mastery and voluntarily; and by thus remaining good, that he might thenceforth maintain also the natural immortality of the body. But inasmuch he himself of his own accord was moved to evil by willful choice and preference, he no longer had the power, or ability, to keep the body in its natural immortality in which it was built; hence there ensued the death of this body. And, to speak more clearly with the great Gregory of Thessalonica, since the superior and higher part of man, the soul, became separated through sin and transgression from the real life, which is the grace of God, and fell into the real death, which is wickedness; therefore and on this account the lower and inferior part, or, more expressly speaking, the body, became separated from the life according to nature, and fell into the death contrary to nature. And just as the soul, being by nature, subject to God, failed to subject itself to Him, so and in like manner the body, subject by nature to the soul, evaded subjection to it with the disorders of its senses, pf its passions, and lastly with its decomposition into the elements of which it was composed, which dissolution is death. In agreement with the present Canon the following seven Canons of the present Council overthrow the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius: these are cc. CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, and CXXVII.

121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.
Interpretation.
This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.

122. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should declare that the grace whereby we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord to be effective only for the remission of sins already perpetrated, and not to afford help by way of preventing perpetration of other sins in addition thereto, let him be anathema.
(cc. CXXI, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
The Pelagians expressed their heretical views in three propositions. The first proposition was to the effect that by employing only his natural powers and abilities a human being could keep the whole law and be justified, and could persist in righteousness, and enjoy life everlasting. Another proposition was to the effect that a human being does not need any inner or internal grace of God to incite him to do right, or to help him, or to justify him, but that, on the contrary, all he needs for his salvation is self-mastery, the law, training and teaching, and example. And the third proposition was to the effect that although grace is given by God yet it is given for the value of self-mastery. Hence upon this second proposition of theirs depends also this feature which the present Canon decrees, to wit, that the grace of God, which through Jesus Christ justifies a human being in baptism, graciously affords a remission only of previous sins, but not also to help keep one from sinning another time; wherefore it anathematizes all those persons too who say this. For the catholic Church believes wholly the opposite contrary, namely, that the grace bestowed through Jesus Christ in baptism affords both remission of previous sins and power and help to prevent us from further sinning, provided we ourselves do not yield ourselves to sins as a result of negligence. That is why David says: “O God, attend to my help. Ο Lord, hasten to aid me” (Ps. 70:1); and "My help cometh from the Lord" (Ps. 121:2), etc. St. Paul also says along the same line: "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; … the Spirit itself intercedeth in our behalf" (Rom. 8:26). And countless other passages along the same line are to be found in the divine Scriptures.

123. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say, with reference to the same grace of God given through our Lord Jesus Christ, that it helps us only to keep from sinning in this respect that the knowledge and cognoscence of sins is revealed to us through it, and enables us to know what to seek after and what to shun, though it does not afford us further help whereby to discern what we ought to do, nor does it further cause us to love and to have the strength to do it, let him be anathema. For in view of the fact that the Apostle says "knowledge puffeth up, whereas love edifieth" (I Cor. 8:1), it is utterly impious to believe that we have the grace of Christ for the purpose of puffing ourselves up, but have it not for the purpose of edifying ourselves, when, as a matter of fact, both are free gifts of God, that of knowing what we must do and that of loving what we must do, in order’that thanks to the edifying power of love knowledge be unable to puff us up, precisely as has been written out of God: "He that teacheth man knowledge" (Ps. 94:10). Thus too it is further written: "Love is of God" (I John 4:7).
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
In the present Canon too the Council anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians, who used to assert that the grace of God helps us only in this respect to keep from sinning in that it enables us to know what we ought to seek and do, or, in other words, what things are good and right, and what things we ought to shun, or, in other words what things are bad and evil; and not that it graciously bestows upon us also the inclination to love and the strength to do those things which are good and right, as we well know that they are. For both gifts are equally and alike gifts of God, both the knowledge and the love. For as concerning the knowledge David says: "He that teacheth man knowledge" (I.e.), while as concerning love the beloved disciple says: "Love is of God" (I.e.). But in another way too it is impious for us to believe that the grace of God bestows upon us knowledge, which by itself, as St. Paul says, puffeth up, or, in other words, causes presumptuousness; but does not also bestow upon us love, which edifieth and strengtheneth us so as to enable us to do what is good. In sum, just as knowing what we ought to do is a free gift bestowed by divine grace, so and likewise is loving what we ought to do. The knowledge, though, is indeed attributed to the mind, while the love is attributed to the will, the two chief and main faculties, or powers, of the soul.

124. It has further pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say that the reason why the grace of righteousness has been bestowed upon us is in order that we might through self-mastery be able the more easily and readily to fulfill it through grace, as though indicating that even if the grace had not been given we should still have been able, howbeit not easily and readily, to fulfill the divine commandments without its aid, let him be anathema. For when the Lord was speaking about the fruits of the commandments, He did not say, "Without me ye will have difficulty in doing anything" (cf. John 15:5).
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians for saying that simply because God made us masters of ourselves in respect of being free to do as we please we can execute the commandments even without the aid of divine grace, though not easily, but with difficulty, whereas through the aid afforded by divine grace we are enabled to carry these out more easily, since even the Lord, in speaking about the divine commandments, did not say, "Without me ye can do these only with difficulty," but, instead, He simply said, "Without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5) Neither with ease nor with difficulty, that is to say, so that everything depends upon divine grace, and without the latter we can accomplish nothing.

125. It has pleased the Council to decree, what St. John the Apostle said: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8), that whosoever shall deem that this thought is to be interpretated as meaning that we ought out of humility to refrain from saying that we have no sin, not that it is truly so, shall be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to say in anticipation of such a misinterpretation: "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (ibid., 1:9). Where it is made quite plain that this was said not only out of humility, but furthermore truthfully. For the Apostle might have said, "if we say that we have no sin, we are exalting ourselves, and there is no humility in us;" but by saying "We are deceiving ourselves, and there is no truth in us," he quite evidently pointed out that anyone asserting that he himself has no sin is not telling the truth, but, on the contrary, is lying.
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
Inasmuch as the dogmas of the Pelagians agreed in a way with those of the Massalians, in that both the former and the latter placed the beginning of salvation, not primarily in divine grace, but in human power; consequently, since the Massalians too believed wrongly that when the Holy Spirit comes to a human being sensibly and visibly, it frees him from the passions and he no longer needs to engage in fastings or other struggles dear to God, the Pelagians perhaps, entertaining such views as these, were wont to say that what St. John asserted, viz., that if perchance we say that we have no sin, we are deluding ourselves, and are not telling the truth, could not truthfully be said saints (in that the latter, that is to say, having been freed from the passions by the Holy Spirit, thereafter had no sins, nor could commit any), but could be said only out of humility, or on account of humble-mindedness. Hence the present Canon anathematizes those who affirm this heretical view of the passage in question, on the ground that they are misinterpreting it. For the same Apostle John says subsequently that if we confess our sins, the Lord is faithful and just, and will pardon our sins, and will cleanse us from every unrighteousness. From which words it becomes manifest that it was not on account of humility, but as a matter of truthfulness that the saint made the above assertion, since the Apostle could have said, "if we say that we have no sin, we are proud, and there is no humility in us." Hence, by not saying this, he is pointing out that anyone who says that he has no sin, is not telling the truth, but, on the contrary, is lying.

126. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should declare that in the Lord’s prayer the reason why saints say "forgive us our debts" (Matt. 6:12) is not that they are saying this in their own behalf, since this petition is no longer necessary to them, but in behalf of others, of those sinners who are among their people; and that each one of them does not say personally, "forgive me my debts," but, instead, says (vicariously), "forgive us our debts" (Luke 11:4), on the ground that he is to be understood as petitioning the Righteous One in behalf of others, rather than in behalf of himself, let him be anathema, for James the Apostle was a saint and a righteous and just man when he said: "For in many things we all sin" (James 3:2, as translated in this Canon). Since, why is it that the word "all" is added? unless it be, in order that the meaning be in keeping with that of the psalm where it is written: "And enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Ps. 143:2). And in the prayer of most wise Solomon: "There is no human being that has not sinned" (I Kings 8:46). And in the book of St. Job the words: "He stampeth in the hand of every man; in order that every man may know his own weakness" (Job 37:3). (Note of Translator. — The Canon here substitutes for the Greek word in the Septuagint translated in the Authorized Version as "sealeth up" the Greek word semaino, which means "to stamp" "to mark," etc. and which appears to be the true meaning, and not " sealeih up") Hence, furthermore, the saint and righteous man Daniel the Prophet, speaking in the plural number, says the following words: "We have sinned; we have committed iniquity" (Dan. 9:5), and the rest of what he there humbly and truthfully confesses, in order not to have it thought, as some persons understand it, that he was speaking not about his own sins, but rather about those of his people. After this passage he said: "I was praying, and was confessing my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God" (ibid., 9:20) He did not want to say, "our sins," but, on the contrary, expressly said that they were sins of his own and of his people, since it would seem that the Prophet could foresee that they were going to understand it wrongly.
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too discusses insanities of the Pelagians like the ones above. For it anathematizes them for saying that when saints recite the Lord’s prayer, they themselves do not say the words "Forgive us our sins," since they do not need to make any such request, as being passionless and sinless, but they say them for the sins of others. For even St. James the Brother of God says: "All of us commit many offenses." And David says: "Enter not, Ο Lord, into judgment with me thy servant, because no man living can appear righteous in thine eyes.” Solomon, too, in the prayer which he made to God after building the Temple said,: “There is no man in the world who has not sinned." And Job: "He stampeth a seal in the hands of every human being in order that every human being may know his own weakness." Moreover, the prophet Daniel in praying said first in the plural number, "We have sinned; we have committed iniquities;" and afterwards he adds in the singular number: "I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people." And he said this thus clearly in order to prevent anyone from thinking that he was referring to the sins of his people, and not to his own sins, prophetically stopping the mouths of men who would wrongly insist that that was what he meant.

127. It has pleased the Council to decree that any persons whatsoever that would have it that the words in the Lord’s prayer "Forgive us our debts," which we are wont to say, are said by saints because of their humility, and not truthfully, let them be anathema. For who could bear to hear anyone praying, not to men, but to the Lord Himself, lyinglyt one asking only with his lips to be forgiven sins which he is not conscious of having committed?
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIIT, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians for saying that the saints do not say in accordance with the truth, "Forgive us our debts," since they have no sins and debts, but only out of humility and modesty. For who, it says, can bear to hear persons supposed to be saints saying this lyingly not to men, but to God, and with their lips asking forgiveness for their sins, but with their heart considering that they have no sins? For this would be deemed to be trifling with God, and not praying, which in regard to saints it would be absurd even to think of.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635086
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #343 on: December 13, 2010, 02:32:00 AM »
I believe the way this discussion is going gets people no where.

Let's start with a very basic question.  Why is baptism necessary?  It would seem in Pelagian understanding, baptism is merely a ritual, not a means of salvation.

Also, define "spiritual death."  Is this what baptism cures?

I think this is what is essential.  I truly believe we express the same truth concerning salvation but we stress different allegories.  Polemic ramblings will only lead to throwing accusations and rebuttals against each other, not truly finding the root of the problem.

The anti-Western vitriol in people like Fr. John Romanides for instance I feel is somewhat misguided.  As I read the Church fathers more, there seems to be perhaps an issue where things might be taken out of context.

I know some of you think he's not part of the mainstream Orthodox, but this Vladimir Moss came up with a new book answering some of the issues of "Original Sin," and seems to make a convincing case.  In any sense, I think we should just drop the name-calling, and let's ask one another, why is baptism important?  If incorporation into the Church and unity with God, what does not being part of the Church mean?  Is that what spiritual death is?  And if so, then what does this mean about the Theotokos?  Is she "spiritually dead" before Christ or not?

If we use very basic and essential language, all these other words "corruption" vs. "guilt," "incorruption" vs. "innocence" may be understood in a much more fulfilling manner without the intended polemics.  Certainly no Orthodox is Pelagian, and neither do I believe are Catholics literalistic in these languages.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 02:35:12 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #344 on: December 13, 2010, 11:21:34 AM »

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)

,

Again we see the dishonest debating tactics of which Papist complains.  The attempt to use our own liturgical texts against us to "prove" that we believe a belief which we have never believed.  This is very low; can we imagine the Catholic representatives in the bilateral dialogue stooping to this kind of argumentation?

If you locate the posts of LBK in the other IC thread where Mary has produced these same texts you will find a cogent rebuttal and an orthodox understanding of these texts which Mary wants to hijack for the Roman Catholic agenda.
No one is being dishonest. None of us thinks you believe in IC, nor are we claiming that you do, and you know it. What we are saying is that you used to believe in the IC but your faith has changed, even though your liturgy has not.
"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: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #345 on: December 13, 2010, 11:23:59 AM »
(Clears throat)

Uh - not to be rude - but is this rrally something any of us, today, can know 100% FOR SURE?

Me, I'm just going to keep saying "Holy Mary, pray for us sinners" and assume she (and God) know what "Holy" means.

Exactly the Orthodox point! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Except for we do know it because it's in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. The Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December state, “the
unique all-immaculate is today made manifest to the just by the angel,” and “the prelude of God’s grace
falls today on humanity in the conception of the all-immaculate."
I didn't know "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" could talk. The only Orthodox Divine Liturgies I'm aware of are the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. James, St. Tikhon, St. Gregory and the Sarum Divine Liturgy. This "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" sounds silly and quite frankly a little made up.

I don't see how that proves an immaculate conception at all. I do, however, see how you can easily read into it because the presence of the word immaculate. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "put up or shut up," so let's see the evidence.

Furthermore, my point still stands, which you skirted. Why can't we hold a simple faith? Why would it be necessary for salvation to believe in the IC (or as a Maronite priest friend of mine calls "the Immaculate Deception").

In Christ,
Andrew
Really? When the Liturgy calls her "all-Pure" or "Immaculate" on the day of her conception you don't see the Immaculate conception? RRRRRREEEEEEALLLLLLY?
And as for simple faith. Why can't you hold the simple faith that our loving Mother, the Theotokos was always pure, rather than creating strange speculations about lesser sins and purfication only at the time of the annunciation? See it cuts both ways.
"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: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #346 on: December 13, 2010, 01:05:58 PM »

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)

,

Again we see the dishonest debating tactics of which Papist complains.  The attempt to use our own liturgical texts against us to "prove" that we believe a belief which we have never believed.  This is very low; can we imagine the Catholic representatives in the bilateral dialogue stooping to this kind of argumentation?

If you locate the posts of LBK in the other IC thread where Mary has produced these same texts you will find a cogent rebuttal and an orthodox understanding of these texts which Mary wants to hijack for the Roman Catholic agenda.

There was no cogent rebuttal for these texts.

What happened was I was accused of not citing the texts and was moderated.

As you can see, I have the texts cited here.  I did then too but everyone was too busy being angry with me to notice.

More of the Famous Forum Fairness... :)

Besides you are an Orthodox monk.  Why don't you refute them?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #347 on: December 13, 2010, 01:05:58 PM »

These texts take us a good bit closer to Catholic teaching than most Orthodox would like to go.


Again the attempt to turn our own texts against us by reading them through a Roman Catholic bias.  This surprises me since Mary is not a Roman Catholic but a Ruthenian Greek Catholic and her understanding of original sin and the non-immaculate conception should be close to what Apotheoun has written and what another contributor here has said a Melkite Greek priest terms the Great Deception. Is it honest to claim to be a Ruthenian and hold that theological heritage but to argue as a Roman Catholic?  Is that fair to Greek Catholics and their theology?   To me, who knew the old Roman Catholicism, it smacks too much of the triumphalism of the Roman rite with respect to the other rites in the Catholic Church.  I appeal to those who are more perceptive than I in discerning such things.

In order to thwart the incessant Roman Catholic attempts to conflate the Orthodox and Catholic understandings and to declare that we believe one and the same thing, the Orthodox teaching must be endlessly repeated:

You and I, and Fr MacGinnity, and Pope Benedict and the Dalai Lama, are all conceived in the same spiritual state as the holy Mother of God.


When the Catholics come to believe this, as do the Greek Catholics,  we shall be one further step along the road to unity.

[Disclaimer:  the above has been written with no dishonest intention]

I can promise you faithfully that none of the people you've mentioned above will have hymns written of them the same as those Orthodox hymns that I published above.  Your own liturgies fly in the face of your assertion... in that the Mother of God is inestimably more pure than ANY of us at the tender age of 3 years.  How is that to be...prior to the institution of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, prior to Baptism, prior to Eucharist?  How can she be an OLD SOUL at three years of age?  How can her birth be more wondrous than any other?...

I think you are protesting too much Father.  I think there are some who can see through the fog and notice that something extreme is being said, in those hymns, of the holiness of the Mother of God from the moment that she came into being as a Person!!

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #348 on: December 13, 2010, 06:07:08 PM »

I think you are protesting too much Father.  I think there are some who can see through the fog and notice that something extreme is being said, in those hymns, of the holiness of the Mother of God from the moment that she came into being as a Person!!


Again, the insulting implication that the Orthodox who wrote this liturgical material and who have been chanting it for many centuries are too brain-dead to understand their own texts.  Humbug!  All you are doing is killing the dialogue.  You may wish to read the text through the lens of an Immaculate Conception belief but we never have had that belief and neither have your own church people, the Byzantine Catholics (and you are, incidentally, failing your own people and their theology by arguing as a Roman Catholic.)


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #349 on: December 13, 2010, 06:12:52 PM »
A Statement by His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople on the Immaculate Conception

December 2004, in the Roman Catholic newspaper 30 Days.

See message 201 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382647/topicseen.html#msg382647

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #350 on: December 13, 2010, 07:35:09 PM »
(Clears throat)

Uh - not to be rude - but is this rrally something any of us, today, can know 100% FOR SURE?

Me, I'm just going to keep saying "Holy Mary, pray for us sinners" and assume she (and God) know what "Holy" means.

Exactly the Orthodox point! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Except for we do know it because it's in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. The Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December state, “the
unique all-immaculate is today made manifest to the just by the angel,” and “the prelude of God’s grace
falls today on humanity in the conception of the all-immaculate."
I didn't know "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" could talk. The only Orthodox Divine Liturgies I'm aware of are the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. James, St. Tikhon, St. Gregory and the Sarum Divine Liturgy. This "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" sounds silly and quite frankly a little made up.

I don't see how that proves an immaculate conception at all. I do, however, see how you can easily read into it because the presence of the word immaculate. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "put up or shut up," so let's see the evidence.

Furthermore, my point still stands, which you skirted. Why can't we hold a simple faith? Why would it be necessary for salvation to believe in the IC (or as a Maronite priest friend of mine calls "the Immaculate Deception").

In Christ,
Andrew
Really? When the Liturgy calls her "all-Pure" or "Immaculate" on the day of her conception you don't see the Immaculate conception? RRRRRREEEEEEALLLLLLY?
yes, really. And very few hear what the DL calls her on the day of her mother's conception (it's not called her conception), unless it falls on a Sunday.  It's not a major feast.

Quote
And as for simple faith. Why can't you hold the simple faith that our loving Mother, the Theotokos was always pure, rather than creating strange speculations about lesser sins and purfication only at the time of the annunciation? See it cuts both ways.
No, it doesn't. We just proclaim what the Apostles did, and so we don't have to elaborate a theory of "development of doctrine" to explain dogmas proclaimed nearly two millenia after the Apostles.
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: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #351 on: December 13, 2010, 07:42:31 PM »

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)

,

Again we see the dishonest debating tactics of which Papist complains.  The attempt to use our own liturgical texts against us to "prove" that we believe a belief which we have never believed.  This is very low; can we imagine the Catholic representatives in the bilateral dialogue stooping to this kind of argumentation?

If you locate the posts of LBK in the other IC thread where Mary has produced these same texts you will find a cogent rebuttal and an orthodox understanding of these texts which Mary wants to hijack for the Roman Catholic agenda.

There was no cogent rebuttal for these texts.

What happened was I was accused of not citing the texts and was moderated.

As you can see, I have the texts cited here.

No, you have not.  If you wanted to argue the Immaculate Birth or the Immaculate Entrance, you would use those texts.  But for the IC, you are first going to have to explan why it is the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, not the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, after you explain why it isn't a major feast, whereas the Nativity of the Theotokos and the Entry into the Temple are.

LBK gave the texts celebrating the beginning of the personhood of the Theotokos. "Prove" your IC from that.

Quote
I did then too but everyone was too busy being angry with me to notice.

More of the Famous Forum Fairness... :)

You posted the texts from the Conception of St. Anne.  If you did, I apologize. Where are they?

Quote
Besides you are an Orthodox monk.  Why don't you refute them?
He has refuted you, many times over. As to the texts, why should he refute Orthodox texts?
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 Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #352 on: December 13, 2010, 07:44:13 PM »
So we can get the Orthodox understanding:
Prolegomena.

The holy regional Council which assembled in Carthage in the year 418 or 419 ...

121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.
Interpretation.
This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.

122. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should declare that the grace whereby we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord to be effective only for the remission of sins already perpetrated, and not to afford help by way of preventing perpetration of other sins in addition thereto, let him be anathema.
(cc. CXXI, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
The Pelagians expressed their heretical views in three propositions. The first proposition was to the effect that by employing only his natural powers and abilities a human being could keep the whole law and be justified, and could persist in righteousness, and enjoy life everlasting. Another proposition was to the effect that a human being does not need any inner or internal grace of God to incite him to do right, or to help him, or to justify him, but that, on the contrary, all he needs for his salvation is self-mastery, the law, training and teaching, and example. And the third proposition was to the effect that although grace is given by God yet it is given for the value of self-mastery. Hence upon this second proposition of theirs depends also this feature which the present Canon decrees, to wit, that the grace of God, which through Jesus Christ justifies a human being in baptism, graciously affords a remission only of previous sins, but not also to help keep one from sinning another time; wherefore it anathematizes all those persons too who say this. For the catholic Church believes wholly the opposite contrary, namely, that the grace bestowed through Jesus Christ in baptism affords both remission of previous sins and power and help to prevent us from further sinning, provided we ourselves do not yield ourselves to sins as a result of negligence. That is why David says: “O God, attend to my help. Ο Lord, hasten to aid me” (Ps. 70:1); and "My help cometh from the Lord" (Ps. 121:2), etc. St. Paul also says along the same line: "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; … the Spirit itself intercedeth in our behalf" (Rom. 8:26). And countless other passages along the same line are to be found in the divine Scriptures.



124. It has further pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say that the reason why the grace of righteousness has been bestowed upon us is in order that we might through self-mastery be able the more easily and readily to fulfill it through grace, as though indicating that even if the grace had not been given we should still have been able, howbeit not easily and readily, to fulfill the divine commandments without its aid, let him be anathema. For when the Lord was speaking about the fruits of the commandments, He did not say, "Without me ye will have difficulty in doing anything" (cf. John 15:5).
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians for saying that simply because God made us masters of ourselves in respect of being free to do as we please we can execute the commandments even without the aid of divine grace, though not easily, but with difficulty, whereas through the aid afforded by divine grace we are enabled to carry these out more easily, since even the Lord, in speaking about the divine commandments, did not say, "Without me ye can do these only with difficulty," but, instead, He simply said, "Without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5) Neither with ease nor with difficulty, that is to say, so that everything depends upon divine grace, and without the latter we can accomplish nothing.


http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635086


These interpretations only confirm my position. How did they refute them?

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #353 on: December 13, 2010, 08:02:37 PM »
These interpretations only confirm my position. How did they refute them?
What were they supposed to refute?
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 Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #354 on: December 13, 2010, 09:36:53 PM »
These interpretations only confirm my position. How did they refute them?
What were they supposed to refute?

My position contradicts the position Fr. Romanides holds.

That is, all men are born fallen, not just in mortality, but also in spirit. They have a lack or limited grace requiring God's help to avoid sin.

From the canons:
122. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should declare that the grace whereby we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord to be effective only for the remission of sins already perpetrated, and not to afford help by way of preventing perpetration of other sins in addition thereto, let him be anathema.
(cc. CXXI, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
The Pelagians expressed their heretical views in three propositions. The first proposition was to the effect that by employing only his natural powers and abilities a human being could keep the whole law and be justified, and could persist in righteousness, and enjoy life everlasting. Another proposition was to the effect that a human being does not need any inner or internal grace of God to incite him to do right, or to help him, or to justify him, but that, on the contrary, all he needs for his salvation is self-mastery, the law, training and teaching, and example. And the third proposition was to the effect that although grace is given by God yet it is given for the value of self-mastery. Hence upon this second proposition of theirs depends also this feature which the present Canon decrees, to wit, that the grace of God, which through Jesus Christ justifies a human being in baptism, graciously affords a remission only of previous sins, but not also to help keep one from sinning another time; wherefore it anathematizes all those persons too who say this. For the catholic Church believes wholly the opposite contrary, namely, that the grace bestowed through Jesus Christ in baptism affords both remission of previous sins and power and help to prevent us from further sinning, provided we ourselves do not yield ourselves to sins as a result of negligence. That is why David says: “O God, attend to my help. Ο Lord, hasten to aid me” (Ps. 70:1); and "My help cometh from the Lord" (Ps. 121:2), etc. St. Paul also says along the same line: "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; … the Spirit itself intercedeth in our behalf" (Rom. 8:26). And countless other passages along the same line are to be found in the divine Scriptures.



124. It has further pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say that the reason why the grace of righteousness has been bestowed upon us is in order that we might through self-mastery be able the more easily and readily to fulfill it through grace, as though indicating that even if the grace had not been given we should still have been able, howbeit not easily and readily, to fulfill the divine commandments without its aid, let him be anathema. For when the Lord was speaking about the fruits of the commandments, He did not say, "Without me ye will have difficulty in doing anything" (cf. John 15:5).
(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians for saying that simply because God made us masters of ourselves in respect of being free to do as we please we can execute the commandments even without the aid of divine grace, though not easily, but with difficulty, whereas through the aid afforded by divine grace we are enabled to carry these out more easily, since even the Lord, in speaking about the divine commandments, did not say, "Without me ye can do these only with difficulty," but, instead, He simply said, "Without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5) Neither with ease nor with difficulty, that is to say, so that everything depends upon divine grace, and without the latter we can accomplish nothing.


http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635086

And that, from this position, it would have been impossible for Mary to resist sin under her own power.

Therefore,

Grace is needed before birth. That is, at least an immaculate birth.



Break, break.

Now, the reason for the immaculate conception, is because of the literal understanding of having a hereditary sin or "sinful state".

So we can get the Orthodox understanding:
Prolegomena.

The holy regional Council which assembled in Carthage in the year 418 or 419 ...

121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.
Interpretation.
This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.
Quote
CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

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

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

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

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

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

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1

And if we are to "all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature", then for Mary to be sinless and "All Pure", she would need to be purified at the moment of conception, so as to have never had that condition in her.

Personally, I can go either way with the birth or conception. But, I do see the need for, at the very least, an immaculate birth, if she is to have never sinned.

I'm going to need this.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #355 on: December 13, 2010, 09:41:51 PM »

You guys think killing Catholics is OK.

I have bumped a thread called "Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church" so that you can explain what you have in mind.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.0.html

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #356 on: December 13, 2010, 09:48:36 PM »
The "poster child" for those who wanted to claim that Orthodox Christians could hold a private belief in the Immaculate Conmception was Bishop Timothy Ware.  However he has now retracted that, and is back in line with his brother bishops.

See message 946 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg436555/topicseen.html#msg436555

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #357 on: December 13, 2010, 09:53:03 PM »
The "poster child" for those who wanted to claim that Orthodox Christians could hold a private belief in the Immaculate Conmception was Bishop Timothy Ware.  However he has now retracted that, and is back in line with his brother bishops.

See message 946 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg436555/topicseen.html#msg436555

To not believe in, at least, an immaculate birth, looks to be contradictory with the pronouncements of past councils on the human state. Therefore, I am unable to hold that position.

I'm going to need this.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #358 on: December 13, 2010, 10:28:39 PM »
(Clears throat)

Uh - not to be rude - but is this rrally something any of us, today, can know 100% FOR SURE?

Me, I'm just going to keep saying "Holy Mary, pray for us sinners" and assume she (and God) know what "Holy" means.

Exactly the Orthodox point! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Except for we do know it because it's in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. The Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December state, “the
unique all-immaculate is today made manifest to the just by the angel,” and “the prelude of God’s grace
falls today on humanity in the conception of the all-immaculate."
I didn't know "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" could talk. The only Orthodox Divine Liturgies I'm aware of are the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. James, St. Tikhon, St. Gregory and the Sarum Divine Liturgy. This "Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December" sounds silly and quite frankly a little made up.

I don't see how that proves an immaculate conception at all. I do, however, see how you can easily read into it because the presence of the word immaculate. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "put up or shut up," so let's see the evidence.

Furthermore, my point still stands, which you skirted. Why can't we hold a simple faith? Why would it be necessary for salvation to believe in the IC (or as a Maronite priest friend of mine calls "the Immaculate Deception").

In Christ,
Andrew
Really? When the Liturgy calls her "all-Pure" or "Immaculate" on the day of her conception you don't see the Immaculate conception? RRRRRREEEEEEALLLLLLY?
yes, really. And very few hear what the DL calls her on the day of her mother's conception (it's not called her conception), unless it falls on a Sunday.  It's not a major feast.

Quote
And as for simple faith. Why can't you hold the simple faith that our loving Mother, the Theotokos was always pure, rather than creating strange speculations about lesser sins and purfication only at the time of the annunciation? See it cuts both ways.
No, it doesn't. We just proclaim what the Apostles did, and so we don't have to elaborate a theory of "development of doctrine" to explain dogmas proclaimed nearly two millenia after the Apostles.
Wow. This is alll nonsense.
"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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #359 on: December 16, 2010, 02:46:40 AM »
This post and much of what follows was originally posted HERE. -PtA



Is "grace" simply an Energy of God?

Yes.

Quote
The distinction between  the  essence and  the energies, which  is  fundamental  for
the Orthodox doctrine of grace, makes  it possible to preserve the real meaning of Saint
Peter’s words “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Peter 1:4]. The union to which we are
called  is  neither  hypostatic—as  in  the  case  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ—nor
substantial, as  in that of the three divine Persons:  it  is union with God in His energies,
or  union  by  grace  making  us  participate  in  the  divine  nature,  without  our  essence
becoming  thereby  the essence of God.  In deification  [theosis] we are by grace  (that  is  to
say,  in  the divine energies), all  that God  is by nature,  save only  identity of nature  .  .  .
according to the teaching of Saint Maximus. We remain creatures while becoming God
by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.10
...
                                                
10 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of  the Eastern Church (London: James Clark and Co., 1957), pp.
85-86, 87.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch2.pdf
If grace is an Energy of God, then to be full of grace would be to be full of an Energy of God, which would imply that one is full of all the Energies of God, that is, Full Theosis.

But didn't some Church Fathers argue that Theosis is a process that continues forever, and is never fully completed, because the Energies of God are infinite?

If so, the doctrine of the IC would violate Orthodoxy's conception of Theosis.

That's a little extreme. That's like saying Mary couldn't have been sinless because "all have sinned".
Doesn't the idea that Mary was "full of grace" imply that she enjoys the maximum intensity of grace, that she can no longer grow in grace?

No.  That is not the Catholic teaching.  That is what it is held up to be and then shot down.  It is a fun exercise and everybody thinks they've done something good.  But it has nothing to do with my reality as a Catholic, never did, never will because, as I said, that is not what the Church teaches.

She is conceived with an illuminated intellect and a will that is inclined toward God, rather than away from him.  

Like the rest of us, she grows in grace, one good choice at a time.

M.

What about if someone said, she was born spiritually dead, but lead the Old Testament prophets (like Enoch and Elijah let's say), one day at a time, she aligned her will with the "prevenient grace" of God until the Holy Spirit descended upon her, purified her, and conceived in her the Logos?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 01:11:45 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.