What Grace(s) would the IC Confer?

[elijahmaria]

Hash? we want no part of that barnacle.

How does one know if one knows not?

M.

[Papist]

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.

And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

[elijahmaria]

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.

And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Yes.  Logic needs to be demonstrated, rather than being asserted.

At least some effort to make pointing and declaring a little more transparent...

[ialmisry]

Hash? we want no part of that barnacle.

How does one know if one knows not?

M.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.

And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.

And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Yes.  Logic needs to be demonstrated, rather than being asserted.

At least some effort to make pointing and declaring a little more transparent...

Aren't you two on the wrong thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=347

[Papist]

Aren't you two on the wrong thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=347

And yet you are joining in the conversation. Funny, but your tactics of style over substance don't seem to be working here.

[ialmisry]

Aren't you two on the wrong thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=347

And yet you are joining in the conversation. Funny, but your tactics of style over substance don't seem to be working here.

Joining the conversation? I'm the OP.

Back to the topic of this thread, we have St. Gregory (who's appeared here already, to your chagrinn) and his sermon on the entry of the Holy Theotokos into the Temple.

It was a deed of perfect justice that our nature, which was voluntarily enslaved and struck down, should again enter the struggle for victory and cast off its voluntary enslavement. Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvelous way.

 

But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature, Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required.

 

Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation.

 

He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:, immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.

 

God is born of the spotless and Holy Virgin, or better to say, of the Most Pure and All-Holy Virgin.

 

She is above every fleshly defilement, and even above every impure thought. Her conceiving resulted not from fleshly lust, but by the overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit. Such desire being utterly alien to Her, it is through prayer and spiritual readiness that She declared to the angel: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it unto Me according to thy word" (Lk. 1:38), and that She conceived and gave birth. So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect...

In this manner, the choice of the future Mother of God, beginning with the very sons of Adam and proceeding through all the generations of time, through the Providence of God, passes to the Prophet-king David and the successors of his kingdom and lineage.

 

When the chosen time had come, then from the house and posterity of David, Joachim and Anna are chosen by God. Though they were childless, they were by their virtuous life and good disposition the finest of all those descended from the line of David. And when in prayer they besought God to deliver them from their childlessness, and promised to dedicate their child to God from its infancy. By God Himself, the Mother of God was proclaimed and given to them as a child, so that from such virtuous parents the all-virtuous child would be raised. So in this manner, chastity joined with prayer came to fruition by producing the Mother of virginity, giving birth in the flesh to Him Who was born of God the Father before the ages.

Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk. They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God.

 

And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age,  She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her. In Her manner She showed that She was not so much presented into the Temple, but that She Herself entered into the service of God of her own accord, as if she had wings, striving towards this sacred and divine love. She considered it desirable and fitting that she should enter into the Temple and dwell in the Holy of Holies.

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

Although St. Gregory speaks of the choice of the Theotokos through the ages, speaks of the conception of Our Lord and His mother's birth, speaks of the need of a pure virgin for the incarnation etc. yet he finds no need nor evidence for the IC.  It seems to him a grace not needed.

[elijahmaria]

Back to the topic of this thread, we have St. Gregory (who's appeared here already, to your chagrinn) and his sermon on the entry of the Holy Theotokos into the Temple.

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

Although St. Gregory speaks of the choice of the Theotokos through the ages, speaks of the conception of Our Lord and His mother's birth, speaks of the need of a pure virgin for the incarnation etc. yet he finds no need nor evidence for the IC.  It seems to him a grace not needed.

What is your point here?

[Irish Hermit]

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).

[Aindriú]

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).

Gosh you love giant font.

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 

[ialmisry]

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).

Gosh you love giant font.

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 

And what would be different?

[Irish Hermit]

Gosh you love giant font.

Palatino, size 14.  I "stole" it from Fr Giryus.   

[Irish Hermit]

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). [/size}

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

[Papist]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

[Come Back]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

That verse speaks of the Original Sin that spread to the entire fallen humanity.There is only one that came from above.

"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." 1Cor 15:47

Signed  Dan-Romania.

[Come Back]

Grace represents the energy of God that can make us be partakers to the devine essence..

[Papist]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

That verse speaks of the Original Sin that spread to the entire fallen humanity.There is only one that came from above.

"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." 1Cor 15:47

Signed  Dan-Romania.

See, not as absolute a statement as it first appears.

[Come Back]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

[Come Back]

Grace is part of the being and essence of God.. Only in grace and through grace we can be united with God in theosis..

[elijahmaria]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

M.

[ialmisry]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

Btw, who is Nestor?

As for the rest:

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree?

How about the learned interpretation of Catholics not in communion with the Vatican, bases on your magisterial inerpratations?

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Seriously -- the fact that you do not actually read my response makes your claims lose all credibility.  I already stated, specifically, that the "stain" of original sin does not refer to any of the tactile effects of the Fall, but only to the spiritual effects.  I don't know how you can assume I claimed that death is not a consequence of the Fall.

Let me spell this out more slowly:

The Fall had two consequences for mankind - 1) tactile/physical effects which include bodily/emotional infirmities, corruption and death. 2) spiritual effects which include loss of sanctifying grace, loss of original justice, and concupiscence.

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father?  Do you see the connection?  "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences.  In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?

SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[1]

Nice inclusion of the error of the Filioque.

This of course, is the supreme problem for your read of the IC:Mary becomes Theotokos through her body.

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind -- words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed"[13] -- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

Based on the Vulgate's mistransaltion of Genesis 3:15 (something the IC believers by the score still ignore).

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25] -- unmistakable evidence that she crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.


They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

And then, there is the problem of squaring your read of the IC with Munificentissimus Deus:

3. Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has "when the fullness of time came"(2) put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.

12. But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."( Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."(9)

14. Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. Actually, enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God's Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.

17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."(11)

18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."(12)

20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."(17)

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."(18) And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."(19)

26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,(20) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"(21); and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.(22) Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles "that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense" to be crowned.(23) These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

28. Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, held that the Virgin Mary's flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts. "For she was full of grace and blessed among women. She alone merited to conceive the true God of true God, whom as a virgin, she brought forth, to whom as a virgin she gave milk, fondling him in her lap, and in all things she waited upon him with loving care."(26)

29. Among the holy writers who at that time employed statements and various images and analogies of Sacred Scripture to Illustrate and to confirm the doctrine of the Assumption, which was piously believed, the Evangelical Doctor, St. Anthony of Padua, holds a special place. On the feast day of the Assumption, while explaining the prophet's words: "I will glorify the place of my feet,"(27) he stated it as certain that the divine Redeemer had bedecked with supreme glory his most beloved Mother from whom he had received human flesh. He asserts that "you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."' And he asserts that, just as Jesus Christ has risen from the death over which he triumphed and has ascended to the right hand of the Father, so likewise the ark of his sanctification "has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling."(28)

30. When, during the Middle Ages, scholastic theology was especially flourishing, St. Albert the Great who, to establish this teaching, had gathered together many proofs from Sacred Scripture, from the statements of older writers, and finally from the liturgy and from what is known as theological reasoning, concluded in this way: "From these proofs and authorities and from many others, it is manifest that the most blessed Mother of God has been assumed above the choirs of angels. And this we believe in every way to be true."(29) And, in a sermon which he delivered on the sacred day of the Blessed Virgin Mary's annunciation, explained the words "Hail, full of grace"-words used by the angel who addressed her-the Universal Doctor, comparing the Blessed Virgin with Eve, stated clearly and incisively that she was exempted from the fourfold curse that had been laid upon Eve.(30)

31. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary's body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.(31)

32. Along with many others, the Seraphic Doctor held the same views. He considered it as entirely certain that, as God had preserved the most holy Virgin Mary from the violation of her virginal purity and integrity in conceiving and in childbirth, he would never have permitted her body to have been resolved into dust and ashes.(32) Explaining these words of Sacred Scripture: "Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?"(33) and applying them in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin, he reasons thus: "From this we can see that she is there bodily...her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude.(34)

33. In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question. He was not content with setting down the principal considerations which these writers of an earlier day had already expressed, but he added others of his own. The likeness between God's Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and of soul - a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly King - makes it entirely imperative that Mary "should be only where Christ is."(35) Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.(36)

34. The above-mentioned teachings of the holy Fathers and of the Doctors have been in common use during more recent times. Gathering together the testimonies of the Christians of earlier days, St. Robert Bellarmine exclaimed: "And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that this virginal flesh which had begotten God, had brought him into the world, had nourished and carried him, could have been turned into ashes or given over to be food for worms."(37)

35. In like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"(38) And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."(39)

36. Once the mystery which is commemorated in this feast had been placed in its proper light, there were not lacking teachers who, instead of dealing with the theological reasonings that show why it is fitting and right to believe the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, chose to focus their mind and attention on the faith of the Church itself, which is the Mystical Body of Christ without stain or wrinkle(40) and is called by the Apostle "the pillar and ground of truth."(41) Relying on this common faith, they considered the teaching opposed to the doctrine of our Lady's Assumption as temerarious, if not heretical. Thus, like not a few others, St. Peter Canisius, after he had declared that the very word "assumption" signifies the glorification, not only of the soul but also of the body, and that the Church has venerated and has solemnly celebrated this mystery of Mary's Assumption for many centuries, adds these words of warning: "This teaching has already been accepted for some centuries, it has been held as certain in the minds of the pious people, and it has been taught to the entire Church in such a way that those who deny that Mary's body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic."(42)

37. At the same time the great Suarez was professing in the field of mariology the norm that "keeping in mind the standards of propriety, and when there is no contradiction or repugnance on the part of Scripture, the mysteries of grace which God has wrought in the Virgin must be measured, not by the ordinary laws, but by the divine omnipotence."(43) Supported by the common faith of the entire Church on the subject of the mystery of the Assumption, he could conclude that this mystery was to be believed with the same firmness of assent as that given to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Thus he already held that such truths could be defined.

38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit all over again.

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."(46)

40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

And then, what about the interpretation of those canonized by the Vatican, and those who teach with its authority?

I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:

The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle     
December 01 2007 
Page 1 of 6
On February 17, 1941, the "Property" of the Immaculata, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo, eventually leading to his martyrdom in Auschwitz. During the few hours before his arrest, Fr. Maximilian was inspired to write the heart of his unparalleled mariological ponderings regarding the "Immaculate Conception."

The following are excerpts from this last written testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care to admit or deny Kolbe and Miravalle?

I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Claiming that the East taught the IC, you already critique EO dogma based on your Latin view on what Orthodoxy, EO and OO, herself teaches.

[elijahmaria]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

Btw, who is Nestor?

Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary

[ialmisry]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

Btw, who is Nestor?

Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary

How about this?

Dearest Father Ambrose,

[
I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism

The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately

God could grant these ETERNAL Graces

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation. 

However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation. 

The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree). 


Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth. 

What are "the Graces"?

GRACES are any and all manifestations of the Divine Energy in this created world (I'm writing that only for the benefit of our Latin brethren who might be reading our discussion, not for our Eastern and Oriental brethren who need no lessons in that definition).  There are many different Graces of the same Spirit, as Scripture and the Fathers have taught us.  The Graces of Baptism are those Graces which aid in attaining sinlessness.  Every Grace of sinlessness has its Source in only one thing - the Holy Sacrifice of Christ.  Like most other Graces, there must be a free will response to these Graces of Baptism (note: I'm not talking about Baptism, but the Graces one receives at Baptism).  Grace does not make us automations.

The Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different - these particular Graces affected her very body

WAIT A MINUTE!  You were the one claiming that the IC only affected the Theotokos' soul, not her body.  Are you saying that the "grace of the IC" is not connected to the grace of the Annuciation now?

SO THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR THE FULLNESS OF DIVINITY.  IMO, the Grace to remain a Virgin despite child-bearing and parturition was also among the Graces she received at the Annunciation.

As an aside, the Graces Mary recieved at her Dormition/Assumption are, again, different from the Graces she received at the beginning of her life, on the one hand, and at her Annunciation, on the other.  The Graces Mary received at her Dormition/Assumption were the Graces of Immortality and Incorruptibility.

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC:

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father?  Do you see the connection?  "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences.  In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?

 Btw, since:

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree?  I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia"...as magesterial documents?

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit:

Proof from reason [sic]
There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her...Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased."

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

And again, then there's that problem of the "full of grace" proof text:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

This only works if, as is claimed over and over by IC apologists, that

Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

If any grace was withheld, than the all-or-nothing argument of the eisogesis of the IC into Luke 1:28 falls apart.

[elijahmaria]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

Btw, who is Nestor?

Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary

How about this?

What I have said, I have said.  It is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

There is nothing of import in your cut and pastes.

M.

[deusveritasest]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.

[elijahmaria]

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

[deusveritasest]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Actually, we no longer die at all, in some sense.

Remember that God in the Garden said that once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would die. Yet they physically lived for hundreds more years beyond that point. The Orthodox interpretation of this is that in some sense they spiritually died once they partook of the fruit. This explains why Sheol was such a gloomy place lacking in real consciousness, because those who were in it were spiritually dead.

The Atonement reverses this reality and any who are in Christ will be forever spiritually alive as before the Fall.

The spiritual death is actually the core condition of the Fall. And physical death is actually a mere consequence of the spiritual death.

[elijahmaria]

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Actually, we no longer die at all, in some sense.

Remember that God in the Garden said that once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would die. Yet they physically lived for hundreds more years beyond that point. The Orthodox interpretation of this is that in some sense they spiritually died once they partook of the fruit. This explains why Sheol was such a gloomy place lacking in real consciousness, because those who were in it were spiritually dead.

The Atonement reverses this reality and any who are in Christ will be forever spiritually alive as before the Fall.

The spiritual death is actually the core condition of the Fall. And physical death is actually a mere consequence of the spiritual death.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!!....almost.

That is why the Catholic Church refers to the spiritual death as the stain of the ancestral sin and the physical death and corruption as a consequence of the ancestral sin, and why the Immaculate Conception only exists with reference to the spiritual death.

However if the physical death is not organic to the wounded nature, that loss of integrity between body and soul, then you have one heck of a time trying to explain why we die after Christ has redeemed us and given us Baptism in water and the spirit for our salvation.

So the Catholic Church teaches that the loss of integrity between body and soul is not fully healed until Jesus comes again in glory to raise up the living and the dead.

And that is why the Theotokos dies and why Jesus, in his body, was able to die as well.

M.

[Fabio Leite]

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Jesus was without sin and He died. The "curse" was in human nature despite of sin (it is no more; it is as persons that we die, not in our nature).

Because He was sinless and innocent, death could not hold His human nature and keep it.

But did the Holy Virgin die?

[ialmisry]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

Btw, who is Nestor?

Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary

How about this?

What I have said, I have said.  It is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is?

There is nothing of import in your cut and pastes.

M.

Then it wouldn't merit your post now, would it?

[elijahmaria]

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Jesus was without sin and He died. The "curse" was in human nature despite of sin (it is no more; it is as persons that we die, not in our nature).

Because He was sinless and innocent, death could not hold His human nature and keep it.

But did the Holy Virgin die?

The Divine Person could never be stained by sin of any kind, but he could be tempted.

And yes, his mother died.

M.

[ialmisry]

I don't think this was ever answered:

Dear brother Isa,

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Please, brother Isa, stop misrepresenting what I say/write.  I did NOT say that Ineffibelus Deus was a colloquial document. I said the use of the term "full of grace" should be regarded as a "colloquialism" because that is term is what most (if not all) Catholics are used to.

I have no idea what Mardukm means by calling "plena gratia" a "colloquialism." Can any reveal that mystery?

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiseque scriptores
animo menteque reputarent, Beatissimam Virginem ab angelo
Gabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante,
ipsius Dei nomine et jussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam,
docuerant hac singulari solemnique salutatione nunquam alias
audita ostendi, Deiparam fiiisse omnium divinarum gratiarum
sedem, omnibusque Divini Spiritus charismatibus exoraatam, imo
eorumdem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque
inexhaustam, adeo ut nunquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum
Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth Divino acta
Spiritu audire meraerit : Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et hener-
dictus fructus ventris tui.

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Certainly this was not answered by Mardukm:

The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms.

and yet it is used as a basis for the very technical dogmatic statement of the IC, on pain of judgement, presumably eternal.

It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning.

I agree. Our Popes Theodore and Shenoudah agree. But your Pope Pius IX did not.

If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught.  You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms.  I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

Take it up with your Pope Pius. I'm just quoting what he said.

And if you say "he didn't mean it," it just shows yet again how useless a dogma as papal "infallibility." Hence the rest of the post also rendered meaningless:

That's nice.  Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

NOTE: this has already been addressed earlier to brother Mickey just a couple of weeks ago.  But, truth to tell, I'm not sure if it was in this thread, or in another one, so I will repeat the explanation here. "Religious assent of the mind and will" is, according to the Catholic understanding, different from an "assent of Faith."  "Assent of Faith" - a technical term that every professional Catholic theologian understands - has a different object than "religious assent."  "Assent of Faith" has as its object, infallible teaching or doctrine.  "Assent of Faith" is tantamount to believing something as if God himself were before us telling us "you must believe this" (that's my admittedly non-technical explanation of a technical term ).  

On the other hand, "religious assent" - another technical term - has, as its object, the ecclesiastical Magisterium.  It is equivalent to "religious obedience" to religious authority on earth.  I'll give you the example I gave to brother Mickey earlier.  According to the Latin canons, a Latin Catholic is bound by "religious assent" or "religious obedience" to always confess his/her sins privately to a priest.  On the other hand, an Armenian Catholic is not so bound, and has no need to give "religious assent" to the Latin canons, because according to their own Tradition, general absolution is normative during their DL.  
The matter that requires "assent of faith" in BOTH Traditions, on the other hand, is the Divine teaching that God has given the Church the power to forgive sins.

If a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "religious assent," then the immediate reason for the censure would be disobedience to one's religious superior.  In distinction, if a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "assent of faith," then the immediate reason for the censure would be heresy.

Hope that helps.  If you have any other questions about the matter, please ask.  I know it might be a difficult concept to understand.

A distinction without a difference, hence a superfluous one to understand.

[Irish Hermit]

The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms.

and yet it is used as a basis for the very technical dogmatic statement of the IC, on pain of judgement, presumably eternal.

With regard to patristic quotations which are claimed to teach the Immaculate Conception....  I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a restrained approach to them...

"From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[Come Back]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

M.

Christ is the only one that was born directly out of the Spirit(and the Virgin).. He is the only one that experienced such a coming into the world.. The only One that came from above, who descendent out of heaven.. As He says "I have descended from Heaven to do the will of My Father" .. The only one that was born directly from heaven and who was in heaven as in earth at the same time.. He alone experienced such a birth, who was not born out of the lust of man but directly from the Spirit.This is how He differs from us all..

[Come Back]

Mary had grace before the Annunciation...The Question is when did she start to benefit of that grace?If we are to take the accounts of the Protoevangelium of James she was very special even from the start of her life..

[Come Back]

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

How is that Nestorian or Arian?

[Come Back]

Physical death, suffering and etc are not a result of the Original Sin.. The result of the original sin is separation from God.. The infirmities of the flesh and death are means of unity with God..

[Fabio Leite]

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Jesus was without sin and He died. The "curse" was in human nature despite of sin (it is no more; it is as persons that we die, not in our nature).

Because He was sinless and innocent, death could not hold His human nature and keep it.

But did the Holy Virgin die?

The Divine Person could never be stained by sin of any kind, but he could be tempted.

And yes, his mother died.

M.

Many saints were called to their vocation from very early childhood. Since we don't know what they were thinking or feeling before being able to express themselves, it's fair to suppose they were "called from the womb".

How was the conception of the Holy Virgin different from these early vocations (or predestinations if one so wills to call it)?

[Come Back]

I rephrase the original question:What kind of grace(s) did Mary received primarly and when?

[Come Back]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

[Papist]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

This has been answered so many times that I almost feel at the thought of having to answer it again. sigh

[ialmisry]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

This has been answered so many times that I almost feel at the thought of having to answer it again. sigh

How about an answer that makes sense? The Gospel has no need for a Prequel. The Protoevangelium is not the Preevanquelium, no matter that Ineffibilis Deus says so.

[elijahmaria]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

This has been answered so many times that I almost feel at the thought of having to answer it again. sigh

There comes a time when it is time to just be quiet and let others tell you about yourself.  It won't matter.  Assertion changes no reality.

M.

[elijahmaria]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

This has been answered so many times that I almost feel at the thought of having to answer it again. sigh

How about an answer that makes sense? The Gospel has no need for a Prequel. The Protoevangelium is not the Preevanquelium, no matter that Ineffibilis Deus says so.

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

In Christ

[Papist]

There comes a time when it is time to just be quiet and let others tell you about yourself.  It won't matter.  Assertion changes no reality.
M.

Agreed, but it's disheartening to see these attacks on God's Mother and His Church. 

[ialmisry]

What would the grace(s) of IC confer? Why would she needed to be saved and exempted from the Original Sin before her conceivement?Why did she say she rejoices in Her Saviour only when she had Christ in her womb?

This has been answered so many times that I almost feel at the thought of having to answer it again. sigh

There comes a time when it is time to just be quiet and let others tell you about yourself.  It won't matter.  Assertion changes no reality.

M.

Especially when the IC has no basis in reality.

When I lived in D.C., my roommate/best friend used to go to what I called "the National Shrine of the Event that Never Happened." As a typical communicant of the Vatican, he took that as questioning the Virgin Birth.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: What Grace(s) would the IC Confer?