OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 04:32:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Father Lev Gillet and the Immaculate Conception  (Read 8403 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« on: November 08, 2010, 11:43:40 PM »

The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

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

________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:
1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis,
Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.
2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the
Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.
3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the
Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.
4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis
Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb', Athens 1861.
5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin
translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.
6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque
Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.
7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy
Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39
of the Metochion, fol. 93.
8. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131.
Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp.
336-342.
9. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of the
Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.
10. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in
the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University
of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.
11. See J. Gagarin, L'Eglise russe et L'immaculee conception, Paris 1876.
12. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890,
t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by
Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp.
164-167.
13. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza
(Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.
14. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l'immaculee conception d'apres
un theologien russe, in Echos d'Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an
analysis of Lebedev's monography.
15. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in
the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10
March 1912, p. 399. Morozov's reply is contained in the same
periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.


Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2010, 11:57:07 PM »

I never knew that Byzantine Emperors gave homilies....
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,383



« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2010, 11:58:41 PM »

Quote
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church...

Interesting...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 11:59:10 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2010, 12:12:42 AM »

Response:

Quote
Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well.

So, why, for sake of argument, would the first child of King David and Bathsheba die (rather than be set aside by God and become an ancestor to Christ), only for the second child to become King Solomon (and an ancestor to Christ)?  

King David was an ancestor of Mary; He was subject to the same conditions of humanity as the parents of the Virgin Mary?  What took 1,821 years to change?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:13:09 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2010, 01:05:15 AM »

I could swear we dealt with this here before. Maybe Fr. Ambrose will remember.

Just to start off
Quote
The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology.

St. Peter Movila's catechism was written in Latin (he was Romanian): translated into Greek with Latinisms edited out, it was adopted by the Council of Iasi (Jassy) and then at the Synod of Jerusalem for all Orthodoxy. I don't recall the IC in the corrected version: if it was in the Latin version (was it?) and removed at the insistence of the Orthodox in council, what would that tell you about Orthodoxy's view of the IC?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2010, 01:11:17 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2010, 01:33:35 AM »

In addition to Saint Gregory Palamas' theory that Joachim and Anna were themselves sinless and presumably also immaculately conceived by necessary logic,  we have the supporting teaching of Saint Ambrose that the semen of Saint Joachim was immaculate and thereby he was able to create an immaculate daughter.  For this to hold water the egg supplied by Saint Anna would also need to be immaculate and so too her womb also and the blood which was in her veins and supplied to the immaculate foetus of the unborn Mary.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2010, 01:53:43 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

In his own way Scotus has wrought major damage on the Church and contributed enormously to the schism between our two Churches.  If the teaching had remained in the state which we find expressed in Thomas Aquinas, there would not be a major divide today between East and West over this doctrine.

Aquinas' teaching, quite Orthodox, is in message 278 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29748.msg491617.html#msg491617
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 02:05:08 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2010, 09:00:19 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2010, 09:01:02 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2010, 09:18:24 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.


For the Fathers reason was only the means, not the end nor the basis.  The Scholastics, making it an end unto itself (e.g. the number of angels on a pin question), laid the groundwork for dispensing with revelation as happened in the "Enlightenment," and the mess that has all created.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2010, 09:32:18 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.

There is no doubt that his enabling of the proclamation of this false doctrine is a major factor in creating the Catholic dogma which now divides Christendom even more.   It is an enormous pity that his silly reasoning was accepted and the sober teaching of Thomas Aquinas was abandoned.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2010, 09:45:58 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.


For the Fathers reason was only the means, not the end nor the basis.  The Scholastics, making it an end unto itself (e.g. the number of angels on a pin question), laid the groundwork for dispensing with revelation as happened in the "Enlightenment," and the mess that has all created.

Some of the patristic Fathers are every bit the scholastic that later scholars of the west were.  In fact the idea of the western university was brought to Italy from Greece.

These kinds of slap-dash generalizations have no real meaning at all and are the lazy-man's gun to shoot down any real dialogue based upon real people, real events and truly determinative ideas.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2010, 09:50:47 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.

Go back and read Father Lev's article.  Orthodoxy is not of one voice on the issue.


Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2010, 09:56:08 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2010, 10:02:23 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.


Since it is the teaching of the holy Church that the conception of Mary the Mother of God was no different to yours or mine or the Dalai Lama's (this agrees with Aquinas) then Scotus most certainly needed to repent after death of enabling the Pope to proclaim a false teaching to the members of the Church of Rome.  We see the evil fruit of this false teaching in the fact that it has further estranged our two Churches and made unity so much the more difficult.   Scotus cannot be held intentionally responsible for what the IC has done to our Churches but he must carry the guilt of an "involuntary sin."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2010, 10:16:47 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.


Since it is the teaching of the holy Church that the conception of Mary the Mother of God was no different to yours or mine or the Dalai Lama's (this agrees with Aquinas) then Scotus most certainly needed to repent after death of enabling the Pope to proclaim a false teaching to the members of the Church of Rome.  We see the evil fruit of this false teaching in the fact that it has further estranged our two Churches and made unity so much the more difficult.   Scotus cannot be held intentionally responsible for what the IC has done to our Churches but he must carry the guilt of an "involuntary sin."

Go back and read Father Lev's article.  Orthodoxy is not of one voice on the issue of the absolute sinlessness of the Mother of God.

In fact you are participating in another thread on a single Orthodox catechism where you are celebrating the multiple teachings on many issues in Orthodoxy.

There is no heresy in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception...by my standards as a Catholic, or apparently, by your own standards for Orthodoxy which celebrates a diverse array of teachings.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 10:17:59 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?

It needs no apparitions nor divination, dear SynLeszka.  It only needs the use of a modicum of reason.

Thomas Aquinas spoke truth to the Roman Catholic Church - there was NO Immaculate Conception.

Duns Scotus spoke a lie to the Roman Catholic Church - there was an Immaculate Conception.

God wills the repentance of sinners and Scotus was a major sinner in this area since he not only enabled a lie but he also enabled the proclamation of a false dogma which has driven a deep wedge between our Churches.

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2010, 10:26:54 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?

It needs no apparitions nor divination, dear SynLeszka.  It only needs the use of a modicum of reason.

Thomas Aquinas spoke truth to the Roman Catholic Church - there was NO Immaculate Conception.

Duns Scotus spoke a lie to the Roman Catholic Church - there was an Immaculate Conception.

God wills the repentance of sinners and Scotus was a major sinner in this area since he not only enabled a lie but he also enabled the proclamation of a false dogma which has driven a deep wedge between our Churches.

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.

Again hubris.

There are many things that St. Thomas taught, just as there were many things that St. Augustine taught, that the Catholic Church did not accept as part of their doctrinal formulations.  So it is very wrong of you to paint this one issue as "truth" simply because it suits your purposes.

And it is objectively sinful to bear false witness... and to call Duns Scotus a sinner because he lies is  hubris on your part and false witness.   But we will presume the best and just say your objectively sinful acts are sins of ignorance and good intention...

There are many instances in the Fathers and in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church as translated by reputable authors today that indicate that the Mother of God is exceptional in her holiness, with all indications pointing to this holiness being part of her since she became a person.  

So we do not need to know WHEN precisely she became a person but we can say that at the very moment of her becoming she was pure and without sin, and greater in this than any other human being.

Now those assertions are in Orthodox festal liturgical poetry...So I don't worry about what modernist Orthodox say because we have the liturgical witness and the witness of a majority of the Fathers that support her unique holiness and the fact that she is indeed set apart from all other humanity in that unblemished state.

M.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 10:29:14 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2010, 10:27:36 AM »


In fact you are participating in another thread on a single Orthodox catechism where you are celebrating the multiple teachings on many issues in Orthodoxy.


Exaggerative, and I don't see how you cannot know that.

Quote
There is no heresy in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception...by my standards as a Catholic, or apparently, by your own standards for Orthodoxy which celebrates a diverse array of teachings.

Exaggerative, and I do not see how you cannot know that.   You are engaging in polemics to diss your other lung!

Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

As for Fr Lev, I am trying to decide if I have the energy to go back through previous threads on him and recycle messages.   Since you clearly did not pick up much information from those threads it is probabkly a waste of my time.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2010, 10:32:08 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state, so this is nothing more than your own private longings.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2010, 10:36:37 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state, so this is nothing more than your own private longings.

It is the tradition I have received and the tradition I am careful to pass on.

Private longings?  Perhaps more applicable to the people who overturned the solid tradition which Aquinas represented on this matter.  Or was he too overwhelmed by his "private longings"?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2010, 10:39:32 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2010, 10:45:57 AM »

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
I have the aforementioned Compendium (in Polish translation) and chapter CCXXXII is about the effects of suffering on the soul of Christ
Chapters CCXXI and CCXXII deal with the Ever Virgin Mary.
In chapter CCXXI, there is a sentence which states" Therefore we can state, that not only was her soul without the stain of sin, but that her body was far from any sign of human concupiscience." This is my translation of the Polish text but the official English translation does not differ in numeration or subject. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#221
Quote
CHAPTER 221

CHRIST’S BIRTH FROM A VIRGIN

Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods, whereas he is dragged down by carnal attractions. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.

This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men “shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that He was “born of the Virgin Mary.” In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.

 

CHAPTER 222

THE MOTHER OF CHRIST

The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.

Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.


CHAPTER 224

SANCTIFICATION OF CHRIST’S MOTHER

As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God’s Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin-not only of mortal sin but of venial sin. Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But what is said in the Canticle of Canticles 4:7, “You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you,” can well be understood of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God.

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 10:48:19 AM by synLeszka » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2010, 10:52:13 AM »

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
I have the aforementioned Compendium (in Polish translation) and chapter CCXXXII is about the effects of suffering on the soul of Christ
Chapters CCXXI and CCXXII deal with the Ever Virgin Mary.
In chapter CCXXI, there is a sentence which states" Therefore we can state, that not only was her soul without the stain of sin, but that her body was far from any sign of human concupiscience." This is my translation of the Polish text but the official English translation does not differ in numeration or subject. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#221
Quote
CHAPTER 221

CHRIST’S BIRTH FROM A VIRGIN

Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods, whereas he is dragged down by carnal attractions. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.

This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men “shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that He was “born of the Virgin Mary.” In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.

 

CHAPTER 222

THE MOTHER OF CHRIST

The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.

Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.


CHAPTER 224

SANCTIFICATION OF CHRIST’S MOTHER

As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God’s Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin-not only of mortal sin but of venial sin. Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But what is said in the Canticle of Canticles 4:7, “You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you,” can well be understood of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God.

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.

If Aquinas has stated two contradictory theological things about the conception of Mary, then the problem of lying is on his soul and not mine.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 11:01:45 AM »


Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.


SynLezska,

I am not going to accuse you of lying but I am going to accuse you of not reading or not understanding the Aquinas text you sent.   Look above at his last paragraph.  Aquinas is quite explicit:  NO Immaculate Conception. 

Perhaps you will withdraw your allegation that I am lying about his teaching?
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 11:05:17 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 11:08:45 AM by synLeszka » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2010, 11:16:57 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state,

And yet we have never come up with the IC. We have gone over this before
Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don't mean what the Vatican claims by them.

Quote
so this is nothing more than your own private longings.

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2010, 11:23:35 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2010, 11:33:46 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2010, 11:36:09 AM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.

The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2010, 11:38:25 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?

The actual record of what St. Thomas did with this teaching was to say one thing and then say another and THEN he finally said that he would go along with whatever the Church said because it was clear from Tradition that the woman was more holy than any other human being on the face of the earth and had never been blemished by sin...from the earliest times of her becoming a person.

So you loose your reliable witness to his trust in the infallibility of the Church.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 11:39:03 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2010, 11:43:20 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2010, 11:46:26 AM »

Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

I am familiar with no other text.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2010, 11:56:53 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2010, 12:00:55 PM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.

The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.

Certainly I do not think that we follow Saint Gregory Palamas that her ancestors were progressively purified until Joachim and Anna were themselves immaculate and able to produce an immaculate foetus.  So, you are right, we are not of one mind with Saint Gregory.

Certainly we not not follow Saint Ambrose of Milan that Saint Joachim's semen was immaculate.  So you are right, we are not of one mind with Saint Ambrose.

Nor are we inclined to follow Fr Lev Gillet, a delightful eccentric convert whose own highly idiosyncratic position between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism made the Orthodox question whether he was not a Roman infiltrator.

Do you not realise how odd it is that you are chasing here and there for Eastern support for the IC when your own most respected theologian Thomas Aquinas denied it emphatically !!?

I can see you are going to be as gruesomely insistent on this as your insistence that the Orthodox allow abortion.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2010, 12:08:00 PM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK.  

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.

Oh!!  I remember now what happened and why I said nothing when you all piled on me in your attempt to belittle the messenger:

When I posted the text, I already had the attribution of its source there at the beginning of the text itself.

Also you were challenging me on the fact that I said an Orthodox supporter of my vocation had given me liturgical books for my daily prayer discipline and then would not tell you who or which texts...Instead I sat her quietly and watched you mock me, make fun of me and ultimately punish me with a moderation....Ok so I did protest the treatment, but it was met with scorn.

 Smiley  It was a lot of fun here in the beginning.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:16:58 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2010, 12:13:19 PM »

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

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.
       

Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2010, 12:14:36 PM »

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.

Can't have been that bad... laugh

Quote

Yes, Father.  I am new to the Forum and I like it already, and I think a good bit of the good feeling I get here has to do with your way of managing high spirited souls   angel

EM
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26768.msg421987.html#msg421987
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2010, 12:16:46 PM »

You may have overlooked the fact that this is not the text for the Feast of the Conception.  It is another Feast entirely.

I believe that it was fully explained to you an an earlier thread anyway.

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

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.
      


« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:18:09 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2010, 12:24:44 PM »

Just for the record I did not claim this is the text for the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, or the Feast of St. Anne.  I do know what feast it is. 

See the text below in red that supports an exceptional spotlessness of the soul and perfection of the soul of the Theotokos that is far beyond that of ordinary humans.   And that purity extends beyond her virginity.


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

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.

      
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2010, 12:34:18 PM »

...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:41:33 PM by bogdan » Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2010, 12:35:57 PM »

Pardon me for my lack of academic knowledge of the issue, but isn't the Orthodox position regarding the meaning of the red-highlighted verses based upon the differences between how the Orthodox and Church of Rome understand the concept of ancestral sin?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2010, 12:43:54 PM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.
Done so several times on this forum, ever since it was posted a while ago.

Quote
The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.
The ones in their right mind are.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2010, 12:44:46 PM »

Again, please read the article and citations by Father Lev.  The Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue.


...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/
Logged

Tags: Lev Gillet Immaculate Conception 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 72 queries.