OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 06:02:45 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 8404 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 11, 2010, 03:10:07 PM »

When someone says that the IC means merely that the Virgin Mary is holier than the other saints, that is a non-sequitur.

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

The danger lies in that the mind is more obedient than the conscious mind to the natural logic and the necessary consequence will impress itself despite what RCs believe.

IC, as stated currently by the RC, is absolutely unecessary to affirm that Mary was holier than all the saints.

Also, all the statements about her early holiness are but an application to her specific case of the common sense knowledge that God has a vocation to every one, a "mission" that He knows even before we are born. We are known to God even from our conception, even before that, and what He wishes for us He already knew even before Creation itself.

Quote
By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise {shall be} continually of thee. Psalms 71:6

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. Psalms 139:13


Apply that to the Virgin Mary and the mission God assigned to her (including knowing that she would be the holiest person ever) and you will have the texts the RC mistankenly assumed to be about something exclusive to the Virgin Mary.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2010, 04:26:15 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #92 on: November 11, 2010, 05:27:49 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?
He's also God: do you believe in the Semi-incarnation Immaculata?

Quote
  Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).

Quote
  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.
And His divinity, and eternal hypostasis.

Quote
  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice abstaction, but hypostasis do not exist in abstraction.

Quote
  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.
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 #93 on: November 11, 2010, 06:46:52 PM »


Quote
 His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you] do not exist in abstraction.

Quote
 It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.

There is no abstraction in noting that Jesus' humanity is no different from our own.  That is real.

At least there are Church councils that suggest that it is real.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 06:47:22 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #94 on: November 11, 2010, 08:45:17 PM »

His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you

You did? Looks the same.


do not exist in abstraction.
It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.
Indeed it does, but since all of us do not exist in abstraction, what is your point?

Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.
There is no abstraction in noting that Jesus' humanity is no different from our own.  That is real.

At least there are Church councils that suggest that it is real.

I didn't say it wasn't real.  The IC says that is not real.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 08:46:59 PM by ialmisry » 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 #95 on: November 11, 2010, 08:53:20 PM »

His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you

You did? Looks the same [sic].




Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 11, 2010, 08:55:11 PM »

=

I didn't say it wasn't real.  The IC says that is not real.

Of course you assert this but you don't ever explain it....accurately
Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #97 on: November 12, 2010, 07:34:20 AM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool. One thing is to get all the dirt water and putting it in the ocean (just remembering that the wate would not loose its form in a Christian view). Another entirely different is to get a cup of that water, clean it and throw in the ocean.

Here "throwing in the ocean" is the equivalent of "inherit the nature". Jesus inherited human nature from Mary.

Now, of course, if one agrees, contrary to Tradition and to the Bible in my opinion, that sin does not change human being, than it would make sense. The substance inherited would be the same and just the accident would be different. But I contend that Christian Catholic tradition states in a very clear manner that sin changes us, if not onthologically, at least it changes our nature, which is all that matters in this case. That is what the Fall is about, that is what explains how saints are different and miracles happen through them.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 07:35:18 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2010, 09:21:46 AM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool.

Jesus has precisely the same human nature that we do.  There's a pretty famous council that says so.  And the divine nature and the human nature are not confused.  That famous council says that too.

So his body is perfectly capable of bleeding, being hungry, processing waste, and dying, and corrupting.

He is also sinless. 

So there needs to be another explanation for how He can be sinless and his body can still experience all of the various modes of corruptibility that we have all incurred from the time of the fall.

Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.



Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2010, 12:29:13 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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 #100 on: November 12, 2010, 01:56:55 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool.

Jesus has precisely the same human nature that we do.  There's a pretty famous council that says so.  And the divine nature and the human nature are not confused.  That famous council says that too.

So his body is perfectly capable of bleeding, being hungry, processing waste, and dying, and corrupting.

He is also sinless. 

So there needs to be another explanation for how He can be sinless and his body can still experience all of the various modes of corruptibility that we have all incurred from the time of the fall.
"Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him." II Cor. 5:21.

Idle speculation on how is exactly how the heresy of the IC raised its head.
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
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2010, 02:01:13 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.  That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.  The nature which Christ assumed from Mary is therefore the same nature as fallen humanity, which he sanctified and redeemed through his life, death, and resurrection. Further, it was no small thing that Mary chose to be perfectly obedient to God considering that she lived in a world where she was tempted by the demons, surrounded by fallen people, struggled to provide for herself and her family, etc., these are all powerful influenced toward sin.  If Adam fell into sin after only a single temptation and without all of these influences, how much more profound is it that Mary was obedient?  As St. Irenaeus says comparing Mary and Eve, “As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God."  This obedience could only have happened by the grace of God, and indeed the angel salutes her saying “Hail Mary, full of grace.”  

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 02:04:22 PM by dcointin » 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 #102 on: November 12, 2010, 02:38:42 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.

which is restored only in the Incarnation, which hadn't happened when the Holy Theotokos was conceived. To say otherwise is to adopt Pelagianism.

Quote
That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.

Of course, as she received that nature from Adam. As such even her son was capable of being tempted, but as the Son He was incapable of choosing to sin. Unlike the Son of Man, Mary received the whole of her nature and person from Adam.

Quote
The nature which Christ assumed from Mary is therefore the same nature as fallen humanity, which he sanctified and redeemed through his life, death, and resurrection.
All of which happened after her conception.

Quote
Further, it was no small thing that Mary chose to be perfectly obedient to God considering that she lived in a world where she was tempted by the demons, surrounded by fallen people, struggled to provide for herself and her family, etc., these are all powerful influenced toward sin.  If Adam fell into sin after only a single temptation and without all of these influences, how much more profound is it that Mary was obedient?

DING! DING! DING!
So rejection of the IC does not lessen the Holy Theotokos, but rather affirms her pride of place among the saints.

Quote
 As St. Irenaeus says comparing Mary and Eve, “As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God."  This obedience could only have happened by the grace of God, and indeed the angel salutes her saying “Hail Mary, full of grace.”
 

Now you slip back to potuit, decuit ergo fecit.  There is no basis for the IC in the Angelic Salutation of the beginning of salvation, nor in the Grace of God.

Quote
Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
AMEN!
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 #103 on: November 12, 2010, 02:56:01 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.

which is restored only in the Incarnation, which hadn't happened when the Holy Theotokos was conceived. To say otherwise is to adopt Pelagianism.

Quote
That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.

Of course, as she received that nature from Adam. As such even her son was capable of being tempted, but as the Son He was incapable of choosing to sin. Unlike the Son of Man, Mary received the whole of her nature and person from Adam.


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.

M.
Logged

dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #104 on: November 12, 2010, 04:03:58 PM »

I was addressing two separate issues in my post, which I should have been more clear about.  The first was the argument that the IC teaches that Mary had a different nature than ours, and thus that Christ assumed a different nature, which destroys orthodox soteriology.  The second was that the IC deprives Mary of the dignity that she acquired through living a life of perfect holiness.  As poster dogdan wrote, “The problem is IC imputes the holiness upon her. She is not all that great in reality because she was sinless because God says so. Whereas the Orthodox Church says she is sinless because she chose to be sinless, just like any of us could do if we truly loved God (and we don't, not as much as she did).” 
Objecting that the likeness of God was only restored in the incarnation, that salvation happened after her conception, etc., is a valid argument, but doesn’t address my point about what the IC is saying.  Again I’m responding only to two specific objections to the IC which I believe are erroneous.  My point in talking about the salutation is that it isn’t that either she was born immaculately and therefore had no further need of grace, or she was not and did need grace, but that it could be both/and.  If she were born immaculately she would still need grace to remain holy for the reasons I gave. 
Logged
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #105 on: November 12, 2010, 04:11:16 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #106 on: November 12, 2010, 06:16:24 PM »

Quote
 Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).
Why so snotty?  Don't you ever make typos?  

That's a nice abstaction abstraction, but hypostasis hypostases do not exist in abstraction.
Fixed that for you btw.  People in glass houses...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 06:32:28 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #107 on: November 12, 2010, 06:28:02 PM »

But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

Another fallacy.  Being conceived immaculately does not render one unable to sin.  She still had the freedom to choose to sin, just as Adam and Eve did, who were created immaculate.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #108 on: November 12, 2010, 07:18:51 PM »

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

It is both/and not either/or

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Annunciation

Behold our restoration is now revealed.  God beyond words is united with humanity.  The error is erased by the Archangel’s voice, for the virgin receives the joy.  What is earthly has become heaven; the world is freed from the ancient curse.  Let creation rejoice and give voice to hymns: O Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, glory to you!
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #109 on: November 12, 2010, 08:33:11 PM »

Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
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
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 #110 on: November 12, 2010, 08:39:30 PM »

I was addressing two separate issues in my post, which I should have been more clear about.  The first was the argument that the IC teaches that Mary had a different nature than ours, and thus that Christ assumed a different nature, which destroys orthodox soteriology.  The second was that the IC deprives Mary of the dignity that she acquired through living a life of perfect holiness.  As poster dogdan wrote, “The problem is IC imputes the holiness upon her. She is not all that great in reality because she was sinless because God says so. Whereas the Orthodox Church says she is sinless because she chose to be sinless, just like any of us could do if we truly loved God (and we don't, not as much as she did).”  
Objecting that the likeness of God was only restored in the incarnation, that salvation happened after her conception, etc., is a valid argument, but doesn’t address my point about what the IC is saying.  Again I’m responding only to two specific objections to the IC which I believe are erroneous.  My point in talking about the salutation is that it isn’t that either she was born immaculately and therefore had no further need of grace, or she was not and did need grace, but that it could be both/and.

And we were just pointing out, no, it cannot.

Quote
 If she were born immaculately she would still need grace to remain holy for the reasons I gave.

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 08:39:51 PM by ialmisry » 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
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 #111 on: November 12, 2010, 08:51:18 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?

Good breeding: Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless  7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years...13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John...34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."  38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. 39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechari'ah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." ....7:18 The disciples of John told him of all these things. 19 And John, calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?'" 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me." 24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts. 26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' 28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John.

I'd comment, but I am interested in whay you have to say.
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
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 #112 on: November 12, 2010, 08:58:52 PM »

But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

Another fallacy.  Being conceived immaculately does not render one unable to sin.  She still had the freedom to choose to sin, just as Adam and Eve did, who were created immaculate.
But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.
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
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 #113 on: November 12, 2010, 09:17:57 PM »

Quote
 Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).
Why so snotty?  Don't you ever make typos?

All the time. I was underlining your theological error brought on by an error of logic:
This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.
Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?
He's also God: do you believe in the Semi-incarnation Immaculata?

That's a nice abstaction abstraction, but hypostasis hypostases do not exist in abstraction.
Fixed that for you btw.

Thank you.

Quote
People in glass houses...
...shouldn't strain gnats and swallow camels.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 09:18:45 PM by ialmisry » 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
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 #114 on: November 12, 2010, 09:27:17 PM »

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

It is both/and not either/or
None of the above.

Quote
3rd Vespers Stichera of the Annunciation

Behold our restoration is now


NOW.

Not 12+ years prior. Now.

Quote
revealed.  God beyond words is united with humanity. 

The humanity from Adam. Not the parallel humanity of the IC.

Quote
The error is erased by the Archangel’s voice, for the virgin receives the joy. 

Receives. Not received 12+ years ago.

Quote
What is earthly has become heaven; the world is freed from the ancient curse.

Now freed. Not 12+ years ago.

Quote
  Let creation rejoice and give voice to hymns: O Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, glory to you!
Glory to Him!
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #115 on: November 12, 2010, 10:05:55 PM »

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

Well the Byzantine Church proclaims grace entered the world with her conception and birth and these were the beginning of salvation:

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Conception of the Theotokos
The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb; the divine ladder is set up; the throne of the great king is ready; the God-inspired city is being adorned.  The unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is over flowing.  It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfullness of the God-wise Anna, whom we glorify in faith.


4th Vespers Stichera of the Nativity of the Theotokos
To day the barren gates are opened, and the Virgin, the Gate of God, comes forth.  Today grace begins to bear fruit, showing forth to the world Theotokos, through whom earth is united to heaven for the salvation of our souls.


Litija Sticheron of the Nativity of the Theotokos
Today is the beginning of our salvation, O people; for behold, the Mother and Virgin who was chosen from all generations to be the habitation of God is born and comes forth from the barren one.  She is the flower from Jesse and possesses the rod from his root.  May our forefather Adam rejoice and be full of joy; for behold, she who was created from the rib of Adam declares that her daughter and descendant is blessed.  She says: My deliverance has been born to me.  Through her, I will be freed from the bonds of Hades.  May David rejoice, play on his harp, and bless God; for behold, the Virgin comes forth from the womb of the barren woman for the salvation of our souls.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #116 on: November 12, 2010, 10:43:54 PM »

But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.

No it doesn't.  According to the IC, God endowed the Theotokos with same nature Adam and Eve were given.  Even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, the Incarnation would have been necessary to enable the theosis of man.  Even unfallen man was unable to bridge the gap between humanity and divinty.  St. Athansius' expression: God became man so that man might become god, is true with or without the Fall.  The Virgin conceived immaculately still needed a savior to deifiy her.  Her being filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception does not change her nature or nullify the need for Christ to unite humanity and divinity in His person.   

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Redemption.htm
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #117 on: November 12, 2010, 11:26:48 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?

I would say simply because she loved God even more than they did. She voluntarily gave up 100% of her self-will, and no other person has done that. Not that we aren't theoretically capable, but we don't.

To me that seems to be the difference between Orthodoxy and IC. We are all theoretically capable of being sinless like the Theotokos, we don't have to sin, we aren't totally depraved, but we choose to be sinful.
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 #118 on: November 12, 2010, 11:33:01 PM »

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

Well the Byzantine Church proclaims grace entered the world with her conception and birth and these were the beginning of salvation:

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Conception of the Theotokos
The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb; the divine ladder is set up; the throne of the great king is ready; the God-inspired city is being adorned.  The unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is over flowing.  It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfullness of the God-wise Anna, whom we glorify in faith.
Very interesting. What does the Orthodox Catholic Church proclaim on the Conception of St. Anne?
Quote
The Conception by Righteous Anna of the Most Holy Mother of God

St Anna, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was the youngest daughter of the priest Nathan from Bethlehem, descended from the tribe of Levi. She married St Joachim (September 9), who was a native of Galilee.

For a long time St Anna was childless, but after twenty years, through the fervent prayer of both spouses, an angel of the Lord announced to them that they would be the parents of a daughter, Who would bring blessings to the whole human race.

The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of Her Son. Only Christ was born perfectly holy and sinless, as St Ambrose of Milan teaches in Chapter Two of his Commentary on Luke.The Holy Virgin was like everyone else in Her mortality, and in being subject to temptation, although She committed no personal sins. She was not a deified creature removed from the rest of humanity. If this were the case, She would not have been truly human, and the nature that Christ took from Her would not have been truly human either. If Christ does not truly share our human nature, then the possibilty of our salvation is in doubt.

The Conception of the Virgin Mary by St Anna took place at Jerusalem. The many icons depicting the Conception by St Anna show the Most Holy Theotokos trampling the serpent underfoot.

"In the icon Sts Joachim and Anna are usually depicted with hands folded in prayer; their eyes are also directed upward and they contemplate the Mother of God, Who stands in the air with outstretched hands; under Her feet is an orb encircled by a serpent (symbolizing the devil), which strives to conquer all the universe by its power."

There are also icons in which St Anna holds the Most Holy Virgin on her left arm as an infant. On St Anna's face is a look of reverence. A large ancient icon, painted on canvas, is located in the village of Minkovetsa in the Dubensk district of Volhynia diocese. From ancient times this Feast was especially venerated by pregnant women in Russia.
Just a tinge of Latinism there. Yet no IC.

The Tropar:
Today the bonds of barrenness are broken
God has heard the prayers of Joachim and Anna
He has promised them beyond all their hopes to bear the Maiden of God,
by whom the uncircumscribed One was born as mortal Man;
He commanded an angel to cry to her:
"Rejoice, O full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

Kontak
Today the universe rejoices,
for Anna has conceived the Theotokos through God's dispensation
for she has brought forth the one who is to bear the ineffable Word!

Notice how both hymns are written from hindsight.

Quote
4th Vespers Stichera of the Nativity of the Theotokos
To day the barren gates are opened, and the Virgin, the Gate of God, comes forth.  Today grace begins to bear fruit, showing forth to the world Theotokos, through whom earth is united to heaven for the salvation of our souls.


Litija Sticheron of the Nativity of the Theotokos
Today is the beginning of our salvation, O people; for behold, the Mother and Virgin who was chosen from all generations to be the habitation of God is born and comes forth from the barren one.  She is the flower from Jesse and possesses the rod from his root.  May our forefather Adam rejoice and be full of joy; for behold, she who was created from the rib of Adam declares that her daughter and descendant is blessed.  She says: My deliverance has been born to me.  Through her, I will be freed from the bonds of Hades.  May David rejoice, play on his harp, and bless God; for behold, the Virgin comes forth from the womb of the barren woman for the salvation of our souls.
Same hindsight. If we were to read it any other way, it would result in the parrallel humanity that Fabio warned of.

I seem to recall that Fr. Ambrose or someone posting the doctored hymns that the Byantine churches use instead of the Orthodox texts for the Conception of St. Anne and perhaps others.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 11:33:35 PM by ialmisry » 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
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 #119 on: November 12, 2010, 11:55:59 PM »

But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.

No it doesn't.  According to the IC, God endowed the Theotokos with same nature Adam and Eve were given.

Even better. They only got a created nature. The IC gives her a new one.

Quote
Even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, the Incarnation would have been necessary to enable the theosis of man.  Even unfallen man was unable to bridge the gap between humanity and divinty.  St. Athansius' expression: God became man so that man might become god, is true with or without the Fall.  The Virgin conceived immaculately still needed a savior to deifiy her.  
Read Maximillian Kolbe's toughts of the "Immaculata."

Quote
Her being filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception does not change her nature
Yes, it does. It makes it Mary's nature, not Adam and Eve's.

Quote
or nullify the need for Christ to unite humanity and divinity in His person.    
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Redemption.htm
Yes, because, having cut off all connection with the nature of Adam's progeny, He saved no one but His mother who had nothing to be saved from.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 11:56:17 PM by ialmisry » 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 #120 on: November 13, 2010, 12:05:23 AM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism. 


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
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 #121 on: November 13, 2010, 12:39:14 AM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:41:53 AM by ialmisry » 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 #122 on: November 13, 2010, 12:24:37 PM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all.  So I think I will have to go back to talking around you.  And you do carry most of your Lutheran understandings with you to this moment.  You may or may not want to give that some serious consideration...after you tell me I am full of hooey of course.

Mary
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:25:25 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #123 on: November 13, 2010, 02:17:21 PM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


I am not an apologist.
LOL. You sure are full of excuses.

Quote
I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms
is that I posted that I had been Lutheran.

Another favorite ploy of apologists for Ultramontanism, assume everyone is as obsessed by the Vatican as they are and lump the Orthodox with the Protestants on that basis, "just rebels." If the Orthodox was previously Protestant, even better: just say he hasn't really left Protestantism no matter how much he debates from Orthodoxy (you do know sloth/indolence is a deadly sin, no?), and problem "solved.".  Of course, no doubt, those "more conservative Orthodox priests" (than that other Lutheran, Fr. Ambrose  Roll Eyes) who are feeding your dreams about intercommunion are "real Orthodox."

EP Jeremisas II had no problem strengthing the lay Bratstvo as the defense of Orthodoxy against the Metropolitans being wooed by Polish-Lithuanian secular authorities for the Vatican, elevating Moscow to a patriarchate, AND denouncing Lutheran heresies.  I have no such problem either.

A rather odd tactic on a thread on Fr. Lev Gillet and the baggage he brought from the Vatican with him into Orthodoxy.

Quote
for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.

Then you should be able to state some Lutheran specifics, rather than allegations alluded to by generalities.

Quote
The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all.

No, my defense of Orthodoxy and your confusion, or rather obfuscation (my fellow "Lutheran," Fr. Ambrose, has repeatedly pointed out that your version of "Orthodoxy" isn't found in any statment that the Orthodox Catholic Church has made with authority, and your rarefied version version of the Vatican isn't found in reality either), lays at the source of that problem. I simply hold fast to the formal Orthodox theological expressions, and you would have us abandon them for some misty hopes based on fuzzy doctrines.

Quote
So I think I will have to go back to talking around you.

I only have a problem with you talking about the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
And you do carry most of your Lutheran understandings with you to this moment.

Maybe you can point one out for the less clairvoyant.

Quote
You may or may not want to give that some serious consideration
Already have:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31149.msg491919.html#msg491919
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28972.msg476130/topicseen.html#msg476130

Quote
...after you tell me I am full of hooey of course.
Is there a difference between hooey and heresy?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 02:19:05 PM by ialmisry » 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
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #124 on: November 13, 2010, 03:31:02 PM »

Quote
The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

These are things that are granted to us in Baptism, and they are what God preserved the Theotokos from at the moment of her becoming a person.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, this used to be something that Orthodox understood as well, even if it was never expressed a dogma.  It is a part of tradition, east and west.

Mary

The teaching of the Immaculate Comception is condemned as a heresy by the Holy Orthodox Church. The idea does not deny that the Theotokos needs a Saviour or that her Saviour is Christ. The problem is the special grace that is alone given to her and that is it given at her conception.

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: "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, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin"
CCC 491
 
CCC 492: The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person.


The Holy Orthodox Church is very clear and united in voice in its rejection of the Immaculate Conception. The Theotokos strove and worked at every point. This is why we call her sinless. She is a Descendant of David  and God "chose her from among His elect down through the ages. Note the starting point of God's election. The excellent Seth was chosen by God from Adam's children." (from Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies, Mt. Tabor publishing, homily number 52).

The distinction here is that the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes no "special, singular grace". We only recognize her constant striving in her life and her never choosing sin.

As humans, our darkened will and the passions are balanced by certain natural virtues. We can choose good and grow in virtue. The Theotokos always chose virtuously.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: November 13, 2010, 05:00:41 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 13, 2010, 05:12:01 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris

My event manager is still living  laugh  laugh  laugh

Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: November 13, 2010, 06:02:57 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 13, 2010, 06:26:22 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.

All in all, I remain a Catholic.
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 #129 on: November 13, 2010, 06:39:06 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.

All in all, I remain a Catholic.
So you keep claiming...
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
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 #130 on: November 14, 2010, 12:48:53 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).
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 #131 on: November 14, 2010, 07:29:26 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

There's no real argument against it and the argument in its favor is huge actually. 

So you can cling to your Lutheran heresy of Traducianism and argue that it is Orthodox till you are blue.

It won't change the preponderance of the patristic witness to the exceptional holiness of the Theotokos and the fact that she was by most accounts free from all blemish of sin from the earliest time of her becoming as a person.
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 #132 on: November 14, 2010, 10:34:13 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

Ah, tried sneaking that in.

The fact that the Conception of St. Anne isn't a Marian Feast (like the way the West changed the Dominical Presentation of the Lord into the Marian Purifiation of the Virgin) upsets that little progression of "thought." When you actually read the texts (as the Orthodox have them, not as they have been doctored), the stretch you are making is thrown into sharp relief.  Plus the fact that we still use the same language and explicitely do not believe in the IC.

There's no real argument against it and the argument in its favor is huge actually.
 
We're not Hindus. Mantras do not work.

So you can cling to your Lutheran heresy of Traducianism and argue that it is Orthodox till you are blue.

Why don't you argue with that notorious Lutheran heretic, St. Jerome:
Quote
...the testimony of Saint Jerome (Epist. cxxvi, 1)[is] that "the majority of Oriental writers think that, as the body is born of the body, so the soul is born of the soul...In the Symbol to be subscribed to by Bishop Peter of Antioch (1053), Leo IX declares the soul to be "not a part of God, but created from nothing" (Denzinger, 348).  Among the errors which the Armenians must reject, Benedict XII mentions the doctrine that the soul originates from the soul of the father (Denzinger, 533).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.l
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm

Unfortunately you can't argue with that other notorious Lutheran heretic and Old Calendar defender of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Ozgeorge of Australia, whose father was an Alexandrian Greek and a mother from Greece IIRC with ancestors IIRC from Pontus and Ionia (he was so old fashioned that he prefered "Romaios" over "Ellen"):
I also hold the same view as ialmisry, that both the body and the soul come from the parents by generativity and the spirit comes from God. The question is officially unresolved and there are Fathers on both sides, some saying the soul comes from God (created ex nihilo), and others saying it comes from the parents.
The arguments in favour of this view are

1)the righteousness of the Generations of the Ancestors of God: Sts. Joachim and Anna produced the soul of the Theotokos who produced the Soul of Christ.

2)if Christ only assumed his Human Flesh from the Theotokos and not His Human Soul, can He actually redeem Human Souls? ("What is not assumed is not redeemed")

3) Genesis 2:7 (LXX) says:
"And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul."
(καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν)
This act of God of infusing the "breath of life"  to make Adam "a living soul" is never actually repeated by God, even when God creates Eve (Genesis 2:22). And Eve is created from Adam's rib, so it is possible to understand that Eve's soul was formed from Adam's soul, just as Eve's body was formed from Adam's body.

Btw, in the two years of catechism for confirmation in the Lutheran church, Traducianism never came up. I doubt if any but the most educated Lutheran would know what you were talking about if you used the term.

It won't change the preponderance of the patristic witness to the exceptional holiness of the Theotokos

and who never came up with the  IC.

and the fact that she was by most accounts free from all blemish of sin from the earliest time of her becoming as a person.
and died anyway. That's quite a blemish.
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 #133 on: November 14, 2010, 05:45:58 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

Ah, tried sneaking that in.

The fact that the Conception of St. Anne isn't a Marian Feast (like the way the West changed the Dominical Presentation of the Lord into the Marian Purifiation of the Virgin) upsets that little progression of "thought." When you actually read the texts (as the Orthodox have them, not as they have been doctored), the stretch you are making is thrown into sharp relief.  Plus the fact that we still use the same language and explicitely do not believe in the IC.


No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #134 on: November 14, 2010, 06:04:37 PM »





No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.

Could you tell us the publication with Bishop Kallistos' translation.

The Feast of the Conception by Saint Anne is actually only a minor feast in the Orthodox Church.  It has the lowest ranking of all, the same as any minor Saint, and I am not aware of any translation by Bishop Kallistos.  Its low ranking alone should tell you something.

The Feast of the Conception has the very low ranking symbol of an open circle with three dots in red.  Looks like this 
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 0.209 seconds with 72 queries.