OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 10:18:57 PM *
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 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Compiled threads on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 45600 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #450 on: January 11, 2009, 07:07:39 PM »

Uh-huh - we tried to convince one another of the error and have them repent, seeing division as only a last resort; after generations of not changing, the separation was finally inevitable.

A quote from St Gregory of Nazianzen which I think applies especially to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

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 #451 on: January 11, 2009, 09:43:10 PM »

Dear all,

I came on here because I was not getting any responses to my question at CAF. If any of you have been lurking on CAF, you will notice that the thread I started is finally getting a lot of participation, so I will be busy there for a while.

As Father Ambrose pointed out, it seems to be a lot of Latins speaking about what we believe.  Some make good arguments against the IC.  Btw, the lone Orthodox Volodymyr does have you on the issue of the person being a body and a soul, and that the Orthodox do not call the All-Holy Theotokos "Sinless."  We do call Christ "the only sinless one" in Matins.

Quote
  But I do want to respond to several things stated here:

Brother Isa,

-- The "Immortalists" are a minority.  Father Ambrose amply proved to you that the magisterial documents reflect an understanding that Mary indeed died.
That's between you and your coreligionists: having been blessed to have venerated her tomb and going to Church every Dormition, I'm not confused on the issue.  They shouldn't be a minority (the IC types were a minority in the West once too), they should be anathema.

Quote
-- That Mary died because of a voluntary acceptance of death is a particularly Latin theologoumenon that I, as an Oriental, am not bound to accept.
Yes, we've gone over your Chinese menu of dogma before.  Your coreligionists also had a lot of problems with it. But that's between you and them.

Quote
I believe that she died simply because her physical body was subject to corruption.  The dogma of the IC does not touch upon that question, and my belief in the dogma does not require me to accept Father Pacwa's explanation of why she died.

Actually it does, and Fr. Pachwa was honest enough to address it.  Death is the result, original sin the cause.

Quote
-- The dogma of the IC contains no anathema. It simply contains a sentence of excommunication.  Excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, and for you to claim that the dogma of the IC contains a sentence of damnation is dishonest.

I'd dredge up a lot of statements of the Vatican's followers issued in less touchy feely times, but I think we can nip it in the bud without that:  If you go up to your priest and state that you deny the IC, is it a mortal sin or not?

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
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #452 on: January 12, 2009, 12:34:12 AM »

As Father Ambrose pointed out, it seems to be a lot of Latins speaking about what we believe.  Some make good arguments against the IC.  Btw, the lone Orthodox Volodymyr does have you on the issue of the person being a body and a soul, and that the Orthodox do not call the All-Holy Theotokos "Sinless."  We do call Christ "the only sinless one" in Matins.
Now you're just being silly.  The matins obviously refers to the fact that Christ is the only one who is NATURALLY sinless.  Mary, though sinless, was sinless only by the grace of God.  Otherwise, if you take the statement too far, you will be heterodox in your belief that Mary sinned during her life.  I'm not willing to assign heterodoxy to the EOC because of the statements in the Matins; the heterodoxy rests in you by your blasphemous interpretation of it.  And I already responded to brother Volodomyr.  Until he can respond, don't bother singing praises about his argument.

Quote from: Isa
That's between you and your coreligionists: having been blessed to have venerated her tomb and going to Church every Dormition, I'm not confused on the issue.
 
Neither am I. 

Quote from: Isa
They shouldn't be a minority (the IC types were a minority in the West once too), they should be anathema.

Yes, this demonstrates that the EO are willing to condemn people to hell. 

Quote from: Isa
Yes, we've gone over your Chinese menu of dogma before.  Your coreligionists also had a lot of problems with it. But that's between you and them.
No one has disagreed with me over my interpretation of the dogma of the IC.  No one has challenged my right to believe the dogma of the IC as an Oriental, without adhering to Latin theologoumenon about it.  The only one in a huff about it is you.  It's not good for your blood pressure, you know.

Quote from: Isa
Actually it does, and Fr. Pachwa was honest enough to address it.  Death is the result, original sin the cause.
Which demonstrates how ignorant you truly are about the dogma.  The dogma does not deny that Mary died because of original sin. It simply states that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.  Since you have been lurking on the CAF, you might want to look at the newest posts on the matter. 

Quote from: Isa
I'd dredge up a lot of statements of the Vatican's followers issued in less touchy feely times, but I think we can nip it in the bud without that:  If you go up to your priest and state that you deny the IC, is it a mortal sin or not?
Yes, let's nip this in the bud right now.  Since you claim that excommunication is a condemnation to hell, then you must agree that the early Church was all about condemning people to hell.  But we all know that the EO do not believe that excommunication is a condemnation to hell.  You are just being a very dishonest apologist for the EOC, and an even worse polemicist against the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,013


WWW
« Reply #453 on: January 12, 2009, 01:04:35 AM »

The dogma does not deny that Mary died because of original sin. It simply states that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.

Why was the Virgin Mary specifically preserved from this stain of original sin?  Where is it specified in Scripture?  In Holy Traditions?  By Church Fathers?  Even famous Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas had issues with the IC.  Is the Pieta now doctrinal proof of the IC; The Virgin Mary who gave birth to Christ also had to be pure to receive the blood of Jesus Christ?  I don't understand; Please forgive me.   angel
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 #454 on: January 12, 2009, 01:48:14 AM »

As Father Ambrose pointed out, it seems to be a lot of Latins speaking about what we believe.  Some make good arguments against the IC.  Btw, the lone Orthodox Volodymyr does have you on the issue of the person being a body and a soul, and that the Orthodox do not call the All-Holy Theotokos "Sinless."  We do call Christ "the only sinless one" in Matins.
Now you're just being silly.  The matins obviously refers to the fact that Christ is the only one who is NATURALLY sinless.  Mary, though sinless, was sinless only by the grace of God.  Otherwise, if you take the statement too far, you will be heterodox in your belief that Mary sinned during her life.  I'm not willing to assign heterodoxy to the EOC because of the statements in the Matins; the heterodoxy rests in you by your blasphemous interpretation of it.  And I already responded to brother Volodomyr.  Until he can respond, don't bother singing praises about his argument.

I'd sing them there but  police.

He is correct, correctly believing, i.e. Orthodox.

Quote from: Isa
They shouldn't be a minority (the IC types were a minority in the West once too), they should be anathema.

Quote
Yes, this demonstrates that the EO are willing to condemn people to hell.

No, just cut off gangerous limbs.  That is the job of Ecumenical Councils, for instance.

Quote from: Isa
Yes, we've gone over your Chinese menu of dogma before.  Your coreligionists also had a lot of problems with it. But that's between you and them.
Quote
No one has disagreed with me over my interpretation of the dogma of the IC.  No one has challenged my right to believe the dogma of the IC as an Oriental, without adhering to Latin theologoumenon about it.  The only one in a huff about it is you.  It's not good for your blood pressure, you know.

Not in a huff at all.  After all, it doesn't involve me or my own.  Of course the Latins don't challenge your right to believe the dogma of the IC as an Oriental: it's part of the submission to the Latin Vatican, adopting Latin dogma.  They have challenged you a bit over your distancing yourself from the Latins, and the idea of the pope's power being limited: that doesn't go well with ultramontanism.

Quote from: Isa
Actually it does, and Fr. Pachwa was honest enough to address it.  Death is the result, original sin the cause.
Quote
Which demonstrates how ignorant you truly are about the dogma.  The dogma does not deny that Mary died because of original sin. It simply states that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.  Since you have been lurking on the CAF, you might want to look at the newest posts on the matter.


Can't lurk from this IP. police

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the distinctions without a difference, statements that are said to deny their logical conclusions, etc.  So, pray tell, what is that STAIN all about?

Quote from: Isa
I'd dredge up a lot of statements of the Vatican's followers issued in less touchy feely times, but I think we can nip it in the bud without that:  If you go up to your priest and state that you deny the IC, is it a mortal sin or not?
Quote
Yes, let's nip this in the bud right now.  Since you claim that excommunication is a condemnation to hell, then you must agree that the early Church was all about condemning people to hell.  But we all know that the EO do not believe that excommunication is a condemnation to hell.  You are just being a very dishonest apologist for the EOC, and an even worse polemicist against the Catholic Church.

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment. M.D.

How you figure that you come sailing safely into the harbor of heaven when you have "shipwrecked" your Faith is beyond me.  That is what you pope says.  Now, is it a mortal sin, or not?

Btw, you stated, I've seen, that rejection of the IC entails rejection of the Third Ecumenical Council, because it condemned Pelagius based on St. Augustine.  How do you figure that, as St. Augustine was not at the council and it is doubtful that the Fathers at the Council had read him.  Pelagius himself was sent back West, as a foreign in the East. Pope Zosimus, of course, exonerated him until St. Augustine and the Church of Carthage forced Rome to see the light.  Even then, I don't think Pelagius is mentioned, although the Council condemned his fellow heretic Caelestius.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 02:01:32 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #455 on: January 13, 2009, 07:45:43 AM »

I came on here because I was not getting any responses to my question at CAF. If any of you have been lurking on CAF, you will notice that the thread I started is finally getting a lot of participation,

Dear Marduk,

I hope that I may say, with the approval of the Moderators, that you are very welcome here.  Unfortunately, since the Great Purge of 2007 on CAF no Orthodox are welcome there.

I was looking at the new thread "The Sack of Constantinople - 800 Years Later" and after 40 replies there is NOT ONE contribution from anybody from the Orthodox Church.  It is simply Latin Catholics engaging in Orthodox bashing.  It proves what I am saying - CAF is much the poorer for driving away the Orthodox.   Prior to the 2007 CAF Massacre there would have been 6 or more Orthodox contributing to that thread and offering another viewpoint and creating a real discussion. 

There is only one Catholic -bobzills- who has made a courageous attempt to present the Orthodox view (message 37.)  I salute him.

----
I have just had a fresh look at the discussion and was dismayed to see you attacking bobzills for "contributing nothing to the discussion."  In fact he alone has not indulged in ortho bashing and he has provided the thread with two important historical quotes which help to explain the Orthodox feelings.  In other words he was right on topic!

« Last Edit: January 13, 2009, 08:11:32 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,307


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #456 on: January 13, 2009, 12:41:28 PM »

The dogma does not deny that Mary died because of original sin. It simply states that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin. 

Is this how you are distinguishing original sin and the stain of original sin?

Original sin (committed by the primal couple) means that all humans suffer from the "stains" of original sin, that is (1) death; and (2) concupiscence?

Mary was thus preserved from stain #2, not stain #1.

Would that be a correct interpretation of the Latin dogma?

« Last Edit: January 13, 2009, 12:45:49 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #457 on: April 08, 2009, 09:44:32 AM »

Mary represents the participation of earth and humanity in God`s plan of the Salvation of the World , our contribution . Mary represents the earth (wich i understand in greek is feminine)(and as it says it psalm 84:Trueth springs forth from the earth,and righteousness looks down from heaven). and Holy Spirit represents the Sky , the tempt of The Skies , and the masculine . Together it represents the reconciliation of the earth and Sky , and the earth becoming the shadow of the Sky.The earth becoming worthy to be God`s Bride , but by Grace , remmeber Mary said:My heart rejoice in the Lord , my Saviour . The participation of the earth to the Wedding took part when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and became Immaculated , like the Holy Spirit when Her Sins were washed and she received in Her Womb , the Word of God . The Incarnation of the Word of God represents the Wedding of the heavens with earth , the unification of God`s nature with human nature , The son of God became man , and incarnated into human nature so that Men can become God . The son of God was also the son of man . Perfect God and Perfect Man was Jesus . In Him was represented the image of the wedding between God and people , by His two natures . He inherit the human nature from Mary and God`s nature from Holy Spirit , conforming to the Creed . Mary became therefore an iconomy of the Holy Spirit , the earth became an iconomy of heavens .Heavens was on earth now , God was on earth . Mary represents the New Eve and Jesus represents the New Adam . They represent the two fallen human natures both lifted up by God`s Grace , Love and Mercy . The daughter of men , the virgin , became the daughter of God , The Son of Man was the Son of God from eternity . Mary and Jesus represent the lifting of the two human natures at heavens and the skies . The birth of Jesus from Mary represents the descend of heavens on earth and the ascend of human nature at the right hand of God , in Heaven . The rising of earth to the Skies . Jesus descend so that we can ascend . Mary represents the ladder on wich Jesus descend and Jesus represents the ladder on wich Mary ascended . As it is written "women will be save by giving birth . "
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 09:53:53 AM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #458 on: April 10, 2009, 04:21:53 PM »

This has been gnawing at me whether or not Mary was assumed soul then body.

Using logic, IF Mary (the greatest of all earthly saints) was not assumed into heaven, would we not expect that her burial place complete with her remains be preserved in perpetua?   After all the disciples made sure that the bones and relics of Sts Peter and Paul, Stephen, etc etc. were preserved.    The Mother of God's relics not being preserved.....unthinkable.

Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #459 on: April 10, 2009, 04:25:53 PM »

This has been gnawing at me whether or not Mary was assumed soul then body.

Using logic, IF Mary (the greatest of all earthly saints) was not assumed into heaven, would we not expect that her burial place complete with her remains be preserved in perpetua?   After all the disciples made sure that the bones and relics of Sts Peter and Paul, Stephen, etc etc. were preserved.    The Mother of God's relics not being preserved.....unthinkable.


I wasn't aware that there were any bodily relics of the Theotokos at all. I.e. she was assumed bodily.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #460 on: April 10, 2009, 04:30:13 PM »

This has been gnawing at me whether or not Mary was assumed soul then body.

Using logic, IF Mary (the greatest of all earthly saints) was not assumed into heaven, would we not expect that her burial place complete with her remains be preserved in perpetua?   After all the disciples made sure that the bones and relics of Sts Peter and Paul, Stephen, etc etc. were preserved.    The Mother of God's relics not being preserved.....unthinkable.


I wasn't aware that there were any bodily relics of the Theotokos at all. I.e. she was assumed bodily.

Please read my post carefully.  I did not suppose she has any relics but if there was no assumption there surely would have to be some relics lying around in a heck of a lot of churches today.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #461 on: April 10, 2009, 04:37:14 PM »

Please read my post carefully.  I did not suppose she has any relics but if there was no assumption there surely would have to be some relics lying around in a heck of a lot of churches today.
I did. I was telling you that no one claims to have the remains of the Theotokos.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #462 on: April 10, 2009, 04:43:31 PM »


About the relics of the Mother of God, have a look at this message in another thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4071.msg70622.html#msg70622

Even the Roman Emperors hoped to find them and transfer them to Constantinople.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #463 on: April 10, 2009, 05:02:36 PM »

Please read my post carefully.  I did not suppose she has any relics but if there was no assumption there surely would have to be some relics lying around in a heck of a lot of churches today.
I did. I was telling you that no one claims to have the remains of the Theotokos.

My apologies, and what makes this even more interesting is that the Holy Orthodox Church, even without the outward sign of relics, chose not to make it a dogma of faith.  I think they didnt because the lack of relics made it obvious of what happened.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 05:03:35 PM by JoeS » Logged
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian Old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 194


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #464 on: April 19, 2009, 04:44:52 AM »

ХРИСТОСЪ ВОСКРЕСЕ!

And good health to everyone!

Some thoughts on Mother Mary and her conception.

I am sure I do not need to remind those here of the English Orthodox Liturgy which says, “By the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Savior save us.”

Other prayers go on, “ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God” and “the immaculate, spotless one.” I have heard more prayers in modern Orthodox churches on the feast of her when the immaculateness stressed, “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary” … “She is conceived...the only immaculate one” … “Having conceived the most pure dove.”

It appears that the Immaculate Conception is a large and renewed debate these days. Of all the literature I have seen about The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos, there is one book that stands out above the rest, by that very title. No other book, written in any language, more exhaustively or completely covers the Pangaea (All-holy one), the Meeter Theou (Mother of God), than this book. About 600 pages long and with more references than we find in most scholarly works, I remember being glad to see it. From the preface of this book there is this:

Being mindful of mindful of the words of St. Theodore the Studite, “It is better to contribute what one can than to leave the whole task undone,” we undertook this work of compiling the life of our most holy, most pure, most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

Here are some other noteworthy references.

2 Thess. 2:15 Stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught.

St. Ambrose - Mary’s life is a rule of life for all.

St. John of Damascus - The whole mystery of divine economy is personified in her.

In the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great there is this hymn of St. John of Damascus, “In thee, O full of grace, all creation, both the company of angels and the race of men doth rejoice. O hallowed temple and spiritual paradise, boast of virgins: from thee God was incarnate and became a child, He, our God Who existed before the ages, for He made your womb a throne, and He made thee more spacious than the heavens. In thee, full of grace, all creation doth rejoice; glory be to thee!”

Page 1 begins -

The Orthodox Church accepts the validity of the information supplied in the first five chapters of the Protoevangelium of James concerning the conception by the righteous foremother of Christ, Anna.

Further on there is part of a chant from St. Romanos - “But with joy the barren woman bears the Theotokos who sustains our life.”

The Archangel Gabriel appeared to Righteous Joachim saying, “…that which is born may be acknowledged to be the gift of God and not the product of lust… According to thy vow, she shall be devoted to the Lord from her infancy, and she will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from her mother’s womb. Mary shall not eat or drink anything unclean, nor shall her conversation or life be among the crowds of the people, but in the temple of the Lord, that it might not be possible to say, or so much as to suspect, any evil concerning her.”

The Archangel Gabriel then appeared to Righteous Anna speaking of the conception of Mary, “She shall never know a man, but alone, without precedent, as an immaculate and undefiled virgin, without intercourse with man, she shall bring forth a Son.”

Thus the Church chants, in regard to conception of Mary, that the pre-eternal Word has now made for Himself a holy throne on earth, having prepared a living heaven in His love for man. For from a barren root He has made a life-giving branch springing up for us, even His mother.

St. Ambrose of Milan - “Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

As for myself, I personally believe that it is valid Holy Baptism which works to wash away all sin. After reading that book I have come away believing that the real problems with the Immaculate Conception is how the Roman Catholic Church defined it as dogma using the confused ideas of original and ancestral sin put forth by Augustine.

It is true that Mary needed a savior and grace from God, just like everyone else. In the beginning of the Holy Gospel of Luke Mary says she rejoiced in her Savior.

In the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles her preeminent position among the women is shown when she is mentioned by name.

So long as we do not call her an angel, God or add some heretical Latin notion to her like Augustine’s ancestral sin then things should not be too bad. The devil is in the details though.

Mary’s unique virtue was that she so pleased God by the cleansing of her asceticism towards Him that she is proclaimed blessed among women.

Georgios Scholarios, 15th century defender of the Immaculate Conception, voted for union at the Council of Florence, and later became Patriarch of Constantinople after it had fallen to the Turks. Having looked closely at the problems during this time I have not seen anything showing Mark of Ephesus disapproving of the Immaculate Conception either. Mark did not seem to stand up for all the Orthodox positions on things, which would have made his case stronger. I think time has shown how things really are with the Latin captivity of Orthodoxy.

Fr Casimir Kucharek, a Ukrainian Catholic priest, explains, “The great St Gregory Palamas himself (d.1359) believed that Mary was purified from the very first of her existence.” He said that the Greek Orthodox Church believed the Immaculate Conception until the 15th century when Greek theologians began to propose the idea of Mary being only made immaculate at her Annunciation.

But belief in the Immaculate Conception in eastern Slavs was undisturbed until the late 17th century when the Skirzhal (Book of Laws appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered as a “novel doctrine” of the Greeks (that the Theotokos was purified at the Annunciation).
 
Kucharek says these “new” views were branded blasphemous by the Russian Old Believers, who maintained the ancient customs/traditions however small or inconsequential.

[This does not say that the Old Believers accept the Augustinian ideas of the original or ancestral sin attached to the relatively modern Latin dogma, with its errors concerning Immaculate Conception of Mary.]

Fr Kucharek points out that when Greek Patriarch Anthimos VII wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, listing what he believed to be the errors of the Latin’s, the Patriarch found no fault with the Latin belief of the Immaculate Conception, but objected to the Pope defining it as a required dogmate. (I add that it is doubtful that the Patriarch's reply was drafted all alone by him, but rather he was assisted by his inner group of bishops and theologians alongside him).

The Russian Orthodox Church Synod of 1666 had approved Simeon Polatski’s Zezl Pravlenia (Rod of Direction), wherein it states textually, “Mary was exempt from original sin beginning with her conception.” I also learned that this Synod, which many suggest was nearly an Ecumenical Council (due to so many different Orthodox authorities being present) also accepted (for the first time in Russia) the sprinkle form of baptism offered by the Latin’s. So if anyone has accepted the errors of the Latin’s in so many areas it were those who followed in this Synod.

Forgive, John
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 04:47:56 AM by Hopeful Faithful » Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #465 on: April 19, 2009, 05:53:27 AM »

Dear Hopeful Faithful , I must first confess I have never got the chance to read the apocrypha Protoevanghelium of James , and I am curious to know : Did Anna and Joachim had another child after Mary ? Did Mary had a sister or a brother? Christ is Risen!
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 05:53:51 AM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #466 on: April 20, 2009, 01:57:32 AM »

Christ is Risen!

Greetings to All:

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, several questions always arise in my mind regarding the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as it is officially defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

The first question, and the most obvious to me, is how does this dogma include Mary, the Glorious Lady Theotokos, in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ for all mankind?

Doesn't this doctrine essentially separate Mary from the rest of the human race, and thus also separate her from the same human conditions which made it necessary for God to directly enter human history, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, for our collective spiritual salvation?

And if the Roman Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception is true, how can we really consider the fruit of Mary's womb, Jesus, to be truly human like the rest of us, as well as divine in nature? It feels to me as if the Immaculate Conception elevates Mary to a divine status, too, as the Co-Redemptrix of the human race, et al.

I feel theologically uncomfortable with these doctrinal developments, while yet retaining great love and admiration for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary expressed by my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ glorified!  Cool 

+Cosmos

« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 01:59:59 AM by Cosmos » Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #467 on: April 20, 2009, 10:59:45 AM »

Christ is Risen!

Greetings to All:

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, several questions always arise in my mind regarding the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as it is officially defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

The first question, and the most obvious to me, is how does this dogma include Mary, the Glorious Lady Theotokos, in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ for all mankind?
You can save a person by pulling them out of a hole or by not allowing them to fall in the hole in the first place. Through the merits and foreknowledge of Christ's redemptive sacrifcie, God kept Mary from falling into the hole of Original Sin and, thus, God is still her Saviour.
Doesn't this doctrine essentially separate Mary from the rest of the human race, and thus also separate her from the same human conditions which made it necessary for God to directly enter human history, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, for our collective spiritual salvation?
It does not separate her from the human race. Adam and Eve were not separate fromt the human race because they were created without original sin, thus, neither is the Virgin Mary. Further, she needed saving from the same condition that the rest of us needed saving from. The only difference was that she was saved before falling into the hole, while rest of us were saved after we fell in.
And if the Roman Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception is true, how can we really consider the fruit of Mary's womb, Jesus, to be truly human like the rest of us, as well as divine in nature? It feels to me as if the Immaculate Conception elevates Mary to a divine status, too, as the Co-Redemptrix of the human race, et al.
How does the IC stop Mary from being human? Original Sin is not intrinsic to human nature. Adam and Eve were not created with Original sin yet they were still human before the fall. The fact that they did not have Original Sin did not change their nature into something non-human.
Jesus himself is further evidence that original sin is not something necessary to our humanity. He did not have Original Sin and yet he was fully human.
As for the title of Co-Redemptrix, first of all, it is not an official title of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church. However, do you know what the title means? Notice it is not "redemptrix" but "co-redemptrix." It is the woman who works with the redeemer. It does not mean that she herself redeems us because Christ is our Redeemer.  Rather, she participated in redemption in a more intimate way than any mere created being in all of history. The theology behind the title, "Co-redemptrix", is the theology of the Fathers concerning Mary as the "New Eve".
I feel theologically uncomfortable with these doctrinal developments, while yet retaining great love and admiration for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary expressed by my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ glorified!  Cool 

+Cosmos


Glory to God for our common love and devotion to the Holy and Immaculate Theotokos.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 11:02:07 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #468 on: April 20, 2009, 05:53:33 PM »

Clearly by definition, promoting the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix of the human race gives her equal status with Christ, Who alone made His Redemptive sacrifice once and for all. Mary is unquestionably unique among all humans who have ever lived in that she willingly, and with terrible foreknowledge of what it meant to do so, accepted the role of Theotokos, the Mother of God. While she is unquestionably highest in rank among those who can intercede with Christ on our behalf, it is a theological stretch to assign her the title of Co-Redemptrix in the literal sense. Although her role was undeniably crucial in God's plan for our salvation, she did not make the ultimate redemptive sacrifice.

Logic would suggest that Mary, of all people, knowing more intimately than anyone of the Divine Glory unique to the Son of God, would never presume to even accept such a status for herself, much less insist that mankind should believe such of her in order to be saved. The Mother of God has always, from the beginning, pointed to the fruit of her womb, Jesus, as the long awaited Mashiach, the Divinely Annointed One, Who alone is Christ.







+Cosmos
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 05:57:47 PM by Cosmos » Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #469 on: April 20, 2009, 09:01:22 PM »

Clearly by definition, promoting the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix of the human race gives her equal status with Christ, Who alone made His Redemptive sacrifice once and for all.




+Cosmos
I guess you didn't read my post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #470 on: April 20, 2009, 10:05:50 PM »

Dear Papist:

I did read your post, and I agree with most of it, except I never stated that the Immaculate Conception prevents Mary from being truly human, but rather that it prevents Jesus from being truly human. So, unless that was a typographical error on your part, it would appear that you misread my previous post. Tag, you're it! Wink

I was primarily responding most recently to the general concept of assigning the title of Co-Redemptrix of the human race to the Blessed Virgin, not specifically to you personally. Please accept my humble apology for any confusion I may have unwittingly created in posting my comments immediately following yours.  Embarrassed

In the Spirit of Brotherly Love, please allow me to echo your beautiful closing prayer:

Glory to God for our common love and devotion to the Holy and Immaculate Theotokos!  Cool

+Cosmos
Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #471 on: April 21, 2009, 12:55:26 AM »

Dear Papist:

I did read your post, and I agree with most of it, except I never stated that the Immaculate Conception prevents Mary from being truly human, but rather that it prevents Jesus from being truly human. So, unless that was a typographical error on your part, it would appear that you misread my previous post. Tag, you're it! Wink

I was primarily responding most recently to the general concept of assigning the title of Co-Redemptrix of the human race to the Blessed Virgin, not specifically to you personally. Please accept my humble apology for any confusion I may have unwittingly created in posting my comments immediately following yours.  Embarrassed

In the Spirit of Brotherly Love, please allow me to echo your beautiful closing prayer:

Glory to God for our common love and devotion to the Holy and Immaculate Theotokos!  Cool

+Cosmos
Please forgive me for misunderstanding your post in anyway, and please also forgive the mistakes in my posting.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #472 on: April 22, 2009, 05:30:23 PM »

Please forgive me for misunderstanding your post in anyway, and please also forgive the mistakes in my posting.

Thank you, brother!  Smiley

We are all imperfect and sinful by nature. It is exactly for this reason that we must be ever vigilant in properly discerning the source of our religious beliefs, and our spiritual interpretations of them. It would seem to hold true for all of us, that the more complicated our theology becomes, especially intellectually, the more likely we are to err through misunderstanding and misinterpretation of it. This may not be due to poor intention or egoistic vanity, per se, but rather as a result of our natural imperfection.  Embarrassed

For pious men and women of faith and devotion, however, the message of Jesus Christ revealed in the Gospels is profound in its Holy Wisdom, yet simple to understand and follow for those who choose to open their minds, hearts and souls to the Word of Truth through the Grace of God and the guidance of His Holy Spirit.  Cool

May the Love and Light of Christ, Risen in Glory, be with you always!

+Cosmos
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 05:34:05 PM by Cosmos » Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #473 on: June 04, 2009, 01:05:17 PM »

Clearly by definition, promoting the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix of the human race gives her equal status with Christ, Who alone made His Redemptive sacrifice once and for all. Mary is unquestionably unique among all humans who have ever lived in that she willingly, and with terrible foreknowledge of what it meant to do so, accepted the role of Theotokos, the Mother of God. While she is unquestionably highest in rank among those who can intercede with Christ on our behalf, it is a theological stretch to assign her the title of Co-Redemptrix in the literal sense. Although her role was undeniably crucial in God's plan for our salvation, she did not make the ultimate redemptive sacrifice.

Logic would suggest that Mary, of all people, knowing more intimately than anyone of the Divine Glory unique to the Son of God, would never presume to even accept such a status for herself, much less insist that mankind should believe such of her in order to be saved. The Mother of God has always, from the beginning, pointed to the fruit of her womb, Jesus, as the long awaited Mashiach, the Divinely Annointed One, Who alone is Christ.



Sigh. Catholics who believe in the "Co-Redemptrix" do NOT believe that she has equal status with Our Lord Jesus Christ.

For a more accurate exposition of the Catholic belief on the "Co-Redemptrix" please read this:

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=19&Itemid=


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 #474 on: June 04, 2009, 02:00:00 PM »

Clearly by definition, promoting the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix of the human race gives her equal status with Christ, Who alone made His Redemptive sacrifice once and for all. Mary is unquestionably unique among all humans who have ever lived in that she willingly, and with terrible foreknowledge of what it meant to do so, accepted the role of Theotokos, the Mother of God. While she is unquestionably highest in rank among those who can intercede with Christ on our behalf, it is a theological stretch to assign her the title of Co-Redemptrix in the literal sense. Although her role was undeniably crucial in God's plan for our salvation, she did not make the ultimate redemptive sacrifice.

Logic would suggest that Mary, of all people, knowing more intimately than anyone of the Divine Glory unique to the Son of God, would never presume to even accept such a status for herself, much less insist that mankind should believe such of her in order to be saved. The Mother of God has always, from the beginning, pointed to the fruit of her womb, Jesus, as the long awaited Mashiach, the Divinely Annointed One, Who alone is Christ.



Sigh. Catholics who believe in the "Co-Redemptrix" do NOT believe that she has equal status with Our Lord Jesus Christ.

For a more accurate exposition of the Catholic belief on the "Co-Redemptrix" please read this:

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=19&Itemid=




Yes, I've posted Dr. Miravalle's thoughts on this matter:
The other day I was listening to Mark Miravelle, the president of the Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici crowd who are trying to push the Vatican to proclaiming Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix dogma.  He always makes my eyes roll.  Anyway, he challenging listeners who disagreed with the dogma to call in (Unfortunately I was driving so couldn't).  When someone called in for some Biblical support, he repeated the same MIStranslation of Genesis 3:15 as was in Ineffibilius Deus.  Btw, on Dr. M and his pet project:
Quote
""Personally, I'm confident that there will be this recognition of Marian truth before the year 2000,'' says Prof. Mark Miravalle, 39, the leader of the petition drive and a lay theologian at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. Miravalle has met with the pope several times and published three books since launchinghis bold initiative at a Marian conference in 1993. An infallible papal definition, he says, would put these doctrines ""at the highest level of revealed truth.''

Rumors of the potential new dogma have triggered blister-ing criticism from other Christian denominations and ignited a battle within the church itself. ""Calling Mary a Co-Redeemer is a heresy in the simplest sense,'' says the Rev. George G. Passias, chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/96053

I remember the article well when it came out (Aug. 1997). What did the Bible say about false prophets? Dr. M. went on, when asked about the Fathers, to quote Maxilimilian Kolbe, that the Holy Spirit is "the Uncreated Immaculate Conception."
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=441:st-maximilian-kolbe-part-iv-the-holy-spirit-the-uncreated-immaculate-conception&catid=116:marycast&Itemid=592
which also has another example of how the filioque deforms Trinitarian theology.  The nice portrayal of contraception can be done with the correct dogma on the Most Holy Trinity. A quote from Dr. M's book
http://books.google.com/books?id=8RBQWc9fWacC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=uncreated+Immaculate+conception&source=bl&ots=kLpA-nuWIf&sig=TFwdhk6lI4Ah0DCe_2-jWh4ajtU&hl=en&ei=PzUZStKgJMuJtgeu5eDiDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
reveals the same.  Fr. Ambrose has warned about the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin" which no doubt will be the next "development of dogma" should the Co-Redemptrix be proclaimed.  The fact that an accredited theology at a institution of religious higher learning can make such statements on an apostolate broadcast to across the country (and, via the web, the world), as Dr. Miravalle is and did, should be enough warning of the seriousness.  He is not a famous Mariologist but a infamous Mariolatrist.

In was interesting that Dr. Miravelli was at pains to point out that he was not quoting visionaries (though Kolbe claimed to have seen the Virgin).  Perhaps the critiques, such as the able one at the Orthodox Information Center
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

are having their effect. It makes a passing reference to our own "Kolbe," and a telling comment on the Vox Populi and their ilk:
Quote
The Russian Orthodox priest, Fr Sergius Bulgakov, after his own pilgrimage to Lourdes, wrote: "The remembrance of this place embalmed by the presence invisible to our eyes, but clearly perceptible to our souls, of the most holy Mother of God, ...will remain among the dearest memories of our lives. At least in our hearts the interior dividing wall which separates us from the Roman Church has lost much of its opaqueness." Everyone's experience is his own, but this should be balanced by that of the Roman Catholic Robert Hugh Benson, quoted earlier, who experienced the dark side of the Lady of the Grotto. It should, perhaps, also be borne in mind that Fr Sergius' sophiology, considered very suspect by Orthodox theologians like St John (Maximovitch), may have affected his experience—"the Holy Spirit is manifest through the Virgin Mary—she is a creature but also no longer a creature."

[Here, as is her wont, Miriam is erring on the side of kindness, Bulgakov's teachings were not simply considered suspect but were formally condemned by the hierarchs of the Church Abroad and, in 1935, by the Patriarchate of Moscow.—ed.]

It is not obligatory for Roman Catholics to accept the apparitions even when their church has approved them, although some Marianists would like this changed, saying that official approval goes beyond permission to believe and involves infallibility.

Dr. Miravalle compared the Holy Spirit as a dove caught in the cage of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and until this dogma was proclaimed, this Grace could not be released.


EEEEEK!
I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:
Quote
The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle     
December 01 2007 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 02:06:42 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
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian Old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 194


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #475 on: June 19, 2009, 07:42:39 PM »

Good health to all.

The Preface of the Domostroi (a book with attribution to Sil'vestr, a priest serving in Moscow's Cathedral of the Annunciation from 1545-1556) opens with these words.

"This is an instruction and admonition to father-confessors to all Orthodox Christians. It tells you how you must believe in the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Mother of God, Christ's cross…"

The bold lettering is my own.

Forgive, brother John
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian Old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 194


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #476 on: June 19, 2009, 08:16:36 PM »

"This is an instruction and admonition to father-confessors to all Orthodox Christians. It tells you how you must believe in the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Mother of God, Christ's cross…"

I mistyped, sorry. It should go,

"This is an instruction and damonition of father-confessors..."

Forgive, brother John
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
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 #477 on: June 19, 2009, 09:10:39 PM »

Good health to all.

The Preface of the Domostroi (a book with attribution to Sil'vestr, a priest serving in Moscow's Cathedral of the Annunciation from 1545-1556) opens with these words.

"This is an instruction and admonition to father-confessors to all Orthodox Christians. It tells you how you must believe in the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Mother of God, Christ's cross…"

The bold lettering is my own.

Forgive, brother John


ПРЕЧИСТА is "Most Pure."  Непорочна is "immaculate."
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
Tags: Immaculate Conception 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   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 0.133 seconds with 55 queries.