• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Compiled threads on the Immaculate Conception

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,772
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NihilNominis said:
The Orthodox cannot accept the Immaculate Conception as it is stated by virtue of a very simple syllogism:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

The Orthodox believe that the "stain" or effect of Original Sin is mortality and death.

The Theotokos died.

Therefore, she was not preserved from all "stain" of Original Sin.

This syllogism does not preclude her deliverance from personal sin, nor even an indwelling of grace in her from the very moment of conception; it cannot be ignored, however, that the Orthdox view of original sin is entirely incompatible with the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception.
First, we don't know that she experienced a real death. We simply cannot know that. Second, even if she did, she was a member of the body of Christ and Christians are called to participate in the dying and rising of Christ. This would be true even if she were free from original sin.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Maryland
Jurisdiction
Rocor
Papist said:
Actually, there is no reason to make this conclusion. All we are saying is that Mary is like Adam and Eve were when they were created. Were they demigods?
They are thought to have existed in a Spiritualized body within an innocent existence. Were they to have remained so and the rest of us subject to having a fallen nature and fallen World to live in ( I guess the fall would have have been by other means..........but stick with me here), then yes. They would be seen as creatures above and different from the rest of us.

To claim Mary has a different type of soul removes her from our Christian experience. If the term "Demi-God" is too extreme, then fine. I was just illustrating the point that the RCC dogma removes her from the usual human experience which derails all kinds of things such a theosis as has been explained by others in this thread
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
56
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Papist said:
First, we don't know that she experienced a real death.
"We" do. She did.


Papist said:
Second, even if she did, she was a member of the body of Christ and Christians are called to participate in the dying and rising of Christ. This would be true even if she were free from original sin.
So we were created for death, not for life according to Roman Catholicism? I thought death came about as a result of the Fall.
 

NihilNominis

Newbie
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
0
First, we don't know that she experienced a real death. We simply cannot know that. Second, even if she did, she was a member of the body of Christ and Christians are called to participate in the dying and rising of Christ. This would be true even if she were free from original sin.
Munificentissiums Deus proclaims her death several times.  It must also be noted that Christ experienced death as a result of our own sins; He was born in the incorrupt state fitting His Divinity, and willingly bore the curse for us. 
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,699
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
47
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Marc1152 said:
They are thought to have existed in a Spiritualized body within an innocent existence. Were they to have remained so and the rest of us subject to having a fallen nature and fallen World to live in ( I guess the fall would have have been by other means..........but stick with me here), then yes. They would be seen as creatures above and different from the rest of us.

To claim Mary has a different type of soul removes her from our Christian experience. If the term "Demi-God" is too extreme, then fine. I was just illustrating the point that the RCC dogma removes her from the usual human experience which derails all kinds of things such a theosis as has been explained by others in this thread

Does the doctrine of the IC offer the danger of misinterpretation?  Of course.  Many dogmas do.  That is precisely why there is a Magisterium in the Catholic Church to guide the faithful to correct interpretation of any doctrine.  As a result, no Catholic believes Mary to a demi-god or even more than human.  She is, for us, the perfect human, to be sure.  She is our role model par excellance who shows us that we can also be full of grace if we attune our wills to the Will of God.  God blessed her exceedingly, but she was still born a human being of two human parents.

I can totally understand the Orthodox objections to the IC based upon the underlying cause of its proclamation: inherited guilt.  I'm not here to argue that, as its an old argument that always ends up with the participants talking past one another; it's been done before.  But every doctrine, Orthodox and Catholic, is up for misinterpretation.  For Catholics, the buck stops at the Magisterium, so to speak, and the underlying result of the IC, that Mary was chose not to sin during her life, is where the buck stops and the ultimate reason for the declaration of the IC.



 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Maryland
Jurisdiction
Rocor
Schultz said:
Does the doctrine of the IC offer the danger of misinterpretation?  Of course.  Many dogmas do.  That is precisely why there is a Magisterium in the Catholic Church to guide the faithful to correct interpretation of any doctrine.  As a result, no Catholic believes Mary to a demi-god or even more than human.  She is, for us, the perfect human, to be sure.  She is our role model par excellance who shows us that we can also be full of grace if we attune our wills to the Will of God.  God blessed her exceedingly, but she was still born a human being of two human parents.

I can totally understand the Orthodox objections to the IC based upon the underlying cause of its proclamation: inherited guilt.  I'm not here to argue that, as its an old argument that always ends up with the participants talking past one another; it's been done before.  But every doctrine, Orthodox and Catholic, is up for misinterpretation.  For Catholics, the buck stops at the Magisterium, so to speak, and the underlying result of the IC, that Mary was chose not to sin during her life, is where the buck stops and the ultimate reason for the declaration of the IC.
Luckily, our bucks don't stop at your Magisterium...but whatever floats your boat.

The IC idea puts Mary outside the normal human condition. Label that however you wish to.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,699
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
47
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Marc1152 said:
Luckily, our bucks don't stop at your Magisterium...but whatever floats your boat.
Nor did I say that it did.  In fact, I specifically said "For Catholics..."

The IC idea puts Mary outside the normal human condition. Label that however you wish to.
I disagree with your conclusion and it seems we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,559
Reaction score
261
Points
83
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Schultz said:
Does the doctrine of the IC offer the danger of misinterpretation?  Of course.  Many dogmas do.  That is precisely why there is a Magisterium in the Catholic Church to guide the faithful to correct interpretation of any doctrine.  As a result, no Catholic believes Mary to a demi-god or even more than human.  She is, for us, the perfect human, to be sure.  She is our role model par excellance who shows us that we can also be full of grace if we attune our wills to the Will of God.  God blessed her exceedingly, but she was still born a human being of two human parents.

I can totally understand the Orthodox objections to the IC based upon the underlying cause of its proclamation: inherited guilt.  I'm not here to argue that, as its an old argument that always ends up with the participants talking past one another; it's been done before.  But every doctrine, Orthodox and Catholic, is up for misinterpretation.  For Catholics, the buck stops at the Magisterium, so to speak, and the underlying result of the IC, that Mary was chose not to sin during her life, is where the buck stops and the ultimate reason for the declaration of the IC.
Why not just state that she was immaculate at the time of her death. Because that is when people will be judged. The title IC from birth leads people to believe that she couldn't sin even if she wanted too.




 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,699
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
47
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Demetrios G. said:
Why not just state that she was immaculate at the time of her death. Because that is when people will be judged. The title IC from birth leads people to believe that she couldn't sin even if she wanted too.
Even the Orthodox do not believe this.  At the very least, she was "full of grace" at the time of the Annunciation.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
NJ
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Coptic
I was wondering what Catholics here think of Leo's quote I provided in the other thread.  It would seem that that would contradict the idea of Immaculate Conception...perhaps immaculate at time of Christ's conception, but even that the only thing becoming immaculate by the Holy Spirit was the womb.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Papist said:
Those who are saved have a saviro, otherwise they would not be saved.
What's a saviro?  Is this some kind of tpyo?
 

theinformer

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For clarification, as orthodox we believe that the Virgin Mary was purged from original sin, when the angel came." "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee ..". We know that Jesus was sinless- but how can this be if humans arn't exempt or redeemed from this ancestral sin even though this occurs through our baptism?.
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Seattle, WA
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.0.html

You might do a search on "immaculate" and see what you find. I found 12 pages of threads!
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Why is this even in Liturgy, anyway?
 

chris

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
7,355
Reaction score
29
Points
48
Website
www.belarusancathedral.org
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OAA
Why is this thread in the Liturgy Forum? Because I had not yet moved it!

Now, let the debate begin!
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So the Immaculate Conception's a dogma? How many dogmas do the Orthodox Church have?


(OK I changed the Byzantine term in reference to the Orthodox)
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
alexp4uni said:
So the Immaculate Conception's a dogma? How many dogmas do the Byzantine Church have?
If by "Byzantine" you mean EO, I don't see how one can read the RC Immaculate Conception of Mary dogma into the above.
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Αριστοκλής said:
If by "Byzantine" you mean EO, I don't see how one can read the RC Immaculate Conception of Mary dogma into the above.
Pope Pius wrote his declaration of the Immaculate Conception for it to be declared the world over. Hence different interpretation of the Virgin Mary being raised in her status as Mediatrix of All Graces has been done by supposedly "misinformed" Catholics. Now Latin Apologist believe that over stressing Pope Pius fine tooth POV shows common understanding with the East.

However sin or no sin this has to do with how many dogmas one stresses in the Church in order to see if their is any structure held within the Church for the faithful to accept or not. (i.e. Does Rejecting The Virgin Mary's death and retaining the resurrection be standardized to the faithful?) Can it be possible to see a generic understanding of the Catholic view of the Assumption as an exaggerated part of the salvation by grace made by God while holding to the Dormition?[/s]
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Thanks, Alex. Now I must ascertain which is the greater confusion here:
Mine over what you are trying to to state, or your statement itself.  :)
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Original question was asking if Theologians to date can list the number of doctrines in order (i.e sotierology, mariology, ecclessiology, etc) in order for Orthodox to see if the Immaculate Conception was added to that list directly contravenes Orthodox Christian practice of worship, prayerlife and Theological study?

Could a scholastic approach on speculating the Virgin Mary's glorification be opposed to the liturgical life?
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
alexp4uni said:
The Original question was asking if Theologians to date can list the number of doctrines in order (i.e sotierology, mariology, ecclessiology, etc) in order for Orthodox to see if the Immaculate Conception was added to that list directly contravenes Orthodox Christian practice of worship, prayerlife and Theological study?

Could a scholastic approach on speculating the Virgin Mary's glorification be opposed to the liturgical life?
Grace and Peace alex4uni,

Honestly I can't really understand anything that you are asking the members of this forum so I'll not try but I will say this one thing... I am a Roman Catholic working his way through the Orthodox Tradition and I had a 'very' difficult time 'not' seeing the teaching of the Immaculate Conception in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church.

During the Dormition of our most Holy Lady we sang; "The Spotless Bride, the Mother of Him in whom the Father was well pleased, she who was foreordained by God to be the dwelling place of His union without confusion, delivers today her blameless soul to her Creator and her God...."

The fact the 'by God... she... was foreordained...." spoke much of what I as taught as a Roman Catholic concerning Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary. It was shocking to me after hearing so much polemical argument against this really shocked me during the Liturgy.

Could someone, a Priest or Seminarian, speak to me about this?  :-[
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Αριστοκλής said:
Who needs a priest? Was Mary born pre-redeemed?
I guess the question must be asked "did God 'ordain' Mary to be the dwelling place of His Son"?

Pope Sixtus IV wrote in his constitution Cum Praveexcelsa in 1477 AD:

"In His divine providence the almighty God looked from eternity on this humble virgin. Having prepared her by the Holy Spirit, he made her the dwelling place of His only-begotten in order to reconcile to its author the human nature that had been subject to eternal death through the fall of the first parents."

...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. ~ John 1:13

What can say of this? What can we say of God's handywork, it's simplicity and beauty? I continue to stand dumb before the majesty of Our All-Holy Lady Theotokos... immaculate... without stain....

Yes it is true that their is a law in our nature a flaw... an Original Sin but with every law is also the exception... Through a particular grace Mary remained sinless. Regardless whither we agree with the Immaculate Conception's totality we must admit that it is shocking the Mary remained sinless always....

I really just don't know what to say.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Of course she was 'chosen' to be offered the highest honor. She still could have, by her own volition, refused to do His will, and thus erring, in other words, sin. Only One was born without the capacity to sin, Christ.
Mary, yes, remains immaculate, ever-virgin, and pure.

I see you still tote some RC baggage about. That will subside if you cease looking back.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Αριστοκλής said:
Of course she was 'chosen' to be offered the highest honor. She still could have, by her own volition, refused to do His will, and thus erring, in other words, sin. Only One was born without the capacity to sin, Christ.
Grace and Peace,

When we look at the Incarnation... did not even Jesus Christ yield His human will to that of the divine? Did not the Holy Spirit in Christ glorify His human nature without making it cease to be human? Christ was 'by nature' what we become 'by adoption'. His humanity is in all things like our own except in our sinfulness. Can we not say the same with Mary Immaculate?

Mary, yes, remains immaculate, ever-virgin, and pure.
What is that which allowed her to escape sin? Was it the presence of grace? Do not we also share in this and yet fall short of purity? I continue to ponder this.

I see you still tote some RC baggage about. That will subside if you cease looking back.
I am sure that I am still, in many ways, Irish Catholic. I am so much more comfortable in an Irish Catholic Parish except for the strange theology. I don't doubt what you say but I am where I am and I am who I am. I can only speak from where I am and it is here where I struggle. Ultimately I feel not shame in this.
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,624
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
62
Location
Maryland
ignatius said:
When we look at the Incarnation... did not even Jesus Christ yield His human will to that of the divine? Did not the Holy Spirit in Christ glorify His human nature without making it cease to be human? Christ was 'by nature' what we become 'by adoption'. His humanity is in all things like our own except in our sinfulness. Can we not say the same with Mary Immaculate?
Well, uh, why? I have problems with the manner in which I see the IC disrupting the economy of salvation, but it also seems to me that when you get the point of saying that God could have done things thus and so, you have as much as admitted that He never indicated that he did.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Keble said:
Well, uh, why? I have problems with the manner in which I see the IC disrupting the economy of salvation, but it also seems to me that when you get the point of saying that God could have done things thus and so, you have as much as admitted that He never indicated that he did.
Exceptions to the rule never undermine the corporate fact of the necessity of the need of salvation. If Jeremias, who prophesied in groanings, was sanctified in the womb; and if St. John, the forerunner of the Lord, was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his mother, who dares to maintain that the ark of the Saviour of the whole world was deprived of the illumination of the Holy Spirit?

I don't believe that the fact of the corporate fallen nature of man means that God never allowed providential exceptions as He deemed fit for the corporate salvation of mankind.
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,624
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
62
Location
Maryland
ignatius said:
Exceptions to the rule never undermine the corporate fact of the necessity of the need of salvation. If Jeremias, who prophesied in groanings, was sanctified in the womb; and if St. John, the forerunner of the Lord, was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his mother, who dares to maintain that the ark of the Saviour of the whole world was deprived of the illumination of the Holy Spirit?

I don't believe that the fact of the corporate fallen nature of man means that God never allowed providential exceptions as He deemed fit for the corporate salvation of mankind.
I must confess I find you response to be not only a complete non sequitur, but a repetition of the exact defect which I decried. Luke plainly writes of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, so the point needs no discussion. However, the Holy Spirit comes upon many people in scripture, not excepting all the surviving disciples at Pentecost and (one presumes) Balaam's ass.

But more to the point, your second paragraph is not an argument. It is merely an expression of your sentiment that the Theotokos merited (not of herself, but because of her place in the economy of salvation) the special treatment you would have us believe that she did receive. I would hold that determination of such merit is given only to the Father, and not to men. It is not for us to dictate to God that he heed our sentiments-- or even our deductions-- in such matters. Only revelation is adequate to justify such claims to knowledge.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Keble said:
I must confess I find you response to be not only a complete non sequitur, but a repetition of the exact defect which I decried. Luke plainly writes of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, so the point needs no discussion. However, the Holy Spirit comes upon many people in scripture, not excepting all the surviving disciples at Pentecost and (one presumes) Balaam's ass.
Yes and Luke plainly writes of the Holy Spirit coming upon Our Lord and Saviour as well, are you going to use the same argument that Our Lord was somehow without Grace prior to His Baptism? I understand that 'actual' grace can precede or accompany us but Tradition might argue that these should not be confused with 'sanctifying' grace with enlivens the soul to new life and not only a mere prompting to do the divine will for the sake of His Providence.

I can appreciate you not agreeing with me but you need not be so smug about it. Simply offer what you will in a kind tone please.

But more to the point, your second paragraph is not an argument. It is merely an expression of your sentiment that the Theotokos merited (not of herself, but because of her place in the economy of salvation) the special treatment you would have us believe that she did receive. I would hold that determination of such merit is given only to the Father, and not to men. It is not for us to dictate to God that he heed our sentiments-- or even our deductions-- in such matters. Only revelation is adequate to justify such claims to knowledge.
You presume that 'I' am determining this and that 'I' an dictating to God. This need not be the case. You are merely dismissing my sentiment as invalid offhand.

Personally, I don't believe it is particular constructive to work this out 'here' among those who have a history in tension with such a teaching. Clearly it is not going to get a non-biased hearing when so much of your own teachings are on the line. I would rather like to hear an alternative than to simply have my Catholic views criticized as the later is obviously going to be motivated by bias no?

It just seems more reactionary than anything and smug to boot.

All that I'm saying is that I have before the Feast of the Dormition heard polemics against the idea that Mary was 'ordained' beforehand and yet the teaching is embedded in the Divine Liturgy. I found that shocking and it opened up a a flood of thoughts concerning the foundation for the Immaculate Conception which I have been raised and taught for many years. I feel that Orthodox polemicists have been misrepresenting their own Liturgical Theology to mask what might support a Catholic Dogma. As one making his way, with his whole family, through Orthodoxy it is a bit troubling. It causes one to pause and reconsider what is being taught.

I don't feel it's necessary for me to offer a complete apology on the Immaculate Conception in order to discuss my concerns about letting it go as I embrace Orthodoxy or not. I find it good enough that those who are hear understand that I feel a particularly strong belief in it. If I thought it was something that would benefit everyone here then I would offer argument for the Immaculate Conception but honestly I have heard both sides of the issue and I would agree that there is reasonable doubt on either side but after hearing what I heard during the Feast of the Dormition concerning Blessed Virgin Mary I felt the scales tilt a little in favor of the Immaculate Conception. That is simply where I am.

That said if everyone thought it would be beneficial I don't mind offering a more complete teaching on the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception but I honestly feel it's just going to devolve into a polemical shouting match. What good is that really? I mean everyone here has a real rationale to 'hold on to their faith tradition' which isn't going to make hearing an apology on the Immaculate Conception particular appealing. That said what the hey....
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
I've continued to give this a great deal of thought and I still feel really torn. I welcome any thoughts and feels on this by anyone.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
56
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ignatius said:
I've continued to give this a great deal of thought and I still feel really torn.
Torn between what?

ignatius said:
I welcome any thoughts and feels on this by anyone.
There are plenty of them: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=1286
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
ozgeorge said:
Torn between what?
There are plenty of them: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=1286
I tend to believe in the 'foreordained office of the Holy Theotokos'. This seems to be in opposition to the polemic against this position written by St. John Maximovitch and The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God. I'm not proud of this but I seem to find myself here.

 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
You know that Immaculate Conception does not exist in Orthodox belief.

I don't know how to convince you other than to cite the Old Testament references to Jacob's ladder and the East Gate of Jerusalem which was closed until the Virgin Mary conceived Christ.  The Vespers readings for the Nativity (and Dormition) of the Theotokos are provided below:

Genesis 28:10-17; Ezekiel 43:27—44:4; Proverbs 9:1-11
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Genesis 28:10-17;
Mary, the Ladder by which the Son of Man descended from heaven to earth and by which man ascends from earth to heaven

Ezekiel 43:27—44:4;
Mary, the Gate by which God entered the world--passage also seen as a type of Mary's ever-virginity

Proverbs 9:1-11
Mary, the epitome of godly wisdom


SolEX01 said:
You know that Immaculate Conception does not exist in Orthodox belief.

I don't know how to convince you other than to cite the Old Testament references to Jacob's ladder and the East Gate of Jerusalem which was closed until the Virgin Mary conceived Christ.  The Vespers readings for the Nativity (and Dormition) of the Theotokos are provided below:
Nowhere in these OT readings for feasts of the Theotokos do we see anything whatsoever that proves (or disproves) the correctness of Orthodox objection to the Immaculate Conception.  I applaud your effort, but your case in citing these passages of Scripture is utterly non-existent.  You could certainly do better. ;)
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
PeterTheAleut said:
Nowhere in these OT readings for feasts of the Theotokos do we see anything whatsoever that proves (or disproves) the correctness of Orthodox objection to the Immaculate Conception.  I applaud your effort, but your case in citing these passages of Scripture is utterly non-existent.  You could certainly do better. ;)
I will try again.  ;)  I was trying to help ignatius clear his confusion by reminding him of who the Theotokos is and not what was taught about Her in the past.  ;)

The Catholics cite Genesis 3:15 for supporting the Immaculate Conception.  According to the Orthodox Study Bible, that passage has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary and how She was conceived.  The woman's seed is Christ and His Church while the serpent's seed are those who reject Christ and follow the Devil.  The enmity is between the woman's seed and the serpant's seed until the Cross was used to bruise the serpant's head.

Catholicism provides a different interpretation.  From "Scripture Catholic - The Blessed Virgin Mary":

Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed." This refers to Jesus (the "emnity") and Mary (the "woman"). The phrase "her seed" (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
The Merriam-Webter online diectionary defines enmity as: positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will.  If we contrast the Orthodox Study Bible and the Scripture Catholic website, Catholicism interprets Jesus as representing positive, active and mutual hatred or positive, active and mutual ill will.  I did not remember Scripture saying that Jesus mutually hated or had ill will towards anybody, not even Satan who tempted Him in the desert for 40 days or those who executed Him on the Cross.

Let's use another passage from the Scripture Catholic website:

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
I believe Uzzah was the last person to die in Scriptures from touching the Ark.  Once the Temple was constructed and the Ark placed in the Holy of Holies where no one would touch it, the Ark sat undisturbed until being carted away after the destruction of the Temple in 586 AD.

Anyway, according to the above passage, The Theotokos should have died when She conceived Christ (e.g. the Burning Bush who spoke to Moses in the desert) just like Uzzah.  Sts. Joachim and Anna also should have died like Uzzah when they conceived the Virgin Mary; hence, there would have been no Virgin Mary to conceive Christ.  Since Sts. Joachim and Anna were childless, they conceived a child just like Hannah conceived Samuel and others.  Do the Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception of Hannah or Samuel?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
^ I still don't see your point.

SolEX01 said:
I will try again.   ;)  I was trying to help ignatius clear his confusion by reminding him of who the Theotokos is and not what was taught about Her in the past.   ;)
The only way we know who the Theotokos is is because of what has been taught about her in the past.

The Catholics cite Genesis 3:15 for supporting the Immaculate Conception.  According to the Orthodox Study Bible, that passage has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary and how She was conceived.  The woman's seed is Christ and His Church while the serpent's seed are those who reject Christ and follow the Devil.  The enmity is between the woman's seed and the serpant's seed until the Cross was used to bruise the serpant's head.
The absence of a statement regarding the nature and ministry of the Theotokos in this passage does not preclude the legitimacy of seeing this in the passage.  After all, to use one of the readings you posited as an example, we see in the reading from Ezekiel a type of Mary's ever-virginity.  Yet the text of this passage speaks only of the east gate of the Temple--the Protestants with whom I've argued this passage are correct when they point out that this passage says absolutely nothing about the Theotokos.  Even so, we see in this passage a type of Our Lady, and rightly so.  So what's to keep RCs from reading into Genesis 3:15, which has nothing to do with the Virgin Mother, typology of her Immaculate Conception?  You would do much better to argue from something other than merely the text of the Scripture on this one.

Catholicism provides a different interpretation.  From "Scripture Catholic - The Blessed Virgin Mary":

The Merriam-Webter online diectionary defines enmity as: positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will.  If we contrast the Orthodox Study Bible and the Scripture Catholic website, Catholicism interprets Jesus as representing positive, active and mutual hatred or positive, active and mutual ill will.  I did not remember Scripture saying that Jesus mutually hated or had ill will towards anybody, not even Satan who tempted Him in the desert for 40 days or those who executed Him on the Cross.
The M-W definition of enmity is an arbitrary definition and maybe not the only legitimate one, so, again, I don't see this proving your point.  Remember that we're also talking about an English translation of the Hebrew texts.  Maybe the original Hebrew speaks of something that doesn't match exactly with our concept of enmity, be that the M-W definition or what have you, but enmity is the word that our translators selected as most closely approximating the ancient Hebrew idea.  Besides this, your understanding of how Jesus didn't show enmity as this is defined in the M-W dictionary artificially straitjackets how He did relate to His adversary, the devil.

Let's use another passage from the Scripture Catholic website:

I believe Uzzah was the last person to die in Scriptures from touching the Ark.  Once the Temple was constructed and the Ark placed in the Holy of Holies where no one would touch it, the Ark sat undisturbed until being carted away after the destruction of the Temple in 586 AD.

Anyway, according to the above passage, The Theotokos should have died when She conceived Christ (e.g. the Burning Bush who spoke to Moses in the desert) just like Uzzah.  Sts. Joachim and Anna also should have died like Uzzah when they conceived the Virgin Mary; hence, there would have been no Virgin Mary to conceive Christ.  Since Sts. Joachim and Anna were childless, they conceived a child just like Hannah conceived Samuel and others.  Do the Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception of Hannah or Samuel?
Again, how does this prove your point?
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
We know that the dogma of Immaculate Conception stems from the concept of Original Sin which comes from Holy Father St. Augustine.  St. Augustine lived 16 Centuries Ago and continues to confuse those interested in Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike.  My purpose was to directly challenge the Immaculate Conception using Orthodox views of the Scriptures to try to "clarify" the Orthodox view of Mary without delving into dogmas....

PeterTheAleut said:
The only way we know who the Theotokos is is because of what has been taught about her in the past.
Except that there has been a divergence in teachings about the Theotokos resulting in great confusion.

PeterTheAleut said:
The absence of a statement regarding the nature and ministry of the Theotokos in this passage does not preclude the legitimacy of seeing this in the passage.  After all, to use one of the readings you posited as an example, we see in the reading from Ezekiel a type of Mary's ever-virginity.  Yet the text of this passage speaks only of the east gate of the Temple--the Protestants with whom I've argued this passage are correct when they point out that this passage says absolutely nothing about the Theotokos.
Yes, the Protestants are right in saying that the passage from Ezekial says nothing about the Theotokos.  The Holy Fathers & Holy Tradition in the first couple of centuries formulated the coming of the Theotokos from the Old Testament Bible Passages.  We agree that when the Protestants discarded the Holy Fathers, they outright rejected those formulations about the Theotokos.  I realize that formulate may not be the right word except to state that the Church knew who the Theotokos was up until 1054, ho hum.  ;) 

PeterTheAleut said:
Even so, we see in this passage a type of Our Lady, and rightly so.  So what's to keep RCs from reading into Genesis 3:15, which has nothing to do with the Virgin Mother, typology of her Immaculate Conception?  You would do much better to argue from something other than merely the text of the Scripture on this one.
The Greek text of the Septuagint will support my argument.

PeterTheAleut said:
The M-W definition of enmity is an arbitrary definition and maybe not the only legitimate one, so, again, I don't see this proving your point.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines enmity as a feeling of hate

Greek lesson - the bolded word is the root word for εχθρος which means enemy.  The Greek word εχθρα also means enmity.  The passage is Genesis 3:15 from the Septuagint.

15 και εχθραν θησω ανα μεσον σου και ανα μεσον της
γυναικος και ανα μεσον του σπερματος σου και ανα μεσον
του σπερματος αυτης αυτος σου τηρησει κεφαλην και συ τηρησεις
αυτου πτερναν
PeterTheAleut said:
Again, how does this prove your point?
I felt the passage from 2 Samuel spoke for itself.  If the Holy Theotokos was the "old" Ark of the Convenant and people died for touching the Ark, then the conception of the Theotokos would result in death for St. Anna who conceived her; hence, no Theotokos.  Quite a simplistic argument but very powerful.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
SolEX01 said:
My purpose was to directly challenge the Immaculate Conception using Orthodox views of the Scriptures to try to "clarify" the Orthodox view of Mary without delving into dogmas....
And yet, the only Orthodox views of the Scriptures you provided are comments from the Orthodox Study Bible, which are so brief and scanty as to hardly even count as views.  Can you give us a good, meaty view of the Scriptures in question from one of the Holy Fathers of the Church?

The Greek text of the Septuagint will support my argument.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines enmity as a feeling of hate

Greek lesson - the bolded word is the root word for εχθρος which means enemy.  The Greek word εχθρα also means enmity.  The passage is Genesis 3:15 from the Septuagint.
Again with these dictionary definitions... ::)  Can such formal definitions encapsulate all the various shades of meaning assigned to this word in common usage or in ancient Greek usage?  IOW, it doesn't matter to this discussion what some book defines words to mean today; what matters is what the authors of the Scriptures in question intended the words to express when they wrote them.  Can the Merriam-Webster or Cambridge dictionaries tell us that?

I felt the passage from 2 Samuel spoke for itself.  If the Holy Theotokos was the "old" Ark of the Convenant and people died for touching the Ark, then the conception of the Theotokos would result in death for St. Anna who conceived her; hence, no Theotokos.  Quite a simplistic argument but very powerful.
I wonder if your argument is so simplistic as to be utterly powerless.
 
Top