Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.
Apples and oranges.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.
Apples and oranges.
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
Sorry bud. Bringing up the Iconoclast controversy, (which was settled by a council of the undivided Church), is apples and oranges.

I suggest you and Mark begin working on an agreed statement regarding the IC (as suggested by cleveland), so that we can continue the discussion.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
Sorry bud. Bringing up the Iconoclast controversy, (which was settled by a council of the undivided Church), is apples and oranges.
You sure love your fruit. Its not apples and oranges. The debate about iconoclasm exited for hundreds of years in one form or another and was not settled until the seventh ecumenical council. In the same way the issue surrounding how Mary was preserved from original sin was really not settled until the feast day was established.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Cleveland,

cleveland said:
Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Αριστοκλής said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Cleveland,

cleveland said:
Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
In the same way the issue surrounding how Mary was preserved from original sin was really not settled until the feast day was established.
Rome tried settled it on her own with Her innovative doctrine of the IC in 1854. And it looks like many within the RCC still do not understand it.

Apples and oranges.

Are you working on that common statement?  ;)
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Papist said:
Αριστοκλής said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Cleveland,

cleveland said:
Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.
520 only means you will not prevail here.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Rome tried settled it on her own with Her innovative doctrine of the IC in 1854. And it looks like many within the RCC still do not understand it.
Still not addressing the point and still using his radio talk show verbage that adds nada to the conversation.
Mickey said:
Apples and oranges.
And now he is drowing in what must by now be rotten fruit salad. :(
Mickey said:
Are you working on that common statement?  ;)
We already have one:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Αριστοκλής said:
Papist said:
Αριστοκλής said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Cleveland,

cleveland said:
Ok.  My confession: the above definition that I had quoted is from Wikipedia.  Here's some more, for Marduk and Papist to review for accuracy:

(Why am I doing this?  So that we have an agreed upon statement from the position of those who support the IC to then refer to if anyone wishes to dispute or refute the claims.)
Thanks.  I don't normally go on Wiki and didn't realize they had an entry for the IC.  I've heard that anyone can edit such entries?  I've heard of an Orthodoxwiki.  Is it run by the same people who do Wikipedia?  Are the entries on Orthodoxwiki regularly updated by Orthodox Christians?  Maybe Catholics should also make a concerted effort to make sure that info on the Catholic Church is accurate.

Once again, thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Orthodoxwiki (as one can tell if one actually visits the site) is owned and run by an Orthodox priest and has no connection with any other wiki beyond software (thank God).

Over 520 posts on the IC...does that not strike anyone that something is really wrong with his RC dogma? Beyond this instance, I quit reading this thread long ago.
Actually the 520 post number has only convinced me that there are many who are extremely stubborn and reject things just because they might be too Catholic. Quotes have been provided from the East that support either the IC or an idea similar to it and yet we continue to hear about how its a "Roman Innovation".  Such nonsense on the part of those who oppose the IC.
520 only means you will not prevail here.
Prevail? What is this a millitary battle? We're just having a discussion. Of course we won't convince you guys to change your mind. I have no plan of that because I assume that your convictions about your faith are just as stong as my convictions concerning my faith.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,884
Reaction score
57
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
cleveland said:
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
If we are not careful about how all this spreads, we will soon have an IC pandemic!  :D
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,884
Reaction score
57
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Papist said:
cleveland said:
All this go-around makes me want to merge all the site's threads on the IC and lock them.  We won't do that, but it's tempting.

I have merged a number of the other threads on this subject into a larger one (which is still smaller than this thread).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html
If we are not careful about how all this spreads, we will soon have an IC pandemic!  :D
The only pandemic seems to be "talking-past-one-another-itis," and it's already reached levels the CDC would panic about! :D
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?
I'll help you out. Here is what he said:

I don’t think the “merits of Christ” clause is necessary for my own belief in the dogma.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
Really? Let's let him speak for himself on this. Mardukm, do you reject the teaching that Immaculate Conception was merited by Christ's saving sacrifice?
I'll help you out. Here is what he said:

I don’t think the “merits of Christ” clause is necessary for my own belief in the dogma.
I want to let him answer for himself before I jump to conclusions.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
I want to let him answer for himself before I jump to conclusions.
Okay. Have a good weekend Chris. Don't drink too many cape cods.

Over and out.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
And I've given you what you believe are infallible statements (which you do not claim for your 1917 BC (what's with the CE nonsense?) and 17th cent. documents, do you?) maintaining the conection between the spiritual and physical:
I haven't seen them.  Are they the ones that state that while we are filled with Sanctifying Grace at Baptism (the same Sanctifying Grace Mary was filled with at the IC), we nevertheless die?  Can you quote those infallible statements again?

ialmisry said:
Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?
SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY
I don't know the purpose of this quote.  Can you explain?
It's the convenient link to those so called infallible statements, so I don't have to repeat myself (too much).


Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
I don't know what you find inconsistent. Is it the fact that the Catholic teaching on original sin can agree with St. Palamas' own teaching? Perhaps your confusion lies in the modern EO
Yes, another attempt to project your church's development of doctrine onto the Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox teaching is the same as Historical/Traditional/Ancient Orthdoox Teaching.  That's why it is ORTHODOX (and hence, CATHOLIC).
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that St. Palamas coincides with what the Vatican says (problematic to begin with, as Fr. Ambrose has shown).  Does he cite the Fathers, the Liturgies of the Church, etc. to support his view?  Does he represent the consensus of the Fathers, or just a "proof-text" of a idiosyncretic idea, which is being twisted out of context to be moulded to later purposes?

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
attempts to create a false dichotomy between EO'xy and Catholicism, and when you find that HISTORIC EO'xy is actually quite consistent with Catholicism, it is something of a quandary to you.
Your quandry is all those "apostolic churches," and the Vatican is the only one who comes up with the IC, and demonstrably nearly a millenium after the divisions between the apostolic churches.
Demonstrably, the matter of the teaching of the IC has been in the EASTERN Church for over a millenium. :eek:
I've already answered this:
ialmisry said:
Btw, quoting from the services etc. of the EO and OO (quoting which thus far you have not done) are a rather tricky business when the Vatican tries to prove its dogmas, and those who have submitted in the East chime in.  An egregious example would be the use of the quote of St. Ephraim of Syrian by the Chaldeans under the Vatican: they will dismiss St. John of Chrisostom's (an Antiochian in origin, btw) on the immaculateness of the Holy Theotokos, saying that "it wasn't proclaimed as dogma.  It wasn't binding."  They will, however, latch onto the earlier "You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])," and, because the IC, according to the Vatican, is binding on them, will say "a-HA! Immaculate Conception."

Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Use of that title is still a little, shall we say, uncommon among them.

Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration.

So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep.

Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns.

So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

Besides, I'm not the one that expressed puzzlement.  You were. ::)
My only puzzlement thus far is how you continue claim, for instance, that the Armenians teach it while an "untranslated" Armenian Orthodox, the All Armenian Catholicos' website and the website of the Armenian diocese to which your friend the subdeacon belongs to, states otherwise.

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Perhaps you should seriously consider that modern EO'xy just actually might not be representing historic EO'xy in its attempts to create a wider chasm between Catholicism and EO'xy than there actually is.
Or you might consider, as has been told to you by numberous members of those apostolic (including those with the Vatican) that you are misrepresenting official Church teaching.
Yet after having had at least two opportunities to tell everyone here how the quote from St. Palamas somehow contradicts the Catholic teaching on Original Sin, you haven't and in fact can't do so. ::)
This idea of a line of purified ancestors does reveal the problem of infinite regression.  If you want that problem, go for it.  The Vatican does seem to want to.

The "quote" reminds me of the Muslim idea of the "light of Muhammad" passing from Adam through the loins down to Muhammad (the Sirah goes into some detail of how it was still in Muhammad's father: a woman propositioned him, but in the meantime Abd Allah had sex with Aminah, the light went out, and the woman thereupon lost interest in Abd Allah.  St. Gregory was kidnapped by the Turks.  Maybe that's where he got the idea, because it's not in the Fathers.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Second Chance,

Yet, if you read through the entire thread, no one seems able to prove that it goes "against basic Christian beliefs." Please do take the time to read through the entire thread, and if you have anything else to add, your input would be appreciated (in truth, I am itching to participate in other threads, but I don't have time to do so, and want to focus on this one until all questions have been answered).

Blessings,
Marduk
I will give it a shot, starting with a single source, Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 3. My overall point is that the main thrust of the history of mankind has been the mercy shown to men (and women) by God as we cannot be saved except through His salvific actions. I firmly believe that there is so much authoritative information coming to us from the Lord and His disciples through the Holy Scriptures that there is hardly any room for adding to His Word in this instance. I already conceded that the belief in IC may be tolerated as a matter of piety. When you cross over into doctrine and dogma, you must prove that His Word is not contradicted, not that this and that Saint said something in the affirmative. Again, piety does not equal dogma. That being the case, the opening salvo is:

Romans Chapter 3
Verses 9-10: "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

As it is written:
  "There is no one righteous, not even one;"

Also, verses 21-24

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???
It's a bit illogical of you to say that, Marduk. You promised that you would give us the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas where he teaches the Immaculate Conception.

You have not done so.  But now you act as if you have and you have the temerity to take us to task for not agreeing - with something you have not been able to provide!

Where are the Palamas quotes?

The bottom line for the Orthodox is simple once we cut through the masses of sophisicated theological argumentation from Catholics who try to coerce the Orthodox into accepting the IC -  Mary was conceived in the same state as every other human being.  This is the teaching of the Byzantine Orthodox.  This is the teaching of our brothers and sisters in the Coptic Church.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???
It's a bit illogical of you to say that, Marduk. You promised that you would give us the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas where he teaches the Immaculate Conception.

You have not done so.  But now you act as if you have and you have the temerity to take us to task for not agreeing - with something you have not been able to provide!

Where are the Palamas quotes?

The bottom line for the Orthodox is simple once we cut through the masses of sophisicated theological argumentation from Catholics who try to coerce the Orthodox into accepting the IC -  Mary was conceived in the same state as every other human being.  This is the teaching of the Byzantine Orthodox.  This is the teaching of our brothers and sisters in the Coptic Church.
Well then I will just have to accept that the EO position has changed over time.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Second Chance said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Second Chance,

Yet, if you read through the entire thread, no one seems able to prove that it goes "against basic Christian beliefs." Please do take the time to read through the entire thread, and if you have anything else to add, your input would be appreciated (in truth, I am itching to participate in other threads, but I don't have time to do so, and want to focus on this one until all questions have been answered).

Blessings,
Marduk
I will give it a shot, starting with a single source, Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 3. My overall point is that the main thrust of the history of mankind has been the mercy shown to men (and women) by God as we cannot be saved except through His salvific actions. I firmly believe that there is so much authoritative information coming to us from the Lord and His disciples through the Holy Scriptures that there is hardly any room for adding to His Word in this instance. I already conceded that the belief in IC may be tolerated as a matter of piety. When you cross over into doctrine and dogma, you must prove that His Word is not contradicted, not that this and that Saint said something in the affirmative. Again, piety does not equal dogma. That being the case, the opening salvo is:

Romans Chapter 3
Verses 9-10: "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

As it is written:
   "There is no one righteous, not even one;"

Also, verses 21-24

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
So you believe that Mary was a sinner?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
[The bottom line for the Orthodox is simple once we cut through the masses of sophisicated theological argumentation from Catholics who try to coerce the Orthodox into accepting the IC -  Mary was conceived in the same state as every other human being.  This is the teaching of the Byzantine Orthodox.  This is the teaching of our brothers and sisters in the Coptic Church.
Well then I will just have to accept that the EO position has changed over time.
Please substantiate this extraordinary claim with references to official statements from earlier centures where Synods or Councils promulgated the Immaculate Conception.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ignatius said:
Grace and Peace,

Would Blessed Bernard's views on Our Lady or the views of Blessed Gregory Palamas' views of Our Lady be condemned by the East? If not I am comforted to say that I may be able to continue my inquiry into Orthodoxy. If not, and they are in fact, condemned views then I will continue to be unable to be a modern practicing Orthodox.

Peace and God Bless.
What views, since we agree with everything Bernard writes on the subject, and Bernard conflicts with the views imputed here to St. Gregory?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
You shouldn't call something a dodge when a person brings up a relevant point for comparison.
Apples and oranges.
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
No, its not a valid point.

I admit, iconoclasm, and gnosticism for that matter, have a more ancient lineage in theological discussion than the IC, but then again, the IC is so late, that's not saying much.

So, can we have some meat on that bone?  Some gnostic text that preaches iconoclasm, as it seems is claimed?

Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
Look, your fruit salad is not helping the discussion. What really happened is that he brought up a valid point and you dodged it by calling his valid point a dodge rather than addressing it.
Sorry bud. Bringing up the Iconoclast controversy, (which was settled by a council of the undivided Church), is apples and oranges.
You sure love your fruit. Its not apples and oranges. The debate about iconoclasm exited for hundreds of years in one form or another and was not settled until the seventh ecumenical council. In the same way the issue surrounding how Mary was preserved from original sin was really not settled until the feast day was established.
You are begging the question, or actucally in this case, answering a question no one asked.  No one in the early Church asked how the Theotokos was preserved from original sin, as no one believed it.  We still don't.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
ialmisry said:
ignatius said:
Grace and Peace,

Would Blessed Bernard's views on Our Lady or the views of Blessed Gregory Palamas' views of Our Lady be condemned by the East? If not I am comforted to say that I may be able to continue my inquiry into Orthodoxy. If not, and they are in fact, condemned views then I will continue to be unable to be a modern practicing Orthodox.

Peace and God Bless.
What views, since we agree with everything Bernard writes on the subject, and Bernard conflicts with the views imputed here to St. Gregory?
Blessed Bernard wrote and argued that Our Lady was infused with Sanctifying Grace within the Womb of Blessed Anna as Blessed Gregory. Personally I hold this view and in fact Blessed Gregory seems to articulate the view presented by later Latin Fathers and seems to be at odds with Blessed John Maximovitch in his opinion that it 'denies all Her virtue'.

Personally I believe that within Orthodoxy there is room for these views and that opposition to it's dogmatization by the Roman Pontiff should not go to the lengths it does, in my humble opinion.

Peace.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ignatius said:
ialmisry said:
ignatius said:
Grace and Peace,

Would Blessed Bernard's views on Our Lady or the views of Blessed Gregory Palamas' views of Our Lady be condemned by the East? If not I am comforted to say that I may be able to continue my inquiry into Orthodoxy. If not, and they are in fact, condemned views then I will continue to be unable to be a modern practicing Orthodox.

Peace and God Bless.
What views, since we agree with everything Bernard writes on the subject, and Bernard conflicts with the views imputed here to St. Gregory?
Blessed Bernard wrote and argued that Our Lady was infused with Sanctifying Grace within the Womb of Blessed Anna as Blessed Gregory.
That's not what he had to say about the IC here:

ialmisry said:
So everyone knows what Bernard of Clairveaux had to say:
6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, 8).

Btw, he's no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks [i.e. Orthodox], who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as "diligent doctor," so he likes him).

But besides Bernard, II Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" renders all this potuit, decuit ergo fecit nonsense gibberish.

Since the Sinless one became Sin for us, all this talk about that, of course His mother had to be sinless, is rather unnecessary.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
Although Blessed Bernard didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception he did believe in the Sanctification of Her Pre-birth.

All I can say is 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 that "by God... she... was foreordained...." spoke much of what we have been taught as Roman Catholics concerning Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary. It was shocking to me after hearing so much polemical argument against this 'preordination' by Orthodox Apologists that it really shocked me during the Liturgy.

In essence, alarm bells went off inside me and the rest of the Liturgy was a struggle. As I walked to my Jeep afterwards I was pretty convinced that the foundation for St. John Maximovitch in The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God was false. To ordain is to anoint for an office. To 'fore' ordain is to anoint for an office pre-existence.... before time.

From the standpoint of Orthodox Liturgical Theology there is no grounds to refute Mary's 'pre-ordination' to the Office of Mother of God which is the entire premise which St. John Maximovitch used to refute the grounds of the Catholic teaching concerning Mary.

This is the reason for the radical turn of events that I left out. I don't want to get into a formal debate about this with you because it's not going to go well for either of us. As a Catholic I can appreciate Orthodoxy because my own Popes and Bishops and Priests appreciate it. As an Orthodox I have to continue to rationalize the break between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I completely love a wonderful Liturgy and I love the ascesis. My problem is I don't really disagree with the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. I can live without their dogmatic declarations but I don't disagree with them.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ignatius said:
6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
Although Blessed Bernard didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception he did believe in the Sanctification of Her Pre-birth.
Then finding a citation where he says so shouldn't be so hard.

All I can say is 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 that "by God... she... was foreordained...." spoke much of what we have been taught as Roman Catholics concerning Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary. It was shocking to me after hearing so much polemical argument against this 'preordination' by Orthodox Apologists that it really shocked me during the Liturgy.
You are reading things into "foreordained," much like the IC being read into "full of grace."  It's not there.

In essence, alarm bells went off inside me and the rest of the Liturgy was a struggle. As I walked to my Jeep afterwards I was pretty convinced that the foundation for St. John Maximovitch in The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God was false. To ordain is to anoint for an office. To 'fore' ordain is to anoint for an office pre-existence.... before time.
So the Immaculate preconception?  Back to that immaculate semen....

From the standpoint of Orthodox Liturgical Theology there is no grounds to refute Mary's 'pre-ordination' to the Office of Mother of God which is the entire premise which St. John Maximovitch used to refute the grounds of the Catholic teaching concerning Mary.

This is the reason for the radical turn of events that I left out. I don't want to get into a formal debate about this with you because it's not going to go well for either of us. As a Catholic I can appreciate Orthodoxy because my own Popes and Bishops and Priests appreciate it. As an Orthodox I have to continue to rationalize the break between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I completely love a wonderful Liturgy and I love the ascesis. My problem is I don't really disagree with the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. I can live without their dogmatic declarations but I don't disagree with them.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
ialmisry said:
ignatius said:
6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
Although Blessed Bernard didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception he did believe in the Sanctification of Her Pre-birth.
Then finding a citation where he says so shouldn't be so hard.
Does he not suggest this very thing in the last sentence of section 6 of your quote?

All I can say is 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 that "by God... she... was foreordained...." spoke much of what we have been taught as Roman Catholics concerning Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary. It was shocking to me after hearing so much polemical argument against this 'preordination' by Orthodox Apologists that it really shocked me during the Liturgy.
You are reading things into "foreordained," much like the IC being read into "full of grace."  It's not there.
I believe in a synergism between what God's wills and Man's will. I don't believe that we need deny one for the other or visa versa.

In essence, alarm bells went off inside me and the rest of the Liturgy was a struggle. As I walked to my Jeep afterwards I was pretty convinced that the foundation for St. John Maximovitch in The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God was false. To ordain is to anoint for an office. To 'fore' ordain is to anoint for an office pre-existence.... before time.
So the Immaculate preconception?  Back to that immaculate semen....
Now that you mention it, it does seem that Blessed Bernard is arguing the passage of Original Sin through intercourse....
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mickey said:
Papist said:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\
I think this is a perfect example of what brother Cleveland was saying about "talking-past-each-other-itis."  I stated that "I don't think it is necessary," and you transform that into "Marduk does not accept."  This is sadly typical of EO rhetoric - take a little part of what Catholics or Catholicism say, then extrapolate some unimaginable straw man out of it.

Let me explain my position to you AGAIN, and I hope you will have the decency to not misrepresent me next time.

I believe every word in the dogma as taught by the Catholic Church.  In respect to the clause about the "merits of Christ," it is not necessary for my own belief in the IC because I have Pope St. Athanasius' own words to ensure me that God can indeed in some mysterious way grant the Grace of sinlessness, even before the advent of Christ's Incarnation, death and resurrection.  The "merits of Christ" clause is an explanation of HOW God is able to grant that Grace of sinlessness.  On my part, I would be content with the dogma without a clause delving into the mystery of HOW God does it.  But it is there, and I accept it, and the explanation itself does not contradict my own Oriental belief that Christ is the source of all sinlessness in a creature.

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
[The bottom line for the Orthodox is simple once we cut through the masses of sophisicated theological argumentation from Catholics who try to coerce the Orthodox into accepting the IC -  Mary was conceived in the same state as every other human being.  This is the teaching of the Byzantine Orthodox.  This is the teaching of our brothers and sisters in the Coptic Church.
Well then I will just have to accept that the EO position has changed over time.
Please substantiate this extraordinary claim with references to official statements from earlier centures where Synods or Councils promulgated the Immaculate Conception.
[/quote]
"Official statements" for whom?  The EO?  EO are CONSTANTLY up in arms about the idea of dogmatization, and now you claim that EO beliefs must be promulgated by Synods and Councils before it can be said that the belief exists in the EO Church - or at least the HISTORIC EO Church?  You are just being inconsistent, Father, for no other reason than to try to score points.  It's best to focus on the meat of the matter - the actual dogma, which no one so far has been able to refute.

Humbly,
Marduk
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Mardukm said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
"In the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Markud does not accept the "merits of Christ" part.  :-\
I think this is a perfect example of what brother Cleveland was saying about "talking-past-each-other-itis."  I stated that "I don't think it is necessary," and you transform that into "Marduk does not accept."  This is sadly typical of EO rhetoric - take a little part of what Catholics or Catholicism say, then extrapolate some unimaginable straw man out of it.

Let me explain my position to you AGAIN, and I hope you will have the decency to not misrepresent me next time.

I believe every word in the dogma as taught by the Catholic Church.  In respect to the clause about the "merits of Christ," it is not necessary for my own belief in the IC because I have Pope St. Athanasius' own words to ensure me that God can indeed in some mysterious way grant the Grace of sinlessness, even before the advent of Christ's Incarnation, death and resurrection.  The "merits of Christ" clause is an explanation of HOW God is able to grant that Grace of sinlessness.  On my part, I would be content with the dogma without a clause delving into the mystery of HOW God does it.  But it is there, and I accept it, and the explanation itself does not contradict my own Oriental belief that Christ is the source of all sinlessness in a creature.

Blessings
Grace and Peace Marduk,

Would you agree that before the Dogma was declare the Church held this belief with 'room' for other views, such as Bless Bernard's.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Ignatius,

ignatius said:
Now that you mention it, it does seem that Blessed Bernard is arguing the passage of Original Sin through intercourse....
I'm not fully apprised of the exact details of the belief about Original Sin being passed through the male seed.  According to St. Augustine, the conception of individuals is tainted because of the sin of lust - which is not the same as mere sexual desire (lust is a DISORDERED sexual desire).  Of course, there is a Tradition in the East that Sts. Anna and Eliakim did not conceive Mary in lust.  In distinction, St. Ambrose is one who probably believed that original sin was passed through the male seed.  He accounted for Mary's IC by stating that the seed of St. Joachim was immaculate.  I guess there are different theories on how original sin is passed down.  And there were different theories of HOW the IC came about (St. Palamas having his own unique theory).  But regardless of the HOW of the matter, the matter itself (that Mary from the first moment of her conception was preserved from the stain of original sin) seems to have been near-unanimous.

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Ignatius,

ignatius said:
Would you agree that before the Dogma was declare the Church held this belief with 'room' for other views, such as Bless Bernard's.
Yes, I would agree.  Of course, I am of the opinion that St. Bernard's (along with St. Bonaventure and St. Aquinas) belief does not contradict the teaching of the IC.  Latin theologians in those days made a distinction between the physical conception (the moment the body is created) and spiritual conception (i.e. ensoulment, the moment the soul is created).  Those medieval theologians did not believe in an immaculate physical conception, but only in an immaculate spiritual conception, which occurred at a time later than the physical conception.  Pope Alexander VII authoritatively declared in the 17th century that the matter of the doctrine refers to the moment of her spiritual conception (creation of her soul by God), whence the soul is immediately infused into the body by God.  One can see that Pope Alexander's statement per se did not contradict the belief of the medieval Latin Saints.  Eventually, it was understood that physical conception and spiritual conception occurred at the same moment.  Thus, the dogma of the IC is worded in such manner.  But the dogma itself preserves the authoritative teaching of Pope Alexander in the 17th century - that the object of the sanctification is the soul of Mary, which is thence immediately infused into the body by God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) indicates that the word "conception" has a more metaphysical meaning than what secularists might imagine.  "Conception" refers to the CREATION OF A PERSON.  Now, a person is defined as a human being with a soul.  So, strictly speaking, when the dogma states "from the first instant of her conception," it is actually stating "from the first instant of her creation as a person."  Given that understanding, the dogma does not at all contradict or condemn the medieval Latin theologians, because the Medieval Latin theologians ALSO believed that the moment of ensoulment (when Mary was sanctified) was the first moment a true "PERSON" is created.

Now, I have spoken already of the several theories concerned with the HOW of the matter of the IC.  The only one that has been definitely condemned by the Catholic Church (by Pope Benedict XIV in the 17th century) is the idea that Mary was conceived of a virgin (i.e., that Mary was not conceived naturally like the rest of humanity - which is, btw, the same one condemned by HH Pope Shenoute in the COC). In my understanding, theories such as those proposed by St. Palamas or the "immaculate seed" theory of St. Ambrose have not been condemned at all.  There is nothing in those theories that inherently contradicts the dogmatic teaching that the prevention of the stain of original sin was (1) done by God, and (2) by virtue of the supernatural merits of Christ.

I hope that explains it, and I would love to read your own thoughts on what I wrote.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
ignatius said:
All I can say is 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 that "by God... she... was foreordained...." spoke much of what we have been taught as Roman Catholics concerning Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary. It was shocking to me after hearing so much polemical argument against this 'preordination' by Orthodox Apologists that it really shocked me during the Liturgy.

In essence, alarm bells went off inside me and the rest of the Liturgy was a struggle. As I walked to my Jeep afterwards I was pretty convinced that the foundation for St. John Maximovitch in The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God was false. To ordain is to anoint for an office. To 'fore' ordain is to anoint for an office pre-existence.... before time.
Yeah, a lot of the anti-Catholic polemic can start to unravel if you start actually paying attention to what the hymnography says.  I brought this up in another thread about the role of the Pope of Rome, because I have attended several Matins when the saint of the day happened to be a western Roman Pope, and man-alive, is that stuff loaded down with papal supremacy.  I should type some of that material out of the service books and give it to Catholics as ammo; they'd be foaming at the mouth.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Yes, another attempt to project your church's development of doctrine onto the Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox teaching is the same as Historical/Traditional/Ancient Orthdoox Teaching.  That's why it is ORTHODOX (and hence, CATHOLIC).
Yet you can't respond when I ask you how it is that historic EO'xy (represented by St. Palamas) coincides with Catholicism on the issue of Original Sin and the IC, while MODERN EO'xy claims otherwise. ???
Once again, a chance for you to demonstrate how the Catholic teaching on Original sin is SOOOOOOOOO different from the historic EO teaching on Original Sin (as represented by St. Palamas).  And yet, again, another glaring failure to be able to do so.  Catholics are only responding to the modern EO polemic myth that Catholicism and EO'xy are so different on the issue of original sin.  The onus is on you, as a modern EO, to establish your claim.  Just admit it - YOU CAN'T.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that St. Palamas coincides with what the Vatican says (problematic to begin with, as Fr. Ambrose has shown).  Does he cite the Fathers, the Liturgies of the Church, etc. to support his view?  Does he represent the consensus of the Fathers, or just a "proof-text" of a idiosyncretic idea, which is being twisted out of context to be moulded to later purposes?
Yeah, his explanation of HOW the IC came about is pretty unique.  But the fact of a consensus on the IC itself (regardless of theories on HOW it was achieved) is demonstrably evident from historic EO sources.

I've already answered this:
ialmisry said:
Btw, quoting from the services etc. of the EO and OO (quoting which thus far you have not done) are a rather tricky business when the Vatican tries to prove its dogmas, and those who have submitted in the East chime in.  An egregious example would be the use of the quote of St. Ephraim of Syrian by the Chaldeans under the Vatican: they will dismiss St. John of Chrisostom's (an Antiochian in origin, btw) on the immaculateness of the Holy Theotokos, saying that "it wasn't proclaimed as dogma.  It wasn't binding."  They will, however, latch onto the earlier "You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])," and, because the IC, according to the Vatican, is binding on them, will say "a-HA! Immaculate Conception."
NO YOU DID NOT.  I quoted several statements by EO Fathers earlier with an explicit belief in the IC (regardless of the HOW of the matter, and they were not merely statements about "all-holy" or "immaculate"), but you failed to respond.  You are referring to brother Papist's own statements.  You have not responded to mine at all.

Besides, I'm not the one that expressed puzzlement.  You were. ::)
My only puzzlement thus far is how you continue claim, for instance, that the Armenians teach it while an "untranslated" Armenian Orthodox, the All Armenian Catholicos' website and the website of the Armenian diocese to which your friend the subdeacon belongs to, states otherwise.
Again, consistent misrepresentations of what I stated.  I won't go so far as to call you a liar (like sister Salpy does when she's mad).  I HAVE NEVER stated, as you claim, that "the Armenians teach it." All I've ever stated is that it is a theologoumenon in the Armenian Church (while fully admitting it is not a belief as far as the AMERICAN Armenian Church is concerned).  Please do us all a favor and provide an exact quote from me stating what you claimed.  Theologoumenon does not normally start as a teaching of a Church, but are personal pious beliefs of individuals. Sadly typical of what Father Ambrose and brother Mickey has done with my statements, you are misrepresenting what I stated just to score useless points for arguments' sake.

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Perhaps you should seriously consider that modern EO'xy just actually might not be representing historic EO'xy in its attempts to create a wider chasm between Catholicism and EO'xy than there actually is.
Or you might consider, as has been told to you by numberous members of those apostolic (including those with the Vatican) that you are misrepresenting official Church teaching.
Yet after having had at least two opportunities to tell everyone here how the quote from St. Palamas somehow contradicts the Catholic teaching on Original Sin, you haven't and in fact can't do so. ::)
This idea of a line of purified ancestors does reveal the problem of infinite regression.  If you want that problem, go for it.  The Vatican does seem to want to.

The "quote" reminds me of the Muslim idea of the "light of Muhammad" passing from Adam through the loins down to Muhammad (the Sirah goes into some detail of how it was still in Muhammad's father: a woman propositioned him, but in the meantime Abd Allah had sex with Aminah, the light went out, and the woman thereupon lost interest in Abd Allah.  St. Gregory was kidnapped by the Turks.  Maybe that's where he got the idea, because it's not in the Fathers.
Another one of your typical evasive answers.  I'm talking about the Original Sin issue, and you bring up "infinite regression."  ??? ???  Your modern EO myth that the Catholic understanding of original Sin is SOOOOOO different from the historic EO understanding of original sin really can't be defended, can it?

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
ignatius said:
ialmisry said:
ignatius said:
Grace and Peace,

Would Blessed Bernard's views on Our Lady or the views of Blessed Gregory Palamas' views of Our Lady be condemned by the East? If not I am comforted to say that I may be able to continue my inquiry into Orthodoxy. If not, and they are in fact, condemned views then I will continue to be unable to be a modern practicing Orthodox.

Peace and God Bless.
What views, since we agree with everything Bernard writes on the subject, and Bernard conflicts with the views imputed here to St. Gregory?
Blessed Bernard wrote and argued that Our Lady was infused with Sanctifying Grace within the Womb of Blessed Anna as Blessed Gregory.
That's not what he had to say about the IC here:

ialmisry said:
So everyone knows what Bernard of Clairveaux had to say:
6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, 8).

Btw, he's no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks [i.e. Orthodox], who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as "diligent doctor," so he likes him).

But besides Bernard, II Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" renders all this potuit, decuit ergo fecit nonsense gibberish.

Since the Sinless one became Sin for us, all this talk about that, of course His mother had to be sinless, is rather unnecessary.
Here is a saint of my liking . He is worthy of the name of a Church Father and saint . I have a simpathy for Bernard and I think i`m gonna look some of his writings .
 
Top