- Aug 24, 2006
- Reaction score
- Albuquerque, New Mexico
God bless you and I hope you feel better.Mardukm said:Dear brother Mina,
That was a great response. I will offer my responses later in the week or early next week. For now, I am going to focus on brother Mickey's quotes. Plus I need some time to recuperate from a cold I just got.
BTW, I just wrote you a PM indicating I responded to you, and when I submitted it, your own response was posted, so just disregard my PM to you.
If you go back to message #50 in this thread ( http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg308255.html#msg308255 ) you will see that his Primate, Patriarch Bartholomew, denies the Immaculate Conception.Papist said:Metropolitan Kalistos Ware says that yes an Orthodox Christian can believe in the IC. But many Orthodox theologians strongly oppose this.
Well, he didn't.Mardukm said:I mean, what do you do if some of your greatest Saints, such as St. Gregory of Palamas, expressed belief in the IC?
St. Gregory Palamas is considered one of the greatest of the Eastern Orthodox theologians.Dan-Romania said:I didn`t read anything from Palama , i don`t usually treasure post schism fathers as much a the fathers before schism , if he says what you said he says he is a cook , sorry for the expression but i thing your misinterpret it , or i misunderstand cause i don`t speak english that good.
Wow! He pretty much does stand alone on this one. Very interesting.Irish Hermit said:Well, he didn't.
Saint Gregory wrote some of the most beautiful and profound sermons on the Mother of God but..... his belief about her conception and the preparation of her ancestors is definitely unique and one out of the box. He stands alone among the great Church Fathers on this one!
(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.
Oddly enough, this chimes with Saint Ambrose's belief that the seed of Joachim was immaculate.
The Orthodox have not declared infallible doctrine on this theory known as the Immaculate Conception. That is the point. ;DDan-Romania said:If he was that great , why don`t the orthodox Church have this dogma according to what "he said" ?
I was unware that the Orthodox Church had any dogma on the matter. By the way, are you a supporter of hesychast spirituality?Dan-Romania said:If he was that great , why don`t the orthodox Church have this dogma according to what "he said" ?
And as an Eastern Orthodox Christian you are free to do that. However, St. Gregory Palamas, a great Orthdox theologian, did not believe that Mary was infected with original sin.Dan-Romania said:If you read in the prophets what God says about Zion , that her sins have been forgotten and that a minute He left her but he chose it again ... I am against the dogma of Mary being the IC .
All very fair observations. However, I don't want you to think that I believe that all Orthodox Christians define their faith by "not being Catholic". This is something I see more often in extermely zelous converts that left the Catholic Church.Alveus Lacuna said:Papist, I have to tell you that in most of my conversations over the last year, a lot perspectives in the Orthodox Church have been based on a counter-Rome polemic, which is what I experienced all of the time in Protestantism. In the back of my mind it keeps the gnawing question going of who the schismatics are, because only one identity seems to function as an opposite to the other.
To be fair though, all of the Catholics in my family and in general here in the USA have no idea about Orthodoxy, so how could they have any identity based off of anti-Orthodox polemic? Also, to be fair, as a minority the Orthodox in America are always confused as Catholics and so they constantly have to emphasize the differences.
Just thinking out loud...