Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mardukm

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

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.
This may sound as a silly question to you, but why than do we need to cooperate if we are saved?
It is not a silly question at all.  Though I admit I am surprised to hear it from an apostolic Christian.  Normally, I get that question from Protestants who deny infant Baptism.  I hope you don't mind, but the following response would be the normal one I would give to a Protestant.

We need to cooperate even though we are saved because salvation is a life-long process.  It is not a one-time event.  Easterns would call it theosis.  Orientals would call it theosis or theopoiesis.  Westerns would call it sanctification.  When one comes to the use of one's reason, then one's culpability to actual sin is activated.  One can in fact lose salvation in this life-long process if one does not repent and renew oneself daily from one's sins.

That is the standard answer I give to Protestants.  To other Protestants who believe in the OSAS heresy (Once-Saved-Always-Saved), the answer is a little more detailed.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.
This may sound as a silly question to you, but why than do we need to cooperate if we are saved?
It is not a silly question at all.  Though I admit I am surprised to hear it from an apostolic Christian.  Normally, I get that question from Protestants who deny infant Baptism.  I hope you don't mind, but the following response would be the normal one I would give to a Protestant.

We need to cooperate even though we are saved because salvation is a life-long process.  It is not a one-time event.  Easterns would call it theosis.  Orientals would call it theosis or theopoiesis.  Westerns would call it sanctification.  When one comes to the use of one's reason, then one's culpability to actual sin is activated.  One can in fact lose salvation in this life-long process if one does not repent and renew oneself daily from one's sins.

That is the standard answer I give to Protestants.  To other Protestants who believe in the OSAS heresy (Once-Saved-Always-Saved), the answer is a little more detailed.

Blessings,
Marduk
You seem like a very intelligent person and I know the the further along into theology we go from here the more complex it will be to bring you back. I can tell you now that our difference lies in our understanding of original sin and from there on we start to deviate and end up in different directions. I'll give you an example. let say we both sailed off from New York to London. If one of our compasses were off by 3 degrees one might end up in Spain. It's the same with our theology's. If one is in Spain and the other in London we can never communicate. Hopefully one day the fog can clear between us.
 

Mardukm

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

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.
This may sound as a silly question to you, but why than do we need to cooperate if we are saved?
It is not a silly question at all.  Though I admit I am surprised to hear it from an apostolic Christian.  Normally, I get that question from Protestants who deny infant Baptism.  I hope you don't mind, but the following response would be the normal one I would give to a Protestant.

We need to cooperate even though we are saved because salvation is a life-long process.  It is not a one-time event.  Easterns would call it theosis.  Orientals would call it theosis or theopoiesis.  Westerns would call it sanctification.  When one comes to the use of one's reason, then one's culpability to actual sin is activated.  One can in fact lose salvation in this life-long process if one does not repent and renew oneself daily from one's sins.

That is the standard answer I give to Protestants.  To other Protestants who believe in the OSAS heresy (Once-Saved-Always-Saved), the answer is a little more detailed.

Blessings,
Marduk
You seem like a very intelligent person and I know the the further along into theology we go from here the more complex it will be to bring you back. I can tell you now that our difference lies in our understanding of original sin and from there on we start to deviate and end up in different directions. I'll give you an example. let say we both sailed off from New York to London. If one of our compasses were off by 3 degrees one might end up in Spain. It's the same with our theology's. If one is in Spain and the other in London we can never communicate. Hopefully one day the fog can clear between us.
I would love to hear your understanding of original sin, and how it differentiates from mine. The understanding of original sin I learned as an OO not in communion with Rome is the same one I hold as an OO in communion with Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Dan-Romania said:
If he was that great , why don`t the orthodox Church have this dogma according to what "he said" ?
Because he isn't infallible.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
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...
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.
Left the Catholic Church?  By embracing Orthodoxy, they converted to the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church.  But then, you already knew that.

On the point of the IC, it wouldn't involve us at all if it wasn't that the Latin apologists, speaking to their own flock or the Protestants, keep repeating that the IC originated in the East and the Orthodoxy believed it unlike the pope proclaimed it, "because they have to be contrary to the magisterium...blah...blah...blah...."  Somewhere on this thread I posted how such Eastern "prooftexts" for the IC are "found," or rather invented (and I don't mean in the sense of relics).  And to that, "well, the Orthodox Church hasn't condemned it, so it's an acceptable theologoumen, Bp. Kallistos says so....blah....blah...blah."  Just another error of the Vatican.  We need not worry ourselves over it.

The mere fact that the Latin doctors condemned the IC when it first appeared, which was in the WEST, not the East, a millenium after the birth of the Church, should be a enough said as to its pseudo-apostolic origin.

Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.

Blessings
Somehow I thought we were of similar age.  I didn't realize you were born before the Crucifixion.
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.
This may sound as a silly question to you, but why than do we need to cooperate if we are saved?
It is not a silly question at all.  Though I admit I am surprised to hear it from an apostolic Christian.  Normally, I get that question from Protestants who deny infant Baptism.  I hope you don't mind, but the following response would be the normal one I would give to a Protestant.

We need to cooperate even though we are saved because salvation is a life-long process.  It is not a one-time event.  Easterns would call it theosis.  Orientals would call it theosis or theopoiesis.  Westerns would call it sanctification.  When one comes to the use of one's reason, then one's culpability to actual sin is activated.  One can in fact lose salvation in this life-long process if one does not repent and renew oneself daily from one's sins.

That is the standard answer I give to Protestants.  To other Protestants who believe in the OSAS heresy (Once-Saved-Always-Saved), the answer is a little more detailed.

Blessings,
Marduk
You seem like a very intelligent person and I know the the further along into theology we go from here the more complex it will be to bring you back. I can tell you now that our difference lies in our understanding of original sin and from there on we start to deviate and end up in different directions. I'll give you an example. let say we both sailed off from New York to London. If one of our compasses were off by 3 degrees one might end up in Spain. It's the same with our theology's. If one is in Spain and the other in London we can never communicate. Hopefully one day the fog can clear between us.
I would love to hear your understanding of original sin, and how it differentiates from mine. The understanding of original sin I learned as an OO not in communion with Rome is the same one I hold as an OO in communion with Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk
It's the same as St Gregory Palamas. Let me know if you agree.

As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, `On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.’ And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, `Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’ … Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna. … As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened. … The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades. …

After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.

(“Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363)
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Left the Catholic Church?  By embracing Orthodoxy, they converted to the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church.  But then, you already knew that.
Yes I already knew the EO position on this matter so it was really a waste fo time for you to bring it up again. So in the future, just to make things clear, when I refer to the Catholic Church, I mean those Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI. When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox Church I mean those Churches in communion with Constantinople.
ialmisry said:
On the point of the IC, it wouldn't involve us at all if it wasn't that the Latin apologists, speaking to their own flock or the Protestants, keep repeating that the IC originated in the East and the Orthodoxy believed it unlike the pope proclaimed it, "because they have to be contrary to the magisterium...blah...blah...blah...."  Somewhere on this thread I posted how such Eastern "prooftexts" for the IC are "found," or rather invented (and I don't mean in the sense of relics).  And to that, "well, the Orthodox Church hasn't condemned it, so it's an acceptable theologoumen, Bp. Kallistos says so....blah....blah...blah."  Just another error of the Vatican.  We need not worry ourselves over it.
Not quite sure if saying "blah... blah... blah or repeating the mantra "errors of rome" actually adds anything to this conversation. But if you don't really wnat to contribute anything substantial to the conversation I suppose that is your decision.
ialmisry said:
The mere fact that the Latin doctors condemned the IC when it first appeared, which was in the WEST, not the East, a millenium after the birth of the Church, should be a enough said as to its pseudo-apostolic origin.
Not sure If I agree with you on this because I think many quotes have been provided in this thread that suggest that the IC was in the East as well.
ialmisry said:
Somehow I thought we were of similar age.  I didn't realize you were born before the Crucifixion.
Were you?  :D
 

Mardukm

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

Demetrios G. said:
It's the same as St Gregory Palamas. Let me know if you agree.

As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, `On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.’ And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, `Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’ … Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna. … As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened. … The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades. …

After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.

(“Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363)
Wow!  And DOUBLE Wow!  I really did not know this!  If you spend even a little time discussing this topic with EO over at CAF (Catholic Answers Forums), and even some EC, they have a completely opposite view from St. Palamas.  The EO at CAF have very often asserted that the PRIMARY RESULT of the Original Sin is PHYSICAL death, and fear of it is the source of all manner of sin.  In contrast, I see now that St. Palamas taught that SPIRITUAL death is the primary result of the Original Sin.  This is certainly more in line with my understanding as an Oriental and a Catholic.

In any case, I would say I agree, as an Oriental and a Catholic, with what St. Palamas is teaching.

I guess the next question is - why or how do you feel such an understanding of Original Sin somehow contradicts the teaching of the IC?  I mean, clearly St. Palamas believed in the IC. So if Palamas himself did not see a contradiction, then I repeat - why or how do you feel such an understanding of Original Sin somehow contradicts the teaching of the IC?

Blessings,
Marduk
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
It's the same as St Gregory Palamas. Let me know if you agree.

As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, `On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.’ And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, `Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’ … Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna. … As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened. … The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades. …

After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.

(“Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363)
Wow!  And DOUBLE Wow!  I really did not know this!  If you spend even a little time discussing this topic with EO over at CAF (Catholic Answers Forums), and even some EC, they have a completely opposite view from St. Palamas.  The EO at CAF have very often asserted that the PRIMARY RESULT of the Original Sin is PHYSICAL death, and fear of it is the source of all manner of sin.  In contrast, I see now that St. Palamas taught that SPIRITUAL death is the primary result of the Original Sin.  This is certainly more in line with my understanding as an Oriental and a Catholic.

In any case, I would say I agree, as an Oriental and a Catholic, with what St. Palamas is teaching.

I guess the next question is - why or how do you feel such an understanding of Original Sin somehow contradicts the teaching of the IC?  I mean, clearly St. Palamas believed in the IC. So if Palamas himself did not see a contradiction, then I repeat - why or how do you feel such an understanding of Original Sin somehow contradicts the teaching of the IC?

Blessings,
Marduk
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
^ Well I think that would be seen as an Eastern view that is compatible with the western one.
I am intrigued that you should think that Palamas' unique view is compatible with the Western one.

In the first place Palamas saw Joachim as being himself completely purified, and therefore able to produce a daughter of equal purity.

"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”.


In the second place, there is no theology of Christ reaching back in time and purifying the Mother of God by giving her an advance payment of the merits which He accrued by the Cross.  Instead Palamas believes that her ancestors were one by one gradually and increasingly purified until finally Joachim appeared at the end of this multi-generational process of purification and was the first fully purified man and therefore able, by his immaculate seed, to produce an immaculate daughter. 

However, it has to be noted that Palamas is not speaking of an increase in immaculateness but of increasing purification.    We do him a disservice by trying to impose a modern view of immaculate comception.

Marduk:  In any case, you cannot deny that he believed that Mary was immaculately conceived (like many other EO Fathers before the mid-19th century), regardless of the HOW of the matter.
He also believed that Joachim himself was completely purified (immaculate, in contemporary RC terminoolgy) and, as Saint Ambrose says, the "immaculate seed" of Joachim was able to produce a completely purified and immaculate daughter.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
^ Well I think that would be seen as an Eastern view that is compatible with the western one.
I am intrigued that you should think that Palamas' unique view is compatible with the Western one.

In the first place Palamas saw Joachim as being himself completely purified, and therefore able to produce a daughter of equal purity.

"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”.


In the second place, there is no theology of Christ reaching back in time and purifying the Mother of God by giving her an advance payment of the merits which He accrued by the Cross.  Instead Palamas believes that her ancestors were one by one gradually and increasingly purified until finally Joachim appeared at the end of this multi-generational process of purification and was the first fully purified man and therefore able, by his immaculate seed, to produce an immaculate daughter. 

However, it has to be noted that Palamas is not speaking of an increase in immaculateness but of increasing purification.    We do him a disservice by trying to impose a modern view of immaculate comception.

Marduk:  In any case, you cannot deny that he believed that Mary was immaculately conceived (like many other EO Fathers before the mid-19th century), regardless of the HOW of the matter.
He also believed that Joachim himself was completely purified (immaculate, in contemporary RC terminoolgy) and, as Saint Ambrose says, the "immaculate seed" of Joachim was able to produce a completely purified and immaculate daughter.
And???  Did he believe Mary was Immaculately conceived???
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Dan-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?
Yes , I had to check the term cause I wasn`t familiar with it . That is the way I groweth spiritually .
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
Dear brother Demetrios,

Demetrios G. said:
Lets see if I understand. She was saved before she had to cooperate in order for her to cooperate to be saved.
Yes, that would be the case.  And it should not surprise you at all, since we ourselves are saved as mere babies before we had a chance to cooperate.

Blessings
If she was saved before the Holy Spirit descending on her , than we are all saved and we don`t need a baptise , neighter the sacrifice of Jesus ? If Mary was a demi-god than the humanity of Jesus is a little questionable . Here is something to meditate on :

Luke2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Luke2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Luke2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Luke2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

You people are so into other sources , that you forgot the fountain of true , and the first authority between all the Bible . What do you IC Mary fanatics have to say about this ?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
^ Well I think that would be seen as an Eastern view that is compatible with the western one.
I am intrigued that you should think that Palamas' unique view is compatible with the Western one.

In the first place Palamas saw Joachim as being himself completely purified, and therefore able to produce a daughter of equal purity.

"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”.


In the second place, there is no theology of Christ reaching back in time and purifying the Mother of God by giving her an advance payment of the merits which He accrued by the Cross.  Instead Palamas believes that her ancestors were one by one gradually and increasingly purified until finally Joachim appeared at the end of this multi-generational process of purification and was the first fully purified man and therefore able, by his immaculate seed, to produce an immaculate daughter. 

However, it has to be noted that Palamas is not speaking of an increase in immaculateness but of increasing purification.    We do him a disservice by trying to impose a modern view of immaculate comception.

Marduk:  In any case, you cannot deny that he believed that Mary was immaculately conceived (like many other EO Fathers before the mid-19th century), regardless of the HOW of the matter.
He also believed that Joachim himself was completely purified (immaculate, in contemporary RC terminoolgy) and, as Saint Ambrose says, the "immaculate seed" of Joachim was able to produce a completely purified and immaculate daughter.
And???  Did he believe Mary was Immaculately conceived???
Well, we don't yet have the actual words of his sermon.

But what we do have so far says that he believed that Joachim had himself been completely purified and so he was able to provide the pure and immaculate seed to produce a completely purified daughter.

This not the same as either of them being immaculately conceived.    We ought not to impose later Western notions of "immaculate conceptions" on Palamas' thought.

However we 1) need to take time to locate the sermon and 2) keep in mind that Palamas' view is an oddity in patristic thought.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Irish Hermit said:
In the first place Palamas saw Joachim as being himself completely purified, and therefore able to produce a daughter of equal purity.

"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”.


In the second place, there is no theology of Christ reaching back in time and purifying the Mother of God by giving her an advance payment of the merits which He accrued by the Cross.  Instead Palamas believes that her ancestors were one by one gradually and increasingly purified until finally Joachim appeared at the end of this multi-generational process of purification and was the first fully purified man and therefore able, by his immaculate seed, to produce an immaculate daughter. 

However, it has to be noted that Palamas is not speaking of an increase in immaculateness but of increasing purification.    We do him a disservice by trying to impose a modern view of immaculate comception.

Marduk:  In any case, you cannot deny that he believed that Mary was immaculately conceived (like many other EO Fathers before the mid-19th century), regardless of the HOW of the matter.
He also believed that Joachim himself was completely purified (immaculate, in contemporary RC terminoolgy) and, as Saint Ambrose says, the "immaculate seed" of Joachim was able to produce a completely purified and immaculate daughter.
And???  Did he believe Mary was Immaculately conceived???
Well, we don't yet have the actual words of his sermon.

But what we do have so far says that he believed that Joachim had himself been completely purified and so he was able to provide the pure and immaculate seed to produce a completely purified daughter.

This not the same as either of them being immaculately conceived.    We ought not to impose later Western notions of "immaculate conceptions" on Palamas' thought.

However we 1) need to take time to locate the sermon and 2) keep in mind that Palamas' view is an oddity in patristic thought.
A little thought will demonstrate that St. Palamas did in fact believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Though Palamas believed that St. Joachim was purified (i.e., immaculate), he does not admit that Joachim was himself immaculately conceived - i.e., merely that the holiness of his ancestors grew to the point that the seed of Joachim was immaculate.

Thus, when St. Joachim and St. Anna came together, VIOLA!  The Theotokos was indeed IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED, since the seed of man which partly formed Mary, the part that supposedly carried the stain of Original Sin, did not in fact carry the stain.

SO WHAT if there are differences in HOW God achieved the reality of the Immaculate Conception.  The central point of the dogma still remains - that Mary, FROM THE FIRST MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION, was indeed PREVENTED from having the taint/stain/filth of Original Sin touch her soul.

Humbly,
Marduk 

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?
I hope an EO answers this, and I pray everyone who is reading this thread pays careful attention.  TOO often, we hear the notion that the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin is SOOOOOOO different from the Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin, a myth invented by modern EO polemics, and perpetuated by the disinterest of many EO to even bother to try to find out the actual truth of the matter from the horse's mouth, being content with the hearsay they get from their "apologists."  If this cannot actually be proven, then I hope EO out there will stop and think before giving an ear to statements against the Catholic Church, just because the authors of those statements bear affiliation with the EOC.  In any case, this will be just one more step to help the cause of true unity, which is based neither on lies, accomodation, nor forced uniformity, but rather on genuine understanding and acceptance of each other.

Blessings
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?
I hope an EO answers this, and I pray everyone who is reading this thread pays careful attention.  TOO often, we hear the notion that the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin is SOOOOOOO different from the Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin, a myth invented by modern EO polemics, and perpetuated by the disinterest of many EO to even bother to try to find out the actual truth of the matter from the horse's mouth, being content with the hearsay they get from their "apologists."  If this cannot actually be proven, then I hope EO out there will stop and think before giving an ear to statements against the Catholic Church, just because the authors of those statements bear affiliation with the EOC.  In any case, this will be just one more step to help the cause of true unity, which is based neither on lies, accomodation, nor forced uniformity, but rather on genuine understanding and acceptance of each other.

Blessings
First, before you get to what the Vatican teaches (and I admit, it's inconsistent here), first I don't recall your explanation of the IC only affecting the spirit and not the body, when the Vatican's documents on the IC and Assumption like the two.  Which indeed would agree with the EO (and Palamas') about death (physical that is) being the result of original sin.  So can you again tell us, how the Theotokos' body has nothing to do with the IC, or better yet, cite the relevant texts?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Mardukm said:
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?
I hope an EO answers this, and I pray everyone who is reading this thread pays careful attention.  TOO often, we hear the notion that the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin is SOOOOOOO different from the Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin, a myth invented by modern EO polemics, and perpetuated by the disinterest of many EO to even bother to try to find out the actual truth of the matter from the horse's mouth, being content with the hearsay they get from their "apologists."  If this cannot actually be proven, then I hope EO out there will stop and think before giving an ear to statements against the Catholic Church, just because the authors of those statements bear affiliation with the EOC.  In any case, this will be just one more step to help the cause of true unity, which is based neither on lies, accomodation, nor forced uniformity, but rather on genuine understanding and acceptance of each other. 
Maybe you should read some of the threads where some of us have already hashed this out ad nauseam before (click the "Immaculate Conception" tag at the bottom).  I know you already started on some of them:

Mardukm said:
Brother cleveland,

I read two of the links, and they did not give me any information why the dogma of the IC is a heresy, per se.  After that, my attention was occupied by other matters.  So I admit I did not read all of the links.  In any case, the current discussion in the CAF is sufficiently holding my interest, and I think those who have participated have represented the EO position pretty well.  When the hustle and bustle over there finishes, I will come back here to finish the reading.

Thanks for posting the links, btw.  I'm sure you have other things better to do as an admin, so I really do appreciate it.
But I also know you have more to look through.  Please do!

Mardukm said:
Blessings
We Orthodox usually don't get blessings from a balcony.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
I put in bold what you seem to have missed in the OP.
Why not just stop beating around the bush.  Please tell us why you think that excerpt is different from the Catholic understanding?
I hope an EO answers this, and I pray everyone who is reading this thread pays careful attention.  TOO often, we hear the notion that the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin is SOOOOOOO different from the Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin, a myth invented by modern EO polemics, and perpetuated by the disinterest of many EO to even bother to try to find out the actual truth of the matter from the horse's mouth, being content with the hearsay they get from their "apologists."  If this cannot actually be proven, then I hope EO out there will stop and think before giving an ear to statements against the Catholic Church, just because the authors of those statements bear affiliation with the EOC.  In any case, this will be just one more step to help the cause of true unity, which is based neither on lies, accomodation, nor forced uniformity, but rather on genuine understanding and acceptance of each other.
First, before you get to what the Vatican teaches (and I admit, it's inconsistent here), first I don't recall your explanation of the IC only affecting the spirit and not the body, when the Vatican's documents on the IC and Assumption like the two.  Which indeed would agree with the EO (and Palamas') about death (physical that is) being the result of original sin.  So can you again tell us, how the Theotokos' body has nothing to do with the IC, or better yet, cite the relevant texts?
Well, I gave you two references already to the notion that the IC refers to her spiritual conception and not the physical conception - both from the 1917 CE, and one of those quotes references an encyclical by Alexander VII in the 17th century.  If you want to investigate Alexander VII's encyclical, I'm sure you can do it on your own. I have also given you St. Athanasius' teaching on original sin in order to explain the distinction between the spiritual and physical consequences.  I gave you all the proper resources to analyze what I stated.  Address what I've given you already, and we can continue from there.

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 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. 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.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Top