Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mardukm

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

As I reread your post, I suddenly found this comment intriguing:

minasoliman said:
Finally, one has to also sit and ponder, did the Theotokos even know she was immaculately conceived, unique among humanity?  Did she know she was going to be the Mother of God from her youth?  Clearly, the answer to the latter question is "No," as has been evident in the accounts of Luke's gospel, when she was "troubled at Gabriel's saying" for being called "Blessed among women, and blessed is the fruit of her womb."  But knowing that, surely for consistency's sake, if she was IC'ed, instead of being troubled at Gabriel's saying, she could have acknowledged this, and easily said, "I, the handmaiden of the Lord, am now ready."
Personally, I've never pondered the idea of whether the Theotokos knew she was immaculately conceived.  The interest on the matter would be on the same level as me wondering if the Theotokos knew at, say, age 7 that she would be the Theotokos.  I do not see any fruit that can come from an intellectual consideration of whether the Saints had an omniscient knowledge of exactly what Graces they had received/were receiving/would receive from God.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

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

minasoliman said:
To your point in the previous post about the importance of the dogma, I find it quite sad you met a few people who didn't care.  It seems to me that the present Coptic synod actually does care, especially in her dialogue with the Latin Church.  The rejection is also clear in HH Pope Shenouda's writings.
Don't be too harsh on them. :)  I was, after all, not yet Catholic at the time, so they probably were just thinking, "why is this crazy guy so concerned about this matter?" ;D If I was Catholic, perhaps they might have responded differently.  Nevertheless, I think it does show that for the general laity, St. Jacob's belief on the matter really is not a Faith-defining issue.  At the very least, if the COC has made it a Faith-defining issue, it is a very recent development in teaching.  Since most documents from the Synod are not in English, maybe it will take some time. 

But I ask you this, honestly.  We both know that we don't live and breathe by every word from any human, even a Saint.  Do you think it is proper for the Synod to respond to the Catholic Church's making the IC a faith defining issue, by themselves making something else a faith-defining issue?  To me, it would seem the proper or even better course of action would be to leave the matter the way it always was - theologoumenon.

I will respond to one point in your inquiry - namely, your comment about the Theotokos receiving a grace similar to baptism without her having made a decision first.  I would only point out to you that babies do not make a decision either.
I couldn't help but answer this point before you respond soon.  I hope you consider a difference in the IC and the baptism of children.  The IC was a preconceived notion/assumption from God that she WILL choose to be the Theotokos.  Baptism of children is on the assumption that the parents bear the responsibility of the salvation of their children.  Thus, even though there are similarities in function, the purposes for both are VERY different from each other, unless the Theotokos' parents told her to be ready to be God's mother, in which case, this indication of knowledge was not so according to Luke's gospel.
These are good points to ponder.  I would ask that you consider the ramifications of your comments for our beliefs regarding the Forerunner.  St. John was sanctified even BEFORE he was born.  Does this mean St. John lost his free will, or any part of it?

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

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

Here's something else I just thought about for your consideration (and then I must be off for the next couple of days):

Are you absolutely sure that the Synod and HH's appeal to St. Jacob is an indication that they are trying to make it a Faith-defining issue?  Is it possible that their appeal is simply to emphasize that there are Fathers (actually I can count only two in the early Church) who express the belief that Mary's sanctification occurred at the Annunciation?  In other words, maybe their point is not to make it a Faith-defining belief, but rather to insist on the fact that it remain theologoumenon.

For if it is their purpose to make it a Faith-defining belief, wouldn't that mean the Armenians are heretics for believing it (albeit not as dogma, but as theologoumenon).

Blessings,
Marduk
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Sure, you are entitled to your ad hominem opinion.
It's an ad heresiem fact.

I already addressed them in my post to brother Marc.  Besides straw men, I forgot to mention the tactic of evasion to which polemicists are so prone.
You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

Point out the obvious why don't you.  Did I say that the dogma of the IC was not de fide?  No.  All I said was that it is lower on the rung in the hierarchy of beliefs.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Well, consult the rest of the hierarchy of beliefs by Otto, in the link posted.

Can you show us the Vatican's ladder, where the IC is "lower" on the rungs, besides here?  Because it doesn't appear in Otto, or the CCC.   Come to think of it, I don't see it left out of the Vatican's rites to accept converts.

Like I said, straw men.
You do seem to like that term.

Mmmmm?  Sounds like excommunication to me. ::)
Why, yes it does.

At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii).
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Well, I guess that's why it's theologoumenon. ;D
No. For you it is dogma.  For us (EO and OO) it is heresy.

(Bp Timothy Ware himself admits that it can be a legitimate theologoumenon).
The good bishop is wrong, as he is on women's ordination and legalized abortion.
In rhetoric, that would be a class of ad hominem otherwise known as "guilt by association."  That's another one polemicsts are prone to.
LOL.  Associating a man with his views.  No, that's de hominem.

In fact, if Orthodox really want to remain faithful to Tradition, they would not reject the teaching at all, since the substance of the teaching is celebrated in the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.  We add the word "Immaculate" to it and you get into huff.  The substance is the same, but you simply, in your polemic spirit, refuse to recognize it.
No, it's not.  Some of us have learned from Florence, Brest-Lvov and the rest of the lot, about the importance of saying what you mean and meaning what you say when it comes to lex orandi, lex credendi.

St. Paul had something to say about arguing over words, I believe. ;D
Why, yes he did.  Eph. 5:6; Gal. 1:8-9

Yes, I see.  This easily demonstrates the problem when someone appeals to non-official Catholic sources.  That's another polemical tactic, btw.
Are questioning the Catholicism of "Catholic Planet?"  How ad hominem of you.

This particular rhetorical error is known sensationalism.  No basis in fact, but simply exaggerated claims.
That's funny, that's EXACTLY what Bernard said about the IC in his day, you know, back when the Immaculate Conception was conceived.

No, your rhetorical errors and polemical tactics are becoming glaring and tedious.
Our readers can see that the documented facts I have presented have not been addressed.

Here's another straw man.  I specifically stated that I wasn't even sure the Latin Church uses this term,
Sure does, in the vain attempt to convince the unsuspecting Orthodox that Orthodoxy really taught the IC, but those polemic Orthodox bishops don't want to admit it because they want to stay in schism from the Vatican. ::)

but now he wants to blame the Vatican for it. And I already stated that I merely meant "the graces we receive at baptism," but now he creates a bunch of intentions for me out of thin air.
I argued this very point with Fr. Pachwa, on the air.

Mmmm?  I didn't know the Forerunner was also designated as the most perfect creation of God.  You learn something new all the time --- NOT!
Matthew 11:11.  I'll take His word on it:that's why St. John is on the Deisis, and practically every iconostasis.

So what have we learned from brother Isa today.  Nothing really, except that he is prone to rhetorical errors, and uses polemical tactics
So you keep saying.

When will you start proving?

Your posts, as far as I have looked back on this thread, have contained a lot of pontificating without little citation to your “infallible pontiff.”  You make many allusions, but as far as I can see you have only quoted Fr. Ambrose on CAF (and not by name), and Bishop Kallistos (in one of his more unfortunate ecumenical moments).  You did cite Trent, but not in pertinent part, as, as my citation from your pontiff ex cathdra shows, Trent did, according to the Vatican, touch on the issue of the IC.  At least he proclaimed it in part on that basis.  You “derive” the antiquity of the IC from the “Byzantine Office” of the Conception of Saint Anne, but cite nothing from it.  The very words of your church’s “magisterium” which you deride as straw, and those “theologoumena” of your co-religionists-who I have every reason to take on the same level as yourself to speak for the Vatican-which you dismiss as “non-authoritative.”  Talk about “rhetorical errors and polemical tactics becoming glaring and tedious”

Now all you say might be true, that the Scholastics denied the IC because of their ignorance of bio-psychology, that the Vatican makes a distinction between the body and soul of the All Holy Theotokos, etc. but, as not everything the pope of Rome says, so we are sometimes told, is infallible so too we must expect you to make your case with citation to authority and not your theologoumena.

minasoliman said:
The parallels in the lives of both the Theotokos and the Forerunner is not something to be ignored.  They are both the most immaculate and most perfect and greatest of all creatures and the closest to the heart of the Logos Incarnate.  The tradition is strong that veneration to both the Theotokos and the Forerunner seems to have parallel even if slightly unequal roles.  They are the only saints in the whole Church to which we celebrate the conception, the birth, and the departure, with the exception of the Theotokos who we celebrate the Assumption as well, whereas John enjoys his angelic nature, as he is prophesied as the "angel" coming to make the Lord's ways straight, which is also why there is an iconographic tradition of his "wings".

I am unconvinced at this point of the IC if it is not also extended to St. John the Forerunner.
Much better said.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Not to derail this thread, and I don't think I am; but what is the The Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit that you speak of? I can't seem to find anything about it. God Bless!
Dear Nicholas,

Plug this into a search engine and start reading.   :)

site:forums.catholic.com quasi-incarnation
Yeah, it's pretty silly, both in its concept and the polemical use of it by non-Catholics.  It's like - "OMG, I heard my Catholic grandma today say angels have real bodies.  That must mean it's offical teaching in the Catholic Church now!"  Polemicists are a pretty silly bunch that shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.  I would love to say "shouldn't be taken seriously PERIOD," but it is a fact that polemecists do manage to lead people astray.
No, it's like Bernard of Clairvaux saying "OMG, I heard the Catholic English peasants today say that the Virgin was conceived without original sin.  That migh become the official teaching in the Catholic Church now!"

Btw, that is not polemicists but APOLOGETICS that Father is talking about.  Like your saint, Maximilliam Kolbe
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
I at least am basing what I am saying on the infallible definition of the magisterial statement Munificentissimus Deus and on the Catechism.
Sorry.  I looked over it, and I simply could not find any place in Munificentissimus Deus that claims that Mary was "preserved from original sin."
That should not have been Munificientissimus Deus but Pope Pius IX's earlier Ineffabilis Deus of 1854.  I mixed up Munificentissimus with Ineffabilis.  All the same I am a little surpised that you are not sufficiently au courant with these matters to realise which is the correct Apostolic Constitution.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
He isn't?
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
You mean this isn't it?

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
That's it.  But he is interpreting it wrongly.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

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

ialmisry said:
You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.
It's called logical thinking. The other two Latin contemporary Fathers (St. Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure) who opposed the introduction of the Feast into the West used noted were quite explicit on the matter of the difference between conception and ensoulment.  Here's a pro-life website that explains it a bit: http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm.  And btw, they weren't opposing the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. They were opposing the Eastern Feast of the Conception.

Point out the obvious why don't you.  Did I say that the dogma of the IC was not de fide?  No.  All I said was that it is lower on the rung in the hierarchy of beliefs.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Well, consult the rest of the hierarchy of beliefs by Otto, in the link posted.

Can you show us the Vatican's ladder, where the IC is "lower" on the rungs, besides here?  Because it doesn't appear in Otto, or the CCC.   Come to think of it, I don't see it left out of the Vatican's rites to accept converts.
The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of Faith."  CCC 234

In Catholic doctrine, there exists an order or "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith. CCC 90
There are references to the magisterial documents in the CCC (which you claim to have searched) on the matter.  Very sloppy - as  usual.

Mmmmm?  Sounds like excommunication to me. ::)
Why, yes it does.

At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii).
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
[/quote]
Why don't you quote the rest of it, where it goes on to explain how the meaning of excommunication has changed through the centuries in the Church, and how there are now degrees of excommunication recognised (from anathema to minor excommunication).  As usual, you are only interested in knocking down a cut-and-paste caricature of the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Mmmm?  I didn't know the Forerunner was also designated as the most perfect creation of God.  You learn something new all the time --- NOT!
Matthew 11:11.  I'll take His word on it:that's why St. John is on the Deisis, and practically every iconostasis.
Yeah, and please notice that His word states that there is another who is greater.  I would bet that this refers to Mary, whose humility in her fiat is extolled by all the Church to the present day.

Like I said, straw men.
You do seem to like that term.
Yes, because as evidenced above, only because you like to use them so often.  Brother, it is obvious that you are quite ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and really don't know enough about it to criticize it.  If you were a little more humble, a little more searching in your attitude, then it would be a more fulfilling endeavor to have discussion with you.  As it is, I will have to stop my correspondence with you and Father Ambrose (unless I sense either of you are being sincere in your questions and are not merely pointing fingers).  I will restrict myself to questions from those who I sense are willing to discuss the matter openly and sincerely. Sorry, but Your invalid, and oftentimes senseless attacks on the Catholic Church are no longer worth my time to consider during this Holy Season.

Have a blessed Pascha.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.
It's called logical thinking. The other two Latin contemporary Fathers (St. Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure) who opposed the introduction of the Feast into the West used noted were quite explicit on the matter of the difference between conception and ensoulment.  
Marduk,

You continue to spin opinions out of the whirlpool of your fertile mind.  You apply "logical" thinking only to distort what these two Saints have said, to bend their writings to the argument which you wish to make.

Nowhere do either of these Catholic Saints state they they do not accept the Immaculate Conception but they accept or would accept the Immaculate Ensoulment.  This is sheer fabrication on your part.

May God gant you a wonderful Tridium.

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
[Dear Nicholas,

Plug this into a search engine and start reading.    :)

site:forums.catholic.com quasi-incarnation
Yeah, it's pretty silly, both in its concept and the polemical use of it by non-Catholics.  It's like - "OMG, I heard my Catholic grandma today say angels have real bodies.  That must mean it's offical teaching in the Catholic Church now!"  Polemicists are a pretty silly bunch that shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.  I would love to say "shouldn't be taken seriously PERIOD," but it is a fact that polemecists do manage to lead people astray.
The Quasi-Incarnation of the Holy Spirit

Coming soon to a church near you, the new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit.  :)

The formula for use in the future infallible definition from Rome has already been coined:

"Filius incarnatus est: Jesus Christus. Spiritus Sanctus quasi incarnatus est: Immaculata."

IIRC from CAF days,  Scott Hahn, one of modern Catholicism's heavyweight apologists is inclined to it, as are the Franciscans at Steubenville.  And as we all know from history, when the Franciscans put their muscle behind a Marian doctrine they eventually get it accepted.

You can find various articles on the Net such as
"The Holy Spirit And Mary"
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4270

Brothers and Sisters, you are uniquely privileged to be looking at what Catholics call a "node point."    A node point is what provides the spring board for the process of a development in doctrine which one day eventuates in a new dogma being proclaimed.

 

ialmisry

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

Here's something else I just thought about for your consideration (and then I must be off for the next couple of days):

Are you absolutely sure that the Synod and HH's appeal to St. Jacob is an indication that they are trying to make it a Faith-defining issue?  Is it possible that their appeal is simply to emphasize that there are Fathers (actually I can count only two in the early Church) who express the belief that Mary's sanctification occurred at the Annunciation?  In other words, maybe their point is not to make it a Faith-defining belief, but rather to insist on the fact that it remain theologoumenon.

For if it is their purpose to make it a Faith-defining belief, wouldn't that mean the Armenians are heretics for believing it (albeit not as dogma, but as theologoumenon).

Blessings,
Marduk
Give it a REST!

The Armenians do NOT believe in the IC, as a dogma or as a theologoumenon. I have already quoted from their Catholicos' OFFICIAL (you raised the issue of "non-official Catholic sites") on that issue.  Please quote SOMETHING to make your case.

It is also rather odd for you to worry about the Armenians being heretics in the OO communion, when you have been downplaying disbelief in the IC as grounds for heresy in your communion.

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.

Ironically, the dogma begins on the opposite end of Christendom from Syria, in England of all places (ironic in view of the English Reformation). The feast shows up there in c. 850, but the Immaculate part is not promoted as part of it until the 12th cent. by Anselm (Atonement Anselm)'s friend Eadmer, who defended English (he was Anglo-Saxon) folklore in a popular pamphlet, De Conceptione sanctae Mariae. Note, post schism. St. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-1153 Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine") preached against it as an innovation. The English persisted in spreading it, Duns Scotus inventing the syllogism potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it) as its "proof."

Btw, since Mina is asking about St. Leo, here are some more quotes:

Letter 31:2 -- "For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil’s yoke, and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror’s victory, if it had been won outside our nature."

Letter 35:3 -- "For although the Lord's nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences."

1st Sermon on the Nativity -- "...the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, 'no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.' Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body."

2nd Sermon on the Nativity -- "For God the almighty and merciful...foretold...that Christ would come in the flesh, God and man, Who born of a Virgin should by His uncorrupt birth condemn the despoiler of the human stock. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And 'ours' we call what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in and the deceived admitted had no trace in the Saviour. Nor because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the Divine....And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: 'because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.' The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained. Consider here not the condition of her that bare but the will of Him that was born; for He was born Man as He willed and was able....For the Lord Jesus Christ came to do away with not to endure our pollutions: not to succumb to our faults but to heal them. He came that He might cure every weakness of our corruptness and all the sores of our defiled souls: for which reason it behoved Him to be born by a new order, who brought to men’s bodies the new gift of unsullied purity. For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself....And, dearly beloved, this very fact that Christ chose to be born of a Virgin does it not appear to be part of the deepest design? I mean, that the devil should not be aware that Salvation had been born for the human race, and through the obscurity of that spiritual conception, when he saw Him no different to others, should believe Him born in no different way to others. For when he observed that His nature was like that of all others, he thought that He had the same origin as all had: and did not understand that He was free from the bonds of transgression because he did not find Him a stranger to the weakness of mortality....And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred. Her unsullied virginity knew no lust when it ministered the substance. The Lord took from His mother our nature, not our fault. The slave’s form is created without the slave’s estate, because the New Man is so commingled with the old, as both to assume the reality of our race and to remove its ancient flaw. When, therefore, the merciful and almighty Saviour so arranged the commencement of His human course as to hide the power of His Godhead which was inseparable from His manhood under the veil of our weakness, the crafty foe was taken off his guard and he thought that the nativity of the Child, Who was born for the salvation of mankind, was as much subject to himself as all others are at their birth...and knowing how he had poisoned man’s nature, had no conception that He had no share in the first transgression Whose mortality he had ascertained by so many proofs. The unscrupulous thief and greedy robber persisted in assaulting Him Who had nothing of His own, and in carrying out the general sentence on original sin, went beyond the bond on which he rested, and required the punishment of iniquity from Him in Whom he found no fault."

4th Sermon on the Nativity -- “’The Word became flesh’ by exaltation of the flesh, not by failure of the Godhead: which so tempered its power and goodness as to exalt our nature by taking it, and not to lose His own by imparting it. In this nativity of Christ, according to the prophecy of David, ‘truth sprang out of the earth, and righteousness looked down from heaven.’ In this nativity also, Isaiah’s saying is fulfilled, ‘let the earth produce and bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together.’ For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. And each one is a partaker of this spiritual origin in regeneration; and to every one when he is re-born, the water of baptism is like the Virgin’s womb; for the same Holy Spirit fills the font, Who filled the Virgin, that the sin, which that sacred conception overthrew, may be taken away by this mystical washing.”

8th Sermon on the Nativity – “In celebrating therefore the birthday of our Lord and Saviour, dearly beloved, let us entertain pure thoughts of the blessed Virgin’s child-bearing, so as to believe that at no moment of time was the power of the Word wanting to the flesh and soul which she conceived, and that the temple of Christ’s body did not previously receive its form and soul that its Inhabitant might come and take possession but through Himself and in Himself was the beginning given to the New Man, so that in the one Son of God and Man there might be Godhead without a mother, and Manhood without a Father. For her virginity fecundated by the Holy Spirit at one and the same time brought forth without trace of corruption both the offspring and the Maker of her race....the majesty of the Son of God in which He is equal with the Father in its garb of a slave’s humility feared no diminution, required no augmentation: and the very effect of His mercy which He expended on the restitution of man, He was able to bring about solely by the power of His Godhead; so as to rescue the creature that was made in the image of God from the yoke of his cruel oppressor. But because the devil had not shown himself so violent in his attack on the first man as to bring him over to his side without the consent of His free will, man’s voluntary sin and hostile desires had to be destroyed in such wise that the standard of justice should not stand in the way of the gift of Grace. And thereforein the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’ David’s Lord was made David’s Son, and from the fruit of the promised branch sprang One without fault, the twofold nature joining together into one Person, that by one and the same conception and birth might spring our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom was present both true Godhead for the performance of mighty works and true Manhood for the endurance of sufferings.”
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
I believe that Mary not because of original sin but because her life was completely in conformity to that of her son, who died and most definitely did not posses original sin.
Dear Papist, you stated earlier that you have a mathematical mind and that is why you are so suited to Latinism.   But your statement above shows the opposite.  Firstly you must be aware that you are giving a private opinion and not the teaching of your Church.  No Pope has promulgated the "conformity" doctrine.

We know from the Catechism (1018)*  that anybody without original sin is immune to bodily death.

You contend that because Christ did His Mother was obliged to die too.

This is a problem because 1) no Pope has declared this and 2) the Catechism teaches that she was immune to bodily death.

So the question is:   HOW did she who could not die, die?   If God had decided that she had to die to conform to her Son, did He actually kill her?  How did He kill her?  How does your theory deal with this?


You know, if it weren't for the fact that we are speaking of humanity's most sacred personages, this would be uproariously funny!

-------------------
* CCC 1018: As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned.
It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Yes, I know Mardukm, "not an official web site, not an official web site..."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Ooops.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear Orthodox brethren,

I am concerned that there are a few here who claim the teaching on the IC is heretical.  These assert that there is NO witness in the Eastern Byzantine tradition on the matter.  I just want to take the time to demonstrate that this really nothing more than a polemic lie against the Holy Eastern Orthodox Faith for the purpose (it seems) of nothing else than to perpetuate the ungodly schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

St. Proclus of Constantinople: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Homily 1

St. Ephrem of Syria: “Those two innocent women, Mary and Eve, had been utterly equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.”
- “You and your mother are the only ones IMMUNE from all stain; for there is no spot in Thee, o Lord, nor any taint in your Mother.”

St. Jacob of Sarug actually sits on the fence.  In one place, he states that Mary was free from the sentence of Adam and Eve at the annunciation, yet in another place, he states, “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier…if ANY STAIN had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”  Of course, for St. Jacob to state that God selected her based on her soul not having any stain means that Mary must have been “stainless” even BEFORE the Annunciation.  To me, the only legitimate interpretation possible is that St. Jacob believed that she received Graces to have a stainless soul BEFORE the Annunciation, while believing that the Grace she received at the Annunciation was a different kind of Grace.  For surely the Grace for Mary to be OVERSHADOWED by the FULL divinity must be of an entirely different order than the Graces received at Baptism by which creatures are cleansed of the stain of all sin.  In any case, St. Jacob certainly cannot be used to make any sort of DEFINITE statement against the teaching of the IC.

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem: “You have found the grace which no one has received…No one has been pre-purified besides you.”

St. Euthymes of Constantinople (patriarch), during a homily on the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne wrote that on the day of Mary’s conception, the Father fashioned the tabernacle for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” at this very time.

Theognostes of Constantinople (c. 885): “It was fitting indeed that she who from the beginning had been conceived by a sanctifying action should also have a holy death…”

An identical belief in the matter comes from St. Photius of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas, George Scholarios of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, and Gerasimo of Alexandria.

It seems that the Eastern Orthodox Church began to reject the teaching of the IC only after the Catholic Church had dogmatized it.  Before that time, it seems the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church was to uphold the teaching on the IC of Mary (as certainly reflected in the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne).

My dear EO brethren, please do your own research on the views of the EO Fathers I mentioned  - for the sake of unity, for the sake of holy knowledge, and because I simply did not have the time to type out  all the citations from the works of those Fathers above (though they were there in the sources I researched).  Admittedly, you also have one Father from the fourteenth century who explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception.  But all others it seems come after the proclamation of the dogma of the IC.

As I already stated in another post, I’m not here to try to convert anyone to my belief.  I simply want to demonstrate that, at the very least, it is not heretical and can legitimately be called a theologoumenon (as Bishop Timothy Ware has asserted).  It’s obvious that those who think the belief is a heresy have not really done any study on the matter as far as its history in the EOC, but are instead demonstrating a mere knee-jerk over reaction due to their prejudicial anti-Catholicism.

I pray my EO brethren that you seriously ponder the facts given above (and seriously do your own study with prayer).  IMHO, what better way to offer worship and living sacrifice for Pascha than to have peace with your brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

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

ialmisry said:
It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Yes, I know Mardukm, "not an official web site, not an official web site..."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Ooops.
You silly goose.  You are a bad polemicist.  Read your quote again.  It says she "would not suffer corruption IN THE GRAVE."  Where's that banghead smiley when you need one.  That means when she died, the Lord did not allow her body to suffer corruption but granted her the grace of the Assumption.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I said I would no longer converse with you or Father Ambrose, but some of your errors and obvious displays of ignorance of Catholic teaching are so great they need to be commented on.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
You silly goose.  You are a bad polemicist.  Read your quote again.  It says she "would not suffer corruption IN THE GRAVE."  Where's that banghead smiley when you need one.  That means when she died, the Lord did not allow her body to suffer corruption but granted her the grace of the Assumption.
Are not the corruption of the grave and bodily death both a result of original sin?    If Adam and Eve had not sinned they would have known neither of them.

Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Praise God I found some Armenian texts online to combat the senseless polemics:

From a hymn sung during the Armenian Feast of the Conception:
“Thou art the Flower which cannot wither,
Thy birth was free from the condemnation of original sin,
Immaculate, holy Virgin, We glorify thee!”

From the book “Mother of God,” there is a foreword by Armenian Patriarch Torkom Mannogian of Jerusalem:
“The name of Mary, the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception who bore the Christ, will be honoured throughout eternity, as the quintessence of purity, innocence, sacrifice and devotion.  No other human being has ever received, or been worthy of such vereration as this humble woman, so full of grace, from Galilee.” (p. 7)

I must thank my OO brother Sub-Deacon Lazarus Der-Ghazarian for these quotes.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin.  Like I said, where's that banghead smiley when you need it.

You can repeat your straw man arguments all you want.  It's just a hollow echo now.  Your and brother Isa's polemics are all used up.

Have a great Pascha, Father.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin. 
That is a rather disingenuous prersentation of Catholic teaching.

Here is the real McCoy:

1. The stain of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace.

2.  The consequences of the loss of sanctifying grace are 1) concupiscence and 2) sickness and death.

If one has never experienced original sin one has never lost sanctifying grace.

If one has never lost sanctifying grace, one cannot be subject to sickness and death.

The Mother of God cannot have died, not unless God made a decision to kill her off because, according to Papist, He wanted her to die because His Son had died.

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Father, you are just embarassing yourself now.

Can you please tell everyone here what it is that Baptism gains for us according to Catholic teaching?

Let me tell you from the horse's mouth - when we are Baptized, we gain sanctifying grace and original justice.

Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?

Nice try Father, but no cigar.  The real McCoy was already fully explained by me in an earlier post.

Please give it up Father.

Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin. 
That is a rather disingenuous prersentation of Catholic teaching.

Here is the real McCoy:

1. The stain of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace.

2.  The consequences of the loss of sanctifying grace are 1) concupiscence and 2) sickness and death.

If one has never experienced original sin one has never lost sanctifying grace.

If one has never lost sanctifying grace, one cannot be subject to sickness and death.

The Mother of God cannot have died, not unless God made a decision to kill her off because, according to Papist, He wanted her to die because His Son had died.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Praise God I found some Armenian texts online to combat the senseless polemics:

From a hymn sung during the Armenian Feast of the Conception:
“Thou art the Flower which cannot wither,
Thy birth was free from the condemnation of original sin,
Immaculate, holy Virgin, We glorify thee!”

From the book “Mother of God,” there is a foreword by Armenian Patriarch Torkom Mannogian of Jerusalem:
“The name of Mary, the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception who bore the Christ, will be honoured throughout eternity, as the quintessence of purity, innocence, sacrifice and devotion.  No other human being has ever received, or been worthy of such vereration as this humble woman, so full of grace, from Galilee.” (p. 7)

I must thank my OO brother Sub-Deacon Lazarus Der-Ghazarian for these quotes.
LOL. Yes, we have met before:
ialmisry said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
The tour de force paper for understanding almighty God's truth:
Well, I guess the Vatican can put Humanae Vitae away.

Although I find the reduction of Orthodoxy to contraception and divorce a reductio ad absurdum (especially as triumpalism from the Vatican, where its differentiation between NFP and ABC is not supported by Patristics, and annullments ARE "Catholic divorces, just with Corban), I do agree with most of the conclusions.  I disagree with the conclusion that the case is so clear.

I was also curious about the writer: a Armenian name, but quoting EOs.  A search turned up a post (I'd link, but it's not allowed I believe):

To close I'd like to mention how I pray you some day consider me. I have read that Orthodox Saints are recognized as saints by the Catholic Church as long as they never attacked the Pope or Catholic teaching. The Armenian Saint Gregory of Narek is one example that this is true (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2678). Although St. Gregory was "post-schism" (meaning he belonged to an Orthodox Church after the split came about with Rome) he is still acknowledged by Rome as a Saint. This is the way I pray you some day consider me: not as a Saint, but rather as a faithful Orthodox Christian and deacon who has no animosity whatsoever for the Church of Rome; but rather as one who has great love, respect and veneration for the Church of Rome and her great moral leadership in a world crumbling away with sin. Please know that I spend a good amount of time every week defending Catholic teaching to Protestants and some Orthodox.
I am married to a Catholic. I want my kids to be close to Catholics. I work for the Archdiocese of Detroit (at Sacred Heart Major Seminary). I may even attend classes at a Catholic Seminary. So you may occasionally see me around somewhere in the Archdiocese, attending conferences and even worshipping with my brethren of "the other lung of the Church" (following H.H. Pope John Paul II's metaphor on the Eastern and Western Churches as two lungs of the same Church). If and when you see me, I want you to at least know that this is what is in my heart. Thanks for reading this and please feel free to write me and offer your forgiveness. It will be spiritually therapeutic for me to say the least.
So I'm less impressed from the Vatican line being spread by an apologist for it.

Btw, your paper praised Origen as a Biblical scholar.  He castrated himself on the basis of Matthew 19:12 (the Church canons castigate that, and it caused a scandal in Origen's day).  Talk about birth control.  Your source also fails to mention that the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized Origen.
Btw, more on Sub-Deacon William/Lazarus Der-Ghazarian is here:
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/index.html
Look on the right links: he claims he was transferred from the "Roman" church to the Armenian Church, but is still in communion with "Roman" church.  Maybe the Catholicos should look into what baggage the sub-deacon brought over, or the fine print in his "translation."

My understanding, since my post on the sub-deacon, is that if his credibility becomes an issue, I could post a link to where he makes these statements.  Mods?

I will congratulte you.  Finally we have something (although I am dubious above its validity, as I'll speak about in a moment) that is cited in support of your position.

Now, that being said, I have to state that having seen his posting on another forum (as no doubt you have), I wouldn't put his testimony as to what is Armenian Orthodoxy on a par with, say, Salpy's, as I would not put (no offense intended) your testimony on what is Coptic Orthodoxy on a par with, say, Mina or Ekhristosanesti, just in reverse: you both seem to have seem to lost something in your "translations."  The case I sighted above of what the Chaldeans do with St. Ephrem is a case in point.  Here, if, as you both claim, the Armenian Orthodox sing that hymn (which, btw, refers to her birth, neither her conception nor her ensoulment," then why does the official website of the Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian Orthodox, on the notes for the feast, EXPLICITELY state that the Armenians do not believe in the IC, as I have posted above?

I have seen a number of Coptic Orthodox who claim that the "Vision of Bernadette" which claimed "I am the Immaculate Conception" occuring on March 25 (whose Immmaculate Conception was that?) as proof that the title Immaculate Conception should refer only to Christ's.  It isn't clear from your post: whose Conception is being refered to (cf. the "confusion" over St. Leo's quotes)?

Since you praises God you found some Armenian texts online "to combat the senseless polemics," might you provide us links that we may praise Him too?  (I apoligize that I did not put the link up for the text of Ineffibilus Desu and Mufficentissimus Deus, an oversight).

I'll tend to your other posts later.  I am busy with our pope wanna be on other threads.
 

Mardukm

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

So basically, you don't trust brother DerGhazar because of his ecumenical spirit.  That just goes to show us that you are not really interested in the Truth on these matters, but are simply anti-Catholic and will say anything just to try to put Catholicism down.

And I didn't see the Catholicos say he rejected the teaching.  If he did, he certainly said it in a very round about way that is not very clear (but perhaps that is what you were hinging your whole argument on).  I already responded to your use of it earlier, but as usual you did not respond.  I stated that the Catholicos merely stated that the Armenian Church does not accept a teaching that would give to Mary any qualities reserved to Christ.  Great! Amen!  I as a Catholic agree.  But the dogma of the IC does not do that, so no problem there.  He also said that his Church does not accept new articles of Faith.  True, the IC is not an article of Faith in the Armenian Church - it is, rather, a theologoumenon.

You've demonstrated nothing.  Move on, please.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Top