Discourse on the IC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chaldean_Rite

Guest
I thought this does a very good job of showing why the IC makes sense and posted it in this forum because it seems this questions always comes up here.

The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Doctor of the Church

marys-touch.com/Glories/DiscI.htm
The Holy Ghost says that the glory of a man is from the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son (“Gloria enim hominis, ex honore patris ejus; et dedecus filii, pater sine honore”—Ecclus. iii. 13). “Therefore it was,” says an ancient writer, that Jesus preserved the body of Mary from corruption after death; for it would have redounded to his dishonor had that virginal flesh with which he had clothed himself become the food of worms." For he adds, “Corruption is a disgrace of human nature; and as Jesus was not subject to it, Mary was also exempted; for the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary” (“Putredo namque humanae est opprobrium conditionis a quo cum Jesus sit alienus, natura Mariae excipitur; caro enim Jesu, caro Mariae est”). But since the corruption of her body would have been a disgrace for Jesus Christ, because he was born of her, how much greater would the disgrace have been, had he been born of a mother whose soul was once infected with the corruption of sin?

and of course, gives some relevant quotes: But on no account can I omit the opinions of the holy Fathers on this subject, whereby to show their unanimity in conceding this privilege to the divine Mother.

St. Ambrose says, “Receive me not from Sarah, but from Mary; that it may be an uncorrupted Virgin, a Virgin free by grace from every stain of sin” (“Suscipe me non ex Sara, sed ex Maria, ut incorrupta sit Virgo, sed Virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati”—In Ps. cxviii. s. 22).
Origen, speaking of Mary, asserts that “she was not infected by the venomous breath of the serpent” (“Nec serpentis venenosis afflatibus infecta est”—In Div. hom. 1).
St. Ephrem, that “she was immaculate, and remote from all stain of sin” (“Immaculata et ab omni peccati labe alienissima”—Orat. Ad Deip.).
As ancient writer, in a sermon, found amongst, the words of St. Augustine, on the words “Hail, full of grace,” says, “By these words the angel shows that she was altogether (remark the word ‘altogether’) excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing” (“Ave ‘gratia plena!’ Quibus verbis ostendit ex integro iram exclusam primae sententiae, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam”—*Serm.*E. B. app.).
The author of an old work, called the Breviary of St. Jerome, affirms that “that cloud was never in darkness, but always in light” (“Nubes illa non fuit in tenebris, sed simper in luce”—Brev. In Ps. 77).
St. Cyprian, or whoever may be the author of the work on the 77th Psalm, says, “Nor did justice endure that that vessel of election should be open to common injuries; for being far exalted above others, she partook of their nature, not of their sin” (“Nec sustinebat justitia ut illud Vas electionis communibus lassaretur injuriis; quoniam, plurimum a caeteris differens, natura communicabat, non culpa”—De Chr. Op. De Nat.).
St. Amphilochius, that “He who formed the first Virgin without deformity, also made the second one without spot or sin” (“Qui antiquam illam virginem sine probro condidit, ipse et secundam sine nota et crimine fabricatus est”—In S. Deip. et Sim.).
St. Sophronius, that “the Virgin is therefore called immaculate, for in nothing was she corrupt” (“Virginem ideo dici immaculatam, quia in nullo corrupta est”—In Conc. Oecum. 6, act. 11).
St. Ildephonsus argues, that “it is evident that she was free from original sin” (“Constat eam ab omni originali peccato fuisse immunem”—Cont. Disp. De Virginit. M.).
St. John Damascene says, that “the serpent never had any access to this paradise” (“Ad hunc paradisum serpens adytum non habuit”—In Dorm. Deip. or. 2).
St. Peter Damian, that “the flesh of the Virgin, taken from Adam, did not admit of the stain of Adam” (“Caro Virginis, ex Adam assumpta, maculas Adae non admisit”—In Assumpt.).
St. Bruno affirms, “that Mary is that uncorrupted earth which God blessed, and was therefore free from all contagion of sin” (“Haec est incorrupta terra illa cui benedixit Dominus, ab omni propterea peccati contagione libera”—In Ps. ci).
St. Bonaventure, “that our Sovereign Lady was full of preventing grace for her sanctification; that is, preservative grace against the corruption of original sin” (“Domina nostra fuit plena gratia praeveniente in sua sanctificatione, gratis scilicet praeservativa contra foeditatem originalis culpae”—De B. V. s. 2).

Happy belated Feast day of the Immaculate Conception!
 
That’s the best compendium of quotes I have seen from Eastern, Western and Oriental Fathers.

Thank you!

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That’s the best compendium of quotes I have seen from Eastern, Western and Oriental Fathers.

Thank you!

Blessings,
Marduk
Indeed. I have **bolded **the saints that I was familiar with myself, but the ones that I did not know, they also spoke well of the BVM.
 
which of these saints pre-1054 are venerated in the EO Church?
 
which of these saints pre-1054 are venerated in the EO Church?
Note from Moderator:

I was asked if this post may be responded to in light of the temporary ban and I am responding publicly as the answer is of interest to the entire board.

Using a narrow interpretation, as I said I would, this question is allowable under the ban because it asks for Eastern Orthodox to identify Eastern Orthodox saints in order to discuss those saints’ writings on the Immaculate Conception. What would not be allowed before January 7, 2009 would be an answer that tried to establish why someone on the list of recognized Catholic saints should not be recognized as a saint by an Orthodox church.

I hope this clarifies things, but if it does not, please feel free to write me privately by clicking the “PM me” link in my signature. I welcome the opportunity to work with you to make the board a pleasant and informative community for Eastern Catholics!

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Moderator
 
Indeed. I have **bolded **the saints that I was familiar with myself, but the ones that I did not know, they also spoke well of the BVM.
The ones I know that the Orthodox consider Saints are:

Saint Ambrose
Saint Ephrem
Saint Augustine
Saint Jerome
Saint Cyprian
Saint Amphilochius
Saint Sophronius
Saint Ildephonsus
Saint John Damascene

These Saints would almost definitely not be considered Saints by the Orthodox Church:

Saint Peter Damian
Saint Bruno
Saint Bonaventure

Origen isn’t considered a Saint in either Church.

As per the ban, we won’t discuss Saints Ambrose, Jerome, and (especially) Augustine.
 
A happy Feast day to you, as well. I hope you have more time to participate here at CAF.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
December 9th is the Feast of the Conception of St Anne in the (Byzantine) East (is it December 8th in other EC churches?).

The quotes are all fine, but they also serve to underscore the fundamental difference between East and West on the subject of Original Sin.

The East does not accept any “stain” idea in its understanding of Original Sin so Mary being Immaculate is a foregone conclusion.

What the East celebrates is her being sanctified at her Conception and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit at that time.

The East never questioned this whereas, in the West, it was possible for Latin Catholics, until the IC dogma was defined, to hold she was not immaculately conceived in accordance with the “stain” idea.

This is also why the “Immaculate Conception” does not add anything to what the East has always believed and liturgically celebrated about “our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed, Glorious Sovereign Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.”

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top