Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[GaryTaylor]

Actually the Orthodox Church has plenty of miracles. We just don’t tend to advertise them to the world and claim they prove what we teach - we don’t need that proof.

I am told, for example, that the iconostasis at my church was leaking myrrh during a particularly hard time in the parishes history (and it isn’t a very old Parish). Our priest felt no regrets that it was gone, because that meant the hard times in the Parish were over.

I’m pretty sure they happen often. Same with the Copts and Egypt. The CC actually does the same also and asserts to quiet and calm. Things do get a little out hand as we see with Fatima through. Well, they say the church works from the inside and the outside.

 

[Hesychios]

http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/images/bernprof.jpg

Is this a photo of her with the wax mask, or without it?

 

[Nine_Two]

NIne…

I’m asserting I fail to see what in the world it resolves?

Your comment is …no to the Negative, gottcha… “check”!

My comment is thus this …

Romans-5-12
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin, death; and so death passed upon all men”.

Romans-5:19
Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, “for as by the disobedience of one man many [all mankind] were made sinners”

What is the point of you being guilty or not if your “convicted” by God? For as by the disobedience of man many [all mankind] were made sinners…so what are ya saying we caught an injustice? Thats sort of big “oh-well” no? Whats implied “exactly” by “no” as to the negative guilt? In the Kingdom of God what does this NO to the negative do exactly for us?

I fail to see to how in the world it resolves anything of the consequence? Is their a punch line to this injustice that your somehow rewarded for in the end, that I wasn’t told about?

We still inherited it, still own it, call it guilty or not guilty we bought the ticket and are taking the ride for certain. If there’s some solice in the fact that you didn’t commit Adams Sin, I have to tell ya I’m not feeling it, I do forgive Him, still here though:thumbsup: Still praying daily, still attending Mass on the regular. Still the Thief Christ died on the Cross for. Still a sinner in a fallen world seeking a state of grace daily and often failing.

Peace.

I have no idea what you mean by “no to the negative”, or where you get “convicted” from, or even what you’re trying to argue at this point.

We’ve stated what Orthodox believe on Original Sin/Ancestral Sin. I don’t see how you’re getting all of that out of the verses you cited, and I have no idea what you’re saying is an injustice.

Ultimately, this seems to be one big digression and of little importance to the greater conversation.

 

[Anthony_V]

Not quite, Anthony V. There are myriads of angels in heaven who expressed free will and remained perfectly sinless. Plus, the church does not teach that our lady is the only human (we are not including Christ here) to be graced at conception or fully co-operate with God through-out her life. The church says that she’s the one about whom we know for sure. There could be others- But God has not chosen to tell us. nothing in CC teaching that it had to be only Mary. It was God’s gift and he could give it to whomever he liked.

My apologies on lack of consistency there. In my defense, I did bring this matter up in my 2nd question:

1. Is free will expressed by opposition to sin alone?
   We know that God the Father and Holy Spirit have not sinned, and cannot sin, but has free will.
   We know that God the Son has not sinned, and cannot sin, but has free will.
   We know that Theotokos has not sinned, as has free will, but we cannot discern if she was able to sin or not.
   We know that the demons have sinned, and were fully able to not have, but had free will.
   We know that the angels have not sinned, and were fully able to not do so, but had free will.
   Conclusion 2: Lack of ability to choose for or against sin is not necessarily a hindrance of free will (as is the case for God). Does this apply to Theotokos?

Further, my whole basis of the argument is to show that someone who has not sinned, by their nature and whatever the means of acquiring (or existing as) that nature, does not have a hindered free will. If this was not the case, God would not have free will (as an ultimatum; not dealing with esse). I’m arguing for the same thing you are, just singling out Mary, and making quite a few communication blunders along the way.

So last night I dreamed a Calvinist replied to my post indicating that it was pelagianism. My counter-argument was that of etymology and semantics, not of differing theology to efficacious grace.

I guess my two main questions are,
A) Was Mary’s life that of intact actual grace, or intact sanctifying grace?
B) Was Mary’s “yes” at the annunciation that of said intact actual grace lineage, or intact sanctifying grace lineage?
I mean, the angel does say, “Hail! Full of grace!” He just doesn’t say what type of grace
And it doesn’t run into the problem of double pre-destination because we’re talking about intrinsic God given nature, which isn’t merely a one time efficacious event on behalf of one’s cooperative will. It’s just intact, simply put. It starts without the will, yes, but is completed by the will; Hence the annunciation-- an intact grace.
I’m so confused on that hair splitting part. :banghead:

 

[Anthony_V]

I am told, for example, that the iconostasis at my church was leaking myrrh during a particularly hard time in the parishes history (and it isn’t a very old Parish). Our priest felt no regrets that it was gone, because that meant the hard times in the Parish were over.

Ahh! That’s so cool! Do you know of any legitimate sites with Orthodox miracles? That seems intriguing to look up on.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ahh! That’s so cool! Do you know of any legitimate sites with Orthodox miracles? That seems intriguing to look up on.

Nope, as I said, there is very little importance placed on these things. At most they are a moral boost. They don’t play into the theology, nor are we to look for them.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Actually the Orthodox Church has plenty of miracles. We just don’t tend to advertise them to the world and claim they prove what we teach - we don’t need that proof.

I am told, for example, that the iconostasis at my church was leaking myrrh during a particularly hard time in the parishes history (and it isn’t a very old Parish). Our priest felt no regrets that it was gone, because that meant the hard times in the Parish were over.

That’s beautiful!

It seems God’s loving hand is supernaturally visible in both our churches.

 

[Marybeloved]

I did not “charge that Catholics make Mary super-human” any more than you charged the Orthodox make Mary super-human. I stated that is what it looks like to me. You’ll note the difference between these two positions, one is personal opinion, one is stating something as though it was fact.

Fair enough- But I said this to put the conversation in context. You see, you accused me of pretending to ask an innocent question so as to lead the conversation one way when I made all my points in the first post in which I responded to you.

Or were you making a statement when you said it? Because that would make you a hypocrit.

Whether/not it’s actual fact depends on many things. The hypocrite bit is totally unnecessary. After all, such a charge (both yours and mine) can be true- and it would not make either of us a hypocrite. Stating so and attempting to support it has nothing to do with hypocrisy, it’s an example of what genuine debates and disagreements are all about.

As to your assertation that I have “come up with ideas that are heretical”, twice in this thread you have posted ideas that contradict the Nicene Creed, and when called on it the first time you dismissed it without thought.

What in the creed have I contradicted? Do point it out.

If your beliefs do not follow the tenets of the most basic Creed in Christendom (and the Creed by which a great many, myself included, define the term), then you have no right to accuse me of heresy based on your interpretation of a single canon of a local council.

Again, what against the creed is in my statements? And I said that the points you made were heretical- I have not said that you are a heretic. You and I can both just be mistaken like any other person.

Limbo has nothing to do with any of this. I said according to your interpretation they can do no good, period. They were unable to follow the will of God. That is what you are saying.
They were unable to reach salvation until Christ, but that is something else entirely, and is a changing of the subject.

You make an excellent distinction here. I agree that the canon I quoted does speak about something different than salvation- that is good works- point taken. So I’ll approach it slightly differently- The grace to come to God and to be deified (holy). Do you personally think that the Theotokos did her good works unsaved or was she also herself holy/deified?

I’ll wait to see if you can reply to this as a rational person,

This is totally unnecessary.

accepting I gave you an answer to your question (look at all the Orthodox posters lining up to tell you how wrong it was - by the way, I’ve been told I was wrong by Orthodox posters here before, something that doesn’t seem a common experience among Catholics.)

Not true- I’ve received quite a few unapologetically delivered bruises myself from Catholics at CAF a number of times. I just don’t see (and probably they can’t either) what point it is that I made in contradiction of the creed. Catholics are usually all over that sort of thing (myself included)

I’d also like an apology for your insinuation that I am a heretic, though I personally don’t care if you recant your own heretical statement.

Well, I do apologize. I also insist that I was not calling you (or did not mean to) a heretic. I am often mistaken myself, I don’t think that not knowing everything about the faith, and this coming out in discussions means that either I or the people I talk to are heretics.

If you can do that then maybe, just maybe, I won’t add you to the list of insufferables I call my ignore list.

What animal is this “ignore list” I see people mentioning in threads here sometimes? And how does it work on threads, apart from PMs? You are free to add whoever you want there of course. I certainly am not going to ask you not to put me there if that’s what you feel you have to do. I hope you don’t if that means no more discussions ever in the future. Thankfully, I have never felt any need myself to even look for this “ignore list”.

 

[dcointin]

This is completely off topic, but ill make one single comment about this for that reason, and no more (because also I cant be here having an endless discussion all day like many of you do).

When Comparing the amount of miracles claimed by members of the Catholic Church with those claimed of non-Catholic ones (orthodox/protestant), and not just the amount but the size/impact of them, there is a huge difference. Orthodox for example don’t have a miracle the size of “Our Lady of Guadalupe” which has been examined multiple times and has scientifically proven to be amazing and which converted some 8-9 million Mexicans within almost 3 years.

youtube.com/watch?v=xe4Ozm0oENk

The amount of miracles is by far more present in the Catholic Church than in any other Church (even if our church is the biggest christian church of all in members, the miracles are simply countless). The Eucharistic miracles are by far more frequent here, than anywhere else. The amount of saints and no just the amount, but their impact too, is simply beyond any other church. To this I point out to Augustine:

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, …The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles…keeps me here…" (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

-Augustine

How can you claim Catholicism has “more miracles” if you have no idea about their frequency in Orthodoxy?

 

[dcointin]

Ahh! That’s so cool! Do you know of any legitimate sites with Orthodox miracles? That seems intriguing to look up on.

Google a combination of “holy fire” and “orthodox pascha” for one famous and recurring one.

 

[Anthony_V]

Google a combination of “holy fire” and “orthodox pascha” for one famous and recurring one.

So beautiful! :bighanky:
And the fact that it happens on pascha is just heartwarming!

 

[Anthony_V]

Do you think that only baptism is necessary for salvation? Are all who are baptized saved? If not, then I don’t think we can say that Mary’s salvation is evidence for the Immaculate Conception.

I beg to differ, but for a different reason than you object. When Mary was saved is crucial to determining the manner of how she was saved. If both the stain of original sin and original sin itself was the entirety of what she was saved from, then we are dealing with her being immaculate at conception.
The reasoning behind this is that while we can reconcile her overcoming concupiscence (as Orthodox teaching suggests) by God’s grace, we still cannot reconcile her with a privation of sanctifying grace (since she would still only have original sin, just not the stain) or else she wouldn’t have concupiscence to overcome in the first place; and you can’t overcome concupiscence until you reach the age of reason–a good while after conception.
Or perhaps I’ve just tied myself up in a philosophical knot. I could stand for some humiliation right now.

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race.
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI

Pax Christi

 

[Marybeloved]

I beg to differ, but for a different reason than you object. When Mary was saved is crucial to determining the manner of how she was saved. If both the stain of original sin and original sin itself was the entirety of what she was saved from, then we are dealing with her being immaculate at conception.
The reasoning behind this is that while we can reconcile her overcoming concupiscence (as Orthodox teaching suggests) by God’s grace, we still cannot reconcile her with a privation of sanctifying grace (since she would still only have original sin, just not the stain) or else she wouldn’t have concupiscence to overcome in the first place; and you can’t overcome concupiscence until you reach the age of reason–a good while after conception.
Or perhaps I’ve just tied myself up in a philosophical knot. I could stand for some humiliation right now.

Pax Christi

Anthony, it still leaves the whole basis of the objection (no difference) unanswered, because it would not explain how she was able to resist all sin from the age of reason onwards- Was anyone else able to? Why not? It also leaves the whole matter of why the incarnation, crucifixion and reurrection happened at all- Was there no difference before and after, between Adam and the annunciation and after annunciation? Was there nothing new introduced in the World? The CC likes to make fine distinctions, and for us, sanctifying grace is what resides in the soul and makes communion with God possible- God calls of us, as he did with the Israelites, but only after Christ is his indwelling (communion) or Grace in the soul possible. I suppose the main thing is whether we believe that it’s possible to have this communion with God without the sacraments and whether we believe Our Lady had this communion or not. In CC, the lack of this communion is death- a rapture, a separation. We do not believe that the Virgin was dead at any point, we know she was filled with Grace already at the annunciation (and by age three if we want to include the eastern Feast argument) and she was always that way from the beginning.

 

[Marybeloved]

How can you claim Catholicism has “more miracles” if you have no idea about their frequency in Orthodoxy?

The whole we have more miracles than you appears to me to be silly. The appearance of the Virgin to the Copts (and the many Muslims and Jews in Egypt) caught live on TV!- must be one of the most amazing things ever to happen. “Our Lady of Zeituon” (as Catholics would have named the apparition), is as amazing to me as Our Lady of Fatima.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do you think that only baptism is necessary for salvation? Are all who are baptized saved? If not, then I don’t think we can say that Mary’s salvation is evidence for the Immaculate Conception.

I know scripture teaches “baptism saves you now”, and that Jesus revealed that “no one will enter the kingdom without baptism”. I believe all who are baptized are saved.

The answer to your “salvation” question? should be; Can one lose their salvation after being baptized? Yes they can.

I don’t know if your aware or not, but by you introducing the subject “salvation” puts a twist on what we are discussing. I don’t know if your theology takes your faith into these deep waters or not? For you to just throw a huge subject of “salvation” in the mix here, which we are not discussing.

We are discussing God’s saving Grace. The Immaculate Conception confirms the angel Gabriels Word from God that the blessed Virgin Mary was “full of Grace” long before the blessed Virgin became knowledgable of her conception and her divine son Jesus.

The question for your Orthodoxy is? Did God’s grace save Mary before she came to learn of Jesus, or did God’s grace save Mary after she came to learn of Jesus?

When you apply God’s protoevangelium from Genesis 3:15 gets revealed from the angels greeting in Luke 1:28. You have God placed enmity between (sin) the serpent and Mary (Woman) and her seed (Jesus), when the angel Gabriel finds her full of Grace before Mary ever learned of concieving her son Jesus.

**The angel Gabriel confirmed to the blessed Virgin that “nothing is impossible for God”. Scripture reveals King David confirming God knew him in his mothers womb, Isaiah prophecy reveals that God names the divine child from His Mothers womb. John the baptist was saved while in his Mothers womb. It is not impossible to save Mary full of God’s grace in her Immaculate Conception. so that she can conceive God without sin, because God cannot touch sin.

The note to take from all this is that it is by God’s grace that all these things were made possible. It is the same saving grace that saves all those who are baptized at any stage in life, be it from birth to ones death bed.**

The Immaculate Conception confirms when God graced “saved” the blessed Virgin Mary. Because the angel Gabriel confirms this fact that Mary is full of grace and that the Lord was with her. We all recieve this God’s saving grace through baptism at different times, not always after birth. Mary recieved her saving grace in her conception. Why is this impossible for God to grace Mary full of grace in her Immaculate Conception?

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know scripture teaches “baptism saves you now”, and that Jesus revealed that “no one will enter the kingdom without baptism”. I believe all who are baptized are saved.

The answer to your “salvation” question? should be; Can one lose their salvation after being baptized? Yes they can.

I don’t know if your aware or not, but by you introducing the subject “salvation” puts a twist on what we are discussing. I don’t know if your theology takes your faith into these deep waters or not? For you to just throw a huge subject of “salvation” in the mix here, which we are not discussing.

We are discussing God’s saving Grace. The Immaculate Conception confirms the angel Gabriels Word from God that the blessed Virgin Mary was “full of Grace” long before the blessed Virgin became knowledgable of her conception and her divine son Jesus.

The question for your Orthodoxy is? Did God’s grace save Mary before she came to learn of Jesus, or did God’s grace save Mary after she came to learn of Jesus?

When you apply God’s protoevangelium from Genesis 3:15 gets revealed from the angels greeting in Luke 1:28. You have God placed enmity between (sin) the serpent and Mary (Woman) and her seed (Jesus), when the angel Gabriel finds her full of Grace before Mary ever learned of concieving her son Jesus.

**The angel Gabriel confirmed to the blessed Virgin that “nothing is impossible for God”. Scripture reveals King David confirming God knew him in his mothers womb, Isaiah prophecy reveals that God names the divine child from His Mothers womb. John the baptist was saved while in his Mothers womb. It is not impossible to save Mary full of God’s grace in her Immaculate Conception. so that she can conceive God without sin, because God cannot touch sin.

The note to take from all this is that it is by God’s grace that all these things were made possible. It is the same saving grace that saves all those who are baptized at any stage in life, be it from birth to ones death bed.**

The Immaculate Conception confirms when God graced “saved” the blessed Virgin Mary. Because the angel Gabriel confirms this fact that Mary is full of grace and that the Lord was with her. We all recieve this God’s saving grace through baptism at different times, not always after birth. Mary recieved her saving grace in her conception. Why is this impossible for God to grace Mary full of grace in her Immaculate Conception?

Peace be with you

Do you believe that without Christ the Virgin Mary could have been saved? I don’t. Had there been no Christ, she would have gone to Hades/Sheol. The idea that she could have somehow been saved before the birth of Christ is a grave misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do you believe that without Christ the Virgin Mary could have been saved? I don’t. Had there been no Christ, she would have gone to Hades/Sheol. The idea that she could have somehow been saved before the birth of Christ is a grave misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

Do you recall scripture reveals multiple times that Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God from the beginning and the Word was God?

**Scripture also reveals that Jesus was “Known before the foundation of the world but revealed in the final time” 1 Peter 2:20

Revelations 13:8 records that “the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the World”.**
You see, from your incarnation view limits the Word of God only becoming flesh. But the Word of God who is the lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the World.

You have Jesus revealing the works of God from His revealed incarnation in time. And the Word was God before the incarnation revealed Him in time.

The Immaculate Conception solidifies all of scripture as revealing not only the Word of God becoming flesh, but that the Word of God is God, and was slain before the foundation of the world, in order to save Mary in her Immaculate Conception.

What the Immaculate Conception reveals here is God is eternal. That the works that Jesus did in time from his flesh, was made eternal from the foundation of the world.

Jesus salvific work saves “the many” past, present and future. How else was Jesus able to descend into the dead to save those past patriarchs and prophets before the incarnation. God is eternal, Time never limits God, because God created time for us.

I find we are not disagreeing here, we are revealing each other’s theology from the revealed works of God. That is why earlier in my posts I introduced the factor of “Time” is the real issue in discussing the Immaculate Conception of when God can save a person.

I don’t misunderstand the Incarnation. The Immaculate Conception reveals Works of God from eternity, the incarnation reveals God’s works in time. In both cases from eternity and time God can save with His Grace and did save Mary with His Grace, from the lamb slain from the foundation of the World. The Christ does not save, until He is slain.

This slain Lamb is seen in heaven “eternity” standing. Eternity knows no time when God saves.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ahh, thank you for your answer dcointin. I would think this is a mystery that deserves contemplation from Orthodox theologians. I have never gotten a straight answer myself from an Orthodox, that is why I asked.

The Eastern praxis doesn’t need everything defined and dogmatized. Yes, many monks and theologians have contemplated on such things but their answers need not be made into a final document for all to adhere to. Unless it is deemed necessary to do so to combat heresy. Our perspective is that this is just one piece of a grander puzzle and we need to be looking at the big picture and how this one piece contributes to the bigger picture rather than fuss too much about the one piece.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Eastern praxis doesn’t need everything defined and dogmatized. Yes, many monks and theologians have contemplated on such things but their answers need not be made into a final document for all to adhere to. Unless it is deemed necessary to do so to combat heresy. Our perspective is that this is just one piece of a grander puzzle and we need to be looking at the big picture and how this one piece contributes to the bigger picture rather than fuss too much about the one piece.

I totally agree with you. The more we connect, contact and communicate the more we grow in understanding. The differences are revealed from our demeaners and lack of clarification from thoughts being expressed in words, which at times do not mean the same thing. Especially when it comes to God’s revelation and how each side defines or teaches it.

I look for windows and opportunities to ease the tensions on these topics, even though we are all guilty of causing a tension at times, and I attribute these tensions mainly to misunderstandings of expression of words.

I am aware of the different philosophical differences between the East and West, but each one should respect one another differences before discounting them, many times with a negative explanation point. Although philisophical differences arise, I never pretend to understand them, that is why I prefer to ask first, and invite to share.

I believe if we saw each other in person our discussions would be much more cordial at times.

Thanks for bringing this up, and sharing this great insight.

Peace be with you

 

[Anthony_V]

Anthony, it still leaves the whole basis of the objection (no difference) unanswered, because it would not explain how she was able to resist all sin from the age of reason onwards- Was anyone else able to? Why not? It also leaves the whole matter of why the incarnation, crucifixion and reurrection happened at all- Was there no difference before and after, between Adam and the annunciation and after annunciation? Was there nothing new introduced in the World? The CC likes to make fine distinctions, and for us, sanctifying grace is what resides in the soul and makes communion with God possible- God calls of us, as he did with the Israelites, but only after Christ is his indwelling (communion) or Grace in the soul possible. I suppose the main thing is whether we believe that it’s possible to have this communion with God without the sacraments and whether we believe Our Lady had this communion or not. In CC, the lack of this communion is death- a rapture, a separation. We do not believe that the Virgin was dead at any point, we know she was filled with Grace already at the annunciation (and by age three if we want to include the eastern Feast argument) and she was always that way from the beginning.

I thought we had already grounded that she was free from concupiscence (strictly speaking) from even conception? Her role as Theotokos started then if she had been predetermined by God for the role, would it not? And her role as Theotokos would be the only reason why she was privileged to have such communion with God-- if she did indeed have sanctifying grace from the moment of conception.
We also would have to determine if the paschal mystery was to objectively open the gates of heaven or subjectively open the gates of heaven. Were people objectively not allowed into Heaven due to the inherited sin of Adam (inherited, like a house) and justice had to be met, or because people could not get into heaven due to the contracted sin of Adam (like contracting a genetic disease) and thus required exorcism of this sin through redemPtive graces alone? More on this tomorrow when I’m on my computer and not my phone

• Pax Christi! +