Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[ConstantineTG]

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

As Eastern Catholics, we get the best of both worlds. If there are little details left open ended on the Eastern praxis, we can easily look to our Western brethren and use what you guys have. It still doesn’t become something written in stone in our theology and would just be one of the many things we would refer to.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have no idea what you mean by “no to the negative”

Real simple, this is how the context of the dialogue went.

Post #92 (no being a negative-“bought up by YOU”). and in your original statement which you were quick to jump in and agree with your brother “FOX” here, whom stated “we are not guilty of Adams Sin”. Im assuming you meant…[no to the negative here].

To remind you I never bought Guilt up. And btw I never bought up Original Sin in this thread. If you didn’t want to discuss it then why bring it up and comment on it?

Your brother did and you chose to defend it. WHY is my question? I couldn’t relate to guilt from the start “remember”.

My question is where does it come from in the Bible, ECFs? Thus to use your word and your brothers “guilt” if we are not guilty of it what does it matter? Is it an injustice to you? Thats what you asserted by “your” analogy of your anscester committing a crime and “you not being of guilt.” Which I assume is why you bought up “no, to the negative” as in not guilty of it. Thus my above post. I get the inherted part. The guilt part I’m not grasping. Which is…

Why I’m saying for the “3rd time”, were exactly is the teaching on Ancestrial Sin in the EO, Bible, ECFs, etc? Which “your” other brother kindly refered me to CCC teaching, appreciated, however, I would like to see where “Ancestrial Sin” differs? Really simple. So do you have your actual teaching on it? Or are you saying your teaching is exactly the same? Or how do they differ. thus “guilt”?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Do you have any documented defined miracles in the EO? I was under the impression the EO doesn’t investigate and just takes they them as they come naturally? Is their a process in the EO? Could you post that process?

Thus the question “is there a documented frequency in the EO of Miracles?” The question of who has more seems childish, like who has more cookies. I’m more concerned with the process of what defines a Miracle, and what actually is coinsidered a Miracle?

Not so much who choose’s to speak on them, how many etc?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Amen

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Exactly, Amen.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

• Pax Christi! +

Well stated, thats what I thought, which seems up in the air.

When you bring this to up…

“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 ”

Google the doctrine on “Life/Death and Justice” and it will clarify. If you can’t find it let me know, and I’ll send it to you.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Exactly, thats why I asked for the EO Doctrine on “Ancestrial Sin”, because of the heresy Original Sin fought.

Amen, now we starting to get to why the devolopment of Doctrine occur’s thus the Immaculate Conception which in itself is a lesson of the development of Catholic Doctrine.

Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

I agree, of course. The Virgin was chosen in the mind of God from eternity. She was created as the Theotokos - fundamentally entwined with Christ, wholly made for him and his purposes. There’s no disagreement between us here.

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! +

I confess not to understand what you mean by objectively vs subjectively opening the gates of Heaven.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree, of course. The Virgin was chosen in the mind of God from eternity. She was created as the Theotokos - fundamentally entwined with Christ, wholly made for him and his purposes. There’s no disagreement between us here

Let me ask “if she did indeed have sanctifying grace from the moment of conception.” When Anthony brings this up. Biblically speaking we are now saying “Full of Grace” which without a doubt is in Luke, which through the dialogue of the Angel Gabriel would indicate this existed already.

In other words doesn’t this refer back to Duns Scotus work with the IC with the 3-alternatives on when this could have happened?

Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

Let me ask “if she did indeed have sanctifying grace from the moment of conception.” When Anthony brings this up. Biblically speaking we are now saying “Full of Grace” which without a doubt is in Luke, which through the dialogue of the Angel Gabriel would indicate this existed already.

In other words doesn’t this refer back to Duns Scotus work with the IC with the 3-alternatives on when this could have happened?

Peace

Hello Gary. I’m not familiar with Scotus (I’ve only heard about him at CAF though I understand his influence in theology is no small contribution) or his work on the IC. Perhaps you could send me a reference where I can read it?

Peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

Let me ask “if she did indeed have sanctifying grace from the moment of conception.” When Anthony brings this up. Biblically speaking we are now saying “Full of Grace” which without a doubt is in Luke, which through the dialogue of the Angel Gabriel would indicate this existed already.

In other words doesn’t this refer back to Duns Scotus work with the IC with the 3-alternatives on when this could have happened?

Peace

Found something by him on the IC- will read and get back to you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me return also to “Theotokos” for a moment

Mary as Theotokos, in Russian Orthodox Art has manifested no hesistation in portraying Mary as Divine. Often She is seen wearing Red in the Russian Orthodox Icons which is symbolic of Divinity. Blue being symbolic of Humanity which actually we see more often in the Western Church. Which is why we see Jesus Christ in Red so much of the time.

The defenders of the ROC Icons seem to be almost transient in their manner of speaking about “Divine” qualities, for Divine was indeed the right word for Her as Theotokos. It is of ultimate significance, salvation as deification, like every heavenly promise, was eschatological and could not be fully achieved by anyone here on this present Earth.

However, Mary is postive proof that it could be acheived, truly though not fully, and in this world, Her protrayal in the ROC Icons is evidence of this fact. As is the “Magnificant” sung at the Morning Office in the Greek Church.

Also what immediately comes to mind as I think EO is “Gregory of Nyssa” and his thought filled observations of Mary , “Mary without Stain” when He spoke on eastern understanding of the entire “dispensation” (oikonomia) of the “Salvation of this World”.

Devotion to Mary lets face it, found its expression in “Byzantine Christianity” then went on the exert an influence on the Western Church. with ECFs like Ambrose of Milan.

Anders Nygren, also acknowledged this also when he echoed in his writtings of the Protestant Reformers “the Human is Raised to the Divine” “I have said; Ye are Gods” is a mysterious OT statement in the Book of Psalms, quoted by Christ in the NT. “he called them Gods, unto whom the WORD of GOD came, and scripture cannot be broken”. And the Word of God came to Mary when the Word became Flesh.

I love the early Byzantine theology of Mary, today we seem to have switched roles in the churchs. Its a mystery to me when we look back at the early Byzantine Church.

Peace,

Marybeloved- I’ll send you Duns Scotus when I get home on my own computer, this one scares me a bit.

 

[Hesychios]

Let me return also to “Theotokos” for a moment

Mary as Theotokos, in Russian Orthodox Art has manifested no hesistation in portraying Mary as Divine. Often She is seen wearing Red in the Russian Orthodox Icons which is symbolic of Divinity. Blue being symbolic of Humanity which actually we see more often in the Western Church. Which is why we see Jesus Christ in Red so much of the time.

The rules of iconography will vary a bit from culture to culture, and some artists are not full aware of them (it is pretty symbolic), some details are easy to miss. I don’t klnow a lot myself.

But this I do know, and I learned it from an Eastern Catholic priest iconographer (who was my pastor at the time)…

Christ is conventionally portrayed with red (a bright color) as the innermost garment, signifying divinity within.

The Holy Theotokos and other saints may wear red as an outer garment, signifying holiness acheived to some degree. We ‘Put on Christ’ as we gain in holiness, but inside we are just plain human. Within you can usually tell there is blue or something like it (a dark color) which means that inside they are ordinary human creatures.

These rules do not apply to iconography in Egypt and Armenia necessarily, they have their own artistic conventions. [As we can see from your reaction, art is a very powerful tool in shaping people’s thinking, it can also unintentionally make people ‘re-think’ theology with deleterious effect. We don’t want that, which is why we disapprove when iconography is done improperly.]

It helps to understand the concept of Theosis, or Divinization. It has been largely forgotten in the west but plays the major part in salvation for us. To most western Christians this kind of thinking, and the terminology, would seem strange. But the color scheme is meant to keep that straight in the artistic portrayals of iconography…

We do believe that the process of divinization can continue for all of us in the after life. However there is an unbridgeable gap between the truly divine God and any human. No one can become God, we strive to become like God as much as possible (given our obvious limitations).

We sing in liturgy …

AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST
HAVE PUT ON CHRIST

ALLELEUIA!

This come from scripture.

For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:26 - 28 NAB

http://www.ourladyofmhaydseh.com/images/theotokos.jpg

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit!
*
Through the Prayers of the Mother of God, O Saviour Save Us*!

 

[GaryTaylor]

The rules of iconography will vary a bit from culture to culture, and some artists are not full aware of them (it is pretty symbolic), some details are easy to miss. I don’t klnow a lot myself.

But this I do know, and I learned it from an Eastern Catholic priest iconographer (who was my pastor at the time)…

Christ is conventionally portrayed with red (a bright color) as the innermost garment, signifying divinity within.

The Holy Theotokos and other saints may wear red as an outer garment, signifying holiness acheived to some degree. We ‘Put on Christ’ as we gain in holiness, but inside we are just plain human. Within you can usually tell there is blue or something like it (a dark color) which means that inside they are ordinary human creatures.

These rules do not apply to iconography in Egypt and Armenia necessarily, they have their own artistic conventions. [As we can see from your reaction, art is a very powerful tool in shaping people’s thinking, it can also unintentionally make people ‘re-think’ theology with deleterious effect. We don’t want that, which is why we disapprove when iconography is done improperly.]

It helps to understand the concept of Theosis, or Divinization. It has been largely forgotten in the west but plays the major part in salvation for us. To most western Christians this kind of thinking, and the terminology, would seem strange. But the color scheme is meant to keep that straight in the artistic portrayals of iconography…

We do believe that the process of divinization can continue for all of us in the after life. However there is an unbridgeable gap between the truly divine God and any human. No one can become God, we strive to become like God as much as possible (given our obvious limitations).

We sing in liturgy …

AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST
HAVE PUT ON CHRIST

ALLELEUIA!

This come from scripture.

For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:26 - 28 NAB

http://www.ourladyofmhaydseh.com/images/theotokos.jpg

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit!
*
Through the Prayers of the Mother of God, O Saviour Save Us*!

Thanks for the info Michael,

I heard an SJ Priest talk about this, then I happened to see the Church of the Dormation, where St Mary appears to be in Red, more so than in this close up, when I actually viewed the show. Then ewtn went into a dialogue about the Russian OC, I can’t remember the exact names of all the Icons. Good many of them were cloaked in Red some with Blue under-neath, bad photo is size of Theotokos, but it coincides with what your saying. They went into a bit of the history with colors, and the actual Icons and history. Interesting, rich history for sure.

Course the Church of the Dormition is in Jerusalem, aross the road from the Upper Room

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree, of course. The Virgin was chosen in the mind of God from eternity. She was created as the Theotokos - fundamentally entwined with Christ, wholly made for him and his purposes. There’s no disagreement between us here.
I confess not to understand what you mean by objectively vs subjectively opening the gates of Heaven.

There is much scriptural support for this; God knew us before we ever born.

Ephesians 1:3* Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,c who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,* 4** as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him In love **

 

[Anthony_V]

Google the doctrine on “Life/Death and Justice” and it will clarify. If you can’t find it let me know, and I’ll send it to you.
Peace

Can’t find it

 

[Anthony_V]

I confess not to understand what you mean by objectively vs subjectively opening the gates of Heaven.

No worries. I confess to not being able to communicate in a way that is effective to you

Objectively:
Were the gates of heaven literally closed because God the father needed recompense for our offenses through Christ on the Cross?In this manner, the gates of heaven being closed is objective, and pertaining to the gates rather than us.

Subjectively:
Or is “the gates of heaven were closed” merely a way of expressing our lack of sanctifying grace? In this manner, the gates of heaven being closed is subjective, and pertaining to us rather than the gates.

It would seem to me, in my un-professional and simple opinion, that the latter is true. Then the meaning of Christ’s paschal sacrifice is definitely called into question.
My hypothesis is that it was for the purpose of instituting the sacramental economy (we’d have to figure out what the fundamentals of the matter are, as well).
Thoughts?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for sometime i think u guys (ladies) are theologians in the making. I noticed (what seem like) a shifting in position in our orthodox brothers post (i may be wrong), first i read that Mary was made sinless, during pentecost (so she assumed into heaven sinless), again she became sinless about the conception of Jesus, and thirdly she was full of grace before the age 3. These views are not the same so i ask do our orthodox brother think about a specific time she became full of grace. The angel said chaire kekaritomene and goes on to say the lord is with u. Those who understand aramic may find it easy to tell you that ‘full of grace’ comes with a an indication that it is a state that has always been from our english it suffice to say that it was a state she already posess. One of the church father said she is ‘without stain’, i think we both agree that original sin is a stain so mary is without stain and sinless so the IC is an apostolic teaching, she she was free from our fallen nature(still human) she can truly be said to be alholy and sinless because her unfallen nature wil truly aid her make the right choice. It does make her a goddes it means that salvation was applied to her before birth, her role caused her to truly be saved before birth by God (her son) who is truly her saviour thus fulfulling the magnificant ‘my soul glorifies the lord my saviour’. It is a wonderfull mystery. So she was not under the devils dominion thus fulfilling genesis, her son and herself became true enemies to satans kingdom(like enemies). And so she benefit from the sinlesness and victory of her son.

 

[Anthony_V]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for sometime i think u guys (ladies) are theologians in the making. I noticed (what seem like) a shifting in position in our orthodox brothers post (i may be wrong), first i read that Mary was made sinless, during pentecost (so she assumed into heaven sinless), again she became sinless about the conception of Jesus, and thirdly she was full of grace before the age 3. These views are not the same so i ask do our orthodox brother think about a specific time she became full of grace. The angel said chaire kekaritomene and goes on to say the lord is with u. Those who understand aramic may find it easy to tell you that ‘full of grace’ comes with a an indication that it is a state that has always been from our english it suffice to say that it was a state she already posess. One of the church father said she is ‘without stain’, i think we both agree that original sin is a stain so mary is without stain and sinless so the IC is an apostolic teaching, she she was free from our fallen nature(still human) she can truly be said to be alholy and sinless because her unfallen nature wil truly aid her make the right choice. It does make her a goddes it means that salvation was applied to her before birth, her role caused her to truly be saved before birth by God (her son) who is truly her saviour thus fulfulling the magnificant ‘my soul glorifies the lord my saviour’. It is a wonderfull mystery. So she was not under the devils dominion thus fulfilling genesis, her son and herself became true enemies to satans kingdom(like enemies). And so she benefit from the sinlesness and victory of her son.

That’s a very interesting point. Whether or not she had a sinless nature is irrelevant to whether or not she needed Jesus Christ to save her.
If she had a sinful, but fortuitous, nature, she would have needed Jesus Christ to save her from original sin.
If she didn’t have a sinful nature, she still would have needed Jesus Christ to save her by giving her the role of Theotokos.

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s a very interesting point. Whether or not she had a sinless nature is irrelevant to whether or not she needed Jesus Christ to save her.
If she had a sinful, but fortuitous, nature, she would have needed Jesus Christ to save her from original sin.
If she didn’t have a sinful nature, she still would have needed Jesus Christ to save her by giving her the role of Theotokos.

Rather, I’d say that if she was conceived in the state of privation of grace like all of us (aka “the stain of original sin”) then whichever point it happened, she would be saved like all of us at our baptism, from death into life. If she was conceived without this privation of sanctifying grace or stain, then she was saved from falling into death in the first place- We Catholics believe the latter, as We cannot believe that Our Lady was ever separate/spiritually dead. At her first instance of conception, she received grace and never suffered the absence of communion (death) at any point.