Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[Anthony_V]

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.

How is that different from what I said? :doh2:

 

[Marybeloved]

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?

My own unprofessional opinion is that it was both objective and subjective. That is because our relationship with God is both collective and personal- If not so then Cain and Abel would have been born in the state of Adam before the fall and with a perfect communion with God, we all would, they would not die unless they personally sinned against God. Thing is, as one people, Adam was our representative, priest, leader and his failure resulted in a loss of our intimate friendship with God as a group. This is what original sin is all about. Now, Our blessed Lord took his place- that’s why he became one of us- To legitimately participate in our plight and repair the rapture by justice, as a proper representative of that group. He became the representative before God with full rights to make right what was damaged and to gain for all of us gifts from God. His perfect love gained perfect love (grace) for us all. So as a race, the gates (communion) were opened by him, and individually also. We do not earn the Grace- just as with the Theotokos, just as with a baptized infant, it’s total gift (justification) given to us, completely free- a reattachment of communion that we cannot give ourselves. The only thing that can block it is an act of rejection of that grace in the soul. This possibility of rejecting and accepting God’s gift when it’s offered to us or even conferred on us is what makes it subjective in my opinion. I believe that this grace is what Christ died to get us, this communion, the indwelling of God in us, the life of God as ours- This is the point of the incarnation and the whole point of the sacramental system, and we believe that Our Lady was the first fruit (just as she was prime co-operator) of this new economy.

 

[Marybeloved]

How is that different from what I said? :doh2:

Nothing, just rearranged it a bit to suit the way I approach it myself…

 

[Anthony_V]

Nothing, just rearranged it a bit to suit the way I approach it myself…

Oh, got it
It’s fun to reinvent the wheel though! I was literally thinking about this all day yesterday. Literally, that’s all I thought about. My brain was so fried by 9 last night after mass I had to force myself to do something recreational so I could think clearly.
All that to say, I find the way you approach things very complementary to the way I approach things. It’s been a very enlightening discussion thus far-- and our Orthodox brothers engaged with us have been quite cooperative! Hopefully we’ve been such likewise

 

[Nine_Two]

I wrote this response last night, but the forum wasn’t working very well. I saved it and am posting it now. I haven’t caught up on the posts in this thread, so anything that may be moot isn’t accounted for in this. Only minor edits have taken place with this new attempt to post it.

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.

You certainly did not bring up the accusations of Pelagianism. Perhaps it was overreacting on my part to suggest you planned it out, nontheless you left a distinct impression that you were not asking the question in good faith.

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.
It would be a case of you doing what you accuse others of. In this case you accused me of saying that you were making her out to be super-human and then accused me of the very same.

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

“I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Which you contradicted in post 64 (as I said you did it twice, but I’m not going to find the other place, although it was before that) when you said, “The same old polemics- baptism of the infant in CC is the beginning of eternal life/sanctifying grace- not the forgiving of sins.”

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.

While you may be correct about the semantic difference, that you would express it as you did, I hope you see in hindsight, is bound to step on toes. Additionally you never showed this to be the case. Such accusations require great evidence. Not just the writing of a local council that you are interpreting in a non-standard way. Additionally I admit I’m just tired of Catholics telling us what we believe in order to enforce the fiction that there are no divides.
Perhaps, in the future, when such a case arises, you should use the word “error” rather than heresy, and try to couch the statement - unless you have overwhelming evidence.

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 don’t believe, and my faith does not teach, that “saved” is an event. She had grace, what more do we need? The fact that she had it means grace itself is not linked to Christianity or any of its rituals (my own interpretation of the anathematizing of Pelagius would be that you need Grace just to come to Christ in the first place, meaning everyone who becomes Christian must already have been granted it).

This is totally unnecessary.

Sometimes you seem to provide the most thoughtful posts, and then there are times like in this thread where you seem to write before thinking it through.
I’ll admit that may well be the case with my own posts, and perhaps I was over-reacting, but at the same time it seems my last post did result in the desired reaction from you.

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 answered the creed bit, and perhaps I was a bit harsh, I never see it happening, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t.

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.

Apology accepted, and I myself do apologize for reacting so harshly. I suppose part of the problem is text is such an impersonal medium.

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”.

Its a thing in your profile. I wish I could say I’ve never had to use it.

 

[Nine_Two]

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”?

Sigh, post #92 was a response to you saying I was saying we do hold his guilt and then referencing one of my posts where I said we do not hold his guilt. My comment was “no is a negative” not “no to the negative”, which means absolutely no sense.

You yourself started out in your reply to Fox by asserting we do hold the guilt of the Original Sin, we only pointed out to you that this is not what Orthodox believe. I’m not sure how I can clarify it any further for you, I suggest you read over things more carefully.

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

Matt 18:3

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And again Matt 16:1-4

1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

2He replied,a “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

We have the sign of Jonah. No other miracles or signs are needed. They come, and we give acknowledgement to them, but they do not influence the faith. Either they are consistent with the faith and reveal nothing new to us, or they are from demons.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

The problem is you seem (and most of the Catholics here, though not all) are using “grace” and sinless interchangably. Yes she was born without sin, but so is everyone else. She was never “made sinless”, she simply was sinless.
As to when she received Grace, that isn’t an issue.

As for the line in scripture, first it is in Luke, and therefore written in Greek, not Aramaic, and the word is in the Present Perfect, which means it is something that has already been completed (i.e. she has already been filled with grace), but it is not a term that makes any indication of beginning.

I hope this helps sort out your confusion.

 

[Anthony_V]

My own unprofessional opinion is that it was both objective and subjective… because our relationship with God is both collective and personal- If not so then Cain and Abel would have been born in the state of Adam before the fall and with a perfect communion with God, we all would, they would not die unless they personally sinned against God.

So what you’re saying is that God needed both recompense from the Paschal Sacrifice of Christ apart from just one’s sanctification?
I’m misunderstanding your wording here. I put emphasis on the part I don’t understand. If you could describe it in a time-line type organized format, that would help greatly. Gasping this concept of predestined original sin interfering with free will is making my head spin.

Thing is, as one people, Adam was our representative, priest, leader and his failure resulted in a loss of our intimate friendship with God as a group. This is what original sin is all about. Now, Our blessed Lord took his place- that’s why he became one of us- To legitimately participate in our plight and repair the rapture by justice, as a proper representative of that group. He became the representative before God with full rights to make right what was damaged and to gain for all of us gifts from God.

The parallel of roles as directing sin (as a negative entity) makes sense.
The parallel of Adam as a priest or a null anointed one figure does not make sense to me, though.

His perfect love gained perfect love (grace) for us all. So as a race, the gates (communion) were opened by him, and individually also. We do not earn the Grace- just as with the Theotokos, just as with a baptized infant, it’s total gift (justification) given to us, completely free- a reattachment of communion that we cannot give ourselves.

Yes. I accept synergeia, and that is the root of what you said. However, I do not believe that being able to obtain grace by one’s nature is intrinsically pelagian. If God gives the creature a said nature, then God is still the first mover. As far as the nature of Grace, I tend to learn more towards Thomistic scholasticism than Jesuit scholasticism. We’re still awaiting the answer of the Holy See on that dispute. It would definitely help us define what is pelagian and what is [o]rthodox. I was actually researching this very matter the other day.

The only thing that can block it is an act of rejection of that grace in the soul. This possibility of rejecting and accepting God’s gift when it’s offered to us or even conferred on us is what makes it subjective in my opinion. I believe that this grace is what Christ died to get us, this communion, the indwelling of God in us, the life of God as ours- This is the point of the incarnation and the whole point of the sacramental system, and we believe that Our Lady was the first fruit (just as she was prime co-operator) of this new economy.

We still run into a dead end here. Mary’s immaculate nature was not conferred on her by choice, but by God being the first mover. Such could also be the case for my nature and your nature; we have the natural desire to search for happiness. Regardless, we are still disposed to to choose right and wrong. Mary, however, was not disposed to choose right and wrong. She was immaculate by her nature. That’s the reason I posted a while back on my hypothesis that Mary was not restricted by her free will, regardless:

Is freewill dictated by nature?

 

[Anthony_V]

The problem is you seem (and most of the Catholics here, though not all) are using “grace” and sinless interchangably. Yes she was born without sin, but so is everyone else. She was never “made sinless”, she simply was sinless.
As to when she received Grace, that isn’t an issue.

Pardon my intrustion…
but can we agree this is a discrepancy on original sin, and not of an immaculate nature? By the way you word it, you seem to imply that concupiscence and original sin are not intrinsically bound together; rather, concupiscence is a symptom of original sin.

As for the line in scripture, first it is in Luke, and therefore written in Greek, not Aramaic, and the word is in the Present Perfect, which means it is something that has already been completed (i.e. she has already been filled with grace), but it is not a term that makes any indication of beginning.

I hope this helps sort out your confusion.

Duly noted.

 

[Nine_Two]

Pardon my intrustion…
but can we agree this is a discrepancy on original sin, and not of an immaculate nature? By the way you word it, you seem to imply that concupiscence and original sin are not intrinsically bound together; rather, concupiscence is a symptom of original sin.

I think so, but doesn’t the ultimate importance of the IC come from the doctrine of Original Sin.

I think the argument is better put that it is not so much that we refute the idea of the Immaculate Conception, so much as it doesn’t make any sense within our ecclesiological framwork.

I also think the definition of Grace is something that even in this thread hasn’t been agreed on, and that is causing problems (and may be what Ubenedictus.is seeing when he says our positions are changing - he is seeing us try to account for these differing usages of the same word.

 

[Anthony_V]

I think so, but doesn’t the ultimate importance of the IC come from the doctrine of Original Sin.

I think the argument is better put that it is not so much that we refute the idea of the Immaculate Conception, so much as it doesn’t make any sense within our ecclesiological framwork.

I was getting that same problem when I was trying to understand the Orthodox objection to the IC. It’s like an equation:
An Orthodox would say, “0 + 0 = 0.”
A Catholic would say, “No! 1 - 1 = 0!”
It makes me chuckle a little bit thinking about how a big discrepancy is really something so simple

I also think the definition of Grace is something that even in this thread hasn’t been agreed on, and that is causing problems (and may be what Ubenedictus.is seeing when he says our positions are changing - he is seeing us try to account for these differing usages of the same word.

Certainly! How is grace categorized in Orthodox praxis? Or is it categorized at all? That would clear up a lot of confusion so we could get to the root of the matter and not the you guys standing there while us Catholics are walking in circles

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matt 18:3

And again Matt 16:1-4

We have the sign of Jonah. No other miracles or signs are needed. They come, and we give acknowledgement to them, but they do not influence the faith. Either they are consistent with the faith and reveal nothing new to us, or they are from demons.

OK, thank you Nine. I’m just really in interested in this entire history from the ECF and the Byzantine History foward. The more I read the more I see the connection their.

But as far as the Miracle etc, right some are just suspect without mentioning any names which arn’t recongnized in the CC, yet still draw such an interest.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think so, but doesn’t the ultimate importance of the IC come from the doctrine of Original Sin.

I think the argument is better put that it is not so much that we refute the idea of the Immaculate Conception, so much as it doesn’t make any sense within our ecclesiological framwork.

Right, it would start with the ECFs and their thinking. Which is why I was hung up on trying to grasp the ROC/EO-CC understanding on Ancestrial Sin/Original Sin, which I’m not sure there is a difference but after the fact. If I’m wrong correct me. For then I believe it would fulite to move foward in CC theology. If in fact theirs a glaring difference. Perhaps its me, I’m just not seeing it though.

But first look at these. Then I’ll show you the later developement.

The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither 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]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

Then of course it developes further from here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Certainly! How is grace categorized in Orthodox praxis? Or is it categorized at all? That would clear up a lot of confusion so we could get to the root of the matter and not the you guys standing there while us Catholics are walking in circles

Right, but yet even here I get the distinct feeling its more terminology than theology. But as you say, I too may be wrong here. Not hard to comprehend how a 1000 years caused a break in thinking though. Not a good or bad, just an “is”.

After all there was one church from the start. So to me these basic issues become crucial to understanding the later theory.

 

[Nine_Two]

I was getting that same problem when I was trying to understand the Orthodox objection to the IC. It’s like an equation:
An Orthodox would say, “0 + 0 = 0.”
A Catholic would say, “No! 1 - 1 = 0!”
It makes me chuckle a little bit thinking about how a big discrepancy is really something so simple

I think that’s the general idea. I can’t remember if said it in my first post in this thread, I think I did, but I don’t see it as much of an issue between us as long as we aren’t expected to accept it.

Certainly! How is grace categorized in Orthodox praxis? Or is it categorized at all? That would clear up a lot of confusion so we could get to the root of the matter and not the you guys standing there while us Catholics are walking in circles

Well, according to Liddell and Scott, an alternate meaning of Χαρις (Grace, as used in the bible) is “favour felt”, so I’d say to have Grace is to have God’s favour. It has often been used in the sense of those whom God has drawn toward himself. So that is how I’d use it, those whom God has chosen.
By this definition the Theotokos was certainly with grace (and the Gospel According to Luke says exactly that, as we’ve established). She probably was with Grace throughout her entire life.
We simply don’t accept that this necessarily makes her special (don’t get me wrong, she was special, just not necessarily because of this).

 

[Nine_Two]

Right, it would start with the ECFs and their thinking. Which is why I was hung up on trying to grasp the ROC/EO-CC understanding on Ancestrial Sin/Original Sin, which I’m not sure there is a difference but after the fact. If I’m wrong correct me. For then I believe it would fulite to move foward in CC theology. If in fact theirs a glaring difference. Perhaps its me, I’m just not seeing it though.

But first look at these. Then I’ll show you the later developement.

The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither 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]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

Then of course it developes further from here.

Absolutely, the modern Orthodox Church uses the imagery of a second Eve quite a bit.

 

[Vico]

I think so, but doesn’t the ultimate importance of the IC come from the doctrine of Original Sin.

I think the argument is better put that it is not so much that we refute the idea of the Immaculate Conception, so much as it doesn’t make any sense within our ecclesiological framwork.

I also think the definition of Grace is something that even in this thread hasn’t been agreed on, and that is causing problems (and may be what Ubenedictus.is seeing when he says our positions are changing - he is seeing us try to account for these differing usages of the same word.

The Immaculate Conception dogma needed to be defined to put to rest an unresolved issue of debate between the Dominicans and Franciscans.

Dominican followed St. Thomas Aquinas that sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be before animation because is is 1) the cleansing from original sin, and 2) sin cannot be taken away except by grace for the rational creature alone. So there can be no sanctification before the infusion of the rational soul.

Franciscan followed Duns Scotus that sanctification after animation must follow in the order of nature rather than of time so the redemption of the Blessed Virgin was through preservation from all sin.

 

[Hesychios]

I was getting that same problem when I was trying to understand the Orthodox objection to the IC. It’s like an equation:
An Orthodox would say, “0 + 0 = 0.”
A Catholic would say, “No! 1 - 1 = 0!”
It makes me chuckle a little bit thinking about how a big discrepancy is really something so simple

Certainly! How is grace categorized in Orthodox praxis? Or is it categorized at all? That would clear up a lot of confusion so we could get to the root of the matter and not the you guys standing there while us Catholics are walking in circles

Grace is God. No classifications.

This isn’t a zero sum game. There can be grace along with sin, there can be grace without sin, there can be sin without grace.

St Paul said ‘where sin abounds, grace abounds even more’. What could he have meant by that? I think it is a message of hope. It means God does not abandon us.

I read in another forum where some Catholic priest was claiming that one’s prayers are not efficacious if one is not in a state of grace. Apparently he is a traditionalist.

But he seems to be saying that God will not even listen to you if you have any sin, if I follow the argument correctly. I don’t think most Roman Catholics will agree with that, but the idea is certainly out there, and circulating.

The reason I mention this is that I think we both can agree that the Holy Theotokos was born without sin, if we can agree that no one is born with sin. Orthodox do not assume that a baby is born with sin [it would be a theological opinion at best]. Roman Catholics generally do assume that a baby is born with sin, but cannot imagine that God would permit St Mary to have been born with it.

Remove the sin, and grace flows. This is in harmony with what the traditionalist priest mentioned above was saying.

The BVM born with sin?! Perish the thought! You born with sin? Of course!

So the Latin west (and most Protestants, following this line of thinking) assume that everyone is born with this blotch on their souls, and because of that there can be no grace. Wash the blotch out and the grace can come in.

Thus when they read ‘full of grace’ they assume that means no sin, which is fine because they don’t want the BVM to have any sin, ever. They don’t want to think of her that way.

But Orthodox do not think in these terms.

God goes where He wills, He is omnipresent. He works through saints and sinners alike.

God could have made Jesus out of a rock along the road, He could have dropped fully formed right out of the sky. He chose to be born of an ordinary woman in humble circumstances.

Fitting.

It must seem odd that Orthodox Catholics never addressed this idea of an immaculate conception for the Holy Theotokos, but the plain fact is the Christians of the east do not expect the unborn or the newly born to be damnable or punishable as they are, they are not automatically assumed to be ‘filthy’ or less worthy, and given time they can grow in God’s grace.

So to use your example:
An Orthodox Catholic would say for everyone “N +/- 0 = 0.”
A Roman Catholic would say for everyone “N - 1 = -1” until baptism, then “N - 1 + 1] = 0
A Roman Catholic would say for the BVM " N - 0 = 0”

It takes living a life in this wicked world, and making mistakes, that puts one’s soul in jeopardy. It has nothing to do with one’s conception.

For Roman Catholics to say the BVM must have been born immaculately is not strange in and of itself, it is just an admission that they have got the whole idea of original sin wrong to begin with. It’s a bug fix, a software patch.

Actually everyone is born the same way. What they do with their lives will make a big difference, and that is where living in the context of the church “the Body of Christ” i.e. receiving the sacred mysteries, worshiping together and making good life choices, can make all the difference.

That is what baptism is for, dying with Christ and rising with Him in a new life in His church. And from the very first day, the infant child is Confirmed and receiving Holy Communion to fortify him for the battles to come.

 

[Anthony_V]

St Paul said ‘where sin abounds, grace abounds even more’. What could he have meant by that? I think it is a message of hope. It means God does not abandon us.

I read in another forum where some Catholic priest was claiming that one’s prayers are not efficacious if one is not in a state of grace. Apparently he is a traditionalist.

But he seems to be saying that God will not even listen to you if you have any sin, if I follow the argument correctly. I don’t think most Roman Catholics will agree with that, but the idea is certainly out there, and circulating.

Thank you for replying, Hesychios. I appreciate your effort to compile such a well presented post. What I have quoted above is what catches my eye the most. This long-time debate about the efficacious quality of grace is argued even among scholastic groups in the Roman Catholic Church: Namely, the Dominicans and Jesuits.
Simply put, we cannot decide if graces are intrinsically different from each other (Thomistic) or if graces are intrinsically the same (Ignatian).I personally tend to lean towards the Thomistic view. To skim the surface, there are 8 basic systems of grace in western theology:
Thomism
Augustinianism
Molinism
Congruism
Syncretism
*Lutheranism
*Calvinism
*Jansenism

*Protestant

The two qualities of the scalar are divine sovereignty and free will. If you could make an ordered value chart out of it, it would look something like this:

… Pelagianism (Free-will Extremism, 100)

---

Molinism
Congruism
Syncretism
Thomism
Augustinianism

---

Lutheranism (45)
Calvinism
Jansenism

---

… Determinism (Divine Sovereignty extremism, 0)

Just to bring up some points-- it’s not all cut and dry as we’d like it to be.