Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[Nine_Two]

Are you saying that Grace takes away a person’s ability to sin?

That seems to be the argument you were making, i.e. she was sinless because she had Grace.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not of question to me, regardless of if we hold guilt or responsibility over it, doesn’t relinquish its reality. Its a consequence, “Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin” We inherited it. We own it.

Ok. And?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I suppose within the theology of this entire concept remains another equation which I guess can’t be ignored.

This has also been discussed throughout the centurys. The issue is children whom haven’t been to baptism and even further along, the ignorance of this to the point when children reach the age of consciousness.

I understand how this raise’s a question. I realize whats been stated over the centurys. Without doubt theirs a real need to bring children immediately to be Baptized. However I see Gods mercy in this situation and Biblically with children. Here I’m reduced to my own opinion nevertheless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ok. And?

And “we hold guilt or responsibility over it” is a moot arguement. You have a Biblical verse to support this vague concept?

 

[Nine_Two]

And “we hold guilt or responsibility over it” is a moot arguement. You have a Biblical verse to support this vague concept?

You were the one claiming “we hold guilt or responsibility over it”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You were the one claiming “we hold guilt or responsibility over it”.

Umm no, perhaps you should re-read YOUR posts. In particular #32.

 

[Nine_Two]

Umm no, perhaps you should re-read YOUR posts. In particular #32.

You seem to have missed the word “no” in my post. I wrote “we hold no guilt or responsibility over it.”

 

[Anthony_V]

I would point to non-Christians being able to resist temptation without any special “grace”. I believe we’re just going to have to disagree.

Grace supercedes the sacramental economy. God is not bound to the sacraments; we are. If non-christians did not receive grace as you and I do in the sacraments, they would not be able to convert to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or any other belief system that begs God’s mercy by means of actual grace. Ephesians 2:8 comes to mind.
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 2:8-9[/BIBLEDRB]

So because of the sacraments you do not sin? This is quite contrary to the Orthodox view that we require the sacraments because we do sin. I’m certain there are Atheists out there who sin less than myself, in spite of a lack of the Holy Mysteries. The only difference is that I take my medicine, and they don’t.

If I’m not mistaken, Fortitude is a gift of the Holy Spirit for a spiritual reason, not a psychological one. Perhaps I’m mistaken about the relationship between mind and spirit, but they are not co-existent; rather, co-operative.
For instance, when you receive our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion, you become filled with grace-- both literally and spiritually. You become a living tabernacle!
Not to get off track, but for me personally, it’s like a love story. I get nervous each time I receive, and I’ve been doing this for what, ten years now on my own? My point is, God loves you. He provides all the spiritual graces you need for salvation when you receive him. It’s just a matter of cooperating with those graces; not merely a psychological matter.

Hmm, I think you might want to look over the Creed again.
In Orthodox theology, what you describe as being the role of Baptism is done through Chrismation, although it is only the Holy Spirit the indwells, not the whole Trinity, and even this does not make it easier not to sin.

Again, the gifts of the Holy Spirit come to mind. While I understand that is more accepted in the Roman communion than in the Orthodox communion, I’m sure you understand what I mean.

I was just about to defend myself that I didn’t say one could receive salvation through the law, but I paused, looked back at what I wrote, and saw that it very much looks like that. I’d interprete it the same way.

The law was the only way to get closer to God, the problem is that no one could quite get it all right. Christ came to fullfill the law so that we wouldn’t need to, he came and gave us that Grace, as you put it.

Well put. You’ve got some nice brain matter there, sir.

And while this grace may have been present with the theotokos at her dormition, there is no requirement that she have it when Christ was born.

My quarrel with this is that it is the theology, which is the same idea that most protestants use:
“Jesus did not have to be born from a sinless woman.”
I don’t suppose there is a reason we treat the Eucharist with such respect. We keep him in a tabernacle, not in a bag somewhere. Again, I commend to you the parallel between the Theotokos and the Ark of the Old Covenant. She wasn’t sinless by her own accord, but by her duty as Theotokos-- a duty that started from her sentience.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that she chose not to be a humble and faithful Jewish woman. That puts nothing at odds with your position, strictly speaking. I cannot even imagine the consequences that would result from such an instance. So let’s say she repents, and is filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. She is then made ready for Heaven because she has received God’s graces. What kind of intercession would she be offering in Heaven? She would have done nothing to merit the crown that Christ bestows upon her. That would lead me to believe she is just like other saint.

As mentioned by someone else above, this idea that grace was given to her at a specific time of her life (conception) seems very similar to the Protestant use of the term “saved” as a one time event.

“Saved”, as it were, refers to belief. Certainly, most babies en-utero don’t have an sentient intelligence. While I understand your correlation of the two, the prior deals with an act of human will cooperating with divine will, as opposed to divine will expressing a sanctifying miracle. We’re dealing with the stain of sin here, not double predestination

 

[Nine_Two]

Grace supercedes the sacramental economy. God is not bound to the sacraments; we are. If non-christians did not receive grace as you and I do in the sacraments, they would not be able to convert to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or any other belief system that begs God’s mercy by means of actual grace. Ephesians 2:8 comes to mind.
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 2:8-9[/BIBLEDRB]

I can absolutely agree with that.

If I’m not mistaken, Fortitude is a gift of the Holy Spirit for a spiritual reason, not a psychological one. Perhaps I’m mistaken about the relationship between mind and spirit, but they are not co-existent; rather, co-operative.
For instance, when you receive our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion, you become filled with grace-- both literally and spiritually. You become a living tabernacle!
Not to get off track, but for me personally, it’s like a love story. I get nervous each time I receive, and I’ve been doing this for what, ten years now on my own? My point is, God loves you. He provides all the spiritual graces you need for salvation when you receive him. It’s just a matter of cooperating with those graces; not merely a psychological matter.

A love story, a great way to put it. Ι agree with that, and it is consistent with what I’ve been taught.
We are commanded to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and so to approach with nervousness seems very apt.

My quarrel with this is that it is the theology, which is the same idea that most protestants use:
“Jesus did not have to be born from a sinless woman.”
I don’t suppose there is a reason we treat the Eucharist with such respect. We keep him in a tabernacle, not in a bag somewhere. Again, I commend to you the parallel between the Theotokos and the Ark of the Old Covenant. She wasn’t sinless by her own accord, but by her duty as Theotokos-- a duty that started from her sentience.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that she chose not to be a humble and faithful Jewish woman. That puts nothing at odds with your position, strictly speaking. I cannot even imagine the consequences that would result from such an instance. So let’s say she repents, and is filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. She is then made ready for Heaven because she has received God’s graces. What kind of intercession would she be offering in Heaven? She would have done nothing to merit the crown that Christ bestows upon her. That would lead me to believe she is just like other saint.

But the Orthodox position isn’t that she was a sinner, our teaching is that she was sinless, and certainly the only way she could do that was with the help of God.

However, she still had to make a choice in the matter. She certainly could have chosen to say no, but she is celebrated for saying yes. And here I put God’s omniscience into play, he chose her because he knew she was obedient, and knew she would say yes. He was able to speak to the prophets about her because he knew from all eternity how she would live her life and react to her special mission.

She holds her special position as Queen of Heaven because she is the Theotokos, the mother of the King. She alone among all of humanity was deemed worthy by God to serve in the way she did. But she was not specially prepared to be worthy.

“Saved”, as it were, refers to belief. Certainly, most babies en-utero don’t have an sentient intelligence. While I understand your correlation of the two, the prior deals with an act of human will cooperating with divine will, as opposed to divine will expressing a sanctifying miracle. We’re dealing with the stain of sin here, not double predestination

My issue tended toward the way in which they were being used.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

In 1858 At Lourdes, Our Lady appears to a 14 year old girl (Bernadette Soubirous) and said: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. This doctrine was not formally proclaimed until Pope Pius IX did so in 1854…4 years before her appearance at Lourdes. Coincidence? No…

Bernadette was characteristically stubborn and simply could not have invented this.​

Fr. Peyramale said (to Bernardette) that a woman cannot have a name like that. “You are mistaken. Do you know what that means?” The priest was shaken, and unable to talk to Bernadette. He quickly sent her away, and she left without the privilege of understanding the meaning of the title. She was only told later that afternoon that the Blessed Mother carried that title.

"She could never have invented this … " wrote Fr. Peyramale to the bishop that evening.​

Copied from a site.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous remains a Incorruptible saint in our Church. No coincidence, just my opinion.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Anthony_V]

I can absolutely agree with that.
A love story, a great way to put it. Ι agree with that, and it is consistent with what I’ve been taught…
We are commanded to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and so to approach with nervousness seems very apt.

Awesome! I feel like we’re re-inventing the wheel here or something

But the Orthodox position isn’t that she was a sinner, our teaching is that she was sinless, and certainly the only way she could do that was with the help of God.

However, she still had to make a choice in the matter. She certainly could have chosen to say no, but she is celebrated for saying yes. And here I put God’s omniscience into play, he chose her because he knew she was obedient, and knew she would say yes. He was able to speak to the prophets about her because he knew from all eternity how she would live her life and react to her special mission.

She holds her special position as Queen of Heaven because she is the Theotokos, the mother of the King. She alone among all of humanity was deemed worthy by God to serve in the way she did. But she was not specially prepared to be worthy…
My issue tended toward the way in which they were being used.

Ohhhhh, I see what you mean now! :idea: Pardon my lack of understanding of Orthodox rhetoric
I think we’re confusing the role of her sinfulness (err, lack there-of) with the role of Theotokos. Your big issue seems to be that your afraid her being specially prepared would interfere with her free will. I can see that, and it’s definitely a smart observation. I wouldn’t have ever likened it to Calvinism in that specific of a manner, so thank you for opening up that vantage point.
This is where it gets tricky, because we’re dealing with the only four people (recorded by our Church Fathers) who expressed free will, but were sinless; Mary and the Triune God-head.
The crux of the matter boils down to these questions:

1) Is freewill dictated by nature?

• We know that God the Father and Holy Spirit have free will, as they are both persons.
• We know that God the Son and Mary have free will, as they are both persons.
• The Father and Holy Spirit are fully divine, but not human.
• Jesus is fully divine, and fully human.
• Mary is fully human, but not fully divine.

Conclusion 1:
Free will is not dictated by one’s divine or human nature.

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?

1. Is free will expressed differently between creator and creature?

I actually stumbled upon a post of mine from over a year and a half ago while browsing through the forums for an answer. I answered myself!

• God expresses his free will by love for his creation.
• God expresses his free will by creating his creation.
• God expresses his free will by giving free will to his creation.

Conclusion 3)
Mary very well could have been specially prepared as worthy and still have free will. She expressed her free will by giving free will to her creation (Jesus’ fully human nature), by God’s will. It reminds me a lot of the filioque:

“But here a point of difference must be noted. What is conceived in the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood and represents its species; and so it seems to be a sort of offspring of the intellect. Therefore, when the intellect understands something other than itself, the thing understood is, so to speak, the father of the word conceived in the intellect, and the intellect itself resembles rather a mother, whose function is such that conception takes place in her. But when the intellect understands itself, the word conceived is related to the understanding person as offspring to father. Consequently, since we are using the term word in the latter sense (that is, according as God understands Himself), the word itself must be related to God, from whom the word proceeds, as Son to Father.”

Summa Theologica

That’s my personal un-professional hypothesis. I wish I could read up on it more someday… definitely looking forward to summer time. No more public school forever! :tanning:

 

[Anthony_V]

Umm no, perhaps you should re-read YOUR posts. In particular #32.

Come now, Gary. Why are you so frustrated?

 

[ConstantineTG]

In 1858 At Lourdes, Our Lady appears to a 14 year old girl (Bernadette Soubirous) and said: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. This doctrine was not formally proclaimed until Pope Pius IX did so in 1854…4 years before her appearance at Lourdes. Coincidence? No…

Bernadette was characteristically stubborn and simply could not have invented this.​

Fr. Peyramale said (to Bernardette) that a woman cannot have a name like that. “You are mistaken. Do you know what that means?” The priest was shaken, and unable to talk to Bernadette. He quickly sent her away, and she left without the privilege of understanding the meaning of the title. She was only told later that afternoon that the Blessed Mother carried that title.

"She could never have invented this … " wrote Fr. Peyramale to the bishop that evening.​

Copied from a site.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous remains a Incorruptible saint in our Church. No coincidence, just my opinion.

http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/images/bernyoung1.gif

My thoughts on this

#1 Apparitions are not basis for doctrine. Nothing said in apparitions should drive doctrine. Public revelations ended a long time ago and doctrine only comes fro public revelations.
#2 Any true apparition by Christ, the Theotokos or any saint will not confuse the person they are appearing to. They will come in the level of understanding of that person. They will not talk about Eastern theology to a Western Christian, and vice versa. They come to deliver a message, therefore the message will be in a way clearly understood by the person receiving it.

 

[Vico]

The greatest opposition I’ve seen given to the idea (and which I agree with), is that the Catholic doctrine makes the theotokos into something more than a woman.

Taken to its most basic principles, stripped of any of the theological language of the East or West, the doctrine is the idea that Mary was specially prepared for her mission by God.

The Orthodox belief is that there was no need to specially prepare her, that she simply had to say yes (and this is contrasted with Eve, who said “no”).

In my personal opinion, as long as the Catholic Church doesn’t try to enforce this believe on the East, it isn’t a hinderance to reconciliation.

Orthodoxy teaches Synergeia. These three teachings are mutually exclusive:

Pelagianism: man is in himself and by nature capable of choosing good.
Semi-Pelagianism: man can make the first move toward God without the help of God.
Synergeia: salvation is cooperation between God and man.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

My thoughts on this

#1 Apparitions are not basis for doctrine. Nothing said in apparitions should drive doctrine. Public revelations ended a long time ago and doctrine only comes fro public revelations.
#2 Any true apparition by Christ, the Theotokos or any saint will not confuse the person they are appearing to. They will come in the level of understanding of that person. They will not talk about Eastern theology to a Western Christian, and vice versa. They come to deliver a message, therefore the message will be in a way clearly understood by the person receiving it.

Alright those are your thoughts which are just fine. I mean sure apparitions are not basis of doctrine, but I just think that our Church is characterized by certain things that happen which imo are not coincidence (and many will tell you it is or disapprove it). And my opinion (being devout to our blessed Mother Mary) is that this is one of those things which is no coincidence.

About point number 2, I don’t think the apparition of our blessed Mother “confused” Saint Bernadette Soubirous. Or if it did, please explain how…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Alright those are your thoughts which are just fine. I mean sure apparitions are not basis of doctrine, but I just think that our Church is characterized by certain things that happen which imo are not coincidence (and many will tell you it is or disapprove it). And my opinion (being devout to our blessed Mother Mary) is that this is one of those things which is no coincidence.

About point number 2, I don’t think the apparition of our blessed Mother “confused” Saint Bernadette Soubirous. Or if it did, please explain how…

That was my point, it didn’t confuse St. Bernadette because she came to her in the context of what she already believed. Imagine if Mary started speaking to St. Bernadette about Eastern theology, the message would not have been received. I hope you understand my point there, I am saying that she is not trying to confuse her, that is why she will talk to St. Bernadette in ways that she will understand. The reason why we have so many different traditions is because as humans, we are limited in our understanding. Mary, being in heaven and given the full experience of God, knows the truth fully and deeply. But she will come to us speaking in our language, not on the fullness of her wisdom in heaven. Because while we are on earth, we will not be able to comprehend that fully.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not arguing what Catholics believe. You asked what Orthodox believe. I told you. I’m not going to argue what belief is superior, and which belief is correct. I’ve received censure quite recently for doing just that. You asked a specific question, which you said you had asked many times before, but never had answered, and I gave you an answer. Whether or not you like that answer doesn’t matter.

You haven’t answered anything about what Orthodox believe, what you gave is heretical even to the orthodox.

I’m a bit annoyed that you pretended to have an innocent question and then decided to lead the resulting conversation in such a way that you could accuse us of heresy for not believing the IC.

Quit with your accusations. I did no pretending here. I countered your charge that Catholics make Mary super-human with the fact that it is the Orthodox who do that, saying that she could be perfectly Holy without God’s special assistance. And you have not answered my questions. You’ve come up with ideas that are heretical both to Catholics and Orthodox.

As for that particular canon, if we use your strict reasoning, nobody prior to Jesus (except Mary, though the special stuff God did to her) could possibly do anything good. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Ezra, not the prophets, and not the kings.

By my reasoning, none of what they did could get them anywhere but limbo. They were not Holy- Mary was. And she could not be so without being filled with grace- no one could. It is grace that Hallows, it’s the divine life that deifies, and none of them were until it was given to them by Christ after the Cross- But the Theotokos was.

 

[Marybeloved]

That seems to be the argument you were making, i.e. she was sinless because she had Grace.

Straw-man. My posts show clearly that I said she could not be sinless without Grace- That’s still true! But I said the reason she did not sin was her free-will obedience (Grace is the reason she could be sinless, her free choices are why she remained sinless).Grace is what hallows, and the Theotokos used her free will to co-operate with it perfectly. You on the other hand implied that having the grace would mean that her ability to sin was removed before hand- obviously untrue, unless grace destroys free will.

 

[Marybeloved]

This is where it gets tricky, because we’re dealing with the only four people (recorded by our Church Fathers) who expressed free will, but were sinless; Mary and the Triune God-head.

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.

 

[Hesychios]

My thoughts on this

#1 Apparitions are not basis for doctrine. Nothing said in apparitions should drive doctrine. Public revelations ended a long time ago and doctrine only comes fro public revelations.
#2 Any true apparition by Christ, the Theotokos or any saint will not confuse the person they are appearing to. They will come in the level of understanding of that person. They will not talk about Eastern theology to a Western Christian, and vice versa. They come to deliver a message, therefore the message will be in a way clearly understood by the person receiving it.

I agree.

Apparitions can never, ever be the basis for doctrine. Doctrine has only one source.

By the by …

The accounts also make her out to be some kind of imbecile from a poor family who could have not known the term. In fact the doctrine had been proclaimed for four years already and had been big news at the time, and her father was a miller who was in constant contact with the public so customers would chat about all kinds of things waiting for or picking up their orders.

The account that some priest had the personal opinion she was very unsophisticated could not have known what that term meant does not constitute anything miraculous. It is pure embellishment of an otherwise weak story.