Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[Gabriel_of_12]

When and how he saved you.

Baptism saves you now;
1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured** baptism, which saves you now. **

Titus 3:5 … not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, **he saved us through the bath of rebirth (baptism) and renewal by the holy Spirit. **

Are we going to recieve a straight answer from the Orthodox? When and how do the Orthodox believe Mary was saved?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This debate on when somebody was ‘saved’ as if it were a one time event sounds Protestant.

I hope your not referencing to the ancient Orthodox false belief of “rebaptising” Christians?

Baptism saves you now, the biblical ministry of reconciliation is practiced by Catholics as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.

So do you know when and how the blessed Virgin Mary was saved?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

It is pure embellishment of an otherwise weak story.

Your opinion. This comment tells me the little you know about the story, which is in no way a weak one. If it is, then no one would believe in our blessed Mother of Lourdes. And it also tells me the little you believe in apparitions, or don’t believe them at all. And that’s fine because it is not obligatory to believe in them. But the point is, that this is what characterizes our church more than other churches, the miracles. These miracles sometimes confirm our beliefs.

And people will always try to undermine/disapprove apparitions/miracles that occur in the Catholic Church (which is something expected also). But these miracles sometimes grow so big that it would be unwise to simply ignore them. Too many people claim to have been cured from the water of the spring of Lourdes. It all points out to me, that it did happen for real. Again, just my opinion. I’m off here.

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

 

[dcointin]

I hope your not referencing to the ancient Orthodox false belief of “rebaptising” Christians?

Baptism saves you now, the biblical ministry of reconciliation is practiced by Catholics as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.

So do you know when and how the blessed Virgin Mary was saved?

I have never heard an Orthodox theologian speculate on the answer to this question, but I would suggest that she was saved through faith in her Son active in love as we all are.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8789677]I agree.

Apparitions can never, ever be the basis for doctrine

.

Apparitions are not a basis for doctrine; But they are the signs and wonders that confirm and follow the Church’s doctrine.

After Jesus ascended into heaven, the Church went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and "CONFIRMED THE WORD THROUGH ACCOMPANYING SIGNS" Mark 16:20.

**After the Pope proclaimed the Immaculate Conception **to defeat the new man made doctrines of “Communism, Darwinism” etc… Heaven confirmed this doctrine that followed it with signs and wonders in the apparition. This is not something new!

Long after the Resurection Jesus appeared to Saul (a great persecuter of the Church) in an apparition, Saint Stephen saw an apparition from heaven, St. Peter was given an apparition to introduce a newly developed doctrine in the Church by accepting the Gentiles into the Church by Baptism, not to mention all the angelic apparitions given to Peter, Paul, John, St. Phillip long after the resurrection.

Apparitions are biblical and are signs and wonders which can include miracles that follow the “Word of God” preached and taught by the Church.

Apparations from heaven confirm that the Catholic Church is truly the body of Christ.

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, THESE SIGNS WILL ACCOMPANY THEM”.

**God bless St. Bernadette ** From this little mind came the down fall of communism, “How Great are Your Works Dear Lord”.

**The beautiful thing in regards to the Catholic Church’s approved apparitions is that they continue to convert sinners, and the simple “fact” that science and man cannot disprove them. They are what they are “confirming signs and wonders from heaven” what the Church teaches and preaches “everywhere”.**Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ChrisRedfield47;8790383] "that this is what characterizes our church more than other churches, the miracles. These miracles sometimes confirm our beliefs

.

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

Thanks Chris for that photo, it is truly solemn and breath taking and confirms my hope in the resurrection. What a beautiful day that will be when St. Bernadette wakes up to see our Lord from her flesh.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I hope your not referencing to the ancient Orthodox false belief of “rebaptising” Christians?

What does that even mean? The Orthodox do not ever ‘rebaptize,’ just baptize. Clarify your needless calumny against the Orthodox Church or retract it.

Baptism saves you now, the biblical ministry of reconciliation is practiced by Catholics as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.

So do you know when and how the blessed Virgin Mary was saved?

Ok, so do you believe that there is a singular point of salvation? I think that’s complete nonsense, so arguing over when the Virgin Mary was ‘saved’ is a moot point.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Your opinion. This comment tells me the little you know about the story, which is in no way a weak one. If it is, then no one would believe in our blessed Mother of Lourdes. And it also tells me the little you believe in apparitions, or don’t believe them at all. And that’s fine because it is not obligatory to believe in them. But the point is, that this is what characterizes our church more than other churches, the miracles. These miracles sometimes confirm our beliefs.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Lourdes, and about Marian apparitions and miracles in general.

But I don’t think it’s valid to take miracles as a confirmation of the belief system in which they happen, for two reasons:

(1) Non-Catholics have them, too - for instance, I read about one once (I think it was in Athens in 1925?) that seems to be a corroboration of the goodness of Old Calendarist tenacity.

(2) Besides, our Lord Himself tells us that this generation is corrupt and seeks a sign, but that no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah. So I don’t think miracles are any sure guide, not in and of themselves, that is.

 

[Nine_Two]

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

I have answered what the Orthodox believe, you have twisted it to be heretical.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’ll wait to see if you can reply to this as a rational person, 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.) 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. If you can do that then maybe, just maybe, I won’t add you to the list of insufferables I call my ignore list.

 

[Nine_Two]

Straw-man. My posts show clearly that I said she could not be sinless without Grace-

Sooo, what I said.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok now that were back on point and realize thats your statement above. My question is what does that have to do with anything?

Hilarious. You skip over that “my statement above” is the complete opposite of what you said it was (no being a negative).

What does it have to do with anything? You were asserting the contrary.

 

[Nine_Two]

Your opinion. This comment tells me the little you know about the story, which is in no way a weak one. If it is, then no one would believe in our blessed Mother of Lourdes. And it also tells me the little you believe in apparitions, or don’t believe them at all. And that’s fine because it is not obligatory to believe in them. But the point is, that this is what characterizes our church more than other churches, the miracles. These miracles sometimes confirm our beliefs.

And people will always try to undermine/disapprove apparitions/miracles that occur in the Catholic Church (which is something expected also). But these miracles sometimes grow so big that it would be unwise to simply ignore them. Too many people claim to have been cured from the water of the spring of Lourdes. It all points out to me, that it did happen for real. Again, just my opinion. I’m off here.

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

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.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have never heard an Orthodox theologian speculate on the answer to this question, but I would suggest that she was saved through faith in her Son active in love as we all are.

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.

Not to conflct with you, but it is enough to say “God saves all of us by His Grace and Mercy” but not “alone” because belief, faith and works come into play. How they come into play is a long anwer depending on ones stage in life.

An infant is baptised or Christmation, does the grace from these sacraments( baptism )save the infant? or does the “faith” from the God parents and parents of the infant save the infant?

The angel Gabriel “The one who stands before God”, Hails Mary “full of Grace”, Long before coming to the knowledge of her conception of Jesus. Because after her greeting “Mary pondered what sort of greeting this might be”.

**So is it agreed upon by the Orthodox that Mary was already “full of Grace” before coming to the knowledge of Jesus to have faith in him? **

The Immaculate Conception says Yes Mary was already “Full of Grace” at the annunciation from the angel. The Immaculate conception only confirms what the Angel Gabriel revealed from God long before any council of the Church Fathers began to contemplate this mystery.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8790572]What does that even mean? The Orthodox do not ever ‘rebaptize,’ just baptize. Clarify your needless calumny against the Orthodox Church or retract it

.

Sure; your quote

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
“This debate on when somebody was ‘saved’ as if it were a one time event sounds Protestant.”

I asked? that your not insinuating that Christians need to be rebaptised as did the Early Orthodox Church wanted to rebaptise the apostates back into the Church a second time, when the Pope refused to allow rebaptism of Christians. I hope your not renewing this fallacy again, because you posted as if people can be resaved again? If the debate reveals once and for all to sound protestant, when baptism was the topic. I do not retract what is factual.

From reading all these posts, Iam finding that “thoughts” are being missed from the words being expressed to mean something other than what is intended. That is why I questioned you comment. Now thanks to you have clarified it.

So is their another way to be saved other than baptism? Which is a one time event? Iam not talking about the ministery of reconciliation of confession here.

Ok, so do you believe that there is a singular point of salvation? I think that’s complete nonsense, so arguing over when the Virgin Mary was ‘saved’ is a moot point

.

Alas I agree with you, arguing over when the Virgin Mary was saved is a moot point. So what’s wrong with God gracing Mary full of grace from her Immaculate Conception. Or God saving John the Baptist in his Mothers womb?

These are moot points, because scripture, sacred tradition reveals the blessed Virgin Mary as being full of Grace so much so that both Heaven and Earth “Hail Mary” to be full of Grace and “With the Lord”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.

Sure; your quote

I asked? that your not insinuating that Christians need to be rebaptised as did the Early Orthodox Church wanted to rebaptise the apostates back into the Church a second time, when the Pope refused to allow rebaptism of Christians. I hope your not renewing this fallacy again, because you posted as if people can be resaved again? If the debate reveals once and for all to sound protestant, when baptism was the topic. I do not retract what is factual.

From reading all these posts, Iam finding that “thoughts” are being missed from the words being expressed to mean something other than what is intended. That is why I questioned you comment. Now thanks to you have clarified it.

So is their another way to be saved other than baptism? Which is a one time event? Iam not talking about the ministery of reconciliation of confession here.

.

Alas I agree with you, arguing over when the Virgin Mary was saved is a moot point. So what’s wrong with God gracing Mary full of grace from her Immaculate Conception. Or God saving John the Baptist in his Mothers womb?

These are moot points, because scripture, sacred tradition reveals the blessed Virgin Mary as being full of Grace so much so that both Heaven and Earth “Hail Mary” to be full of Grace and “With the Lord”.

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Read this from the First Canonical Epistle of St. Basil, which was approved by Trullo and the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens from the faith. Such are the Manichæans, Valentinians, Marcionites and Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html

The baptisms of schismatics are without grace, and those coming into the church from a schismatic group should be baptized (even if their baptism had valid form), for their baptism was not a true baptism, according to the Second Council of Nicaea, which ratified the second canon of Trullo, which approved of this canonical epistle.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.

Sure; your quote

I asked? that your not insinuating that Christians need to be rebaptised as did the Early Orthodox Church wanted to rebaptise the apostates back into the Church a second time, when the Pope refused to allow rebaptism of Christians. I hope your not renewing this fallacy again, because you posted as if people can be resaved again? If the debate reveals once and for all to sound protestant, when baptism was the topic. I do not retract what is factual.

From reading all these posts, Iam finding that “thoughts” are being missed from the words being expressed to mean something other than what is intended. That is why I questioned you comment. Now thanks to you have clarified it.

So is their another way to be saved other than baptism? Which is a one time event? Iam not talking about the ministery of reconciliation of confession here.

.

Alas I agree with you, arguing over when the Virgin Mary was saved is a moot point. So what’s wrong with God gracing Mary full of grace from her Immaculate Conception. Or God saving John the Baptist in his Mothers womb?

These are moot points, because scripture, sacred tradition reveals the blessed Virgin Mary as being full of Grace so much so that both Heaven and Earth “Hail Mary” to be full of Grace and “With the Lord”.

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.

 

[Jacob50]

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.

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

 

[Nine_Two]

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

While I personally do accept the Our Lady of Guadalupe apparition as true (you will know them by their fruits), it certainly has not been scientifically proven (for one thing if it had then the entire faith would have been, for another there is a scientific principle, I forget the name, which automatically discards supernatural explanations. It is very likely unexplained by science, but that is something very different).

You are also wrong that these things are bigger in the Catholic Church. Certainly the faithful put more emphasis on them in the Catholic Church, but they are not more common, or bigger.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You were asserting the contrary.

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.