Falling for an Orthodox girl: revisited

[Ghosty]

However, the successful struggle against “sin” does not have anything to do with an “immaculate conception” - which would have made this effort unnessecary.

I see this argument a lot from Eastern Orthodox, and I honestly can’t make sense of it theologically. Adam and Eve were completely free from Original Sin, yet struggled against sin (and failed).

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, supported by such Eastern luminaries as St. Gregory Palamas, says absolutely nothing about suffering, consequences of Adam’s sin such as death, and certainly not about the struggle against sin. Temptation to sin is something humans face regardless of the Grace bestowed by God; even Christ was tempted by Satan, though He could not fall to sin owing to His Divine Nature.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, supported by such Eastern luminaries as St. Gregory Palamas

I do not believe that St Gregory believed the IC in the way that the modern RCC does. Off the top of my head, I think he said something to the effect that all ancestors of Our Lady were free from the stain of OS (my paraphrase).

Oh well, St Gregory was not infallible.

 

[Ghosty]

I do not believe that St Gregory believed the IC in the way that the modern RCC does. Off the top of my head, I think he said something to the effect that all ancestors of Our Lady were free from the stain of OS (my paraphrase).

Oh well, St Gregory was not infallible.

Actually St. Gregory argued that her bloodline was gradually purified “bit by bit”, culminating in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

It’s definitely not identical to the wording of the IC, but it falls within the bounds of the definition (the IC speaks only about Mary being conceived spot-less, not about whether or not God worked over generations or only with Mary).

But yes, St. Gregory is not infallible. He’s also not outside the bounds of Orthodox tradition on this matter, however; his view is merely out of favor in popular Eastern Orthodox thought today. His belief (and the belief of other Orthodox like him) is not condemned by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

But yes, St. Gregory is not infallible. He’s also not outside the bounds of Orthodox tradition on this matter,

Yeah, yeah… and now this is where I quote Aquinas and Bonaventure and Catherine (from the West) and additional Church Fathers (East and West) to refute the RCC understanding of the IC…but hey…you’re already familiar with the drill.

Many blessings to you!

 

[Mickey]

Yeah, yeah… and now this is where I quote Aquinas and Bonaventure, and Catherine (from the West) and additional Church Fathers(East and West) to refute the RCC understanding of the IC…but hey…you’re already familiar with the drill.

Many blessings to you!

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah, yeah… and now this is where I quote Aquinas and Bonaventure and Catherine (from the West) and additional Church Fathers (East and West) to refute the RCC understanding of the IC…but hey…you’re already familiar with the drill.

There is a major difference between St. Gregory Palamas with the Eastern Orthodox, and the likes of Aquinas: the Catholic Church has officially made a statement on the matter, while the Eastern Orthodox Communion has not. Aquinas’ position has been ruled out for Catholics, St. Gregory’s position has not been ruled out for the Orthodox. The Catholic Church says Aquinas was wrong, the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not say St. Gregory was.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

the Catholic Church has officially made a statement on the matter, while the Eastern Orthodox Communion has not.

LOL! That’s because the EOC did not infallibly declare the IC doctrine in 1854.

The consensus of early church fathers do not talk about such a doctrine…and so the Church today is quiet about it also.

God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

LOL! That’s because the EOC did not infallibly declare the IC doctrine in 1854.

The consensus of early church fathers do not talk about such a doctrine…and so the Church today is quiet about it also.

God bless!

There is no concensus of the Church Fathers on the matter (nor for most doctrines), and that’s the point. Opinions can be found for both sides; the Catholic Church came down on one side, the Eastern Orthodox on neither.

This is getting pretty far off-topic, though.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

the Catholic Church came down on one side

Indeed!

 

[Monty61]

T**and some still argue about her struggle to successfully resist sin whilst she was a mortal upon the earth.

.**

And what a waste of time such an argument is. It seems to me to be a great sin of pride to argue about that which can only be known by God. To argue about it claims for oneself knowlege that God alone (and the Blessed Mother, or Theotokos), has.

Certainly it is an argument that cannot be won with knowlege that will be presented to us on Earth, only when we get to heaven. And when those who do argue about it get there, I think they are going to get chastised a bit about how much time they spent on something that was not theirs to know. Time they could have spent in prayer, almsgiving, fasting or some other more productive spiritual activity.

As a Catholic, I don’t even present as an argument that the Pope said it. I give the concept “religious assent” however, I don’t argue about it as a barrier to the communion of two Apostolic Churches, nor do I think it should be a barrier.

The fact that someone disagrees with something a Pope said or did in centuries past and holds on to that as a basis of division is like an African American demanding money from an Anglo Saxon American today as a reparation for slavery. None of us here today were alive when those events happened, so why let them influence our relationships today?

 

[Sunflower15]

T**he Orthodox do not believe that the Most Holy Virgin was free of original sin, and some still argue about her struggle to successfully resist sin whilst she was a mortal upon the earth.

However, the successful struggle against “sin” does not have anything to do with an “immaculate conception” - which would have made this effort unnessecary.

We EO believe that the Most Holy Virgin was mortal, and suffered as all mortals do - from the wages of original sin, and perhaps, but not conclusively, sinned during her life time.

Successful resistance of sin means that one is still suseptible to sin… and must resist it.

The “immaculate conception” dogma is totally foreign to the early Church.**

Though I won’t argue about what the Holy Orthodox believe, I DO want to clarify that the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception simply refers to Original Sin, not to the subsequent battle against sinning. We DO additionally believe she did not sin throughout her life, but this was by choice, so that she has merit for this. The Immaculate Conception part, she has NO merit for, since it was a special GRACE given to her by God because of His Plan of salvation through her, if she accepted. And, IC simply argues that Mary had no ‘stain’ in her spirit due to Original Sin. It doesn’t even say that she was in NO WAY whatsoever part of that intrinsically human issue, but that it didn’t ‘STAIN’ her…whatever that means! It is seen as a necessity to have received this grace in order to ‘encompass’ God within her as the 2nd Person.

In terms of the Orthodox, I read a truly beautiful part of the Liturgy used during the celebration of the Dormition, that specifically refers to special graces conferred on St. Anne while she conceived Mary, to prepare her for God’ Plan. It sounds like IC to me! without making it a dogma.

Maybe there was no need in the East to make obvious things a dogma, because no one was arguing them. While in the West, due to the Reformers some of them at least - who aggressively attacked pretty much everything about Mary - declaring some truths all Christians held as dear until that time, was a necessity to preserve the tradition intact.

Just look at Orthodox Icons of Our Lady, or listen/read the Liturgical teachings about her, and compare with the Marian ‘dogmas’ to see the similarities. Maybe if the dogmas had not been proclaimed, we -in the West- may not have so much in common with the Eastern churches today! Just saying…

 

[Sunflower15]

There is a major difference between St. Gregory Palamas with the Eastern Orthodox, and the likes of Aquinas: the Catholic Church has officially made a statement on the matter, while the Eastern Orthodox Communion has not. Aquinas’ position has been ruled out for Catholics, St. Gregory’s position has not been ruled out for the Orthodox. The Catholic Church says Aquinas was wrong, the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not say St. Gregory was.

Peace and God bless!

I’m curious about what did Aquinas say that was ‘ruled out’?

 

[Ematty]

We advise each player to order fast WOW Gold here, to make us know when you are online through 24 hours live help.

I consider a successful LARP to(Buy WOW Gold) have at least 30 players. Thirty players is usually a decent number of characters, motivations and goals to get the game rolling under its own power. If you have too many short of that number, then the game tends to become a more complicated tabletop role-playing game(with RuneScape Gold). So, if your game is going to be successful as a LARP, your game master is simultaneously tending to the needs of at least 30 people.