Immaculate Conception: Luke 1 and Acts 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter mabowden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fr_Ambrose said:
The Eastern Catholics who often call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” adhere to a theology of Original Sin which is Orthodox and not Roman Catholic. This theology makes the Immaculate Conception without meaning.

In the case of the Melkites, they have a Joint Agreement signed with Rome at the time they came into the Catholic Church that stipulates that they will not be required to believe anything other than what they always believed. The Melkites quote this from the document but I have never been able to track it down.
Click to expand...
"Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart. " Pope Pius IX

This includes the Melkites and any other Eastern Church so I believe you need to re-check things. If any Eastern Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception they have seperated themselves from the unity of the church.

Ken
 
kleary said:
This includes the Melkites and any other Eastern Church so I believe you need to re-check things. If any Eastern Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception they have seperated themselves from the unity of the church.

Ken
Click to expand...
I think Fr. Ambrose is aware that this had already happened long before the question of the Immaculate Conception came up… 🙂
 
kleary said:
This includes the Melkites and any other Eastern Church so I believe you need to re-check things. If any Eastern Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception they have seperated themselves from the unity of the church.
Click to expand...
In theory, yes, but the reality on the ground is different. I think that Rome turns its head away from the intransigence of the Eastern Catholics on these matters.

The only other way, trying to discipline them and insisting that they accept these dogmas, would probably result in the embarrassment of some of these Churches leaving Rome and returning to Orthodoxy which is their parent Church.

There is a discussion getting underway on this very question -the Eastern Catholic lack of acceptance of some Roman Catholic teachings- in the Eastern Christianity Forum. It promises to be very interesting.

Eastern Catholics: What to Believe
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117162

The EWTN webpage on the Eastern Catholics has this interesting comment on the Melkite Catholic Church - “Other sources of disagreement [between Rome and the Melkite Catholics] are the** Immaculate Conception**, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.”

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT
 
Does anyone else think that in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, the IC is clearly taught? Paul speaks of the children born to Abraham by the woman in slavery (Hagar; sin) and the children born to the freeborn woman (Sarah; no sin) I’m not saying Sarah was sinless, in fact Paul tells us it is an allegory. But if you read this, although Mary’s name is absent (perhaps because of persecution?) the implication is clear. Well, clear to me anyway! Hagar is Eve, and Sarah is Mary!
 
Axion said:
“Full of Grace” referring to Stephen is a TEMPORARY state, therefore it does not indicate lifelong sinlessness. With respect to Mary, the term used indicates a CONTINUOUS state of fullness with Grace, which does therefore imply that being permanently filled with Grace, she is indeed without sin.

The word the Bible usees is Kecharitomene, it is a** title.** It is based on the Greek Charis which is always translated grace,

Literally it can be rendered **Perfectly-with-grace-endowed-one. **The Greek participle means that the grace was continuous and pre-existing the appearance of the angel.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. This will be very helpful.
  • Mark
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.)

At the time of the holy Archangel’s visit, Mary was free to accept or reject the invitation to become the Mother of God.

What happens if she refused? Would that mean there would be an immaculately conceived human being anyway? Or would God have cancelled her immaculateness and returned her to a normal spiritual state like other humans and sought out another girl to become the Mother of God?

Sorry for intruding but this has always interested me.
Click to expand...
Using the Eve - Mary parallel (and many others within the bible) God always gives people a free choice, but makes them accept the consequences of that choice.

Eve chose to disobey God. God didn’t force Eve to obey or create another woman who would obey, He accepted her choice. It was the same with Mary. God gave her a sinless existence just like Eve, and then He gave Mary the choice, just like Eve.
 
G’day!

Haven’t been here in a while. I was just reading about the Immaculate Conception and came across this thread.

When did Mary give permission? When was she asked permission?

In my RSV Gabriel tells her that she will have a child, she says “How…?”, he tells her how, and she says “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” indicating she’s happy with what the Lord has already determined to do in her. Gabriel didn’t appear to ask her permission, but give her notification.

Jibb
 
Jibb_Smart said:
G’day!

Haven’t been here in a while. I was just reading about the Immaculate Conception and came across this thread.

When did Mary give permission? When was she asked permission?

In my RSV Gabriel tells her that she will have a child, she says “How…?”, he tells her how, and she says “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” indicating she’s happy with what the Lord has already determined to do in her. Gabriel didn’t appear to ask her permission, but give her notification.

Jibb
Click to expand...
She could have refused and said she was not worthy to be the mother of God.
 
kleary said:
The Greek word describing Mary is clear- "Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.
Click to expand...
I read that it only proves the She was Graced before and up to at least that point and is not really a perfect passage to support the Immaculate Conception where as it means She was definitely Graced afterwards even if we know it to be true anyways.

geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html

I also heard what you said above so I’m confused on the exact meaning of Kecharitomene and it’s proper meaning at the moment.
 
Tom said:
Like Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
Good point.

How about, “…being sinless and trusting in the Lord, one would have to say yes, knowing it would please the Lord!!!”? One of the reasons for Adam’s fall is that he didn’t trust that God would protect him from the Nahash.
 
dcdurel said:
She could have refused and said she was not worthy to be the mother of God.
Click to expand...
Or she could have refused and Gabriel could have said “What are you gonna do about it? I told you, you will be with child.”

Jibb
 
Jibb_Smart said:
Or she could have refused and Gabriel could have said “What are you gonna do about it? I told you, you will be with child.”

Jibb
Click to expand...
So, you think God forces Himself on anyone? Wouldn’t that be rape?
 
Of course not. He foreknew she wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Jibb
 
I agree. But he also knew that she must accept before it would happen.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that speculation? God can make whoever he wants pregnant by whatever means. Would her saying “Nah” make Him go “Whoops, my mistake. You’re not pregnant after all.”? Or she could complain about it, go “Oh how I wish I was not pregnant”, then thanks to God’s divine plan she learns from Joseph and friends and family what a privelege it is and by birth-time she’s rejoicing in her blessed role as Jesus’ mother.

If the Bible is anything to go by (story of Jonah for example) God can do His will in us whether we like it or not, and the best thing for us is to trust Him that His will is best.

Jibb
 
Jibb_Smart said:
Isn’t that speculation? God can make whoever he wants pregnant by whatever means. Would her saying “Nah” make Him go “Whoops, my mistake. You’re not pregnant after all.”? Or she could complain about it, go “Oh how I wish I was not pregnant”, then thanks to God’s divine plan she learns from Joseph and friends and family what a privelege it is and by birth-time she’s rejoicing in her blessed role as Jesus’ mother.

If the Bible is anything to go by (story of Jonah for example) God can do His will in us whether we like it or not, and the best thing for us is to trust Him that His will is best.

Jibb
Click to expand...
Well yeah, there is Jonah, but He didn’t impregnate Jonah.

And, yes, God did know that Mary would say yes, unequivocally - that’s one of the reasons He graced her so completely, to insure this.

But the Holy Spirit waited patiently for Mary to give her “yes”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top