G
Ghosty
Guest
She couldn’t very well say “yes” at her moment of conception, any more than we can. She said “yes” when she started being able to, but an embryo isn’t equipped with such faculties.
Peace and God bless!
- Status
Peace and God bless!
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alethiaphile
I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe
Ghosty wrote:
Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.
No, because in the West her “fiat” is seen as an almost automatic result of the Immaculate Conception; everything is already foreordained from that.
PLUS, “overwhelming emphasis” doesn’t accord with my 20+ years of experience in the Western church. It’s preached on occasionally, but the overwhelming
emphasis in my experience is on the IC. How many western Catholics celebrate the Annunciation? How many even know when or what it is? Which is one of my problems with the doctrine of the IC, it has completely overshadowed the Annunciation and Mary’s Fiat in the West. Joe
Originally Posted by Alethiaphile
I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe
Ghosty wrote:
Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.
No, because in the West her “fiat” is seen as an almost automatic result of the Immaculate Conception; everything is already foreordained from that.
PLUS, “overwhelming emphasis” doesn’t accord with my 20+ years of experience in the Western church. It’s preached on occasionally, but the overwhelming
emphasis in my experience is on the IC. How many western Catholics celebrate the Annunciation? How many even know when or what it is? Which is one of my problems with the doctrine of the IC, it has completely overshadowed the Annunciation and Mary’s Fiat in the West. Joe
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alethiaphile,
Secondly, I think there’s a HUGE difference between saying “I PREFER to worship God regularly to celebrate the Annunciation, therefore I PREFER the Eastern spirituality,” on the one hand, and saying, “I think THERE’S A PROBLEM when someone does not celebrate the Annunciation,” on the other. Once one begins to throw around judgments like that, I honestly think one has become legalistic. For the sake of your conscience, brother, please meditate on that and be at peace with these little distinctions. Meditate on what St. Paul teaches us about making Feast Days so important that it becomes a cause of disunity.
Thirdly, not all Latin jurisdictions have the Feast of the IC celebrated. I don’t think England celebrates it (from what I’ve heard). Perhaps there are others also.
Blessings,
Marduk
First of all, how is the Theotokos “forced” into anything more or less than the Forerunner or any of the Prophets were “forced” to do anything simply because all were chosen, sanctified and anointed by God before they were born? Are WE “forced” to do anything upon our baptism, which is the same Grace that Mary received at the moment of her conception? Can you see the inconsistency in your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alethiaphile
I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe
Ghosty wrote:
Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.
No, because in the West her “fiat” is seen as an almost automatic result of the Immaculate Conception; everything is already foreordained from that.
PLUS, “overwhelming emphasis” doesn’t accord with my 20+ years of experience in the Western church. It’s preached on occasionally, but the overwhelming
Secondly, I think there’s a HUGE difference between saying “I PREFER to worship God regularly to celebrate the Annunciation, therefore I PREFER the Eastern spirituality,” on the one hand, and saying, “I think THERE’S A PROBLEM when someone does not celebrate the Annunciation,” on the other. Once one begins to throw around judgments like that, I honestly think one has become legalistic. For the sake of your conscience, brother, please meditate on that and be at peace with these little distinctions. Meditate on what St. Paul teaches us about making Feast Days so important that it becomes a cause of disunity.
Thirdly, not all Latin jurisdictions have the Feast of the IC celebrated. I don’t think England celebrates it (from what I’ve heard). Perhaps there are others also.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
Ghosty
Guest
We can toss around personal experiences all day, but the bottom line is that the “fiat” is not necessitated by the Immaculate Conception (the IC does NOT teach that Mary couldn’t have sinned, not even close in fact), and it has never been taught as such by the Latin Church (individual theologians, maybe, but I’d like you to provide some actual evidence of this).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alethiaphile
I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe
Ghosty wrote:
Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.
No, because in the West her “fiat” is seen as an almost automatic result of the Immaculate Conception; everything is already foreordained from that.
PLUS, “overwhelming emphasis” doesn’t accord with my 20+ years of experience in the Western church. It’s preached on occasionally, but the overwhelming
Beyond that all that can be said is that our experiences don’t match up.
As for celebrating the Feast of the Annunciation, it usually falls within Lent, so the seasonal emphasis is off, and it often gets pre-empted by Easter as well. The celebration of the Feast, especially given its timing, is not the indicator of the importance of the event, however.
Peace and God bless!
A
antgaria
Guest
I think what ghosty is saying is something like what Mar Ephrem was talking about many many centuries ago, when he talked of Eve and Mary who were both pure, but Eve chose to fall into sin, and Mary chose to be elevated by the Fiat. Choice is still there…
M
mardukm
Guest
It is also worth noting that St. Ephrem specifically taught that before their respective decisions, Eve and Mary were “UTTERLY EQUAL.”
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
My use of the word “passive” was to the Immaculate Conception. The word “passive” would seem to be appropriate there.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
- The difference is that the Church doesn’t specify that, for example, the prophets were cleansed of sin when they were chosen. There is no problem with Mary being chosen to tbe the Theotokos. As to our baptismas infants, there is a difference; it, according to traditonal western teaching, erases the guilt of original sin, but not the inclinations toward sin which resulted from the Fall (which in itself seems flawed to me, that’s a different subject). On the other hand, if Mary never contracted original sin, that means she had no inclinations towards sin (it also means she shouldn’t have been subject to death, which is another problem). So the inconsistenmcy you see I don’t think is there.
- I don’t see why my concern over neglect of the Annunciation makes me “legalistic”. I also don’t see how it is merely a matter of preference. Either the Annunciation is important, or it isn’t. Finally, St. Paul wasn’t talking about this or that Feast Day as a cause of disunity, he was talking about whether to mark any Feast Days at all. If you want to cite that passage, you have to call into question whether there should be Holy Days of Obligation at all. Joe
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
With due respect to St. Ephrem, Eve and the Theotokos could not have been “utterly equal”. Eve was not born into a state of grace, but into a state of innocence, a state of potentiality towards either sin or righteousness. Every human born after Adam and Eve’s sin, including Mary, could no longer be in such a state of potentiality. Joe
M
mardukm
Guest
First, I am pretty sure the Eastern tradition accedes that St. John and Jeremiah (at least those two) were purified in their mother’s womb, not just chosen or anointed. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Second, I think you misunderstand what the IC teaches. it does not say that Mary never contracted original sin. It says she never contracted the STAIN of original sin. The Church defines the STAIN of original sin as the spiritual consequences of original sin. So what the Church teaches, in short, is that Mary never contracted the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin. However, the original sin did not merely result in SPIRITUAL consequences, but also PHYSICAL consequences, such as illness, death, corruption, etc. It is NOT from these PHYSICAL consequences that Mary was preserved. The IC does not teach what you think it teaches. The mere fact of the matter is that the Grace Mary received at her Conception is the very same Grace we receive at our Baptism. So I ask you again - if the Grace Mary received at her conception is the same Grace we receive at our Baptism, and you claim that the Grace Mary received at her IC takes away her free will somehow, then how can you consistently claim that Baptism does NOT take away our free will?
First, "Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in question of food and drink or with regard to a feast, or a new moon or a sabbath."Colossians 2:10
Second, the keeping of a Feast is not an indication of the importance of a belief. Don’t you know that Catholics commemorate the Annunciation almost every day in the Rosary? Brother Ghosty gave a good explanation of the reason why the Feast of the Annunciation is not specifically celebrated. I also have a suggestion. Do a Google search with these words “Annunciation Catholic feast.” Apparently, the Feast is recognized to be on March 25. I’m sure the links that Google provides will give you all the info you need. As you know, the Latin Church has daily Mass, and every Mass on that day I would guess specifically memorializes the Annunciation.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dvdjs
Guest
Your comments suggest a rather complete misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception. Please go, for example, to the Catholic encyclopedia. Read the articles on the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin. You will discover that the problems you are seeing are entirely your own invention and simply are not part of Catholic teaching. You really need to understand what is meant by the stain of Original Sin, from Mary was preserved.
To get some additional historical perspectives you may also like to look at this article:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4029910&postcount=35
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4029912&postcount=36
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
If you think I have a “rather (!) complete misunderstanding of… Original Sin”, why don’t you deign to enlighten me, rather than make insulting statements. I’ve read much on the RC doctrine of Original Sin, including the Catholic Encyclopedia. Please tell me what, specifically, I have said that is in error. Joe
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alehtiaphile,
Blessings,
Marduk
I have already pointed out to you the errors in your understanding of the IC, based on your own statement, in my post #30. If you have anything else to add to your understanding, please post it here so we can see if anything else needs correction.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dvdjs
Guest
I already pointed out the crux of your error.
You wrote:
But there is no teaching that “Mary never contracted original sin”. The language of the IC specifically refers to the “stain”. That is why I suggested that you check out the CE on the meaning of the hereditary stain in its article on Original Sin. You will find that the meaning does not entail “inclination towards sin” or being “subject to death”. What it does entail is just what Markum has been describing to you.
I realize that this may appear confusing, for two reasons: first, many Catholics are a little careless about making the distinction, since it has little significance for them; second, many anti-Catholic polemicists deliberately blur the distinction in order to suggest that there is some obvious problem with the Catholic teaching. But, if you take the reading suggestions that I have given as constructive, rather than insulting, you will find that the distinction is clear and the objections that you are raising are groundless.
D
Diak
Guest
The Litya stichera from St. Germanos from Vespers for the Dormition:
“Come, all the ends of the earth, let us call blessed the Translation of the Mother of God. For she has placed her **unblemished soul **in the hands of her Son. Therefore the world has been restored to life by her holy Falling Asleep, as with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs it radiantly celebrates the feast with the Bodiless hosts and the Apostles.”
“Come, all the ends of the earth, let us call blessed the Translation of the Mother of God. For she has placed her **unblemished soul **in the hands of her Son. Therefore the world has been restored to life by her holy Falling Asleep, as with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs it radiantly celebrates the feast with the Bodiless hosts and the Apostles.”
- Status