Kecharitomene

[ematouk]

“16 Does not the dew give relief from the scorching heat?
So a word is better than a gift.
17 Indeed, does not a word [Gr. logos] surpass a good gift?
Both are to be found in a gracious person [Gr. Kecharitomene].” (Ecclesiasticus 18:16-17)

Kecharitomene also appears in Ecclesiasticus, but takes on the meaning of “gracious persion” as in a person is gracious to give.

To those Greek experts on this forum, isn’t it true that Kecharitomene has no subject in Luke 1:28? that it is assumed that the grace is coming from God?

Is it possible to interpret Luke 1:28 in terms of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 18:17 and say that Mary was a “fully gracious person” in that she give herself fully to God and give us the ultimate gift of the God who became man for our salvation?

Or would one say that it is a far stretch?

God bless.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Most Orthodox Christians teach Mary as being personally sinless. But reject any notion of her being free from original sin

.

This is, in fact, the primary reason as to why I have come to accept the Catholic position here.

Let us reason. If Mary was personally sinless all of her life, but not free from original sin, then was she not sinless by her own merits? **How could she possibly have overcome the wounded nature of humanity, which compels all to sin, and have fully resisted sin personally ? **

Catholics teach that Mary was sinless because God’s grace made this possible through her Immaculate Conception. She did not overcome her wounded and fallen nature in order to refrain from sinful acts because the grace of God in Christ had accomplished that for her already.

 

[Nita]

I noticed in my notes on Greek tenses:

Re perfect tense in Luke 1:28,

Since the perfect tense is used less frequently than other tenses, it is exegetically more significant. When it does occur, there is usually a definite and deliberate reason it was chosen by the writer.

Nita

 

[ematouk]

.

This is, in fact, the primary reason as to why I have come to accept the Catholic position here.

Catholics teach that Mary was sinless because God’s grace made this possible through her Immaculate Conception. She did not overcome her wounded and fallen nature in order to refrain from sinful acts because the grace of God in Christ had accomplished that for her already.

Well, in fact, Nita had informed me above that it is not Catholic dogma that Mary was free of concupisence and death.

If Mary still had concupisence and death (but did not have “inherited guilt”), A Catholic would say she was “free from the stain of Original Sin”, but an Orthodox Christian using his own terminology would say she was “still under the effects of the Original Sin”.

No matter the terminology used, it would be blasphemous to state Mary was immortal. That is a quality of God alone. If Mary can die, then to an Orthodox, she also has ‘desire’ (concupisence), since concupisence comes about due to mortality.

**How could she possibly have overcome the wounded nature of humanity, which compels all to sin, and have fully resisted sin personally ? **

Mary did not overcome the wounded nature of humanity. The earliest Christian testimonies tell us she died, then later was assumed to heaven.

How did she resist personal sin while still having an inclination to sin you ask? Well different Orthodox Christians understand her “sinlessness” in different ways.

Origen and St Basil the Great taught that She sinned at the cross when she doubted. “the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul… for her [Mary’s] sins also Christ died” (Luke 2:34-35; Origen, "In Luke” Homily 17 [AD. 244]; cf. St Basil, Epistle 259 [AD 330])

St John Chrysostom taught “For in fact that which she [Mary] had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son…” (Matthew 12:46; St John Chrysostom, “In Matthew” Homily 44; cf. also Homily 4 [AD. 400])

These passages are quoted from newadvent.org/fathers/

These fathers taught the “temporary personal sinfulness” of Mary, not the absolute. Even some fathers of the church today teach that Mary became sinless again when the Holy Spirit came upon her on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Some say it was at her baptism → she was surely baptised into the new covenant or else she wouldnt have seen or entered the Kingdom of Heaven by her assumption (John 3:3-5).

Regardless, Orthodox undoubtedly say she was personally sinless when Christ entered into her womb. One can not have personal sin and Christ in the same place - this can shown by many examples in scripture.

Most Orthodox teach she was sinless, spotless, blameless, without blemish, all-holy, made of incorruptible wood, undefiled, etc… but what exactly that means is not dogmatised and not defined.

I personally believe Mary was personally sinless, but was still mortal, and consequently thus also concupisent. She had an inclination to sin, but through the grace of God and her obedience to Him, she did not sin.

I see it like this. Imagine a lady is walking up a hill her whole life. She has an inclination to slip backwards (to sin). But now imagine someone is pushing her up the hill (grace), so that in obedience she doesn’t slip backwards. The inclination is still there, but it is counteracted by grace. Just because a person does not slip backwards, it does not mean the inclination is not there. Just because a person did not sin, it doesnt mean the inclination was not there. I guess its a hard thing to explain.

Some Orthodox bishops, on the other hand, have arguably come very close to the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But since this is merely theologomenon (theologial oppinion) in the Orthodox Church, an Orthodox is free to accept or reject the immaculate conception of Mary without being named a heretic.

The beauty of Orthodoxy is that doctrines concerning Mary do not need to be defined as Mary is not the centre of our faith. Christ is. Everything in scripture relates to Christ, not Mary. We are Christians, not Marians. (And I mean this with no offense or disrespect to our blessed Mother)

There was no greater man that walked the Earth before Christ than St John the baptist, but even he said “He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Imagine how much more so, Mary would humbly and simply point to Christ as the centre of the Christian Church.

I cannot see the Immaculate Conception as a salvic issue, and I would never feel comfortable placing a non-essential doctrine as the Immaculate Conception on the same level as the trinity and 2 natures of Christ.

God bless.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Thank you ematouk for your explaination.

I did not mean to imply that Mary was immortal. As far as I know, Catholics also believe that the Virgin suffered death.

If we do believe, however, that Mary was personally sinless without any stain of sin at any point in her life, as you admitted is the teaching of some Orthodox, I think the IC is fully neccessary to secure the teaching of grace- that all persons under the sway of Original Sin are doomed to a life of rebellion against God.

Catholics do not see Mary as having ever engaged in this rebellion against God. To have the stain of any sin when Christ entered her at His conception is problematic to the Catholic mind. To say that the Incarnation cleansed her from sin ** is akin to saying that the Eucharist will cleanse us**. When in fact we know that we are to recieve the Eucharist in a state of purity, cleansed of both mortal and venial sin.

Something like the Incarnation, God taking flesh from her flesh, is not, in Catholic theology, an act of purification. The act pre-supposes purification. Mary must have been pure before Christ entered her in order for her to have been worthy of bearing this gift.

The beauty of Orthodoxy is that doctrines concerning Mary do not need to be defined as Mary is not the centre of our faith. Christ is. Everything in scripture relates to Christ, not Mary. We are Christians, not Marians.

Nor is Mary the centre of the Catholic faith. The Immaculate Conception secured and defined, for the Catholic world, that Mary was not the author of her own purity. In a Church whose Marian devotion has run out of hand in some spheres of the world, the theology of the IC defines that Mary had always been sinless, as the faithful believed, but reminds us that her sinlessness was actually a gift of God engineered at the moment she was conceived and fully beyond her control.

The IC reminds the Church that Mary is not a goddess, but a chosen vessel prepared from her beginning to accomplish her part in the plan of salvation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

ematouk,

Your above post touches on two views of predestination, the Thomist and the Molinist views – both which are acceptable in the Catholic Church. With respect to immaculate conception, and concupiscence, the Catholic teaching is that she was free from any taint of original sin – which means the effect of concupiscence had no hold on her. Origin and Basil notwithstanding, Mary never sinned in catholic opinion – period. ( St. Thomas himself is in error as far as his final opinion too. )

I am more of a Molinist – although I do accept that God could have added sufficient Grace (the manifestation of which is not well defined) such that she never did sin in line within even the Thomist concept of predestination or ?efficient? grace. So, I can accept that Mary might have had a potential for concupiscence which was incapable of having any effect on her – BUT it could not harm her in any way or bring impurity upon her. (she was free of it reasoning from effects eg:impotence not potential).

As an analogy, I would also note that in the original holiness and justice of Adam and Eve – they too had sufficient Grace to not be concupiscent – but the potential was always there (latent) to be exposed the moment they sinned by free consent (Pride induced by envy).

 

[ematouk]

hay Huiou Theou,

Thankyou for pointing that out. I was always interested in the Calvinist vs Arminian debates of the 15th century onwards, and I continued in the interest of the Thomist vs Molinist debates in the same period between the Dominicans and Jesuits.

While Catholics enjoyed a sense of controversy over this issue which often resulted in killing and accusing the other party of heresy, the Orthodox Church never had such a debate.

This is primarily because unlike the Roman Catholic church, we do not believe in what is called in Protestant circles “Total depravity”, “Total inability” or “Radical corruption”. The Catholic church doesn’t give this doctrine any name to my understanding but defined this teaching in a few councils.“man does no good except that which God brings about” (Council of Orange, canon 20; cf. Canon 9). Again it was condemned at the Council of Trent to hold the view “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).

These quotes came from Ludwig Ott by which he concludes “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 229)

While this is beyond the scope of this topic, I would like to state I am neither a Molinist nor a Thomist, nor an Augustinian. I am an Orthodox. We have one doctrine on predestination and the effect of God’s grace without controversy, because total depravity never touched our vocabulary.

This topic is beyond the scope of the Immaculate Conception and deserves a discussion page in itself.

I find it interesting that you say these early Saints are in error, but yet you cannot fathom Pope Pius being in error?

Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless.

 

[ematouk]

Jordan Francis:

Catholics do not see Mary as having ever engaged in this rebellion against God. To have the stain of any sin when Christ entered her at His conception is problematic to the Catholic mind. To say that the Incarnation cleansed her from sin is akin to saying that the Eucharist will cleanse us. When in fact we know that we are to recieve the Eucharist in a state of purity, cleansed of both mortal and venial sin.

Well your post is highly rationalistic. Well in fact, the Orthodox church does not believe in the distinction between mortal and venial sins. Would you say breaking a fast is a mortal sin? “It is not a sin to break one’s fast, but it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it.” (Baltimore Catechism, Q902). But Adam broke his fast in the book of Genesis and he was condemned to death by God Himself. All sin is mortal because all sin causes a seperation from God and God is the ONLY source of life.

Another problem with this passage is that nobody is free of both mortal and venial sins as defined by the Catholic Church. Nobody is worthy of partaking of Christ’s body and blood, but Christ makes us worthy through faith.

The Eucharist is for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), helps us grow in our spiritual life (John 6:53, 55, 57), allows us to abide in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and sustains His life in us (John 6:56) and thus allows us to reap the fruits of the spirit (John 15:5), allows us to obtain eternal life (John 6:54, 58). If one has no sins - venial or mortal before partaking of the Eucharist, then they are not in need of these effects.

When St Paul says “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged” (1 Corinthians 11:27-31), he is talking about preparing yourselves appropriately for communion, not being absolutely sinless before taking - otherwise nobody has the right to take of the Eucharist (Romans 3:23).

The Sacraments in Orthodox theology is understood as experiencing God Himself, in the teaching of Theosis. It is not seen in a legalistic scholastic sense.
Jordan Francis:

The Immaculate Conception secured and defined, for the Catholic world, that Mary was not the author of her own purity. In a Church whose Marian devotion has run out of hand in some spheres of the world, the theology of the IC defines that Mary had always been sinless, as the faithful believed, but reminds us that her sinlessness was actually a gift of God engineered at the moment she was conceived and fully beyond her control.

The IC reminds the Church that Mary is not a goddess, but a chosen vessel prepared from her beginning to accomplish her part in the plan of salvation.

This is not my understanding of why it was defined. It was not in response to any heresy within the church. Catholic.com tells us "it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. " ( catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp )

I still see no purpose for this dogma to be defined.

God bless.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

The Eucharist is for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), helps us grow in our spiritual life (John 6:53, 55, 57), allows us to abide in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and sustains His life in us (John 6:56) and thus allows us to reap the fruits of the spirit (John 15:5), allows us to obtain eternal life (John 6:54, 58). If one has no sins - venial or mortal before partaking of the Eucharist, then they are not in need of these effects.

Again, Ematouk, thank you for your excellent posts.

It is my understanding of Catholicism that sins of a very grave nature (what Catholicism refers to as mortal sins) must be confessed before recieving the Eucharist. The sins of a less grave nature (venial) are actually forgiven during Mass when we confess during the rite (ie. “I confess to Allmighty God and you my brother and sisters that I have sinned through my own fault…”)

So while the Eucharist is certainly not owed to anyone and is indeed a gift that gives us strength, sustains our life in the Spirit and allows us to share in eternal life, we are not to recieve it in states of sin. We are to purify ourselves according to the sacrament before hand as the Eucharist is the crown and summit of the Christian life. It was not instituted to cleanse our sins from us, as that is what Christ’s Ministry of Reconciliation is for.

The Immaculate Conception upholds a similar idea. Christ, in the Catholic mind, incarnating in the womb of the Virgin presupposes a state of purity that only Christ’s atoning death on the Cross can offer humankind.

Lastly, as for the reasons behind proclaiming the IC as a dogma, indeed that was my take on how the IC could be useful as a dogma. If the Holy Spirit is truly behind the promulgation than there are, in fact, many unknown reasons as to why it was proclaimed that may in time be revealed. It does hold true, regardless of the reasoning behind it that:

The Immaculate Conception secured and defined, for the Catholic world, that Mary was not the author of her own purity. In a Church whose Marian devotion has run out of hand in some spheres of the world, the theology of the IC defines that Mary had always been sinless, as the faithful believed, but reminds us that her sinlessness was actually a gift of God engineered at the moment she was conceived and fully beyond her control.

The IC reminds the Church that Mary is not a goddess, but a chosen vessel prepared from her beginning to accomplish her part in the plan of salvation.

God bless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

hay Huiou Theou,

Thankyou for pointing that out. I was always interested in the Calvinist vs Arminian debates of the 15th century onwards, and I continued in the interest of the Thomist vs Molinist debates in the same period between the Dominicans and Jesuits.

You’re welcome, as a thread not posted in the Orthodox section – general Latin history is always appropriate.

While Catholics enjoyed a sense of controversy over this issue which often resulted in killing and accusing the other party of heresy, the Orthodox Church never had such a debate.

hmmm… I generally attend a Dominican rite, although I am more of a Molinist. No one has tried to kill me yet. I’m not really fond of the Jeusits, although I really appreciate cardinal Avery Dulles.

This is primarily because unlike the Roman Catholic church, we do not believe in what is called in Protestant circles “Total depravity”, “Total inability” or “Radical corruption”.

Yes, and that makes your comments on this thread highly interesting. So, you subscribe to what would be called Pelagian or Semi-pelagian views. For example, the Greek orthodox teacher at University of Portland (who yelled at me in front of class before I had any idea of what he was about) seemed to be rather insistent that he was semi-pelagian, although he never gave a satisfactory answer as to what that meant scripturally. I guess it is ecumenical to allow a Greek orthodox to teach theology at a Roman Catholic college. (It seems several students were rather “burned” by him in the past, by his own admission in the hallway to another faculty member – a sort of brag session.) He was also trained at the benedictine monistary I understand, so he has been ecumenical for some time.

… “man does no good except that which God brings about” (Council of Orange, canon 20; cf. Canon 9). Again it was condemned at the Council of Trent to hold the view “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).

These quotes came from Ludwig Ott by which he concludes “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 229)

Yes, that’s dogma for Latins. Mostly, of course, this theology is based on scripture and the tradition of baptism which includes an excorcism in the east and the west before the Pelagian theology change in the east.

While this is beyond the scope of this topic, I would like to state I am neither a Molinist nor a Thomist, nor an Augustinian. I am an Orthodox.

Thank you. It is odd, then, that you posted here rather than the orthodox section.

This topic is beyond the scope of the Immaculate Conception and deserves a discussion page in itself.

I find it interesting that you say these early Saints are in error, but yet you cannot fathom Pope Pius being in error?

Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless.

Of course not. Basil and Origin do not agree about the sin they think Mary ‘committed’ and scriptural examination of the question makes their individual comments rather appear rather shallow. St. Thomas, on the other hand – never accuses mary of ANY actual sin, but although he originally believed her free from original sin (in the Augustinian sense) – was unable to prove the case, and so reasoning from “unable to prove it” that she was free, and so he assumed the worst.

For what reason would I think Pope Pius is in error – the logic he presents is excellent. There may be a need to examine Theosis as a preconception to really understand the difference between the doctrine of original sin and the view you hold. Original sin is not a legalistic doctrine, but a commentary on the revealed data of the early apostles reflecting on salvation history.

 

[Ghosty]

Ematouk wrote:

This is primarily because unlike the Roman Catholic church, we do not believe in what is called in Protestant circles “Total depravity”, “Total inability” or “Radical corruption”. The Catholic church doesn’t give this doctrine any name to my understanding but defined this teaching in a few councils.“man does no good except that which God brings about” (Council of Orange, canon 20; cf. Canon 9). Again it was condemned at the Council of Trent to hold the view “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).

The Eastern Fathers taught this as well, however. For example, St. John of Damascus wrote in his great work “The Orthodox Faith”:

Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that He Himself is the source and cause of all good,
and without His co-operation and help we cannot will or do any good thing, But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, Who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from paths of virtue, which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot compel us.

That is from Book Two, Chapter 30 if you want to look it up yourself. There are many other citations that could be used, but this one is sufficient, IMO, since the work is regarded by the Eastern Orthodox to be completely without theological error.

All good requires cooperation with God’s Grace, and the presence of God’s Grace; ultimately only evil can be done without it. This isn’t to say that every action done without Grace is evil (that was an error of Protestant Reformers), but rather that humans are not capable of true and abiding good without the Grace of God, since even our Virtues require His Grace and cooperation to function.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ematouk]

Huiou Theou:

hmmm… I generally attend a Dominican rite, although I am more of a Molinist. No one has tried to kill me yet. I’m not really fond of the Jeusits, although I really appreciate cardinal Avery Dulles.

This is because it was agreed in council that both are acceptable teachings and both parties are nolonger allowed to accuse the other of heresy. If anyone does this publicly without repenting then “let them be anathema”. (I cant remember where i read it tho)
Huiou Theou:

Yes, and that makes your comments on this thread highly interesting. So, you subscribe to what would be called Pelagian or Semi-pelagian views.

Well no. The Pelagian view is that man kind can save himself without the need of God - Adam was merely a bad example and Jesus was merely a good example for us to follow. This is condemned as heresy by almost every Christian today.

The semi-Pelagian view is that grace merely assists mankind to salvation in Jesus Christ. This was also condemned by the entire Christian Church.

The Orthodox view doesn’t teach either of these heretical teachings. We teach synergia or “cooperation” between God and man. God provides us with the grace to do all good, but in our freedom we have the choice to reject this grace. Grace is not irresistable or “intrinsically efficacious” in Orthodox theology. Grace has worked extrinsically since the fall.

God provides all mankind with the grace to do all good. Cornelius was a gentile who was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always” (Acts 10:2, 31). But it was not until Peter preached the gospel that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” (Acts 10:44).

Goodness can come from non-believers and this is very clear evidence enough that we are not totally depraved “in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35).

He wants all to be saved and come to Him. But, we must accept the grace and work with Him to be saved. Orthodox theology does not teach predeterminism, nor that God witholds His grace from certain people (The logical conclusion from this is that God is in effect sentencing the one whom He does not give grace to, to eternal damnation - this goes both against God’s justice and His mercy). God wills all to be saved and provides His grace to all to the extent at which they accept it.

The way God works is mystery. Grace and freedom does not need to be explained with the “alternate world theory” or “counterfactuals” and “middle knowledge”. Such ideas are logical and need not be refuted and perhaps contain much truth in them, but to delve too far into the mystery of God is to reduce Him into something that can be understood and studied by mankind. And a God that is small enough to be understood and studied is not great enough to be God.
Huiou Theou:

Yes, that’s dogma for Latins. Mostly, of course, this theology is based on scripture and the tradition of baptism which includes an excorcism in the east and the west before the Pelagian theology change in the east.

We do an exorcism before baptism as well. We are not pelagian - see above.

Ghosty:

The Eastern Fathers taught this as well, however. For example, St. John of Damascus wrote in his great work “The Orthodox Faith”

I agree with this statement. But God never left us, nor does He deny anyone His grace. It is mankind who wills to reject it.

Ghosty:

All good requires cooperation with God’s Grace, and the presence of God’s Grace; ultimately only evil can be done without it. This isn’t to say that every action done without Grace is evil (that was an error of Protestant Reformers), but rather that humans are not capable of true and abiding good without the Grace of God, since even our Virtues require His Grace and cooperation to function.

I do not understand what you mean. If man can do good only when they have the grace of God, then without it how can they do good? Therefore only evil can be done. How would you refute these Protestant reformers? Do you believe God witholds His grace from certain people - thus leading to total depravity?

God bless.

 

[Ghosty]

I agree with this statement. But God never left us, nor does He deny anyone His grace. It is mankind who wills to reject it.

The Catholic Church agrees completely with you on this. The only difference is that the Latin tradition developed a much stronger language to drive home the point that good comes from God’s Grace and not purely by human works, and also to drive home that nothing we do compels God to give us Grace, but that it is purely by His free giving. Also, the Latin tradition delved more deeply into the fact that some people are given Grace to do certain things (such as heal, or prophesy) while others are not, so it even further emphasized that it is God’s will, and not our actions, that ultimately determine the nature and extent of Grace.

The reason that the Latin tradition typically shies away from language that says “God gives His Grace to all” is not because it fundamentally denies this, but because it leaves open the possibility for arguing that since we’re all equal, it’s human works that determine our Salvation and not the Grace of God (Pelagianism).

All of this was done because the issue of Pelagianism was a Western matter, so it’s not surprising at all that it wasn’t delved into as deeply in the East, nor that the theological language that addresses these matters isn’t as explicit and exact. Latins developed a “harsher” language only because the loopholes could be taken advantage of by Pelagians in the West to argue that their position was indeed orthodox. This doesn’t mean the Latin Church takes a different position than the Eastern Orthodox on the matter, but only that history presented different needs for theological language in the West.

I do not understand what you mean. If man can do good only when they have the grace of God, then without it how can they do good? Therefore only evil can be done. How would you refute these Protestant reformers? Do you believe God witholds His grace from certain people - thus leading to total depravity?

The Reformers (following St. Augustine, who is rejected in his opinion here) argued that every action done without Grace is objectively evil. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, said that no action done without Grace can be morally good (i.e. putting humanity on the “good” side of the moral scale, or truly working in unison with God who is the ultimate Good), but can be good in the more general sense of following the good that is in our nature, such as providing for our families, or even breathing and keeping ourselves alive. These good actions don’t automatically indicate moral union with God, and therefore aren’t Good in the greatest sense, but they do follow from the good nature that God gives all creatures.

To put it another way, just doing your daily job doesn’t automatically lead to theosis, but they aren’t evil actions by any stretch; we need to cooperate with Grace, and give ourselves over to God in a special way for our daily chores to bring theosis. We don’t get to Heaven by cleaning up our house, but by making that action a prayer we can.

So again the Latin tradition simply developed a more exact language due to the needs of the arguments going on. It more deeply explored the question of “theosis”, to use an Eastern term, at least as it regards actions, simply because the Pelagian controversy kept coming up in one way or another. It’s not unlike how the East more specifically developed the language of Essence and Energies due to controversies in Constantinople, while the West did not (even though it holds the same belief as the East with regards to participation in Divinity) simply because the controversy didn’t arise in the West.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Catholic Church agrees completely with you on this. The only difference is that the Latin tradition developed a much stronger language to drive home the point that good comes from God’s Grace and not purely by human works, and also to drive home that nothing we do compels God to give us Grace, but that it is purely by His free giving.
…
The reason that the Latin tradition typically shies away from language that says “God gives His Grace to all” is not because it fundamentally denies this, but because it leaves open the possibility for arguing that since we’re all equal, it’s human works that determine our Salvation and not the Grace of God (Pelagianism).

Subtle! but wouldn’t a Catholic still be free to argue that human works of evil are the cause of rejecting this grace?
Ergo the opposite effect logically, is that a work still determines not salvation…

The Reformers (following St. Augustine, who is rejected in his opinion here) argued that every action done without Grace is objectively evil.

I do vaguely remember something similar to that in Augustine, but it was from a first time reading many years ago – could you PM me on what passage you are thinking of?

These good actions don’t automatically indicate moral union with God, and therefore aren’t Good in the greatest sense, but they do follow from the good nature that God gives all creatures.

To put it another way, just doing your daily job doesn’t automatically lead to theosis, but they aren’t evil actions by any stretch; we need to cooperate with Grace, and give ourselves over to God in a special way for our daily chores to bring theosis. We don’t get to Heaven by cleaning up our house, but by making that action a prayer we can.

nice. Ghosty!

Now the only question is what kind of orthodox are we dealing with, right-glory or eastern rite? And I notice the charge of Pelagianism is denied, but what of semi-Pelagianism which the Greek Orthodox prof. at UofP claimed??? if the orthodox are so uniform, why would he have claimed something ematouk seems to deny?

I accept that God can force a person to act in a certain way – even against their will. Whether he does, or how he does is not important to me – just the possibility. That’s easily within Thomistic thoughts, and doesn’t require me to gainsay St. Thomas for my personal thoughts…

Pax.

 

[Ghosty]

Subtle! but wouldn’t a Catholic still be free to argue that human works of evil are the cause of rejecting this grace?
Ergo the opposite effect logically, is that a work still determines not salvation…

Yes, a Catholic can accept that rejection of Grace is a human work. In fact, I would argue that this is the standard (and only logical) theological position to take even though it’s not Dogmatically defined so far as I can remember. It’s certainly the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica; he basically says that we can’t turn TOWARDS God without Grace (a given, IMO), but that God permits us to turn away from Grace.

In short, when we move towards God it can only occur because God is with us and guiding us, but when we move away from God it is because God is allowing us to choose against Him. This is the argument put forth by both St. John of Damascus and St. Thomas Aquinas.

I do vaguely remember something similar to that in Augustine, but it was from a first time reading many years ago – could you PM me on what passage you are thinking of?

I’ll see if I can dig up where I read it. I know that it’s one of the few things of his theology that the Catholic Church rejected, but I don’t remember where he wrote it specifically.

Now the only question is what kind of orthodox are we dealing with, right-glory or eastern rite? And I notice the charge of Pelagianism is denied, but what of semi-Pelagianism which the Greek Orthodox prof. at UofP claimed??? if the orthodox are so uniform, why would he have claimed something ematouk seems to deny?

They’re not so uniform at all, which is the problem in such discussions. We can’t even point out who is “dissenting” and who isn’t, since there is no one source of theological guidelines. Just one example, which I might develop later in this thread, is the fact that one of the reasons the Russian Old Believers rejected the reforms of the Russian Orthodox Church was the “new” teaching that Mary was NOT Immaculate at her conception! The great Eastern theologians prior to about the 1400s (including the likes of St. Gregory Palamas, who even went so far as to say that Mary’s ancestors were progressively purified over generations) all argued that Mary was uniquely Graced at the moment of her conception, and in fact the Western Feast of her conception, and the teaching itself, came originally from the East and were opposed by some Western theologians like Aquinas.

I accept that God can force a person to act in a certain way – even against their will. Whether he does, or how he does is not important to me – just the possibility.

It’s certainly possible in the abstract, but it’s impossible to say if it would ever occur. Obviously since God gives us free will He can shape what our free will is capable of, but we don’t know what limits His own Goodness and Love put on such interference.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

The Catholic Church agrees completely with you on this. The only difference is that the Latin tradition developed a much stronger language to drive home the point that good comes from God’s Grace and not purely by human works, and also to drive home that nothing we do compels God to give us Grace, but that it is purely by His free giving. Also, the Latin tradition delved more deeply into the fact that some people are given Grace to do certain things (such as heal, or prophesy) while others are not, so it even further emphasized that it is God’s will, and not our actions, that ultimately determine the nature and extent of Grace.

The reason that the Latin tradition typically shies away from language that says “God gives His Grace to all” is not because it fundamentally denies this, but because it leaves open the possibility for arguing that since we’re all equal, it’s human works that determine our Salvation and not the Grace of God (Pelagianism).

All of this was done because the issue of Pelagianism was a Western matter,

Yet when the Orthodox were posting here with regularity, Fr Ambrose insisted that man can move towards God without grace coming first. Brining up the topic of semi pelagianism

 

[steve_b]

I will continue to study this topic until I decide a definitive answer on the Kecharitomene verb interpretation.

according to what I’ve read, unlike the English “perfect“, which indicates a completed past action , the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation AND present state of a completed past action.

So how far back in Mary’s past did the initial act occur, such that her purity of soul is a perfect continuation, past present and future.

Since Mary proclaims her soul magnifies the greatness of the Lord, (obviously radient and pure) why would anyone object to God doing this for her from her very conception?

 

[Ghosty]

Yet when the Orthodox were posting here with regularity, Fr Ambrose insisted that man can move towards God without grace coming first. Brining up the topic of semi pelagianism

Yes, and his view would be rejected by another, equally valid, Eastern Orthodox viewpoint. As I said, the problem is that there isn’t a norm of belief in Eastern Orthodoxy, at least outside of the Councils and some broad guidelines. The Old Believers viewed the denial of the IC as a change in the Faith, and broke with the Russian Orthodox Church over it (among numerous other matters). St. Gregory Palamas and Photius explicitely believed and expressed the Immaculate Conception; some Eastern theologians even argued that the very seed of Joachim was purified and Graced so as to contribute to the IC.

Ironically, seven hundred years ago the only debate on the IC that would have occurred would have been a few prominent Latin theologians denying it, and prominent Eastern theologians like St. Gregory Palamas blasting those Latins for yet another “deviation from the Faith”. At the same time as the West had finally put those erroneous theological arguements to rest, the idea that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived caught on as the popular view in the East.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ematouk]

Yes, and his view would be rejected by another, equally valid, Eastern Orthodox viewpoint. As I said, the problem is that there isn’t a norm of belief in Eastern Orthodoxy, at least outside of the Councils and some broad guidelines. The Old Believers viewed the denial of the IC as a change in the Faith, and broke with the Russian Orthodox Church over it (among numerous other matters). St. Gregory Palamas and Photius explicitely believed and expressed the Immaculate Conception; some Eastern theologians even argued that the very seed of Joachim was purified and Graced so as to contribute to the IC.

Ironically, seven hundred years ago the only debate on the IC that would have occurred would have been a few prominent Latin theologians denying it, and prominent Eastern theologians like St. Gregory Palamas blasting those Latins for yet another “deviation from the Faith”. At the same time as the West had finally put those erroneous theological arguements to rest, the idea that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived caught on as the popular view in the East.

Peace and God bless!

Sorry I would have to disagree with you on this. Orthodox theologians often distinguish between the term Panagia and “the immaculate conception”.

I personally believe Mary was graced for the particular role she needed to perform in life, but recieved a fuller expression of that grace at the annunciation when the Holy Spirit had come upon her and Jesus entered her womb.

Um there is a nice article here about it campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryorthodox.htm

A person might say “If a cup is full of water, then no more water can be added”. But to the Orthodox “full of grace” does not mean no more grace can be added. Grace works differently to the material things in this world.

Some Catholics would argue a fullness of grace indicates absence of sin. But how would they explain this passage by St Paul “But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Romans 5:20). I am not saying Mary is the greatest sinner. I am simply saying grace might work differently to what the rational mind may think.

The Russian Old believers saw “sinless since conception” as referring to personal sin. They never asserted that Mary was immortal nor without concupisence. Especially in their oft quoted 16th century councils. By the way, the Orthodox can generally say they believe everyone is immaculately concieved, they simply reject the notion that Mary is the only one in this. We reject the underlying doctrine of original sin. I can not see an inherited “taint” or “stain” being taught in the scriptures, whereby Adam’s sin is added to our list of sins since our conception.

“St. Gregory Palamas and Photius explicitely believed and expressed the Immaculate Conception”. Please provide evidence. I was taught they taught the personal sinlessness of Mary since conception, but did not mention original sin, nor did they hold an augustinian view on original sin.

God bless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sorry I would have to disagree with you on this. Orthodox theologians often distinguish between the term Panagia and “the immaculate conception”.

Ghosty can answer on his own, but I am curious about this distinction – on what basis is it made? If the Orthodox do not believe anyone is born in original sin – then I am not sure what there is to distinguish.

Adam and Eve according to Latin dogma, had perfect Justice and Holiness – Now in Greek – panagia – παν`αγια – means all holy.

So, do the “Orthodox” believe there is some holiness which she lacks?
or equivalently, do the “Orthodox” believe Mary was not in Justice (a right relationship with God and her neighbor).

I personally believe Mary was graced for the particular role she needed to perform in life, but recieved a fuller expression of that grace at the annunciation when the Holy Spirit had come upon her and Jesus entered her womb.

ematouk – This is a false argument – as if the catholic church believes differently. For example, even Jesus increased in gifts – because he was man. But we know Jesus was not like us in sin – although, since he increased in charity, one could argue he was “less” charitable when young. The problem is that full of charity or full of grace (either one) can be used to argue that sin has no room – the “container” however can grow a certain (finite) amount.

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
favour = “χαριτι” = “Charity”

Some Catholics would argue a fullness of grace indicates absence of sin. But how would they explain this passage by St Paul “But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Romans 5:20). I am not saying Mary is the greatest sinner. I am simply saying grace might work differently to what the rational mind may think.

Ghosty may have a different perspective, but I would say that the more empty a container – the more it can be filled is pretty intuitive. God is filling leaky containers – so extra Grace is required.

I’m going to ignore the Russian old believers stuff, as that is Ghosty’s forte. But could you define concupiscence for us, from the Orthodox standpoint – eg: what is concupiscence to you?

I am wanting to really understand the difference between the “Orthodox” position and semi-pelagianism.

Now, if there is no “original sin” why do the Orthodox baptize with an exorcism (cast out the devil?).

And in the “Orthodox” view is Grace a single valued quantity/gift, or does it have multiple dimensions – and in what way?
eg: One can have more or less Grace, so would a single number be a good analogy – as is proper for the number of gallons in a container? or do we need something special?