Seem to me have been around the world yet only briefly touching on what many consider non issues. Granted for some this may require in depth reading. 2000-years of history which also has gaps, often has one discovering new thoughts in relation to all this. And will probably continue as historic evidence is uncovered and found.
Well one fact is certain, the “East doesn’t believe what the Wast believes” are statement’s which cannot be substantiated through Eastern/Western theology, they are basicallly nothing more than passing statements which probably have a cultural foundation to them, based a theology which developed not contrary to but in compliment of the East/West, or are polemic based with a possible lack of research form either side. If the West teaching is different show it. So far we have silence to the most relevant question’s, which at some point are astonishingly “repeated” when never addressed from the on-set?
The fundemental issue “first” was the Marion Teachings in particular the IC. As we see that moves to the issue of Original Sin with an insinuation this differs in the East. A flag is raised for “some” from the West/East. For here there is no difference in Ancestrial or Original both indicate a lack of Grace at the Garden trangression of Adam/Eve and the gates as exist occurs. A seperation from Gods Grace is what we are talking east or west. If this needs further discussion than lets repeat, I can’t see where, unless a question wasn’t asked prior on this thread as we skimmed over this.
Mary was Full of Grace “before” the HS overshadowed Her. Its Biblical.
No on argues the human attributes Mary was subjected to as a result of the fall. However, Luke 1-28 clearly indicates the Angel Gabrial announced and called Mary----Hail, Full of Grace, which indicates and seperates who Mary indeed is as an individual to God the Father and the Celestial Court, an idea Lucifer highly contested and Gods Court accepted as we see so clearly see with Gabrial. Thus the continuation of the battle of the powers of Good and evil today called humanity. That battle is the history of mankind as Bl Newman suggests. I agree.
So Mary is the role model to unite Man to that which he is seperated from which is Grace. As to the Apostles, no one writes more abundantly on this than Paul especially in Romans 7:14-25. Original Sin is devoloped by Augustine through the Apostle Pauls work among other Biblical verse. Most of Pauls though.
Then Baptism comes into play, also which we have discussed at length. There is no difference in theology East/West. Yet this doesn’t resolve the need for the Sacraments of the church? Why? because man has an inclination to sin and a responsibility to preserve his Baptism which is the infised virtue of Grace. We all see this can and is lost by souls through free will. Thus the Church and Her Sacraments in the Lords wisdom.
We know from within 30-years of Christs death, Immaculate, No Spot - No Stain are recorded in the Liturgy’s of the Apostolic Church’s, Mark, James and the Acts of Andrew by Andrew. And by the second century Irenaeus and others come along with foward progress.
Origen
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).
Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).
By Ambrose its well dialogued.
Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).
Then we hear the Assumption and Death of Mary, all a worn out record which in the end is a “wash”. There is “no” recorded history of Marys death…NONE. Supposedly the Apostles witnessed which then became extrodinary to say the least. No recorded actual documentation of this just exegesis. Which dates later than the IC in no-spot - no-stain. In fact we have discussed this in depth, basically we can trace the Feast back to St Athanasius work in the “Meme” of the Apostolic Greek Church 4th century. We are working od pure Faith in regards to the Dornition/Assumption, the Dogma simply leaves an avenue open in what we in truth and fact we do not know.
The I have heard essence/energies OK, I’ve read both where is the fundemental difference since Gregory of Palamas basically defined the IC without using the name IC. So how is it not compatible? The Beatific Vision becomes the only sticking point. Yet as Augustine stated it would be easier for one to drain the ocean with a seashell to define the Trinity/Essence of God.
Let alone the East venerated the Feast and believed the IC till the 15th century and Russias “aboutface” in the 17th century all of which links I also provided on this thread, with footnotes as to where and whom you can read your own accurate History.
Here is the terminolgy between Ghosty and CTG above…“If you lack Grace it is called the stain of sin in Latin theology. It is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing. We believe that people are conceived without Divine Grace, therefore we believe the are conceived with the stain of sin by definition. We just don’t use that terminology.”
Now here Mark the Evangelist [Bryant 69] says before 60 [Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist], “Most holy, immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary.” Latin: “Sanctissima, immaculata, et benedicta, Deipara et semper virgine Maria.”
[Bryant 68-69] says [Liturgy of St. James], “Most holy, most glorious, immaculate, Mother of God and ever Virgin,” and that Mary is “in every respect out of the range of sinful men.”
[Lambruschini 66-67] says in 62 [Acts of Andrew]: “And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.” Latin: “Et propterea, quod ex immaculatâ terrâ ereatus fuerat primus homo, necesse erat ut ex immaculatâ Virgine nasceretur perfectus homo, quo Filius Dei, qui antè condiderat hominem, vitam æternam quam perdiderant hominess, repararet.”
Then we hear well the East has a different teaching of St Anne. No you just use another Canon to base this foundation on, which is accepted by the West just not taught till later years in Catholic theology, or as one seeks understanding on Mary as a topic.
Florence? Cannot be accurately discussed without Basel and Ferrara…which of course the IC was not an issue. In fact its was appproved at Basel.
Purgatory has been well discussed “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” Cf. Council of Florence (1439) There is no difference here except by the Mystics.
Here are the two links where the combined history is documanted and often overlooked… One give better footnotes and one elaborates slightly better, pretty much same context just added resources to confirm.
google.com/url?q=http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/&sa=U&ei=Z5XIT7TXLYrk9ASb95mqDw&ved=0CB4QFjAD&sig2=8amiGu8GVGYVyeox3bPXUQ&usg=AFQjCNH1q8zSpZSik6IenDeeeJAMvAc1hQ
google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm&sa=U&ei=v6PIT66OK4L-9QT_s_D2Dg&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=Vmr7vYFuOEmhnUa3Uo1Acw&usg=AFQjCNHXTy49Id-jiH9Tx019RoIMrhbvZg
What we do have is a preponderance of evidence which indicates the IC, from a preponderance of early chuch fathers and an affirmation of the laity and the Spirtual Mystics. The two later most would like to sweep under the carpet. But we are talking the supernatural, the Church in prudence and patienece waited a very long time to define this. Unfortunate a united church didn’t accomplish this together for I do believe it is right and is correct.
I find it Ingenuine that we should make a blanket statement that “Oh these two churchs are completely different theologies” No they are basically a compilation of different “cultures” of the Apostolic Church from the conception of it. And that is how its was intended to be first with Jesus and the Jews and then the rest is Traditional/Biblical history.
Then show where and exactly how instead of leading souls astray with misguided blanket statements which serve to display your Faith as the truth only, or visa-versa. Poor act of deception to say the least which isn’t missed by anyone who reads church history for a passion or education. And to what avail? To further seperate a seperated Church? And should we then claim its Gods plan? Preposterous to say the least. One has to carefully discern what they are in fact dealing with here at times and the motivation behind it.
Here’s Florence where are these issues which cemented the schism?
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2Fcouncils%2Fflorence.htm&ei=-VQ_UMiNKMa36gHW-YCgDg&usg=AFQjCNEpW0f9WNhwPfNKzhm9Ao2h7xtIEw&sig2=u88SjSFcjlyXo3skh2W-Bw
And what authority do we appeal to when none exists? Oh right the teaching authority of the CC which has “always” existed!
