Marian Teachings in East and West

[ByzCathCantor]

The issue is complex in so much as the “Call” is the “Call” and that whether married or celibate, the Cross is great…

… for the Priest and the Pani, as well.

 

[lssanjose]

Though I agree, I must say that whether “married” or “celibate,” the issue is left to the Mystery of God… we assume that the Priest is speaking by the gists of the Holy Spirit…
Now on the other hand, my wife is Latin Rite, and she absolutely loves confession with a married Priests as she finds that certain weaknesses/faults/sins we have as parents are much, much better addressed…
The issue is complex in so much as the “Call” is the “Call” and that whether married or celibate, the Cross is great…
My wife is finally coming to terms with many of these things and though she has not yet fully connected (she has certain ground rules in place: LOL)… she knows that I was on the path to ordination prior to meeting her… and she is slowly coming to terms with the real possibility of being a Priests wife… there is much sacrifice on all sides…

Thoughts fleet back, and forth regarding marriage, for me. Then again, even the thoughts of getting into another relationship, fleet back, and forth.

I often thought about the effects the priestly lifestyle would have on family, if I go forward with the path I’m discerning. Oh well. It’s ultimately in His hands.

 

[Palamas]

There is something to consider here: the Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception however; they don’t subscribe to it as “Dogmatic”… it is understood to be fact. As mentioned in an earlier post, we, allow me to speak for Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholics, believe in the Immaculate Conception however; not for the same “expressed theological reason.” Our expression of the theology is different; we follow Orthodox theological expression.
The best quote I heard, though I can’t say verbatim … "We Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception, Mary was conceived in the most perfect and pure manner by the two (Joachim and Anna) who came together in the perfect expression of Holiness… The Dogma is an expression that is not necessary as it is already a fact and the Dogma raises all kinds of questions that need not be asked…
I suggest listening to Fr. Thomas Hopko’s series “Who is the Theotokos” (particularly 1-2) in order to better understand what the “Orthodox” really teach and therefore: what the Ruthenian and Ukranian Catholics believe… let me rephrase: what our theology teaches as most of us have been Latinized and really don’t know anymore.

You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church does not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

 

[lssanjose]

You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church does not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

I just listened to one of the Ancient Faith Radio podcasts explaining why Immaculate Conception is problematic, in the eyes of Orthodoxy - mainly, the ramifications of allowing such doctrine, within.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Issanjose,

I just listened to one of the Ancient Faith Radio podcasts explaining why Immaculate Conception is problematic, in the eyes of Orthodoxy - mainly, the ramifications of allowing such doctrine, within.

When you say “allowing such doctrine,” are you referring to its dogmatization (because AFAIK, the doctrine has always existed, although no full agreement was evident priorly).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church does not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

Just to clarify, so are you saying that the Orthodox Churches believe that there was a time in Mary’s existence that she was SPIRITUALLY separated from God?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Dear brother Issanjose,

When you say “allowing such doctrine,” are you referring to its dogmatization (because AFAIK, the doctrine has always existed, although no full agreement was evident priorly).

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother, their explanation stems from how original sin.is explained, from the Augustinian perspective. I believe Father Danick (sp) said, if original sin is obtained via propagation (father says sex), then that means Mary was made an exception. He further explains, by declaring IC, Christ’s humanity will be in question. I he I’m.generalizing his thoughts, but he may have a point about Christ’s humanity being questioned, based on.Augustinian thought

 

[lssanjose]

Just to clarify, so are you saying that the Orthodox Churches believe that there was a time in Mary’s existence that she was SPIRITUALLY separated from God?

Blessings,
Marduk

Not at all, from conversation, with my Orthodox friend. He argues, Mary should be an example, not the exception.

 

[Ghosty]

You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church does not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

While it’s true that the Eastern Orthodox don’t hold it as dogma, I hope you aren’t claiming that the belief is somehow foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. That would be very, very ironic coming from someone with the handle “Palamas”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[lssanjose]

While it’s true that the Eastern Orthodox don’t hold it as dogma, I hope you aren’t claiming that the belief is somehow foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. That would be very, very ironic coming from someone with the handle “Palamas”.

Peace and God bless!

If those, who are within Orthodoxy, hold such a belief, it will be defined from their perspective. Their contention with the way the belief is defined, and - very importantly - CODIFIED stems from the concern of changing, ultimately, the substance of the belief. Their belief regarding the most pure, blessed, and glorious lady, is mainly she was markedly obedient to God. This kind of obedience wasn’t born through the way she was conceived the way she was. I remember one of the ending prayers recited towards the end of some versions of the Rosary: queen conceived without original sin; Orthodoxy still has strong contention with this idea. Again, it does go back to their contention regarding making her an exception, as opposed to, an example.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Brother, their explanation stems from how original sin.is explained, from the Augustinian perspective. I believe Father Danick (sp) said, if original sin is obtained via propagation (father says sex), then that means Mary was made an exception.

Are you saying the Orthodox believe that the dogma is teaching that Mary was not conceived in the normal way as all humans are (i.e., through sex)? I know that this mistaken perception of the doctrine was expressed by HH Pope Shenouda III (of thrice-blessed memory). I suppose it’s possible that EO also hold to the same mistaken impression. It should be noted that Pope Alexander VII officially condemned this understanding of the Immaculate Conception in the 17th century.

He further explains, by declaring IC, Christ’s humanity will be in question. I he I’m.generalizing his thoughts, but he may have a point about Christ’s humanity being questioned, based on.Augustinian thought

I understand that the language of the dogma does that for the Easterns, because “original sin” is interpreted by Easterns to mean one is subject to physical death. Of course, that is not how Latins understand it (Latins understand it to mean being subject to spiritual death - i.e., separated from God). So the theological language (the doctrine) is different, but is the meaning behind the theological language (the actual dogma) of the Latins denied by the EO?

Not at all, from conversation, with my Orthodox friend. He argues, Mary should be an example, not the exception.

Well, Mary was not conceived physically any differently than any other human being. Mary required the Grace of God for salvation no differently than any other human being (she simply received it at a different point of her existence than other human beings). She was not exempted from physical death according to the dogma. She still had the possibility of sinning like all other human beings. Mary still had to respond continuously with her free will to the Grace given her like any other human being.

Exactly in what way do Orthodox think that Mary has become an “exception” instead of an “example” because of the dogma?

If those, who are within Orthodoxy, hold such a belief, it will be defined from their perspective. Their contention with the way the belief is defined, and - very importantly - CODIFIED stems from the concern of changing, ultimately, the substance of the belief. Their belief regarding the most pure, blessed, and glorious lady, is mainly she was markedly obedient to God. This kind of obedience wasn’t born through the way she was conceived the way she was. I remember one of the ending prayers recited towards the end of some versions of the Rosary: queen conceived without original sin; Orthodoxy still has strong contention with this idea. Again, it does go back to their contention regarding making her an exception, as opposed to, an example.

That’s OK. If it’s in the way it was CODIFIED, I can understand their objection. But I still have trouble understanding how they can reject what the dogma actually means aside from that consideration of theological language. Doesn’t St. Paul teach us not to let mere words separate us (see my signature line below)?

Of course, my response is not directed at you in particular brother, but to the rhetoric that you explained.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

If those, who are within Orthodoxy, hold such a belief, it will be defined from their perspective. Their contention with the way the belief is defined, and - very importantly - CODIFIED stems from the concern of changing, ultimately, the substance of the belief. Their belief regarding the most pure, blessed, and glorious lady, is mainly she was markedly obedient to God. This kind of obedience wasn’t born through the way she was conceived the way she was. I remember one of the ending prayers recited towards the end of some versions of the Rosary: queen conceived without original sin; Orthodoxy still has strong contention with this idea. Again, it does go back to their contention regarding making her an exception, as opposed to, an example.

I’m very aware of Eastern Orthodox belief and how it has changed over time. My point was that St. Gregory Palamas explicitely taught that Mary’s conception was exceptional, and it would be ironic for someone using his name to argue otherwise.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cyrillic]

who came together in the perfect expression of Holiness…

That’s a strange way of describing the birds and the bees

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m very aware of Eastern Orthodox belief and how it has changed over time. My point was that St. Gregory Palamas explicitely taught that Mary’s conception was exceptional, and it would be ironic for someone using his name to argue otherwise.

Peace and God bless!

But the problem seems to be that current understandings of the Immaculate Conception are entirely monergistic, something foreign to the Orthodox faith, and something which is not found in Palamas’ understanding of righteousness being bred through generations to produce the holiest of humans, who bore God in the flesh. I simply cannot see how the Immaculate Conception can be reconciled with the synergistic doctrines of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

 

[Sepp]

If those, who are within Orthodoxy, hold such a belief, it will be defined from their perspective. Their contention with the way the belief is defined, and - very importantly - CODIFIED stems from the concern of changing, ultimately, the substance of the belief. Their belief regarding the most pure, blessed, and glorious lady, is mainly she was markedly obedient to God. This kind of obedience wasn’t born through the way she was conceived the way she was. I remember one of the ending prayers recited towards the end of some versions of the Rosary: queen conceived without original sin; Orthodoxy still has strong contention with this idea. Again, it does go back to their contention regarding making her an exception, as opposed to, an example.

I think that it is too strong to say that “Orthodoxy still has strong contention with this idea.” Some Orthodox strongly disagree with it, especially today. But there have been others who have accepted the Immaculate Conception in the same terms as Rome. St. Dimitry of Rostov is one relatively famous example.

With that said, I used to use the “great example, not great exception” argument myself. I thought that the Immaculate Conception made the Virgin Mary into a sort of “holy robot.” But it is worth considering that Adam and Eve were created without the stain of original sin…were they somehow less than human until they sinned? After further reflection, I have come to believe that the doctrine makes Mary a great example for us. An example of what our life with God is truly meant to be…this is what makes the title of “New Eve” so powerful.

 

[Ghosty]

But the problem seems to be that current understandings of the Immaculate Conception are entirely monergistic, something foreign to the Orthodox faith, and something which is not found in Palamas’ understanding of righteousness being bred through generations to produce the holiest of humans, who bore God in the flesh. I simply cannot see how the Immaculate Conception can be reconciled with the synergistic doctrines of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Mary had to cooperate with Grace according to Latin teaching; that is why so much emphasis is put on her Fiat. There is nothing monergistic at all in the Immaculate Conception. I don’t see how anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Latin tradition could claim it’s monergistic with regards to Mary, since every lesson and devotion about her is explicitly synergistic, and that’s the root of the Protestant divide with Catholics over her.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

But the problem seems to be that current understandings of the Immaculate Conception are entirely monergistic, something foreign to the Orthodox faith, and something which is not found in Palamas’ understanding of righteousness being bred through generations to produce the holiest of humans, who bore God in the flesh. I simply cannot see how the Immaculate Conception can be reconciled with the synergistic doctrines of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Monergism was one of the fundamental disagreements between the Reformers and the RCC at the time of the Council of Trent. The council declared, among other things:

CHAPTER XVI. ON JUSTIFICATION.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
. . .
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Notice that there is no special exception for Mary here. Her free will must also “co-operate]” towards disposing and preparing itself for the grace of of Justification." Her good works were also “the good merits of him that is justified” and “truly merit increase of grace.” There is special privilege of grace attributed to Mary in the same chapter regarding her sinlessness, but not one that annuls her free cooperation with that grace or the personal merit of the same.

 

[Ghosty]

Monergism was one of the fundamental disagreements between the Reformers and the RCC at the time of the Council of Trent. The council declared, among other things:
CHAPTER XVI. ON JUSTIFICATION.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
. . .
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. Notice that there is no special exception for Mary here. Her free will must also “co-operate]” towards disposing and preparing itself for the grace of of Justification." Her good works were also “the good merits of him that is justified” and “truly merit increase of grace.” There is special privilege of grace attributed to Mary in the same chapter regarding her sinlessness, but not one that annuls her free cooperation with that grace or the personal merit of the same.

Thanks for posting the Canons in question. I have to admit that this is the first time I’ve ever heard Catholic teaching accused of monergism.

I will add that if the problem is that God poured His Grace into Mary before she could cooperate, the same complaint holds against Baptizing infants (another problem some Reformers had with Apostolic Tradition).

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

The Apostolic Constitution of the dogma itself states:
The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Sounds pretty synergistic to me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

The Apostolic Constitution of the dogma itself states:
The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Sounds pretty synergistic to me.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother, I know you addressed my points, yesterday. I’ll be sure to look at them, again. I’ll my weekend, on Wednesday/Thursday. But I wanted to look into your point about synergistic. Are you saying this is an issue, or it’s not? Thanks, in advance.