Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[prodromos]

But we call the Theotokos immaculate - unlike John the Baptist. When did she become immaculate?

We call the Theotokos many things, more spacious than the heavens, most holy, to say that we hold her in great honour would be a ridiculous understatement. Are you familiar with the Akathist Hymn? We have special services many times throughout the year where we chant this hymn.
It is my understanding that Panagia became immaculate when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at her annunciation

Do you mean to suggest that there was a time at which only her falling asleep was commemorated and not her assumption?

Of course not. The feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos celebrates both her death and her assumption together.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lots of tough language there still (linked thread by Cav) . First the major problem I see is correct understanding of the Incarnation and Nature of Christ. For “here” not there.

Then - According to Roman Catholic teaching, sin had no dominion over Mary, which is why she must be impeccable.

There is no “she must be” “she had to” You will not hear those words as I mentioned anywhere in Catholic teaching. These as you see are the words YOU all are using, self evident on this thread.

Death had dominion over man, to what degree theologians of the CC would like to attempt to say that Marys Grace in particular gave Her “dominance” or whatever over the flesh, I do not know. What I do know is their in no dominance over Grace, its a path to divinization thus Grace which continues to strengthen the condition. That’s the path of Saints. Thus that is a fairytale. Since never did free-will not exist. To venture that path is a waste of time. Mary continued to in free will participate with Gods Grace thus Her being the Mother of the Lord.

You would question how much Grace Mary had and how it operated within Her. She is “perfectly Graced”. East and West, perhaps one should think there first in relation to the physical world and immortality.

This- (I have been taught that Mary was sinless, but no one has ever taught (or discussed with me in private) the idea that Mary was outside of the dominion of this sinful world.)

Don’t know why anyone would, its simply “false”.

The idea of promoting individual teaching of theologians, Fathers, which occurs on that thread, those are “opinions” they are not teaching of the magisterium as mentioned there. In fact the teachings do exist and as mentioned in the combined works of St Thomas, Bl Duns Scotus, and Suarez etc.

For example Fr Hardin takes a strong stance on the Absolute Petrine view. Not everyone does. Its a fact all of us deal with.

Then here-( I was taught that Mary always responded and that her response was predestined)

Everyone responds, you have no choice but in your own free-will choice. Free will does not have a predestined response, That is Calvins flaw thus double predestination.

When its stated- “Mary could not sin.” Again there is “NO-WHERE” this type of language is used. I really don’t care what Father was read. No where is the language used “Had to die” He had to do this or the" or “Mary could not sin”

What exists on the thread is convoluted thinking extracted from misunderstanding and by tempered thinking.

The context of the thinking resides around various ideas and “assumptions” that the theology of the IC is incorrect. Such delusions lead to others such as with the false “dominion over sin theory” and so forth.

All this is a sad attempt to place doubt on what “obviously” cannot be proved. And the attitude further degenerates in frustration apparent on the thread and with obviously no resolve and accusation as above which are unfounded.

What it does is badly attempt to “claim” Marys state would be different from the IC to the Incarnation.

You will “never” prove that. Mary did not “have to” fall to be rescued, She was rescued before She fell. Just as one baptized is rescued. That’s not Catholic language. So whos language is it?

The idea baptism crippled Mary’s free will is in a word “preposterous”. The idea one can post three hundred theologians speaking outside the magisterium and then arrive at a contrary thinking is self evident on this thread with the understanding of the Incarnation. On that thread its simply an attempt to confirm your own thinking on what you do not believe. Its called “denial” in this world perpetuated by ones own incorrect thinking and doubt. In other words your own wrong thinking confirms itself. Like with the Incarnation here after how many pages?

Baptism is the remission and forgiveness of “ALL” sin. How does your free will work after that? Start contemplating right there and think of the Saints.

Now remember Mary is the Mother of the Lord.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Immaculate Conception was a feast in Russia and Greece long before it was a dogma. The history is on this thread in regards. Not sure what your saying.

It is true that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates the Feast of the Conception of Mary, but it is not the feast of the Immaculate Conception. Joachim and Anna were too old to have children, but God blessed them with a daughter. The Eastern Orthodox does not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
The difference is that Eastern Orthodox theology is not influenced by Augustine’s teaching on original sin, especially the idea of inherited guilt. We believe that we inherit mortality from Adam and Eve. Thus, we do not believe that we are deprived of grace through original sin.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

The difference is that Eastern Orthodox theology is not influenced by Augustine’s teaching on original sin, especially the idea of inherited guilt.

Well the Eastern thinking from reading this thread must be more influence by Augustine than the West. You are insisting Mary had to die because of mankind’s inherited state of fractured Grace. Thus we would be guilty even when we are not, as in the case of Mary not so. As in the case of Elijah and Enoch, not so.

We believe that we inherit mortality from Adam and Eve. Thus, we do not believe that we are deprived of grace through original sin.

All believe we inherit mortality, mortality is undefined here. Death of the flesh was defeated by Jesus Christ, as was Death of the soul. So you will have to elaborate as to what specifically you are talking about in generalization.

Adam and Eve did not have access to the tree of life. Mary gave birth to the tree of life post fall.

When you say you were not deprived of Grace at the fall. The simple fact is communion with God thus a perfect state of Grace did not exist after the fall till the Cross/Ascension. That said, no one is deprived of Grace. Simply untrue as it was untrue also with the Prophets,

Your quote is a contradiction, you said you inherit mortality thus “we have to die” yet you say you are not deprived of Grace. Elaboration by you in needed. Your back on Augustine and we are guilty in a Eastern perspective only.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We should do a thread up here on the Incarnation and Nature of Christ. The thinking sin had access to Christs Nature is no go and leads to compromised inconsistent thinking with Mary and the Incarnation, and then in the context/content from Genesis to the General Judgment.

And this is “why” many of the protestants are wrong. This should be no issue here as the Church agrees on both. Yet here there is confusion in this regard.

 

[dvdjs]

He would be, then, in disagreement with a very large numbers of Roman Catholic theologians who taught that the Virgin was impeccable. See this thread on the subject over at byzcath, started by Apotheoun (who also occasionally posts here under the same handle).

A quick read indicates that those who use the word impeccability to refer to Mary are qualify it and distiquish from an inherent quality but one that derives from her choice, unlike Adam and Eve, to cooperate with grace in its fullness. This is not metaphysical impeccability. The issue he raises is merely a semantical one.

 

[dvdjs]

It is my understanding that Panagia became immaculate when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at her annunciation

This understanding is not really consistent with the lex orandi at the Entrance.

Of course not. The feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos celebrates both her death and her assumption together.

So what was your point?

 

[dvdjs]

The Eastern Orthodox does not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Some say it is acceptable as a theologoumenon. Others, as it is readily surmised from this long thread, steadfastly do not understand it.

The difference is that Eastern Orthodox theology is not influenced by Augustine’s teaching on original sin, especially the idea of inherited guilt. We believe that we inherit mortality from Adam and Eve. Thus, we do not believe that we are deprived of grace through original sin.

Except when it does teach that deprivation explicitly, as in the catechisms and review that I have quoted.

 

[frjohnmorris]

And it is readily surmised from this long thread that some steadfastly do not understand it.

Except when it does teach that deprivation explicitly, as in the catechisms and review that I have quoted.

Read Meyendorff’s Byzantine Theology for a complete discussion of this matter. Orthodox do not believe in total depravity. From what I have read here, neither do Catholics. The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that the chief inheritance from Adam is mortality. Because we are mortal we are corrupt and because we are corrupt we sin. We do not inherit guilt from Adam according to our belief. Nor do we lose our free will or the Image of God in which we are all created. Finally, we do not lose God’s loving grace.

Fr, John**

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right it was interesting for a flashing moment then Mary became impeccability Graced with no free will, wow, that became obviously “other” than what is apostolic. What we “do” have to believe “for sure” East and West, by Council is the Incarnation, Nature of Jesus Christ, Mother of the Lord.

We pretty much graduated Adam and Eve unless you want to insist we have to die in some other than Christology divinization understanding? I can’t see how we can be thinking different, I use the essence energies which well. its a long story, but I believe its an excellent teaching in abbreviated understanding of Rome.

Further is mortality, you confuse the fact your mortal and will die, with Christianity and the above.

Anyway I see that conversation became heated. We must be doing slightly better., all we need to do is get our missing SF Cal brother back here and lets all talk in charity.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You did hit the nail on the head. East and West do not think the same way. That is why it is so difficult to communicate. We do, however, have a different understanding of ancestral sin that is not influenced by Augustine.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

A quick read indicates that those who use the word impeccability to refer to Mary are qualify it and distiquish from an inherent quality but one that derives from her choice, unlike Adam and Eve, to cooperate with grace in its fullness. This is not metaphysical impeccability. The issue he raises is merely a semantical one.

Many of the citations say the opposite. For example, the second citation, from Fr. Hardon explicitly says that, “Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.”

Fr. Joseph Pohle likewise asserts, “It would be asserting too much to say that the Blessed Virgin was capable of committing sin like our first parents; and too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now, in consequence of the beatific vision. In what, then, did her impeccability consist? We are probably not far from the truth when we assume that God gave her the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin.”

In general, I would disagree that the issue is merely a semantic one, because the common teaching of the theologians there quoted is that the impeccability of the Virgin was a state somewhat below the beatific vision (for still living on the earth, she could not have yet obtained beatitude), but above the state of original justice possessed by Adam and Eve, which is to say that her impeccability was not derived from choice, but rather from a special grace of God which preserved her both from mortal and venial sins. The Theotokos, according to these theologians was made by virtue of a special grace from God incapable of sin in a manner different from how our first parents were merely capable of not sinning, for while Adam and Eve were still capable of sin, the Virgin, according to these theologians, was (during her earthly life) incapable of sin by virtue of the grace which dwelt within her.

 

[LionHeart777]

He would be, then, in disagreement with a very large numbers of Roman Catholic theologians who taught that the Virgin was impeccable. See this thread on the subject over at byzcath, started by Apotheoun (who also occasionally posts here under the same handle).

Thank you Cavaradossi for bringing this to my attention.

If I wrote something or included something in my previous post that contradicts Catholic teaching, I retract it. I will look into this and amend my view so that it conforms to Catholic teaching if it does not. I may have misunderstood John Martignoni or perhaps was mistaken in attributing that view to him. I’m not sure.

I apologize, Fr. John, as at the very least, there are some Catholic Theologians who teach that the Virgin Mary was impeccable (although this term has been clarified by them and that is not to say in the same sense that Christ was impeccable.)

Looks like I’ve got some research to do. New thread?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many of the citations say the opposite. For example, the second citation, from Fr. Hardon explicitly says that, “Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.”.

Depends on the understanding of “could not”. Daniel, could not sin either if he wanted to remain on the step God told him to remain on. But he could have sinned.

As far as midway I have no idea what that means. If Daniel remained on the ninth step of Jacobs ladder. And there are only ten steps to heaven. No-one knows much about the tenth. Why is it that Mary wasn’t on the tenth in Her station?

Fr. Joseph Pohle likewise asserts, “It would be asserting too much to say that the Blessed Virgin was capable of committing sin like our first parents; and too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now, in consequence of the beatific vision. In what, then, did her impeccability consist? We are probably not far from the truth when we assume that God gave her the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin.”.

Doesn’t sound right above Cav. Its state’s she was not capable of sinning like the angels and saint in heaven. The angels and saints are capable of sinning as Lucifer sinned and all his minions did so. Again we are talking “how much” grace did Mary have? We can only quantify by OT prophets. How much did Elijah have? And then in heaven as to the communion of Saints and order of Grace. And we all know where Mary is.

In general, I would disagree that the issue is merely a semantic one, because the common teaching of the theologians there quoted is that the impeccability of the Virgin was a state somewhat below the beatific vision (for still living on the earth, she could not have yet obtained beatitude), but above the state of original justice possessed by Adam and Eve, which is to say that her impeccability was not derived from choice, but rather from a special grace of God which preserved her both from mortal and venial sins. The Theotokos, according to these theologians was made by virtue of a special grace from God incapable of sin in a manner different from how our first parents were merely capable of not sinning, for while Adam and Eve were still capable of sin, the Virgin, according to these theologians, was (during her earthly life) incapable of sin by virtue of the grace which dwelt within her.

Again how much is too much? Was it too much for Daniel not to remain on the step as God told him? Relative to his situation that is an affirmative.

How is it not semantics when we are talking “how much grace” at a station above the prophets and not yet in heaven?

As to choice and the contention with free will you’ll have to elaborate. How much free will and grace did Daniel have on the ninth step. So lets clarify choice in these terms.

These are Gods holy people, they all had a choice to be exactly that or not. As far as to the degree of grace he predestined to each one in His divine plan, who are we to quibble about the the degree of grace above the tenth step and of Marys station? We do not know enough of this realm to clearly elaborate, little is stated and by the mystics.

 

[dvdjs]

Many of the citations say the opposite. For example, the second citation, from Fr. Hardon explicitly says that, “Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.”

Yes, your are quite right about this. I said “inherent”, and should have said “intrinsic”.
There is a variety of opinions even among these selected theologians on how just how to talk about the sinlessness of Mary, but they all agree that it is different from Christ (or angels), not of her essence, that it involved, extrinsically, grace.

I would disagree that the issue is merely a semantic one, because the common teaching of the theologians there quoted is that the impeccability of the Virgin was a state somewhat below the beatific vision (for still living on the earth, she could not have yet obtained beatitude), but above the state of original justice possessed by Adam and Eve, which is to say that her impeccability was not derived from choice, but rather from a special grace of God which preserved her both from mortal and venial sins.

It is not explicit in these writings, but I think that they would agree, in fact would have to agree, that this grace had to involve her voluntary, volitional, cooperation; like all, she had a choice to cooperate with grace or not.

 

[shonejo]

As far as I’m concerned everyone who calls themselves anything outside my Communion is wrong, and even those in my Communion are wrong when they call themselves and others terms that are generic or popular but inaccurate. For example, ECs calling themselves RC. Malankara Syrians calling “Syro-Malabarese” “Syro” for short, as if we aren’t “SYRO-Malankarese”. The term “Syro’-Malabar” itself should be “Malabar Chaldean”… Maronites using the term “Maronite” instead of “Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch”. Byzantine Antiochian Orthodox claiming to be “authentic Eastern” is as funny as Muslims claiming their CONversion is a “reversion” when neither they nor anyone in their entire family has ever been. Anglicans playing Catholic is funny as well, they can call themselves whatever but we all know who they really are. The Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar in the Anglican Communion gets my goat, since they don’t acknowledge “Mor Thoma’s” intercession, split partially due to use of “Syriac”, and was mainly around two south-central districts of “Malabar” and not close to being within the whole region. Don’t get me started on the “Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Holiness, Believers, and others” they stole our terms and reject all the intended meaning - jerks.

Malankara marthoma syrian church is an oriental syrian church founded by saint thomas in AD 52 .syro malankara was founded by mar evanious of bethany ashramam perunad under indian orthodox his supporters from marthoma syrian and indian orthodox built first church in mundanmala near ranni-perunad…syro malankara become part of catholic when mar evanious joined in catholic thurch in localy syro malankara was known in the name "reetu"in perunad where the church formed first.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Malankara marthoma syrian church is an oriental syrian church founded by saint thomas in AD 52 .syro malankara was founded by mar evanious of bethany ashramam perunad under indian orthodox his supporters from marthoma syrian and indian orthodox built first church in mundanmala near ranni-perunad…syro malankara become part of catholic when mar evanious joined in catholic thurch in localy syro malankara was known in the name "reetu"in perunad where the church formed first.

Marthoma church is an Anglican Church founded by Abraham Palakunnath and supported by the British colonialists in the late 1800s, by fomenting a split within the Malankara Community.

 

[system]

Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, ‘How to Debate Atheists.’ I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.
mikemanea.com/unapologetics/how-to-debate-atheists/