I
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Didn’t they just say they were received as a catechumen? The prayers of the catechumen pray just that.Well then Partyka, I could suggest you take yourself to a Catholic Mass and let God talk to your heart a little. There’s a pew waiting to receive you. May God bless your struggle with your beliefs and bring you safely to the harbor of faith guided by the light of His life.
Peace,
Gail
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Yes, touched. No, predestined doesn’t mean touched by Mary was predestined - chosen by God - to bear God within her womb. Judging by the attestations of Sacred Scripture, i.e. that God cannot stand sin and sinners would die in His presence, how could God come and dwell within a sinner in such a profound way?STOP!
Hold it right there!
Back up.
You said “who TOUCHED.” “Predestined,” doesn’t mean “touch.” “Did bear” does.
The problem with the IC is that it puts the cart before the horse.
There is a difference, I believe, between Christ’s presence in us and the one in Mary when she carried the Word in her womb. She actually had God Himself within her body. We have God Himself in our body too but not in the same way as when He was in her womb.
IC doesn’t put the cart before the horse, rather is realizes that in order for the horse to pull the cart the cart must be prepared for the task.
He made Himself sin in the sense that He took on our lowly flesh and took our sins upon Himself. I’m not arguing that He would need to make His mother sinless. I am arguing that it is fitting.Evidenlty yes because He did.
I’ll repeat (see post above): II Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. If He made Himself sin, why would He need to make His mother sinless?
No but the Pope always had to approve the resolutions and declarations of the Council. While he may not have had to attend he had to give approval. That is why his legates were sent and that is why decisions were always sent to the See of Rome.No bishop of Rome ever came to an Ecumenical Council. Not even Pope Vigilius, who was dragged to the capital for one. The Second (not in communion with Rome) and Fifth (held over Rome’s objection) Ecumenical Councils were held without the Pope of Rome.
Tell me, then, in your view, does the Church grow? Does she ever deepen her knowledge of Revelation?Yes, our lack of weed growth has been mentioned many a time as “proof” that we aren’t the True Church.
You’ve transformed it into a virtue and now call it “doctrinal development.”
Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28
Also, a question: what does the Angels greeting “Hail full of grace” mean to an Eastern Orthodox? The Angel is addressing Mary before the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. How could she be “full of grace” before becoming pregnant if it was at the act of her becoming pregnant that, as it seems you’re arguing, was where she was made pure?
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Interesting article:
bringyou.to/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm#EAST
Pax Christi tecum.
bringyou.to/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm#EAST
Pax Christi tecum.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
AmenSince the subject of your quotes from St. Pope Leo the Great is the conception and nativity of Christ, it is not surprising that he makes no explicit mention of the conception or nativity of Mary, as that would be off topic.
In The Nisibene Hymns of St. Ephraim (A.D. 370) there is support for an early belief in the Immaculate Conception:You alone and your Mother
are more beautiful than any other;
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these? (Hymn 27:8)
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
What is “without blemish” in Greek, and what does it mean?No, in the Greek it often refers to her virginity. All Holy (Panayia) is usually refers to her sinlessness (actual sin).
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
II Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in HimYes, touched. No, predestined doesn’t mean touched by Mary was predestined - chosen by God - to bear God within her womb. Judging by the attestations of Sacred Scripture, i.e. that God cannot stand sin and sinners would die in His presence, how could God come and dwell within a sinner in such a profound way?
And the difference between that and the Eucharist? Or don’t you beleive in the Real Presence?There is a difference, I believe, between Christ’s presence in us and the one in Mary when she carried the Word in her womb. She actually had God Himself within her body. We have God Himself in our body too but not in the same way as when He was in her womb.
Then it begs the question why not an infinite regression from Mary to Adam and Eve?IC doesn’t put the cart before the horse, rather is realizes that in order for the horse to pull the cart the cart must be prepared for the task.
potuit, decuit ergo fecit proves nothing.He made Himself sin in the sense that He took on our lowly flesh and took our sins upon Himself. I’m not arguing that He would need to make His mother sinless. I am arguing that it is fitting.
So the Vatican asserts. So the Second, Fourth and Fifth say otherwise.No but the Pope always had to approve the resolutions and declarations of the Council. While he may not have had to attend he had to give approval.
The decisions would have been sent to the other patriarchs, but there were present.That is why his legates were sent and that is why decisions were always sent to the See of Rome.
She does, but not by inventing things.Tell me, then, in your view, does the Church grow? Does she ever deepen her knowledge of Revelation?
Now, if you can produce something in the writings of Eadmer (his tract is the kick off of the IC), Anselm the Younger, William of War and Duns Scotus that assert that the tradition is old, countering Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas saying, at the moment of its appearance, that it was novelty, then we might have something.
I haven’t said a thing on that topic (that’s another thread): I’ve just reported what Pope St. Leo was saying.Also, a question: what does the Angels greeting “Hail full of grace” mean to an Eastern Orthodox? The Angel is addressing Mary before the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. How could she be “full of grace” before becoming pregnant if it was at the act of her becoming pregnant that, as it seems you’re arguing, was where she was made pure?.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
amometos am-o’-may-tos: unblamable – blameless.What is “without blemish” in Greek, and what does it mean?
Same thing it means in Phillippians 2:15
so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I agree. The Church does not invent things.She does, but not by inventing things.
Now, if you can produce something in the writings of Eadmer (his tract is the kick off of the IC), Anselm the Younger, William of War and Duns Scotus that assert that the tradition is old, countering Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas saying, at the moment of its appearance, that it was novelty, then we might have something.
So are you asserting that no one - not one - in the whole Tradition asserts anything that supports the IC?
Pax Christi tecum.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Do you mean assert anything that supports the IC, or assert something that can/has been used in support of IC? As is evident, I’ve been shown that St. Leo doesn’t, but others have been using him to assert he had.I agree. The Church does not invent things.
So are you asserting that no one - not one - in the whole Tradition asserts anything that supports the IC? .
Yes, there are a number of things that have been written that might be used as an implication of the IC.Someone quoted St. Ephraim.
Now, did anyone assert the IC before the 10th century. No. Not even in ambivalent terms, which I think is a point that can be made from Pope St. Leo.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
St. Ephraim, as far as I know, is from the 4th century. That seems like he was before the 10th century…Do you mean assert anything that supports the IC, or assert something that can/has been used in support of IC? As is evident, I’ve been shown that St. Leo doesn’t, but others have been using him to assert he had.
Yes, there are a number of things that have been written that might be used as an implication of the IC.Someone quoted St. Ephraim.
Now, did anyone assert the IC before the 10th century. No. Not even in ambivalent terms, which I think is a point that can be made from Pope St. Leo.
Pax Christi tecum.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
but he didn’t assert the IC.St. Ephraim, as far as I know, is from the 4th century. That seems like he was before the 10th century…
Pax Christi tecum.
shlomo dhamshiHo lokh.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Mpartyka: I recommend reading what post-Schism Orthodox Saints have written about Mary. A good place to start is this homily by St. Gregory Palamas (who is also a Saint of my Church); if you are uncomfortable with what he says, which is exactly the belief of the Catholic Church, then you may have difficulty with the true sentiments of Eastern Orthodoxy.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Peace and God bless!
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Peace and God bless!
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
I think you got it backwards, Mar Ephrem asserted the essence Immaculate Conception, but did not defend / formulate it.but he didn’t assert the IC.
shlomo dhamshiHo lokh.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Why would he/she have difficulty with the true sentiments of Eastern Orthodoxy if what you are directing him to “is exactly the belief of the Catholic Church,” by which I take it you mean the Vatican? It has been brought up on this thread (and elsewhere) that we have different sentiments on this issue.Mpartyka: I recommend reading what post-Schism Orthodox Saints have written about Mary. A good place to start is this homily by St. Gregory Palamas (who is also a Saint of my Church); if you are uncomfortable with what he says, which is exactly the belief of the Catholic Church, then you may have difficulty with the true sentiments of Eastern Orthodoxy.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Peace and God bless!
Yes, I know. We are told we believed in the IC until the Vatican proclaimed it. Btw, as an inoculation, let me state
ORTHODOXY DOES NOT ACCEPT THE CO-REDEMPTRIX
as I already see those gearing up to tell us we did until the Vatican proclaimed it (I’m pleased most polls here have been against it: but as we have seen, the IC had its opposition too).
St. Gregory is a great saint, incorupt (I’ve been privledged to venerate his relics) but not infallible.
I didn’t have time to look over the specific link…God willing I will soon.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
OK, I skimmed through the oration. Yes, heavy on the florishes, but given the canons of rhetoric, to be expected. What’s the problem? What’s it got to do with IC, in particular as he mentions the stay in the Temple?Mpartyka: I recommend reading what post-Schism Orthodox Saints have written about Mary. A good place to start is this homily by St. Gregory Palamas (who is also a Saint of my Church); if you are uncomfortable with what he says, which is exactly the belief of the Catholic Church, then you may have difficulty with the true sentiments of Eastern Orthodoxy.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Peace and God bless!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I think you got it backwards, Mar Ephrem asserted the essence Immaculate Conception, but did not defend / formulate it.
Yes, YOU are.
Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn’t give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican’s jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don’t see the Vatican’s theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.
Btw. the dogma begins in England of all places (ironic in view of the English Reformation). The feast shows up there in c. 850, but the Immaculate part is not promoted as part of it until the 12th cent. by Anselm (Atonement Anselm)'s friend Eadmer, who defended English (he was Anglo-Saxon) folklore in a popular pamphlet, De Conceptione sanctae Mariae. Note, post schism. St. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-,1153 Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”). The English persisted in spreading it, Duns Scotus inventing the syllogism potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it) as its “proof.”
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m not referencing the IC in pointing to the homily, but to Marian devotion in general. St. Gregory Palamas was a firm advocate of the “Mediatrix of All Graces” belief, among other “Catholic” Marian themes and beliefs, and it’s best that those entering Eastern Orthodoxy become familiar and comfortable with such realities, rather than writing them off as purely “Catholic” issues.OK, I skimmed through the oration. Yes, heavy on the florishes, but given the canons of rhetoric, to be expected. What’s the problem? What’s it got to do with IC, in particular as he mentions the stay in the Temple?
It’s funny that you brought up the Co-Redemptrix issue before reading the link, however, since St. Gregory’s homily essentially espouses the Co-Redemptrix teaching (and explicitly puts forth the Mediatrix of all Grace belief, which is the root of the Co-Redemptrix argument). Specifically:
Now, you can say that St. Gregory was in error, but you can’t condemn Catholics as heretics for holding to such beliefs without also condemning Gregory. Not saying you do condemn Catholics for such beliefs, just pointing out that it can’t be done without anathemizing one of the greatest Orthodox Saints; the most that can be said is that such beliefs are valid theologomena that are not currently popular within the Eastern Orthodox Communion (which is the same that can be said for the Catholic Church).Hence, as it was through the Theotokos alone that the Lord came to us, appeared upon earth and lived among men, being invisible to all before this time, so likewise in the endless age to come, without her mediation, every emanation of illuminating divine light, every revelation of the mysteries of the Godhead, every form of spiritual gift, will exceed the capacity of every created being. She alone has received the all-pervading fulness of Him that filleth all things, and through her all may now contain it, for she dispenses it according to the power of each, in proportion and to the degree of the purity of each. Hence she is the treasury and overseer of the riches of the Godhead. For it is an everlasting ordinance in the heavens that the inferior partake of what lies beyond being, by the mediation of the superior, and the Virgin Mother is incomparably superior to all. It is through her that as many as partake of God do partake, and as many as know God understand her to be the enclosure of the Uncontainable One, and as many as hymn God praise her together with Him. She is the cause of what came before her, the champion of what came after her and the agent of things eternal. She is the substance of the prophets, the principle of the apostles, the firm foundation of the martyrs and the premise of the teachers of the Church . She is the glory of those upon earth, the joy of celestial beings, the adornment of all creation. She is the beginning and the source and root of unutterable good things; she is the summit and consummation of everything holy.
Me personally, I tend to follow St. Gregory Palamas in this issue, but I understand why others would be hesitant, and I’m personally against Dogmatizing such a teaching (however true I believe it to be).
Peace and God bless!
M
mpartyka
Guest
First, I think you’re right that there is a difference between Christ’s presence in us and His bodily presence in her womb, but which is really the more intimate “indwelling”? God dwells in us directly by his Spirit. God dwelt in Mary not spiritually, but bodily only, as the Holy Spirit didn’t actually begin dwelling in God’s people until Pentecost. Mary is certainly unique in that she is the only person who ever had God dwelling in her bodily, but the spiritual indwelling came after that, and that indwelling, I would argue, is more intimate than even that bond between mother and child in pregnancy.There is a difference, I believe, between Christ’s presence in us and the one in Mary when she carried the Word in her womb. She actually had God Himself within her body. We have God Himself in our body too but not in the same way as when He was in her womb.
And that is where your argument fails, because it’s based ultimately upon what feels right to you rather than the facts. Even something that feels right in every way and is perfectly logical may not actually be true.I’m not arguing that He would need to make His mother sinless. I am arguing that it is fitting.
Certainly, but only in matters of great controversy is it necessary for the Church to come together and say to all Christians, “If you believe that and not this, you’re a heretic.” If you look at the Seven Ecumenical Councils, these all dealt with Trinitarian and Christological controversies which spoke directly to the matter, “Who and what is this God whom we worship?” It seems to me that the Catholic mandates concerning the faith since the Schism have focused mainly on matters of secondary importance: “What happens in the Eucharist? How is Mary special? What is the Pope’s role in Christianity?” These questions are not nearly as central to the faith as, “Who and what is God?”Tell me, then, in your view, does the Church grow? Does she ever deepen her knowledge of Revelation?
“Favored above all,” I think. Certainly being given the privilege to bear God’s Son would be the greatest grace ever offered a woman, don’t you think?Also, a question: what does the Angels greeting “Hail full of grace” mean to an Eastern Orthodox?
M
mpartyka
Guest
All good points, and I’m sure that if these Marian doctrines were ever to become a point of contention within Orthodoxy, St. Gregory’s writings would be offered up in defense of them.St. Gregory Palamas was a firm advocate of the “Mediatrix of All Graces” belief, among other “Catholic” Marian themes and beliefs…St. Gregory’s homily essentially espouses the Co-Redemptrix teaching (and explicitly puts forth the Mediatrix of all Grace belief, which is the root of the Co-Redemptrix argument)…Now, you can say that St. Gregory was in error, but you can’t condemn Catholics as heretics for holding to such beliefs without also condemning Gregory. Not saying you do condemn Catholics for such beliefs, just pointing out that it can’t be done without anathemizing one of the greatest Orthodox Saints.
And in this you share what I believe to be the comparative restraint of Orthodoxy with regard to Mariology compared to the “condemn and anathematize” tactic that the Catholic Church has exercised on at least two occasions (i.e., in proclaiming the Immaculate Conception and Assumption to be essential elements of the Catholic faith). Another example of Orthodoxy’s silence in the face of Catholic determinism can be found in the Orthodox sense of mystery concerning the Eucharist – where it is incumbent upon all Catholics to believe in transubstantiation as the mechanism by which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, the Orthodox are content to believe in the Real Presence and leave the mechanism behind its accomplishment up to God.Me personally, I tend to follow St. Gregory Palamas in this issue, but I understand why others would be hesitant, and I’m personally against Dogmatizing such a teaching (however true I believe it to be).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.