St. Palamas and the Immaculate Conception

[Ignatios]

… . He simply points out the holiness in certain figures from the OT, and states that God actively guided her ancestry through these holy people. God didn’t “sanctify” these people in a special way … Rather, he saw that they were holy in word and deed, and thus chose them to be ancestors of Mary (i.e., guided her ancestry, as said earlier).

What Sanctification means Marduk? Maybe you don’t comprehend your first language? So lets take a look together and see what the word sanctification means from the English Dictionary, and see if it applies or not:
sanc•ti•fy (sāngk’tə-fī’)
tr.v. sanc•ti•fied , sanc•ti•fy•ing , sanc•ti•fies

1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.
2. To make holy; purify.
3. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow: sanctify a marriage.
4. To give social or moral sanction to.
5. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

Now were S.S. Joachim and Anna productive because GOD had Sanctified them ( blessed them) and as you stated yourself that (God actively guided her ancestry through these holy people) ? Yes, But as the eastern Monk (Fr. Gillet) pointed, that they were not sanctified at the same level as Mary was, IOW, what he is saying is that all this work that GOD did with Her ancestor lead to the full sanctification of St. Mary, and as you cited that GOD guided her ancestors, now meditate on this for a moment do you think if GOD guided you, you are going to fall in sin or grave one the least to say, of course not, now wouldn’t that be sanctification, I say AAAmen.

Now, some of the work of St Palamas that the Monk was commenting on is the following:
… For her sake the God-possessed prophets pronounce prophecies, miracles are wrought to foreshow that future Marvel of the whole world, the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. The flow of generations and circumstances journeys to the destination of that new mystery wrought in her; the statutes of the Spirit provide beforehand types of the future truth. The end, or rather the beginning and root, of those divine wonders and deeds is the annunciation to the supremely virtuous Joachim and Anna of what was to be accomplished…
So this venerable Monk’s work seems to be correct in quoting/interpreting St Palamas’s work and the only errors I see is in your erroneous/lack-of understanding of the Monk’s and of St Palamas’s work.
Now Pass the Pop-Corn bag Mardukm,

Until you can give us a direct quote from St. Palamas stating that Mary was sanctified before she came into being (which you can’t), I suggest once again, that you hold back on the sarcasm,

Again, Marduk, those comments of mine are compiled from the Monk that you praised his work, as being the antithesis of my mind, and ,again, nowhere, you are challenging his work with mistrust when you asked me for a direct quote from St. Palamas, Only three posts up you said to me about him the following -***( … What Fr. Lev does is the antithesis of your mindset, so spare us your pretended “respect” for this monk…) ***and now you show no respect to what this venerable Monk had said??? Well allow me to post for you again what your brother in Catholicism (ghosty) had posted in support of the “Saint Palamas emphatically believed in the I.C.”:
(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“,

As for me I do trust the venerable Monk’s words, a whole lot more then yours, and I do not see a reason for this venerable Monk to falsefy St Palamas writting , but I honestly see a plenty of reason to reject 80% of the words YOU say Marduk and doubt the other 20% especially after the last few discussions. Maybe, you should keep track of what had been said and keep them connected, you only can confuse those who are willing to be confused.
Now, I like to challenge you to prove this Monk’s work wrong, from a direct quote from St Palamas. Emmm… let me grab another baga pop corn.

You have to take it with the fourth point, which you conveniently separated from this portion. Mary was to bear the flesh that was “both new and ours,” foreordained from the beginning. “When the chosen time had come…”

Uummm…excuse me, I know that the English is not my first language, BUT, aren’t all those ideas of yours separated and numbered for a reason? Or just maybe you liked to number things for the fun of it? and aren’t they numbered, so the readers don’t mix them together? IOW, the numbers are there for differentiation reason, and thus you separated the first idea from the second by labeling it and separated it by number One (1) from the second, and likewise the second from the third and the third from the fourth, If they were to be taken together and not separating them apart then it makes sense to keep them together. At least that is how we understand things back in the Middle East where I learned my first language, but what do we know, we are not but bunch of primitives, literally.

 

[Ignatios]

… God made provision through Sts. Joachim and Hannah to bring into being the one who who had no stain…., this “immaculate fruition” (in St. Andrew of Crete’s words) did not occur before that time (refuting your claim that Mary was sanctified before she came into existence).

Loooooooool…excuse my laughter, but this is very humorous, …ehmmm…,okay…Please read above Marduk, what you wrote…loool…I don’t think you refuted me but you refuted yourself, the evidence is in your text, my dear Marduk, you admittedly said that GOD had brought into BEING the one who HAD no stain, loool, so you agreed with me, when I said that your church in an early beleif gave a conclusion that her soul was created before her body, and Nowhere you said it yourself in almost the same manner as your church said before i.e. " …bring into being the one who who had no stain…" if she hadn’t been sanctified before she came into being by GOD AS YOU STATED then she would have been brought into being first and sanctified, or the medium ( sanctification creation infusion all at once) choice that your church adopted latter on.

Actually this is why the RCs who opposed the I.C. Chiefly Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Clairveaux etc… had argued mainly two points against the I.C. theory, and if my memory serves me well the RCC couldn’t/didn’t argue back successfully those points until after the death of those who opposed the I.C. theory and it became dogma, they always said something to the effect of, the sanctification was before, and the other opinion was after, the infusion of the soul, in which, in one of the cases it would show that they understood or at least they had in mind that the soul at some point was created prior to the body creation, however it was not until later that the RCC said …”well…it was not before nor after… it was in the medium … that is all were created and infused and sanctified together at the same time…” and here where the Orthodox Church throws her hands up in the air, and says “where did you get all this from, it is not in the Bible nor it is found in the Tradition, nor anyone spoke about this, it is a new to us”.

Oops, sorry for being unclear. When I said “manner of conception,” I meant her physical conception, which was not immaculate. As I hope you know, the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the physical conception of Mary, but her spiritual conception (i.e.,the creation of her soul by God). So aside from that clarification, what I stated was correct and exactly consistent with the IC.

1. Was the Idea yours or St Palamas??? Marduk lool… it was not you who said the above…you silly… it was a quote that you posted of St Palamas !!! Hellloooooo loool, … and you are trying to discredit Fr. Gillet as being mistaken in understanding St Palamas writing? And you are acting as if everyone else should believe you??? Looool.
2. St Palamas, is obvious that He did not believe in the I.C. of the RCC at least from reading your posting quoting him. Go get some sleep Marduk.
3. In your posting above there is clear evidence of the chaos in this dogma, you (RCC) call it I.C. and it is to be refer to the conception of the Virgin Mary by her Mother St Hanna, but when you people start to talk about the I.C. we find out that the conception is not about the conception of St Mary in her Mother’s womb, but it is about the conception of St Mary’s soul into St Mary’s Body, And now some in the Vatican are pushing for a new title for St Mary since they all admit that the I.C. is a “difficult” and complicated dogma not to mention also that the debate still going on with in the gates of Rome concerning this Dogma in some respect :

In a recently published article on the Immaculate Conception in the Rome journal “Divinitas,” Msgr. Calkins titled a closing section, “The Immaculate Co-redemptrix.” That’s a term some Marian scholars are still hoping will find greater acceptance.

Some Vatican officials said candidly that while Marian devotion remains strong in the church, the Immaculate Conception is a complex concept that has interested theologians more than the ordinary faithful.
“There’s been an incredible dumbing-down of Catholics in the last generation or two, so there’s probably a fair amount of confusion about this,” said Msgr. Arthur Calkins, a Vatican official and a member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy.
But the main stumbling block for many Catholics is original sin.

“People today simply are less and less aware of original sin. And without that awareness, the Immaculate Conception makes no sense,” said one Vatican official.
Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma in 1854, but the idea that Mary was born without the stain of sin did not appear out of the blue. It took shape after a** long and complicated theological debate that, in some respects, still continues. St. Bernard of Clairvaux argued in the 12th century that the Holy Spirit could not have been involved in anything so base as the conception of a child. **
Other theologians were hindered by their belief that the human soul was infused into the fetus 40 or 80 days after conception – and thus** Mary as a conceived unborn would have been subject to original sin until that moment**

 

[Ignatios]

Now, unless you claim that there was a different Mary who was conceived than the one who bore Christ, then the flesh Mary possessed from the first moment of her existence was “both new and ours,” without stain, pure, and immaculate, the new flesh from whom Christ would get our human nature.

Here let Fr. Gillet respond to you on this one:
Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary’s incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as “all holy”, “all pure”,
“immaculate”. This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception.

Which just about makes you lose all credibility to my Orthodox ears.

Orthodoxy is beyond the ears, and if there is nothing Orthodox beyond your ears, then there is nothing in there that worth worrying about, let alone my credibility.

That is a strange, unique, and WRONG understanding of the IC. May I ask where you got this misconception from?

I already covered this above, if you need my assistant to point it out for you, let me know.

… What Christian thinks that a person’s soul exists before its creation/instantaneous infusion into the flesh?

Not all Catholics believed that, many even believe that the soul was infused into the fetus 40 or 80 days after conception.

There is a thread in the Apologetics section entitled “What’s the Craziest Anti-Catholic Whopper you’ve ever heard?” I think this takes the cake.

So long you don’t enter your name as a candidate, for then the Cake would surely go to you with a medal.

Yep. Proves what I’ve been saying - the basis for EO “unity” is uniformity, not understanding.

I have covered this one above, and let me seal it with the word AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN to the unifomity of Faith.

Let’s see. There was/is a universal belief in the Church

There was, as when? In the Church? What Church? Put out some evidence to give some weight to your words, about 95% of your words lack evidences. And please if you give an evidence let be in relation to what the subject is. no strawman strategy this time , please, at least try not to.

 

[Ignatios]

… that the flesh Jesus took from Mary was immaculate, free from all stain of sin, even original sin - hence, the Immaculate Conception.

HUH? Now Jesus taking flesh from the Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception dogma???, can you give me the link to that thread in the Apologetics section entitled “What’s the Craziest Anti-Catholic Whopper you’ve ever heard?” I think attaching the above to your name, will make you the king of the hill, and forget about the cake man.

People speculated, “How did this come about?” With the tradition that the mechanism by which original sin was passed down was through the father, some people began to teach that Mary was herself born of a virgin - i.e., that Mary’s physical conception was immaculate, and she was not conceived naturally from Sts. Joachim and Hannah. Pope Alexander combats the error by proclaiming “the IC refers to her spiritual conception, not her physical conception.” The mechanism that people understood was thrown out the window. It was left a mystery.

So according to your statement above,(wich is correct according to a latter RCC definition of the I.C.) the Original Sin is obsolete when it comes to the I.C. right? If not, sermon on this, Please.

Now, many Catholics believe that the IC sanctified her flesh at the moment of conception. That is the mechanism which you, brother Ignatios, want to pretend so badly exists in the dogma. But it doesn’t. The dogma does not insist on the mechanism by which Mary’s flesh was sanctified to be able to bear the Messiah. When and how Mary’s flesh became immaculate is not the subject of the dogma. As stated, many believe her flesh was sanctified at the moment of conception. I, as an Oriental, believe that Marys flesh was sanctified at the Annunciation. Both positions are perfectly consistent with the dogma of the IC.

…And just when I think that I got it all down… could other RC verify the above, and, no answer would do. keep in mind the Original Sin according to Augustine and try to combine all this together.

St. Palamas was teaching the IC. You just don’t want to admit it.

:yawn: whatever …

… He also taught that the main consequence of Original Sin is spiritual death, not physical death - which is probably why he had no problem with the IC.

It was the Ancestral Sin not the Original Sin, besides teaching the spiritual death as the main consequence, does not denote to teaching that physical death was not part of the consequence.
I don’t see your point trying to argue which of the two is the main consequence, so long both were/are taught as a consequence.

If you don’t know where St. Palamas teaches that, let me know, and I’ll give you a direct quote.

Blessings

You sound like you ran out of “Gas”, anyhow go back to it and read it for yourself over again, only this time try to read it within context.

GOD bles you all †††

 

[Vico]

…

Now, many Catholics believe that the IC sanctified her flesh at the moment of conception. That is the mechanism which you, brother Ignatios, want to pretend so badly exists in the dogma. But it doesn’t. The dogma does not insist on the mechanism by which Mary’s flesh was sanctified to be able to bear the Messiah. When and how Mary’s flesh became immaculate is not the subject of the dogma. As stated, many believe her flesh was sanctified at the moment of conception. I, as an Oriental, believe that Marys flesh was sanctified at the Annunciation. Both positions are perfectly consistent with the dogma of the IC.

Well, I think mardukm’s belief is in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s purity from the Annunciation rather than from the first moment of conception (Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Saint Anna) which we become aware of in scripture particularly at the Annunciation, but the dogma specifies the conception not Annunciation. The greeting used by the Angel indicates a perfect state of blessing or grace pre-existing the Annunciation.

Greek found in Luke 1:28: Chaire kecharitōmenē

Verb is Perfect Passive Participle Vocative Singular Feminine
Ke means perfect tense.
Mene means passive participle.
Charis is gift and reciprocal gift in a relationship in Classic Greek, which is a basis for the greeting Chaire (Hail). Perfect passive participle means a state (not a past event) of perfect grace.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful”, – Pope Pius IX in Bull Ineffabilis.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Well, I think mardukm’s belief is in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s purity from the Annunciation rather than from the first moment of conception (Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Saint Anna) which we become aware of in scripture particularly at the Annunciation, but the dogma specifies the conception not Annunciation. The greeting used by the Angel indicates a perfect state of blessing or grace pre-existing the Annunciation.

Greek found in Luke 1:28: Chaire kecharitōmenē

Verb is Perfect Passive Participle Vocative Singular Feminine
Ke means perfect tense.
Mene means passive participle.
Charis is gift and reciprocal gift in a relationship in Classic Greek, which is a basis for the greeting Chaire (Hail). Perfect passive participle means a state (not a past event) of perfect grace.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful”, – Pope Pius IX in Bull Ineffabilis.

I believe that God created Mary’s soul perfectly pure/ immaculate, exactly as the Dogma of the IC states. But as regards her body, I personally believe that it was prepared in a special way in order to receive the fullness of divinity only at the Annunciation. Do you think the latter contradicts the former somehow?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I believe that God created Mary’s soul perfectly pure/ immaculate, exactly as the Dogma of the IC states. But as regards her body, I personally believe that it was prepared in a special way in order to receive the fullness of divinity only at the Annunciation. Do you think the latter contradicts the former somehow?

Blessings,
Marduk

No. Also, I did not understand exactly what your belief was when I made my post.

There is another dogma tangentially related that the effects of the ancestral sin are transmitted physically – Council of Trent, Session V. I have read of the preservation of her physical integrity before, during and, after the Nativity, which is stated in CCC 496 and more definitively in Lateran Council 649 (DS 503), under anathema Pope Martin I, also footnoted in Lumen Gentium 57 (Vatican II). Pope Martin I:
“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”

 

[Monica4316]

Then you do not understand the doctrine of papal infallibility. It does not mean that the Pope settles arguments with “the last word”.

what I meant is that it’s the Pope who is right in an argument if he speaks ex cathedra

They actually do have different theological expressions, yet accept the same dogmas, in the Catholic Churches sui iuris.

I don’t think so.
No.

about purgatory, I think it is similar, - for example the Orthodox believe that we can pray people out of hell before the Last Judgement… but why doesn’t this work for everyone? there are people who are so unrepentant that nothing will help them… but others can be helped… why is this? maybe some have died in repentance and are suffering but are being purified… that is what we call Purgatory. It doesn’t need to be fire… just a stage of purification. The ECFs talked about it in this way, and the EO agreed with this idea in the Council of Florence… only the people didn’t accept the Bishops’ decision.

 

[Mickey]

what I meant is that it’s the Pope who is right in an argument…

the people didn’t accept the Bishops’ decision.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

 

[Monica4316]

“People today simply are less and less aware of original sin. And without that awareness, the Immaculate Conception makes no sense,” said one Vatican official.

I think he was talking about how people today don’t have a sense of sin. Just because we are not aware of it, doesn’t mean it’s not there… our society tells us there is no sin…

Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma in 1854, but the idea that Mary was born without the stain of sin did not appear out of the blue. It took shape after a long and complicated theological debate that, in some respects, still continues.

huh just like in the early Church! many of the doctrines of the early Church also formed after much complicated debating. And the Pope ratified the Councils that are accepted in the EOC and RCC today.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux argued in the 12th century that the Holy Spirit could not have been involved in anything so base as the conception of a child.
Other theologians were hindered by their belief that the human soul was infused into the fetus 40 or 80 days after conception – and thus Mary as a conceived unborn would have been subject to original sin until that moment

those were theological opinions… the idea about the soul being infused into the fetus after 40 days was I think St Augustine’s idea (I could be wrong) - but it was never ever a doctrine of the Church… just what some people thought. In the end it matters what the Councils and the Pope says… the Saints are not infallible.

 

[Monica4316]

why? that’s what infallibility is, - that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when he speaks ex cathedra.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

I think that it’s important for people to follow the Bishops… and to be obedient to the hierarchy of the Church… it’s not the people who decide what the truth is. If that were so, the Church would have accepted heresies very early on - because in the early Church, there were times when the MAJORITY were heretics. The ECFs then wrote about appealing to the Rome for the truth.

 

[Mickey]

why? that’s what infallibility is,

Really?

I think that it’s important for people to follow the Bishops… and to be obedient to the hierarchy of the Church… it’s not the people who decide what the truth is.

The Church consists of Bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, and laity…everybody…right down to the babushka lady down the street.

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Forgive me, brothers Ghosty, Dvdjs, and Ignatios, but there is a problem with his entire discussion. Namely, you are all basing your conception on Fr. Gillet’s own interpretation of St. Palamas’ belief. But his Sermon does not actually contain any notion that there was a progressive sanctification in St. Mary’s lineage that culminated in the perfect creature named Mary. What he describes is merely the holy lineage of Mary, or, more specifically, he points out that Mary’s lineage can be traced through a long line of persons chosen by God for their holiness to be the descendants of Mary.

Nor is there any indication, as brother Ignatios wrongly stated, that St. Mary was sanctified long before she came to be. Rather, St. Palamas simply states that Mary was chosen long before her conception.

What St. Palamas teaches is this:

1. It was necessary for Jesus to come from flesh that was “both new and ours.”
2. God chose the woman who would fulfill this requirement from the beginning.
3. God had a plan to produce this woman and directed her ancestry through a line of holy persons.
4. “When the chosen time had come,” he chose the two finest in the line of David, Sts. Joachim and Hannah. Their prayers bore fruit, and she whose flesh was “both new and ours” was conceived (in the words of St. Andrew of Crete, she was “the Immaculate fruition,” immaculate not in virtue of her manner of conception, but in the holiness of her being). From the beginning of her existence in St. Hannah’s womb, she is called the “all-virtuous child” by St. Palamas.

So did St. Palamas believe that Mary was she whose flesh was “both new and ours” from the first moment of her existence? Was she holy before God from the first moment of her existence? Did St. Palamas believe in the Immaculate Conception? Yes, to all these questions.

Blessings

Hello Mardukm, I was wondering if you were familiar with these fathers who have written statements that would in my opinion support the IC:

West: Bishop St. Maximus of Turin [Lambruschini 78] says [Hom. V, ante Natale Domini in in PL 57:235D], “Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.” Latin: “Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratiâ originali.”

West: Archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor) says in 449 [Sermon 140 in PL 52:576A], "The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."

East: Archbishop St. Proclus of Constantinople before 446 [Homily 1:3 in PG 65:683B]: "As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."

East: Bishop St. Theodotus of Ancyra [Homily 6:11 on the Holy Mother of God in PG 77:1427A], In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) says [O’Connor 97] before 749 [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 96:664AB]: Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html

I am perplexed when people reject the IC because this would mean that they agree (implicitly or explicitly) that like the rest of humanity the Holy Mother of God was afflicted with a sinful (human) nature (St. Paul mentions the sinful nature that we possess several times in scripture), and yet managed to avoid all sin (one has to wonder how she did this if grace did not actually precede nature)? Moreover, how can one be immaculate if she had a sinful nature, i.e., isn’t having a sinful (human) nature a sin in and of itself (does this make sense)? Also, would this (human) nature of hers not extend to Jesus being that she is truly his mother?

p.s. There is much more which I did not post (check out the website) that I think you would find supports the IC.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

I am not that familiar with proof of a belief in the IC from the early Latin Fathers. I am familiar with the Eastern and Oriental ones you gave, and they’re pretty powerful!

I would personally not count the one you gave from St. Maximus of Turin, simply because there is no reference to Mary’s beginning.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

Some interesting early statements from different areas.

Milan:

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” – Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388, lived 339-397 A.D.)

Constantinople:

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” – Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (died 446 or 447 A.D.)