St. Palamas and the Immaculate Conception

[dvdjs]

accept the I.C.? Please reread the post of Formosus and my reply to it. Then ask a question that makes sense rather than posting this straw man nonsense.

 

[Ignatios]

But after all this time isn’t it clear? To some - like the fathers quoted, like St. Gregory Palamas, like Archbishop Kallistos - it manifestly is. To others, like Mickey and Ignatios, there appears to be no willingness to accept.** And apparently both opinions are acceptable in the Orthodox Church**

.(emphasis are mine)
dvdjs;6729965:

Please reread the post of Formosus and my reply to it. Then ask a question that makes sense rather than posting this straw man nonsense.

Okay I reread your reply to Fomosus, and I still ask you the same question. there is no strawman set up in my question, all I am saying that show us the evidence to your comment ---->>> .* And apparently both opinions are acceptable in the Orthodox Church***, and add some sense to your statement, where do you see a strawman set up? Please show us, you are making no sense, your accusation of me being a strawman set up makes no sense, So man up and silence us with your answer, i.e., where did you see that the Orthodox Church accept the I.C. teaching?

 

[dvdjs]

Okay I reread your reply to Fomosus, and I still ask you the same question. there is no strawman set up in my question, all I am saying that show us the evidence to your comment ---->>> .* And apparently both opinions are acceptable in the Orthodox Church***, and add some sense to your statement, where do you see a strawman set up? Please show us, you are making no sense, your accusation of me being a strawman set up makes no sense, So man up and silence us with your answer, i.e., where did you see that the Orthodox Church accept the I.C. teaching?

Normally, I would not dignify a comment that includes “man up” with a response. However, since it seems that English is not your first language, I will assume that you really don’t know how vulgar your post is. Similary, since you have reread the posts and still don’t get it, let me help you: neither the post of Formosus nor my response suggest that the “Orthodox Church accept the I.C. teaching”. If you are unwilling to address the proper substance of his post - and mine - that is up to you. But don’t expect dialogue.

 

[awatkins69]

Let me make it short and sweet, if we look in the life of the Church we find the FATHER SON and the HOLY SPIRIT from the very beginning, however the word “TRINITY” came in latter to discribe in a word what had been from the beginning Worshiped beleived and practiced, show me the like wise that the Church practiced and beleived that if someone does not hold that St Mary soul’s was preserved pure and Immaculate by GOD to be infused in her at the very instant of her conception and before other soul gets in her body but not before her conception, would have no salvation, and leave the words Immaculate Conception on the side for now.

We find in the Bible “Hail, full of grace.” Moreover, in this case, it means that Mary was full of grace since the beginning (as the Fathers said already). We find the Church Fathers teaching it. You may not have read the first page where a poster lists the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. It was from the beginning believed. It’s exactly the same as the Trinity. While it was not defined later, it was still believed.

 

[Mickey]

The doctrine always existed

Prove it.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, according to your logic (and lol’s), until the Trinity was defined, they did not teach the Trinity.

I wish I had a nickel every time someone tried to use this logic for proving the IC. The Trinity is very apparent throughout Scripture—but the IC is not there.

You were not asked for statements from the Fathers condemning the doctrine, but statements *contradicting *the doctrine (or at least that’s what they probably meant).

And I will reiterate—it is impossible to show the contradiction of something that did not exist.

 

[Mickey]

It is really never an appropriate response to another’s post; it would be rude if it weren’t so transparently a dodge that you use repeatedly when unable to make a cogent response.

Who are you to tell me that my laughter is inappropriate? Sheesh! If I find something humorous…I am free to chuckle…it happens all the time here. You are free to believe that I am dodging. You are free to believe that I am not providing cogent responses. You have free will. But please, do not tell me when I can laugh or not…that is a bit restrictive.

It was off topic and a total non sequitur.

Not at all.

 

[Mickey]

We find in the Bible “Hail, full of grace.”

This does not…and never has…supported the 19th century doctrine of the IC.

 

[Mickey]

Normally, I would not dignify a comment that includes “man up” with a response. However, since it seems that English is not your first language, I will assume that you really don’t know how vulgar your post is.

This is very rude. I would not be surprised if Ignatios does not dignify this comment with a response.

 

[Ignatios]

We find in the Bible “Hail, full of grace.” Moreover, in this case, it means that Mary was full of grace since the beginning (as the Fathers said already). We find the Church Fathers teaching it. You may not have read the first page where a poster lists the unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers. It was from the beginning believed. It’s exactly the same as the Trinity. While it was not defined later, it was still believed.

What beginning? some Fathers, see the beginning at her birth some when was still in St Hanna’s womb and some see the Grace of GOD came upon her when the Angel said so to her…the beginning does not necessarily denotes to her conception.

Teaching what the I.C.? Not the Eastern Fathers the least to say.
None of those opinion that they were posted from the Fathers of the Church taught the I.C. of the RCC. all you have to do is put the definition of the I.C. of the RCC on one side wnd then put the what the Fathers had said on the other side and compare them, the only thing would come up is a few terminology that are similiar but the Opinions are totaly diffrent.

As for comparing it to the Trinity, this is not even close.

GOD bless you†††

 

[Ignatios]

Normally, I would not dignify a comment that includes “man up” with a response. However, since it seems that English is not your first language, I will assume that you really don’t know how vulgar your post is. Similary, since you have reread the posts and still don’t get it, let me help you: neither the post of Formosus nor my response suggest that the “Orthodox Church accept the I.C. teaching”. If you are unwilling to address the proper substance of his post - and mine - that is up to you. But don’t expect dialogue.
Mickey;6731230:

This is very rude. I would not be surprised if Ignatios does not dignify this comment with a response.

You are absolutely right Mickey, I would not go down to this level of dialogue, some appeal to this strategy in order to get out of a squeeze.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[awatkins69]

Saint Proclus said Mary was made without sin. We say Mary was made without sin. You say we are reading a doctrine into the Fathers with Mary. But when we do it with the Trinity we are not. The Bible says “full of grace”, yet it is not clear in the Bible. But the Trinity is.

 

[Vico]

Greetings my friend,

In all honesty, I think that the Orthodox should not address it…period. It is unknown in the East and should remain unknown. I don’t know why we debate these things so often…I suppose it is pride.

The Roman Catholics must believe it under pain of condemnation.

The Orthodox will not believe it because it is irrelevant.

The Eastern Catholics are a different story…some believe it…others do not.

Many beautiful and holy titles have been written for Our Lady. That is good enough for me. I love the Panagia!

I saw the comment and thought I should comment.

Individuals may very well not believe in all Catholic dogmas of faith, however as Melkite Bishop John Elya wrote answers to questions regularly on the Melkite website, for the Eastern Catholic churches:

1. the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks “ex cathedra” (See R-6)
2. we may interpret dogmas in “Eastern” terms but are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope (see R-6)
3. we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father (see T-3)
4. indulgences are an explicit doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that Eastern Catholics must accept (see W-4)

melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Let’s emphasize that accept can simply mean: to agree not to condemn as false, without making it part of my individual church’s patrimony or really even having to acknowledge it.

THis is a tenable position.

 

[Monica4316]

Monica,
Maybe you are not aware that the I.C. was the cause of great split and fierce fights and they spilled blood over it within the gates of the RCC for around 5 centuries, that is more then the time it has been made inffallibile by the Pope when he favored one faction( Fransiscans) against the others ( Dominicans) who were against it and where Thomas Aquinas and few other Saints of your church did not beleive in it.

hence why we believe the Pope is infallible… if there are arguments, he has the last word. But what I meant is that the Pope didn’t simply make up the doctrine. It already existed, he just proclaimed it dogma, - to clarify that it’s part of Catholic teaching (precisely so that these fights wouldn’t happen).

Also, even though these arguments were going on, the majority of the people did believe in the Immaculate Conception, long before it became dogma. Popular opinion supported it. At the time it was proclaimed dogma, the Pope’s decision was supported by the majority of the Bishops.

some of the above is okay, but the RCC teaching goes back further then the beginning of St. Mary’s existence in the womb of her mother ( St Hanna).

I’ve never heard of this, what do you mean?

the dogma says:

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

we believe that Mary was purified at the moment of her conception, we don’t believe in the pre-existence of souls. There are some authors who suggested that Mary’s soul existed before her conception, but this is not formal Catholic teaching or doctrine, it’s a theological opinion that’s not shared by everyone. I personally, don’t know.

 

[Mickey]

1. we may interpret dogmas in “Eastern” terms

This has always confused me. I used to hear this when I was in the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Does anybody know what “interpreting in Eastern terms” means?

 

[Mickey]

hence why we believe the Pope is infallible… if there are arguments, he has the last word.

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

 

[Vico]

This has always confused me. I used to hear this when I was in the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Does anybody know what “interpreting in Eastern terms” means?

Yes, the is a common sharing of hierarchy, sacraments, and faith, but each Church sui iuris can have a different theology. They still share the same dogmas of faith, but may not be explained in the same terms.

CCEO Canon 28 “A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.”

As an example, purgatory. This term is not Orthodox but Latin in origin. The Latin concept of purgatory is in essence the same as expressed by the Orthodox for the state of those that die in penitence, if the term “purgatory” is not used, and if nothing is said of material or physical torments. (Also, material fire is not a required belief in the Latin Church).

See *Article XVIII of *Confession of Dositheus.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html

 

[Mickey]

each Church sui iuris can have a different theology.

I don’t think so.

The Latin concept of purgatory is in essence the same as expressed by the Orthodox

No.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think so.
No.

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