St. Palamas and the Immaculate Conception

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Ignatios:

The approach (mechanism) is what makes the diffrence between the I.C. of the RCC and the Mariology discourse of Saint Palamas.

The I.C. of the RCC:
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in **the first instance **of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Saint Palamas beleieved not in:
-The idea of the I.C. because he beleived that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“.

Vs.

The RCC I.C.:
-pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception

St. Palamas: -That progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.
Vs.

The RCC I.C.:
-by a singular privilege and grace granted by God

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.

Are you talking about this:
… Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body,

Brother Dvdjs is correct. The dogma does not speak about any kind of process or manner through which the IC came about. It doesn’t dogmatize the “how” of the matter. It just states that this is what God did. Your quotation from Pope Alexander doesn’t explain any kind of method or process. It is simply a statement that the IC refers to her spiritual conception (that statement from Pope Alexander is actually in the context of condemning the idea that she did not have a natural physical conception).

Marduk you are wrong as most of the times, only this time from the get-go.
your qoute of St Palamas was not a Teaching, it was a “Discourse”

“Discourse” is a common term for “Sermon.” Perhaps you’ve heard or read of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount referred to as His “Discourses?” I would think that this would have been obvious, since this “Discourse on the Entry into the Temple” was given by St. Gregory Palamas to his congregation on that Feast Day.

Whether you call it “discourse” or “sermon,” I should hope that he was not teaching anything heterodox. So what exactly is your point?

Blessings

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Ignatios,Whether you call it “discourse” or “sermon,” I should hope that he was not teaching anything heterodox. So what exactly is your point?

Blessings

Without reading the entire discussion (quite frankly I couldn’t care less if St Gregory held beliefs similar to the IC), if he did hold heterodox beliefs he wouldn’t be the first saint to do so (see Issac the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas).

In Christ,
Joe

 

[Ghosty]

Without reading the entire discussion (quite frankly I couldn’t care less if St Gregory held beliefs similar to the IC), if he did hold heterodox beliefs he wouldn’t be the first saint to do so (see Issac the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas).

In Christ,
Joe

Which is precisely the point I was making on the original thread, which kicked off all this discussion in the first place.

Someone being canonized a Saint doesn’t mean all their views are endorsed, and we can (and do) have Saints who had opposing views, or views which are in opposition to the majority view of the Church.

Mardukm: Great work on St. Gregory and the Immaculate Conception. Now that the topic has its own thread I might join in when I have more time.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

But I am not sure that from an EO perspective, there are grounds to call the dogma heterodox.

 

[Mickey]

But I am not sure that from an EO perspective, there are grounds to call the dogma heterodox.

I am fairly certain of it.

 

[Diak]

But I am not sure that from an EO perspective, there are grounds to call the dogma heterodox.

The reply from Patriarch Anthimos in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII had no substantial theological objection to the IC, but his complaints centered primarily on the lack of synodal/conciliar process to get to that point. Ecclesiology rather than theology. I don’t recall any standing Orthodox Patriarch either unilaterally or as the head of any Synod condeming the IC. I would also recommend a close study of especially the Matins texts of December 9, ideally in the original language.

 

[dvdjs]

The reply from Patriarch Anthimos in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII had no substantial theological objection to the IC, but his complaints centered primarily on the lack of synodal/conciliar process to get to that point. Ecclesiology rather than theology. I don’t recall any standing Orthodox Patriarch either unilaterally or as the head of any Synod condeming the IC. I would also recommend a close study of especially the Matins texts of December 9, ideally in the original language.

That’s my reading of the situation as well. A close look also at the vigil texts for Nov 21 are helpful to dispel the innovation that the Theotokos was not all-pure until the Annunciation.

 

[mardukm]

I recall brother KyivAndrew stating several months ago that belief in the IC is particularly strong in the Ukranian Tradition, even before the Dogma.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

The reply from Patriarch Anthimos in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII had no substantial theological objection to the IC, but his complaints centered primarily on the lack of synodal/conciliar process to get to that point. Ecclesiology rather than theology. I don’t recall any standing Orthodox Patriarch either unilaterally or as the head of any Synod condeming the IC. I would also recommend a close study of especially the Matins texts of December 9, ideally in the original language.

The fact that a doctrine which is unknown amongst Orthodox, is not unilaterally condemned, does not mean that it is not heterodox.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

The fact that a doctrine which is unknown amongst Orthodox, is not unilaterally condemned, does not mean that it is not heterodox.

I am interested if you can provide just three quotes (“where two or three” and all that) from Orthodox Fathers before the 19th century who condemnd the doctrine of the IC as heterodox.

Here’s some Eastern and Oriental Fathers who don’t support your view:

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the 3rd century taught that even before the Annunciation, even before the death and resurrection of our Lord, Mary was already “in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,” and that she had “a body made purer than any gold.”

St. Ephraim in the 4th century taught that before their respective decisions, Eve and Mary were “utterly equal.”

St. Theodotus of Ancyra in the 5th century taught that Mary was “included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault.”

St. Proclus of Constantinople, likewise in the 5th century taught that Mary was “made without any stain.”

St. Severus of Antioch in the 6th century taught that Mary was “of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.”

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century taught that Mary, "holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from EVERY CONTAGION.”

St. Andrew of Crete in the 7th/8th centuries taught that Sts. Joachim and Hannah’s prayers bore fruit with Mary, and called her “the immaculate fruition.”

St. John Damascene in the 8th century taught that Mary was "hidden from the fiery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the spirit, preserved without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God.”

St. Photius in the 9th century taught that Mary was sanctified ek brephous in the womb of St. Hannah - that is, from the first instance of her existence in her mother’s womb.

St. Euthymes of Constantinople in the 10th century taught that God built His “fully sanctified” tabernacle on the day Mary was conceived.

St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century taught that Mary was created with flesh that was “both new and ours.”

Patriarch Scholarios in the 15th century taught that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence.”

Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople in the 17th century taught that Mary “was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her conception.”

Patriarch Gerasimo of Alexandria, likewise in the 17th century, taught that Mary “was not subject to the sin of our first father.”

St Dimitri of Rostov, also in the 17th century, a member of the Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception, taught that Mary was the Tabernacle of our Lord, and that this Tabernacle was created “clad in the splendor of virtues…Not with gold, nor with inanimate stones are you adorned. In stead of gold, the Spirit shines in you.”

The Eastern Tradition indicates that it is rather your claim that the IC is heterodox that is the novelty.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I am interested if you can provide just three quotes (“where two or three” and all that) from Orthodox Fathers before the 19th century who condemnd the doctrine of the IC as heterodox.

ROTFL!

Are you asking for Fathers who condemned the “doctrine” before it was defined by Rome?

 

[mardukm]

ROTFL!

Are you asking for Fathers who condemned the “doctrine” before it was defined by Rome?

Yes.

Your silence will be a sufficient response.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

That’s rather humorous. You are asking for condemnation of a doctrine that had not yet been formulated?

Your silence will be sufficient response.

 

[mardukm]

That’s rather humorous. You are asking for condemnation of a doctrine that had not yet been formulated?

As you agreed in the other thread, truth does not need to be dogmatized for it to be truth. Obviously, the truth exists even before the time it is dogmatized. And I gave you more than ample proof that this truth existed for the Eastern Church in the first millenium, and beyond. Since this truth explicitly existed back then, and you claim that it is heterodox, then surely you can give us proof that the Church explicitly rejected it in that same time period. But you won’t because you can’t. The rejection of the IC is the novelty, and it’s a novelty that exists in the EOC.

Your silence will be sufficient response.

I already gave you a multitude of quotes. No silence from this end. Though your own lack of response is telling.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

And I gave you more than ample proof that this truth existed for the Eastern Church in the first millenium, and beyond.

I have seen your interpretation. But I have seen no such proof.

Since this truth explicitly existed back then, and you claim that it is heterodox, then surely you can give us proof that the Church explicitly rejected it in that same time period.

Your interpretations were non-exisistence then…as was the doctrine.
You have retroactively read the 19th century IC doctrine into the first millenium.
The ECF’s knew of no such doctrine. Neither did people such as Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Catherine of Sienna.

The rejection of the IC is the novelty…

The doctrine itself is the novelty.

I already gave you a multitude of quotes. No silence from this end.

LOL! I never expect silence on your end. You have always offered quotes out of context with your own spin.

 

[mardukm]

I have seen your interpretation. But I have seen no such proof.

Your interpretations were non-exisistence then…as was the doctrine.
You have retroactively read the 19th century IC doctrine into the first millenium.
The ECF’s knew of no such doctrine. Neither did people such as Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Catherine of Sienna.

The doctrine itself is the novelty.

LOL! I never expect silence on your end. You have always offered quotes out of context with your own spin.

Care to challenge the quotes I gave with quotes of your own from those Fathers? Or can you even provide any rationale to challenge the proofs I gave?

Again, your silence and inability to provide any direct quotes will be sufficient.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Care to challenge the quotes I gave with quotes of your own from those Fathers?

No. Anyone here can read those quotes for themselves and see that the Fathers are not spouting the IC doctrine–not even in seed form.

Again, your silence and inability to provide any direct quotes will be sufficient.

If that makes you feel better…I am happy for you.

 

[Aramis]

No. Anyone here can read those quotes for themselves and see that the Fathers are not spouting the IC doctrine–not even in seed form.
If that makes you feel better…I am happy for you.

Funny, but I’ve heard several EO bishops state the problem isn’t the IC doctrine, but the dogmatization of Marian doctrines that are irrelevant to Christology.

And reading the fathers, they do seem to me to see Mary as having some unique sanctity distinctly different from the rest of humanity, in being free of any voluntary sin her entire life. One could not do that without special grace, which must have been present before birth.

 

[Mickey]

Funny, but I’ve heard several EO bishops state the problem isn’t the IC doctrine, but the dogmatization of Marian doctrines that are irrelevant to Christology.

I believe most bishops have issues with most aspects of it. There have been a few bishops (I suppose for ecumenical reasons) who have softened their stance a bit–such as Bishop Kallistos—who I think calls it theological speculation.

And reading the fathers, they do seem to me to see Mary as having some unique sanctity distinctly different from the rest of humanity, in being free of any voluntary sin her entire life. One could not do that without special grace, which must have been present before birth.

Before birth? Do you mean at some point after conception and before birth? Or do you mean at the moment of conception?

Our Lady is the greatest of all saints. She most definitely had an abundance of grace. She is the shining example of askesis!

She is the great example—not the great exception.

 

[Formosus]

Can you explain what exactly about the Immaculate Conception you find to be heterodox?