St. Palamas and the Immaculate Conception

[Ignatios]

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.

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).

“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

WOW … …
sheeesh…
Marduk???
I have never seen anything like this…
Marduk…you moved my text to a diffrent thread and you started to debate me without my knowledge that you are debating me this is the best strawman set up I ever saw, Marduk shame shame shame…
Now I know how desparate you are to win a debate, by doing this I will not know that you are debating me, and naturally I would not respond to your claims and thus it would look like I can’t respond to you and you would look like a won the day

BUT as we say in the Middle East “…and the wind did not go as the ship would have hoped”
How could you do such thing???
Is this the first time you do this, or, whenever you feel that you must win a debate???

 

[Ignatios]

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.

A Monk’s interpretation, who spent all his life studying the Saints and the Scriptures is a whole lot more valid then yours, besides if you bother to read all saint Palamas’s writting it will become evident for you that this interpretation is correct and yours is the wrong one.

Read below Marduk and learn after you study and search.

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.

**…and after **she became supremely perfect even as regards her body by such great marvels,…A Homily on the Dormition,by St. Gregory Palamas]

HHHuh!!! you are not at the level to call such people that they interpreted things wrong, you need a lot more years of high study to be able to make such a claims Marduk.

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.

And if you read and comprehend the text you will find out that the sanctification started by the sanctification of her ancesters.

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.

I think you should go back and read all of Saint Palamas writting before you start to manifest your wishfull thoughts.

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.

And where in the above do you see the I.C.
Read and comprehend what you wrote, Marduk, all the above is against your claim, and is fully Orthodox except to the words in the third line "…God had a plan to produce this woman " GOD had a plan for this Women , But to say that GOD produced this women as if he especiallyt made her for this purpose, is wrong.

1. “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. (emphasis are mine)

meditate on the highlighted lines, do you comprehend what they are saying? this proof that St. Palamas was not talking about the I.C. because the I.C. is exactly the opposite of those lines

The I.C. goes to beyond the beginning of her existence in her mother’s womb, the I.C. teaches that GOD had sanctified a “speacial” soul for her and/or her soul was preserved by GOD prior to her conception, where St. Palamas is clear in YOUR OWN QUOTE" beginning of her existence" beginning is not prior to.

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.

You threw the bed rock and the foundation of the I.C. outside the window in attempt to fool many and to win the arguement, but what is in your mind shaak never happen.

the bed rock and the foundation of the I.C. is the Original sin, the I.C. existed because the theory of the Original sin, St. Palamas was clear as the sun that he did not beleive in the O.S. nor did he beleive in the assumption of St. Mary to Heaven alive which it complete the “dinasty” of the Original sinin which it led to the Immaculate Conception in which it would make all the sence only in the case of the Assumption of St Mary into the Heaven alive, IN WHICH we do not find any of those in St Palamas Mariology.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

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).

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,**

This is a “mechanism” If you wish to call the apple an orange, that does not change the apple into an orange, does it become obvious for you that your ways of trying to minipulate and/or spin things around is not working but on the contrary you are bringing humiliation to yourself and your RCC?

“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.

In the matter of the Church, when you say Teaching, that would mean this is what the Church Teaches, IOW, you will be reffering to a dogmatic Teaching or a Doctrine or something that it is officially recognized by the Church etc…what you were trying to do is to give the text a spin to make it sound as if it were a doctrine, where it is not. sermon is not a Teaching. Besides it is obviopus that St. Palamas was not teaching the I.C. if we read the whole Text and all of his writting. so likw the vast majority of the times you are wrong, try again maybe one you will get lucky.

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

Blessings

I do not beleive he was teaching anything heterodox, but many in the past maybe 50 years or so but not before the declaration of the I.C. as a dogma and long after it, started to give his writting a spin in order to justify their errors.

May GOD bless your minds and your hearts abundantly †††

 

[Ignatios]

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

Your silence will be sufficient response.

That is exactly what I said when I read it.
Marduk about 70% of your comments are an attempt to set up a strawman. it won’t work, trust me, you only making out of yourself a laugh.

 

[Ignatios]

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.

Not discussing the problem with the I.C. does not mean that they agree with it and confirm it as valid.

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.

She is diffrent from the rest of “humans” in the sense that she didn’t give in to the world like we do, and thus she became an Exampler rather than Exemption, Actually she had the grace of GOD (as the archangel Gabriel told her…you have found favor with GOD…) because she was free from any voluntary sin, or why do we call her the Exampler?

 

[Ignatios]

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

first thing, making it a dogma, means you have no salvation without beleiving that she was “Immaculately conceived”
second, is when the RCC gives a detailed mechanism how she was Immaculately conceived, and it goes on to mentioning the detail about what and how GOD did that, namely that HE at the very moment of her conception He infused a soul that it was preserved for her, before she can receive other soul at the very instant of her conception, …I mean they go down to the spliting seconds how things happened, … Where did they get these heories from? where? nothing in the bible speaks of such things, where, no such a theory we can find in the Tradition, where not in the early Church, and defenitly not in the Eastern Church.

 

[Formosus]

first thing, making it a dogma, means you have no salvation without beleiving that she was “Immaculately conceived”
second, is when the RCC gives a detailed mechanism how she was Immaculately conceived, and it goes on to mentioning the detail about what and how GOD did that, namely that HE at the very moment of her conception He infused a soul that it was preserved for her, before she can receive other soul at the very instant of her conception, …I mean they go down to the spliting seconds how things happened, … Where did they get these heories from? where? nothing in the bible speaks of such things, where, no such a theory we can find in the Tradition, where not in the early Church, and defenitly not in the Eastern Church.

Ok, but if we take out the notion of “splitting seconds” and remove the fact that it was declared dogma in a spurious way, then there is nothing heterodox about suggesting, as a theological opinion, that Mary was infused with the Divine Grace of God from her beginning? I am not trying to take sides in this debate, I am just curious as to if this position would be an acceptable opinion to the Orthodox Churches.

 

[dvdjs]

… Mary was infused with the Divine Grace of God from her beginning? … I am just curious as to if this position would be an acceptable opinion to the Orthodox Churches.

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.

 

[Mickey]

A Monk’s interpretation, who spent all his life studying the Saints and the Scriptures is a whole lot more valid then yours, besides if you bother to read all saint Palamas’s writting it will become evident for you that this interpretation is correct and yours is the wrong one.

Indeed.

 

[Mickey]

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.

LOL! St Gregory did not teach the IC. Bishop Kallistos seems to have changed his mind over time and calls it speculation—but does not teach the doctrine.

PS–I know Catholic bishops that allow nuns to teach many new age practices such as reiki, enneagram, mandalas, labyrinth, etc. Does that mean that you are permitted to believe these things are acceptable?

 

[Mickey]

I am not trying to take sides in this debate, I am just curious as to if this position would be an acceptable opinion to the Orthodox Churches.

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!

 

[dvdjs]

LOL! St Gregory did not teach the IC. Bishop Kallistos seems to have changed his mind over time and calls it speculation—but does not teach the doctrine.

Spare us the inappropriate laughter, and try, if you can, to have a conversation in which you stick to the point actually raised by Formosus, and responded to by me; it was not about teaching the IC or teaching the doctrine.

PS–I know Catholic bishops that allow nuns to teach many new age practices such as reiki, enneagram, mandalas, labyrinth, etc. Does that mean that you are permitted to believe these things are acceptable?

Huh? If you want to discuss these matters, which are not at issues here at all, start a new thread.

 

[Mickey]

Spare us the inappropriate laughter

LOL! I never laugh inappropriately.

Huh? If you want to discuss these matters, which are not at issues here at all, start a new thread.

I thought that it was a legitimate analogy.

 

[Monica4316]

Your interpretations were non-exisistence then…as was the doctrine.

a doctrine does not become truth once it’s proclaimed… it’s proclaimed by the Pope because it is already believed by the faithful. The doctrine always existed, and it was proclaimed later on to be infallible. But that’s not when it became infallible.

1. “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. (emphasis are mine)

I think this is just saying that Mary’s conception was natural and not different in any way, except for the holiness of her being, which she had since the beginning of her existence in St Hannah’s womb (her conception). This is exactly what the RCC teaches

 

[awatkins69]

Mickey, according to your logic (and lol’s), until the Trinity was defined, they did not teach the Trinity. Until Hypostatic Union was defined they did not teach Hypostatic Union. Until Transubstantiation was defined they did not teach Transubstantiation. Until the Immaculate Conception was defined they did not teach the Immaculate Conception. Until the Assumption of Mary was defined they did not teach the Assumption. You can’t pick and choose which doctrines the Church Fathers really did teach, and which ones we are just reading back into them. Your [flawed] logic works with every one of them. Whether you think a holy doctrine should be emphasized more in certain environments is one thing, but to call it heterodox is to be a heretic.

The clear defining of a doctrine does not make it an innovation. It’s just making it clearly defined. Councils and Supreme Pontiffs do not invent doctrines. They define them, based on statements of the Fathers and Holy Scripture, such as those presented previously. 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). Not to mention that you’d need quite a few, because where the majority of Fathers unanimously agree, it is typically considered a teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Unfortunately, you just make sarcastic statements and ignore the fact that you can’t produce such quotes. Blessings.

 

[Ignatios]

Ok, but if we take out the notion of “splitting seconds” and remove the fact that it was declared dogma in a spurious way, then there is nothing heterodox about suggesting, as a theological opinion, that Mary was infused with the Divine Grace of God from her beginning?

The splitting seconds notion is the natural follow-up of the soul infusion theory.

Removing the declaration of it as a Dogma, as much as it is impossible, I think it will be celebrated greatly by the Orthodox.

As for being an OK theological opinion, It is not, according to the Eastern understanding of “Theology”, for in the Eastern sense, the Mariology is not Theology, if you really like to know about the Theology in the East read Saint Gregory the Theologian what he says about Theology. so there is nothing theological about the I.C. it is speculation as Bishop Kallistos Ware said, the I.C. did not happen, why should I give in to a theory that it didn’t take a place, and better-of it is the natural results of the Original Sin in which the O.S. was based on a wrong Biblical interpretations by Augustine, So the whole thing doesn’t have a shred of truth into it.

As for St. Mary to be infused with the Grace of GOD, The Grace of GOD is not something that would be infused but it is something that would come down on us and it fills us, in which it complete our lacks of, or it strengthens us, it enables us or inspires us etc…The Grace of GOD is on those who desire GOD and strife to please HIM, so in a sense you must desire GOD and strife to please HIM first.

I am not trying to take sides in this debate, I am just curious as to if this position would be an acceptable opinion to the Orthodox Churches.

I know you Formosus, you are genuine in your conversation and debates, and I would like you to know that I have lots of respect for your person and your words :tiphat: .

As an Orthodox laity, I can give you my personal opnion and I could be wrong, BUT, the I.C. as defined by the RCC is not acceptable because it is something that did not happen, and the base of it (Original Sin) is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[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.
Mickey;6727762:

LOL! St Gregory did not teach the IC. Bishop Kallistos seems to have changed his mind over time and calls it speculation—but does not teach the doctrine.

PS–I know Catholic bishops that allow nuns to teach many new age practices such as reiki, enneagram, mandalas, labyrinth, etc. Does that mean that you are permitted to believe these things are acceptable?

I second Mickey on that, and if I may add, by asking dvdjs, where did you see that the Orthodox Church accept the I.C.?

 

[Ignatios]

a doctrine does not become truth once it’s proclaimed… it’s proclaimed by the Pope because it is already believed by the faithful. The doctrine always existed, and it was proclaimed later on to be infallible. But that’s not when it became infallible.

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.

I think this is just saying that Mary’s conception was natural and not different in any way, except for the holiness of her being, which she had since the beginning of her existence in St Hannah’s womb (her conception). This is exactly what the RCC teaches

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).

 

[Ignatios]

Mickey, according to your logic (and lol’s), until the Trinity was defined, they did not teach the Trinity. Until Hypostatic Union was defined they did not teach Hypostatic Union. Until Transubstantiation was defined they did not teach Transubstantiation. Until the Immaculate Conception was defined they did not teach the Immaculate Conception. Until the Assumption of Mary was defined they did not teach the Assumption. You can’t pick and choose which doctrines the Church Fathers really did teach, and which ones we are just reading back into them. Your [flawed] logic works with every one of them. Whether you think a holy doctrine should be emphasized more in certain environments is one thing, but to call it heterodox is to be a heretic.

The clear defining of a doctrine does not make it an innovation. It’s just making it clearly defined. Councils and Supreme Pontiffs do not invent doctrines. They define them, based on statements of the Fathers and Holy Scripture, such as those presented previously. 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). Not to mention that you’d need quite a few, because where the majority of Fathers unanimously agree, it is typically considered a teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Unfortunately, you just make sarcastic statements and ignore the fact that you can’t produce such quotes. Blessings.

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.

 

[dvdjs]

LOL! I never laugh inappropriately.

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.
.

I thought that it was a legitimate analogy.

It was off topic and a total non sequitur.