A Question About The Immaculate Conception

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Good Day,IfIonlyhad

I find it really funny when Catholic answers "plays" a Greek scholar role

The NAB "renders"

And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

This is a RC translation, seems CA needs to update there views. Benedict has an view, that is good he is allowed to have one.... as are you, me and other RC'S. The vaidlity of those views are an other matter.

Peace to u,

Bill

*sigh*...

Almost all of these are Catholic sources:

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

The early Church father St. Jerome [who the translators of the 1611 King James Version called " a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him,".(From the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV)] translated "kecharitomene" as "gratiae plena" meaning 'full of grace which thou hast received" when creatingThe Vulgate. The Rheims new Testament [1582] has "Full of Grace". Many of the early Protestant versions also accepted "Grace" to be the proper translation.

Wyclif's Version [1380] the verse says "Full of Grace"
Tyndale's Version [1534] the verse says "Full of Grace"
Cranmer's Version [1539] the verse says "Full of Grace"
Geneva [1599] says in the Margin Notes "might be rendered, 'full of favour and grace, " [ The Link is to a Scan from a 1608 Printing of the Geneva Bible]
Authorized Version or KJV [1611] says in the Margin notes "Much Graced"
Polyglott Bible [1838] says in the Margin notes "or Much Graced"
Revised Version [1885] says in the Margin Notes: "Endowed with Grace".
American Standard Version [1901] says in the Margin Notes: "or Endowed with Grace".
Scofield Edition [1909, revised in 1914] says in the Margin Notes "or Endued with Grace"
New Standard Reference Bible [1934] says in the Margin notes "Much Graced"
The Holy Bible From The Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Gorge M. Lamsa's [1957] the verse says "peace be to you, O full of grace"
The Amplified [1958] in the verse (In brackets) "endowed with grace" with a foot note that says "literal translation"
A literal Translation by Jay P. Green [1985] the verse says "And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace!..."
The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Jay P. Green [2nd edition 1985] the verse says "...Hail, one receiving grace!...

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

For the Greek word in the Gospel is kecharitomene. It is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. A perfect passive participle is very strong. In addition, charitoo belongs to a group of verbs ending in omicron omega. They have in common that they mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root. Thus leukos means white, so leukoo means to make white. Then charitoo should mean to put into charis. That word charis can mean either favor or grace. But if we translate by favor, we must keep firmly in mind that favor must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything. That would be Pelagian: salvation possible without grace. So for certain, God does give something, and that something is grace, are share in His own life. So charitoo means to put into grace. But then too, kecharitomene is used in place of the name "Mary". This is like our English usage in which we say, for example, someone is Mr. Tennis. That means he is the ultimate in tennis. So then kecharitomene should mean "Miss Grace", the ultimate in grace. Hence we could reason that fullness of grace implies an Immaculate Conception.
Overflowing grace: Pius IX, in the document, Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854 wrote: "He [God] attended her with such great love, more than all other creatures, that in her alone He took singular pleasure. Wherefore He so wonderfully filled her, more than all angelic spirits and all the Saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts taken from the treasury of the divinity, that she, always free from absolutely every stain of sin, and completely beautiful and perfect, presented such a fullness of innocence and holiness that none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it."

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2005/features_may05.html

"The Angel Gabriel, addressing the Virgin of Nazareth after the greeting, chaire ‘rejoice’, calls her kecharitomene, ‘full of grace’. The words of the Greek text, chaire and kecharitomene are deeply interconnected: Mary is invited to rejoice primarily because God loves her and has filled her with grace in view of her divine motherhood! ... The expression ‘full of grace’ is the translation of the Greek word kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to rend more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely ‘full of grace’ but ‘made full of grace’, or even ‘filled with grace’, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift by God to the Blessed Virgin." [Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 8 May 1996, L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Some Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, (Luke 1:28). The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, "Χαίρε, Κεχαριτωμένη", Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced". The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel's salutation does not refer to the incarnation of Christ in Mary's womb, as he proceeds to say: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb ..." (Luke 1:31).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

http://www.dtl.org/catholicism/emails/mary/grace.htm

The response stated that the rendering full of grace occurs in the Douay Confraternity Version, Knox’s version, and St. Jerome's Vulgate. It then quoted the following sources for the meaning of the Greek word (kecharitomene) and it’s root charitoo:

Charitoo: akin to charis, to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious, and came to denote, in Hellenistic Greek, to cause to find favour, Luke 1:28, "highly favoured" (margin, "endued with grace") . . . Grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained" (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine).
Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson).]
It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace (Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Blass & DeBrunner).]
​

>This is the Catholic position, which as you can see is not only perfectly allowable, but probably is the more accurate. "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

http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/04ws/ws041202.htm

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/04ws/ws041202.htm

Going further to the original Greek text of the Gospel, we find the wording chaire kecharitomene. Chaire means "grace." The verb kecharitomene means "having been favored." The form of the verb is also important: here the verb does not simply imply "fullness," but rather instrumentality. The late Scripture scholar, Fr. Carroll Stuhlmueller noted, "Luke’s word puts the emphasis upon the source of goodness rather than upon its effects. In regard to Mary, therefore, he points out that she is the object of God’s grace and favor. Because the verb is also a participle, Mary is shown to have been chosen for a long time past; God’s full flow of favor has already been concentrating upon her.... In her, more than in anyone else, God’s messianic fulfillment is achieved. As such, she has received more– from and through God’s anticipation of Jesus’ redemptive work– than anyone else in the Old Testament of New Testament" (The Jerome Biblical Commentary).

http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-apr-05.htm

Kecharitomene is a Greek perfect, passive, participle, which could literally be translated "having been graced," since the root of the word is CHARIS, which means grace, or it could also mean favor. Ephesians 1:6 uses the aorist, active, indicative echaritosen, meaning "he graced.". The LXX uses kecharitomeno in Sirach 18:17 as an adjectival participle. Other derivatives appear in 2Macc 3:33 and 4 Macc 5:8.
In Luke 1:28 kecharitomene is titular, sinc it follows the greeting CHAIRE, thus the name would be capitalize in English translations. Whereas the Greek could have used a simple noun or verb to address Mary, the unique feature of kecharitomene is that it is in the Greek perfect tense, denoting that the state of grace began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present. A suitable translation to denote all these features might be "Fully-Graced One." The Greek passive voice denotes that Mary received the grace-title from an outside source, that is, God.
Although Luke 1:28 does not explicitly teach Mary's Immaculate Conception, its unique grammatical characteristics coincide very easily with the dogma.
Beginning with the Reformation, various translations of kecharitomene have tried to neutralize inferences to the Immaculate Conception (e.g., Theodore Beza used "freely beloved"; the KJV, RSV, NIV use "favored one" as do some modern Catholic translations (NAB, NJB). These translations attempt to portray the state of grace as extrinsic or forensic, not intrinsic or infused, and thus the difference in the translations from "full of grace" to "highly favored." This forensic application, of course, is a result of the Protestant doctrine of forensic imputation in justification originated by Martin Luther and John Calvin. The liberal Catholic scholars of the NAB have also accepted forensic justification, and they have also sought to demote the Immaculate Conception, and thus their natural choice for a translation would be "highly favored."
The Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims translate kecharitomene as "gratia plena" and "full of grace," respectively.
The New Testament uses the Greek PLERES CHARITOS ("full of grace") to describe Jesus in John 1:14) and Stephen (Acts 6:8), but these usages are not as specific to time, agent and continuity as kecharitomene.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mariology2.htm

However, in the original Greek, the Angel addresses Mary as Kecharitomene. Although "full of grace" is an acceptable translation for the word, the term itself expresses much more and is untranslatable into English. The root of this word is charis ("grace") and, as this term expresses the perfect tense in Greek, the meaning is not only "full of grace", but an abiding state of grace. The term implies that the one addressed thusly has always existed in a state of grace and that this plenitude is permanent and stable. Thus, Kecharitomene, the name given to Mary by God (and passed on to the messenger Gabriel), is not only a designation, but a word that reveals something essential about the one who bears it, just as "Isaac" meant "laughter" or "Peter" meant "rock". So, in the end, the "technical" or scientific" approach to the study of Our Lady confirms the Traditional, common sense Catholic teachings, such as the sinlessness of Mary or Her Immaculate Conception.

http://www.mariology.com/sections/revisit.html

Our fundamental basis for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived is Scripture. In our discussions of the Angel Gabriel's proclamation to Mary, "kecharitomene," we pointed out that this description of Mary means "that Mary was entirely transformed by the grace of God" and this "then means that God has preserved her from sin, 'purified' her, and sanctified her". The only explanation for the fact that this "transformation by grace" took place even before the birth of Jesus, as Scripture teaches so clearly, is Mary's immaculate conception through application of the merits of her Son's death. Precise doctrinal formulations of the exact manner in which Mary was conceived and born free of sin were understood only after centuries of reflection just as the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated only over a period of five centuries. Nevertheless, the doctrine that Mary was all-holy and free of all sin was accepted by all Christians for 19 centuries. The Orthodox call her Panagia or "all-holy." Luther had his own version of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas accepted Mary's freedom from sin although he did not fully comprehend the way in which she was preserved from Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception fits in with the dignity of Mary in Scripture and with her portrayal as the new Eve in the struggle against the Devil.
The Fundamentalists' critiques of the doctrine are again based on their novel interpretations of certain proof-texts, interpretations which contradict the historic consensus. Remarkably, none of the critiques of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems to show any familiarity with the true scriptural basis of this doctrine, the greeting of kecharitomene with which the Angel addresses Mary. Whether this greeting is translated "Rejoice, highly favored" or "Hail, full of grace," its underlying meaning is "transformed by grace." The significance of "transformed by grace" has been mentioned.

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm

The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally "highly favored with grace" (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary - before Christ's redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ's grace to us - after Christ's redemption).
Lk 1:28And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, "Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)"Eph 1:4-6(God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved. Note that the angel's salutation preceded Mary's acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God's grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel's word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary's life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary's conception she could have done nothing to earn it.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1205.asp

First the angel says, “Hail, full of grace.” No one else in the Bible has ever been honored by an angel with such an exalted title. The Greek word kecharitomene, which here is translated “full of grace,” indicates that Mary already possesses God’s saving grace. The Lord has prepared her as a pure and holy temple in which the divine Christ child will dwell for nine months. Now the Son of God will reside in the womb of a woman who is full of grace.
The Catholic Church has often turned to this passage when commenting on Mary’s Immaculate Conception—the belief that Mary was conceived full of grace as God prepared her to be the mother of the Messiah.

 

[sempervirens]

2. IF "Tradition" were so abundantly clear in teaching this dogma, why does the EO disagree with the RCC on this? Don't you both claim to have received EXACTLY the same "Tradition" from the Apostles? Always have? Fully, completely, pefectly, infallibly?

Both agree that she is the ever-virgin Theotokos. Both agree she is Ark of the New Covenant.unblemished by any willed sin. Both agree she is the New Eve whose fiat sets in motion the incarnation which unwinds the fall of man. These truths were handed down by the fathers - the EO object to the dogma of the IC because it is framed in the western understanding of original sin - but they assent to the underlying truth that she is the New Eve - do you?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, A_ntv

Thanks for the reply, but fails to answer my question.

What Church was Augustine a bishop of?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[lionroar0]

What Church was Augustine a bishop of?

He was the Bishop of Hippo.

Peace

 

[a_ntv]

Good Day, A_ntv

Thanks for the reply, but fails to answer my question.

What Church was Augustine a bishop of?

Peace to u,

Bill

I dont understand you.
He was bishop of Hippo. You wrote also in your previuos post.
Do you mean that he was a bishop of the Catholic Church? ok, you are true (a part that in the V century you cannot do a dinstinction between CC and EO)

I answered you anyway that: 'Not any teaching of any bishop is true doctrine'. He developed an idea of original sin that is only in part accepted by the CC: before to him the idea of original sin in the Christian world (east +west) was not well defined: he tried to settle doew this theological matter, but his work is not a dogmatic work for the CC.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is a common misconception - even among catholics. The RCC does not teach that the IC was somehow necessary for the incarnation. It seems fitting and proper that Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant would be unblemished by sin - but its not a requirement - God is God - he can do what he wants.

I would like to elaborate on this.

God is God . .He could have saved us without Christ having died on the cross . .

But God chose this way, and in choosing this way, He chose to make Mary immaculate from the momment of her conception. He chose that Jesus would inherit a flawless human nature naturally, and so Mary would have needed to have been able to pass on this flawless human nature, unfallen human nature, unwounded human nature, naturally.

So, in the most absolute sense, Mary's immaculate conception was not "necessary" - God could have chosen another way . . God is God.

But we can hypothesize all we want and it won't really get us anywhere . We know what God chose to do . . To become incarante in the womb of a virgin, to become man, a perfect man . .the God-Man.

God could not have joined Himself to a sinful human nature, and Jesus had no wounding of original sin. Jesus had to get His perfect, unwounded human nature from somewhere. And to be a true descendent of Adam, He would have needed to get it from a descendent of Adam. He got His human nature from Mary. In order to inherit a flawless human nature from Mary naturally, Mary would have had to have been able to pass one on naturally. If her human nature was wounded, she would not have been able to pass on an unwounded human nature to Jesus naturally.

Jf Mary had not been able to pass on an unwounded human nature naturally to Jesus, then God would have had to have intervened in Jesus' conception. Now, while on the surface that would seem to present no problem, in reality it does, for then that requires that God would need to have intervened in Jesus conception and that intervention would necessitate a type of salvation . . ie God would have had to "save" Jesus from sin.

If Jesus needed to be saved from sin, then He would have needed a savior Himself, and thus could not have been our perfect savior.

So, in God's plan of redemption, in order for Jesus to inherit an unblemished, unwounded human nature from Mary and be true descendent of Adam, a true 2nd Adam directy related to you and me in the human race, He would have needed to receive this human nature naturally from Mary.

Mary, then in turn, would have needed to have been able to pass on an unwounded human nature.

The only way this was possible is through her own salvation at the momment of conception. At the momment of her conception, God intervened, "saved" her, by healing the wound in the human nature, so she was conceived without a wounded human nature.

As God promised in Genesis 3:15, He put enmity between 'the woman' (Mary) and 'the serpent' (satan). There was never any affinity between Mary and satan . .sin and a sin nature causes affinity to some degree, even if small . . but God promised only enmity between them.

So, while God could have done anything He wanted, He chose a certain way, and in that way, Mary's immaculate conception was necessary.

Rather the IC has to do with Mary's role as the New Eve. In catholic theology original sin is not "original guilt" - its that we are all born missing a God shaped piece of the soul as a result of the fall. Baptism fills this hole with God's grace. By a particular favor of God Mary is filled with this grace at her conception - so that at the visitation she is in state that Eve was in the Garden. Mary obeys God where Eve did not, setting in motion the events which will unwind the fall in the person of the new Adam - Jesus. But Mary is a creature like all of us and in need of a savior as well - we were all destined for death after the fall - God just happened to catch her before she fell down the hole that he reaches down into to pick the rest of us out of.

Very well said.


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Mary is not the only woman to have become pregnant from the holy spirit and received the news of the pregnancy before hand from an angel.

Excuse me, but I have never heard anyone assert such a thing before.

What other woman in all of history was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit? What other child in all of history was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and a woman?

So say that Mary became pregnant from the Holy Spirit is to say that the Holy Spirit was involved in the conception of Jesus in place of a natural, human father.

What other woman in all of history conceived a child by the Holy Spirit in place of a natural human father?



Because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He is fully man and God. . . the God-Man.

What other child in history was a God-Man?

original sin, is a lie from satan as far as i know.

I am not sure what you mean by "original sin" or what you think it is. but the fallen human nature is described in the scriptures . . so unless you are saying that what is in the scriptures is a lie from satan, which I don't think is what you mean to say, I am not sure what you mean by this.

Peace

 

[Assisi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. God saves in two ways, by forgiving us for sins we have committed and by preserving us from future sin. Most people can think of an example of preservation from sin in their own life. The one I like to use is that I was a virgin on my wedding day. It was not through my own merit that I had not comitted the sin of fornication, it was because Christ saved me from that sin. My family, my husband, our church community, and whole lot of guidance from the Holy Spirit all played a part in Christ's work. In the same way, Christ preserved Mary from all sin from the moment of her conception. In a fallen world this can seem impossible, but nothing is impossible to God.

Mary truly was a tabernacle to the Lord. God is so holy, so he made her an imaccualate dwelling place for His Son.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Indeed. The Orthodox Church rejects the Immaculate Conception. (I'm sure some non-Orthodox will be happy to disagree and let us know what we actually believe... )

They didn't used to. In fact, the EO were the champions of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church, and were the first to celebrate it (Feast of St Anne's Conception (of Mary)). The liturgy of the EO pays tribute to Mary's immaculate conception.

It has only been in recent centuries that the EO have distanced themselves to varying degrees from what the Ancient Eastern Church once taught and believed.

In fact, when Thomas Aquinas questioned Mary's immaculate conception on the basis of his understanding of ensoulement (ie ensoulment did not take place for a few months after conception, so Mary was not there when her body was conceived) the Greek Orthodox took huge exception and chastised him for not believing that Mary was immaculate from the momment of her conception.

[quoite]
The IC is based on Augustine's understanding of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects altogether. We venerate St. Augustine as a true image of repentance, and as a pious saint, but we pretty much follow none of his theology.

Rdr Moses[/quote]

There are huge misunderstandings in the East about the West's conception of original sin . . . I have to run, but maybe we can look at this later.


Peace

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

Both agree that she is the ever-virgin Theotokos. Both agree she is Ark of the New Covenant.unblemished by any willed sin. Both agree she is the New Eve whose fiat sets in motion the incarnation which unwinds the fall of man. These truths were handed down by the fathers - the EO object to the dogma of the IC because it is framed in the western understanding of original sin - but they assent to the underlying truth that she is the New Eve - do you?

Excellent post. Very well said.

They didn't used to. In fact, the EO were the champions of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church, and were the first to celebrate it (Feast of St Anne's Conception (of Mary)). The liturgy of the EO pays tribute to Mary's immaculate conception.

It has only been in recent centuries that the EO have distanced themselves to varying degrees from what the Ancient Eastern Church once taught and believed.

In fact, when Thomas Aquinas questioned Mary's immaculate conception on the basis of his understanding of ensoulement (ie ensoulment did not take place for a few months after conception, so Mary was not there when her body was conceived) the Greek Orthodox took huge exception and chastised him for not believing that Mary was immaculate from the momment of her conception.

The IC is based on Augustine's understanding of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects altogether. We venerate St. Augustine as a true image of repentance, and as a pious saint, but we pretty much follow none of his theology.

Rdr Moses

There are huge misunderstandings in the East about the West's conception of original sin . . . I have to run, but maybe we can look at this later.


Peace

We have always celebrated the conception- we have never (ever) celebrated the "Immaculate" conception. As stated above- it's built on a framework of Original Sin that we do not accept. I would add that it was declared a dogma by a Pope, which we have never been subject to, using his infallibility, which we never believed he had. That's kind of beside the point, since it was believed in the RCC before it was dogmatized. I think the primary misunderstanding is that the EO and RCC are pretty much the same. We're really not. I don't want to debate my RCC bro's & sis's (we need to stick together in GT ) so I'll leave it with this: we both love the most-holy Theotokos, and ask for her holy prayers before her Son and God.

Rdr Moses

 

[Eruliel]

Mary truly was a tabernacle to the Lord. God is so holy, so he made her an imaccualate dwelling place for His Son.

This is what I was talking about! Jesus resides in Christians, and therefore he resides in sinners. Why should mary be any different? She was blessed of all women, and women bless her. I know I do, but to put her in a state of perfection, a state only God can claim, appears to me to be nigh on blasphemy!
Slainte!
Eruliel.

 

[Assisi]

I can understand your concern, but let me explain. A perfect human is not the same as a perfect God. Perfection is posible for humans (Mat 5:48). And when we enter heaven we will be perfect, not unclean (rev 21:27) because nothing unclean can enter heaven. Christ perfects us by His salvific power. Adam and Eve were perfect before the fall, and God made us all to be perfect. By following Christ we will become perfect. But we will not be God's rivals in heaven, we will be His children and servants.

So we are not trying to set up Mary as a god. We see her perfection as a sign of hope for us all.

I agree with you that we are all temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). But I think there's a difference between having the Holy Spirit in you and having Christ's body in you. It's for this reason that Catholics must be in a 'state of grace' (free from sin) when they receive our Lord in the Eucharist. It would be dangerous to receive unworthily.

1 Corinthians 11.25-12.1 25In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

I can see that it can seem as though the reasons for our beliefs are inconsistant with other beliefs. But when put in the context of all catholic beliefs they really aren't. We are, at least, consistent.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Excellent post. Very well said.



We have always celebrated the conception- we have never (ever) celebrated the "Immaculate" conception.

Actually, that's not true. We can end up arguing semmantics, but that won't get us anywhere.

The East celebrates Mary All Holy, Panagia, without spot or stain. The East celebrates her conception, also without spot or stain.

It wasn't until after the Reformation that the idea that Mary had a wounded human nature began to surface in the East, and without looking at my research, I believe it first surfaced in Russia. Not all EO have accepted the change in belief, but it has spread.

I will be happy to share the results of my research with you if you like. If you look at your own liturgies, you will see that Mary is celebrated as being spotless from her conception.

Part of what has happened between East and West is that the West went on to move this doctrine to the level of dogma, and the East didn't. For the East, this is unacceptable, and no doctrine should be moved to the level of dogma without it being done jointly. This has caused difficulties and the East's rejection of moving this to the level of dogma without the East has resulted in further confusion and rejection of what the East once championed. In my opinion, the East has made a knee jerk reaction to the West's promulgation of this doctrine to the level of dogma.

The issue though is why has the East changed its beliefs, in many circles, regarding this doctrine? Why has the East, which claims to be unchangeable, changed this once all important doctrine?

As stated above- it's built on a framework of Original Sin that we do not accept.

Do you accept that the human race has a wounded human nature?

I would add that it was declared a dogma by a Pope, which we have never been subject to, using his infallibility, which we never believed he had.

We could discuss this for a very long time . . I have done so many times in the past, but I don't have the ability to engage in long discussions right now due to health reasons. But to set the record straight, the Pope did not declare this dogma by himself. He did so after consultation with and agreement from the Bishops of the Church. It was always the doctrine of the Church as it once was in the EO. It was simply elevated to the level of dogma by the Pope in conjunction with the Bishops of the Church.

That's kind of beside the point, since it was believed in the RCC before it was dogmatized. I think the primary misunderstanding is that the EO and RCC are pretty much the same. We're really not. I don't want to debate my RCC bro's & sis's (we need to stick together in GT ) so I'll leave it with this: we both love the most-holy Theotokos, and ask for her holy prayers before her Son and God.

Rdr Moses

I was once EO . . I was brought up EO, my uncle was a priest, my grandfather a priest and my uncle and archbishop. I am very familiar with the EO and the EO feelings regarding Catholicism in general. I have to disagree with you. We are pretty much the same, with many differences in culture, emphasis in spiritual understanding, but until recently, we believed the same things. What I have found, much to my saddness, is that indeed, the EO in many circles have departed from some of the ancient doctrines of the Church. This is one of those instances.

I don't want to debate my EO brothers and sisters either. My quandry is when error is unintentionally being promoted, and I can help provide information to clear things up a little, how do I present information to clear things up without appearing as though I am debating my EO brethern. It's not easy to do.

Here is information I collected a while ago - I hope it helps:


The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church

First, I would like to note that the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was first and foremost an Eastern one.

The East were the first to actively promote this belief, they were the first to celebrate this belief, and they were the ones to most actively champion the firm belief that Mary was conceived Immaculate.

Quotes from the Eastern Early Chuch Fathers:

St Ephraim the Syrian (AD 306-373) wrote:

"Thou and Thine mother are the only ones who are utterly beautiful in every way. For in Thee, O Lord, there is no stain, and in Your mother no stain”
​

(ie. implying no actual sins or original sin).

St Ephraim continues with,

“Mary and Eve were two people without guilt. Later one became the cause of our death, the other cause of our life."
​

("Guilt" must mean the inherited taint of original sin on the soul, as well as actual sins. And Eve later did sin, thus obtaining guilt.)

Also, St Gregory of Nyssa (AD 335-395) wrote about the Blessed Mother as

"Mary without stain" (of sin).
​

St Ambrose (c. AD 430) wrote of Mary as,

"..a virgin not only undefiled, but whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain."
​

St Severus (d.538), Early Church Father and bishop of Antioch taught:

"She (Mary) formed part of the human race and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate."
​

St Sophronius (AD 556 - 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote

"Many saints appeared before you, but none has been filled with grace as you, no one has been purified in advance as you have been."
​

St John Damascene wrote

"Your immaculate body, which was preserved from all stain of sin, did not remain on the earth."
​

St John’s key words of “all sin” must include original sin

​

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was first celebrated in the East as early as the 7th century. It is known as the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne (referring to Mary's Conception by St. Anne) ( c.675-c.749 AD)

It was adopted in the West several centuries later. Thomas Aquinas attests to ist existence in churches of his day. (Summa Theologica, III, q 27, art. 2, ad 3)


In the 8th century, the last of the Eastern Fathers composed this prayer rejoicing in Mary's (Immaculate) Conception free from all stain:

THE MARIAN PRAYER OF
SAINT JOHN DAMASCENE
(A.D. 754)​

Today, the root of Jesse has produced its shoot:
she will bring forth a Divine flower for the world.
Today, the Creator of all things,
God the Word,
composes a new book:
a book issuing from the heart of his Father
and written by the Holy Spirit,
who is the tongue to God.

O daughter of King David and Mother of God,
the universal King;
O Divine and living object
whose beauty has charmed God the Creator;
your whole soul is completely open
to God?s action and attentive to God alone.

All your desires are centered
only on what merits to be sought
and is worthy of love.
You harbour anger only for sin and its author.
You will have a life superior to nature,
but not for your own sake.
For it has not been created for you
but has been entirely consecrated to God,
who has introduced you into the world
to help bring about our salvation
in fulfillment of his plan,
the Incarnation of his Son
and the Divinization of the human race.

Your heart will find nourishment in the words of God,
like the tree planted near the living waters of the Spirit,
like the tree of life
that has yielded its fruit in due time,
the incarnate God who is the life of all things.

Your ears will be ever attentive to the Divine words
and the sounds of the harp of the Spirit,
through whom the Word has come to take on our flesh.
Your nostrils will inhale the fragrance of the Bridegroom,
the Divine fragrance with which He scented His humanity.

Your lips will savour the words of God
and will rejoice in their Divine sweetness.
Your most pure heart,
free from all stain,
will ever see the God of all purity
and will experience ardent desire for Him.

Your womb will be the abode
of the one whom no place can contain.
Your milk will provide nourishment for God,
in the little Infant Jesus.
Your hands will carry God,
and your knees will serve
as a throne for Him
that is more noble
than the throne of the Cherubim.

Your feet, led by the light of the Divine Law,
will follow Him along an undeviating course
and guide you to the possession of the Beloved.

You are the temple of the Holy Spirit,
the city of the living God,
made joyous by abundant flowers,
the sacred flowers of Divine grace.
You are all-beautiful
and very close to God,
above the Cherubim
and higher than the Seraphim,
right near God Himself!


http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00096.htm
​

The above prayer rejoices in the day of Mary's Conception "TODAY" writes St John Damascene.

"Today" the root of Jesse has produced it's shoot - Mary

"Today" God composes a new book - issuing from the heart of his Father, composed by the Holy Spirit - Mary

"Today", the day that God composes this new book, her whole soul is completely open to God?s action and attentive to God alone. - Mary

"Today" the day God composes this new book, all her desires are centered only on what merits to be sought and is worthy of love.

"Today" the day God composes this new book, her heart is most pure, and free from all stain


We also see clear evidence that Mary was believed to have been immaculate at conception within the liturgy of the Eastern Church​

. . . from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as "archrantos", "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed:​

"This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary...";

"She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; or

"Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...."

[References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]
​

As we progress into the 2nd millenium, we see the strong and unanimous support among the East for Mary's Immaculate Conception:​

Among the better known ninth to thirteenth century Byzantine theologians:

Patriarch Photius in his homilies "De Annuntiatione" and "De Nativitate Deiparae" (S. Aristarchis, "Photiou logoi kai homiliai" Vol. II [Constantinople, 1900], pp. 230-245, 368-380);
George of Nicomedia in his homilies (PG 100, 1336-1504), especially "Conceptione deiparae" and "Praesentatione Mariae virginis";
Michael Psellos in the recently discovered and edited homily "De Annuntiatione" (PO 16, pp. 517-525);
John Phurnensis, "Oratione de Dormitione" (G. Palamas, "Theophanous tou kerameos homiliai", [Jerusalem, 1860], append., pp. 271-276);
Michael Glykas, "Annales", III (PG 158, 439-442);
Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople, "In annuntiationem" (edit. Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 283-382);
Theognostos the Monk, "In dormitionem" (PO 16, pp. 457-562); Nicetas David, "In nativitatem B.M.V." (PG 105, 16-28);
Leo the Wise, "In dormitionem" and "In praesentationeum" (PG 107, 12-21);
Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, "In Conceptionem Annae"(PO 16, pp. 499-505);
Bishop Peter Argorum, "In conceptionem B. Annae"PG 104, 1352-1365);
John Mauropos, "In dormitionem"(PG 120, 1075-1114);
James the Monk, "In nativitatem et in praesentationem B.M.V. PO 16, pp. 528-538).
Cf. Jugie, "'immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale [Rome, 1952], pp. 164-307, for others.
​

In the Eastern Liturgies

The Byzantine Orthodox Liturgies of 9 December​

"...The prelude of God's grace falls today on humanity in the conception of the all-immaculate.."

"..The unique all-immaculate is today made manifest to the just by the angels.."

"..Mary's conception is the joy of the world because the curse has come to an end and the blessing has begun..".

“on this day, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary.”
saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary.”
​

Burton notes:​

These phrases about the Theotokos identify her as unique, but not separate from the rest of humanity, and one wonders how anyone can sing these phrases while thinking that at the first moment of her human existence she suffered the taint of original sin. She was as pure as Eve was . . .
​

One would wonder how anyone can sing these phrases and call her the "All-Holy" "Panagai" and think that she could have ever been anything other than the Panagia, the All-Holy. Immaculate means pure, unstained.



Peace
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is what I was talking about! Jesus resides in Christians, and therefore he resides in sinners.

Ahh . . There is a very significant difference between Jesus residing in us spiritually and the Godhead residing in Mary bodily.

Do you believe that God the Son joined Himself forever to sinful human flesh and joined Himself forever to a sinful human nature?

I would not think so. Where did Jesus get His sinless human nature without needing intervention and thus saving Himself?

You see, Jesus dwelling within you spiritually is not at all the same thing as God the Son joining Himself to a human body and nature and the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Jesus andn thus within Mary herself from His conception to delivery.

Do you see that this is something very different that what you have spiritually?

We cannot rightly compare them in any way as equal expieriences.

Why should mary be any different? She was blessed of all women, and women bless her. I know I do, but to put her in a state of perfection, a state only God can claim, appears to me to be nigh on blasphemy!
Slainte!
Eruliel.

Did Jesus take His human nature from you or from Mary?

Did the fulness of the Godhead dwell bodily within you or within Mary?

Do you see that Mary was uniquely different, with a unique calling that was hers and hers alone and which not one other human being that ever lived, or ever will live, will ever come close to?

The fulness of the Godhead, which the universe cannot containe, dwelt within Mary bodily!

Think about this . . . deeply . . . .




Peace

 

[a_ntv]

Excellent
We have always celebrated the conception- we have never (ever) celebrated the "Immaculate" conception. As stated above- it's built on a framework of Original Sin that we do not accept. I would add that it was declared a dogma by a Pope, which we have never been subject to, using his infallibility, which we never believed he had. That's kind of beside the point, since it was believed in the RCC before it was dogmatized. I think the primary misunderstanding is that the EO and RCC are pretty much the same. ...

You are right
EO and CC are not the same: CC is keeping alive the teaching of the apostles, while EO is becaming more and more protestantized.
See my post #18 for lots a support of this my statment about the IC.

But CC goes on on keeping the truth: when the truth is in danger, the CC defines 'dogmas' to save it: even if that is unpleasant and non-ecumenic.

Sometime it looks likes that some EO people are leaded by an anti-catholic attitude. That is extremly clear: consider the patriarch of Russia that do not want even to meet the pope: (Matt5:23) So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
In that, protestants are by far better.

Why this hate? you shall go back centuries, and see the different understandings of the role of the Church: a state-based church, typical of EO in the Bizanzium Empire, or a Church separated by the State, a Universal, Catholic Church. Orthodox do NOT teach their converts that the real cause of 1054 schism, it was the contrapposition between the pope and the emperator, the emperator who was considered a full 'vicar of Christ' (or worse: ad instance he was incensed, anyone had to lay down before him, icons of the emperator were kept in procession and used for blessing): but I'll open an other thread about it, because it is out from OP topic.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

Sometime it looks likes that EO is leaded by only a thought: the hate against CC

Thanks for dismissing and trivializing our religion.

Rdr Moses

 

[Assisi]

Thanks for dismissing and trivializing our religion.

Rdr Moses

Exactly! Seems a bit harsh on the Orthodox! The Orthodox I know make it seem to me that their community is driven by only one thought. God.

 

[HisKid1973]

You are right
EO and CC are not the same: CC is keeping alive the teaching of the apostles, while EO is becaming more and more protestantized.

Ntv..Ponder this response from Jesus and tell me what you think...
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
As far as I know, we are all lifting up the same Jesus, we're just not doing it your way.
Thanks.....God Bless.....Kim

 

[a_ntv]

Ntv..Ponder this response from Jesus and tell me what you think...
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
As far as I know, we are all lifting up the same Jesus, we're just not doing it your way.
Thanks.....God Bless.....Kim

I (and the whole CC) consider the EO and OO True Churches, with true Apostolic Succession, true sacrament and a very correct doctrine.
That is not the point

Thanks for dismissing and trivializing our religion.

Rdr Moses

Sorry if my post was too harsh

I have nothing against 'your religion', that is also my religion.

It is that many time the attitude of many orthodoxes people that is very negative towards us.
In a thread like this one, the contribute of orthodoxes was mainly to attach the CC, clearing and stating the differences.
I would have like to read something like "our catholic brothers call Mary 'Immaculate Conception', we call Her 'The All-Saint', what a wonderfull similar doctrines!", but, on-the-contrary, we are always attached using false and wrong propaganda (like the statment that CC follows the Augustinian theology of the guity in original sin).

This attitude here, is anyway the attitude teached by the higher EO partriarchs, like the Patriarch of Moscow.
Each time the Pope asks forgiveness and looks to re-stabilish a relationship, each time we are rejected.

IMO it is the base of EO Church that have to change attitude, not to get a unity, but simply to arrive to a the minimum of the 'politically correct' (i.e. a simple shake of hands)