Immaculate conception of Mary?

justinangel · Dec 10, 2015

prodromos said:
We believe that when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit she was made pure.

Mary was full of grace and had found favour with God before she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Lk1:28, 30). To God Mary was the mother of our Lord the first instant He fashioned her soul and sanctified it with His grace for this reason. As the new Ark of the Covenant, Mary was made pure and undefiled according to God's strict specifications. She didn't become that at some point in time, as neither did the old Ark of the Covenant. This divine truth was affirmed by Church Fathers of the 3rd century who drew a parallel between Mary and the Ark. Luke himself draws the same parallel with references to 2 Samuel.

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

Albion said:
"Blind Conjecture" That's a good one, especially since I provided the references, including from Roman Catholic sources, showing that I was right.

Where did you do that?

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

prodromos said:
Nothing has changed, you simply read their statements through the lense of the Latin doctrine regarding "original sin", thus you understand them differently.

What "statements" are those?

prodromos · Dec 10, 2015

justinangel said:
Citations, please.

If I have the time to dig them up I will do so. I'm currently in Greece on the other side of the world from my computer, so you will have to forgive me if I can't provide immediately what you ask.
[edit] On second thoughts, just pop over to TAW subforum and ask there. I know the same question was asked and answered there not to long ago. [/edit]

I'm absolutely sure. I provided a link which lists the writings of the East and West Church Fathers. Obviously you ignored it.

Translations that capitalise the word "catholic" regardless of how the word is used in the text do not count.

prodromos · Dec 10, 2015

patricius79 said:
What "statements" are those?

The ones you quoted earlier.

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

prodromos said:
The ones you quoted earlier.

So you agree, then, that the quotations given are accurate, and that the early Church did describe Mary as "having no affinity with sin" or the like?

As far as the doctrine of Original Sin, how exactly do you see the difference between on us that matter?

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

prodromos said:
If I have the time to dig them up I will do so. I'm currently in Greece on the other side of the world from my computer, so you will have to forgive me if I can't provide immediately what you ask.
[edit] On second thoughts, just pop over to TAW subforum and ask there. I know the same question was asked and answered there not to long ago. [/edit]

Translations that capitalise the word "catholic" regardless of how the word is used in the text do not count.

Here is one of the quotations at the link provided by Justin: (whether the word "Catholic" is capitalized or not, it seems like "catholic" is used repeatedly as the primary name of the true Church)

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).
http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_II

prodromos · Dec 10, 2015

patricius79 said:
So you agree, then, that the quotations given are accurate,

No, I'm still waiting for one of your lot to supply links to the works. I have no idea whether they are genuine or not and neither do you.

As far as the doctrine of Original Sin, how exactly do you see the difference between on us that matter?

That is the subject of a whole thread on its own. I recommend you pop over to TAW and ask.

justinangel · Dec 10, 2015

laternonjuror said:
Hello again,!! Councils.

For Traditional Anglicans the magisterium is Christ's Revelation,Scripture, the Bishops in Council,(Seven Ecumenical Councils.) The latter being guided as I understand by the Holy Ghost!
The Councils , at least three of them declared or defined the Lady Mary as the Mother of God, the Theotokos, telling us further that she is, Spotless , Immaculate and Ever Virgin . These things come to us from the teaching of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and has been a constant in the faith of the Church. There's no teaching for The Lady being immaculately conceived.

First of all, there are more than seven ecumenical councils, including those that were convoked in the Catholic Church after the East-West schism. I'm sure you're familiar with the Council of Trent which condemned the Protestant heresies.

Second, no ecumenical council has formally defined the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, though this doctrine is a divine truth belonging to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. The closest thing to a definition occurred in the 7th century at the First Lateran regional synod at Rome by the decree of Pope Martin l who anathematized any Catholic who rejected this traditional belief and teaching of the Church. This council was convoked to condemn the Monothelite heresy in the East, where every major heresy had sprung. Thank Christ for his Vicar! (Luke 22:32).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

Mary's Divine Motherhood was not the object of an independent or exclusive dogmatic declaration. The statement belongs to texts defining the person and natures of Jesus Christ. Thus the dogma of Mary being the Mother of God is an integral part of the christological dogma. Still this does not diminish its definitive and binding character. Further, the ECFs taught this doctrine since the time of Ignatius of Antioch in A.D.110. What made this an infallible teaching was the fact that it belonged to the deposit of faith, albeit a dogmatic definition.

Third, don't expect the first seven ecumenical councils to declare anything about Mary other than her Divine Maternity. The councils weren't convoked for the purpose of teaching anything, but to dutifully preserve and uphold those sacred traditions that were being challenged by individual clergy and their followers. From the very beginning, the Church had to constantly discern the authentic sacred traditions passed down from the apostles from many false accounts that had weeded their way in the oral tradition. These controversies and heresies, if they had been adopted by the Church, would have ruined the faith. You can't imagine just how close Arianism came to destroying what the apostles had planted all because of one Alexandrian priest, who even had the audacity to appeal to the Scriptures to support his reasoning. Hence, the seven ecumenical councils served as the antidote to such poisons in the life blood of the Church. If you examine all the heresies that had to be dealt with, none of them, save Nestorianism, had any connection with Marian doctrines. So don't expect any declarations on Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven from these council Fathers. As I've already shown, the Church Fathers, mostly from the East, implicitly and more explicitly taught that Mary was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin. Pope Pius lX appealed to the testimony of sacred Tradition in his Apostolic Constitution which defines the teaching and makes it binding on all Christians to believe.

Observe the following statements and phrases:

Irenaeus: "“And just as through Eve man was stricken down and fell into death, so through Mary man was reanimated and received life. ... For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin’s intercessor.”

He's typifying Mary as the new Eve, that is Eve before the fall: Blessed above all women ( Gen. 3:15' Lk 1:42).

Hippolytus: "exempt from putridity and corruption"

He's typifying Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant - fashioned pure and undefiled by God's specifications (Exodus 25).

Ephraem: "there is no flaw in thee (Jesus) and no stain in thy Mother."

The child Mary conceived was holy from the point of his conception. Ephrem is equating the two.

Ambrose: "Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."

Every stain: original and personal.

Proclus of Constantinople: "he formed her without any stain of her own"

The magic word: formed - as in the womb, without any stain of her own. The stain of original sin is our own once we are conceived as descendants of Adam. It's the fallen state of our nature. We don't acquire it some time after we are conceived or born.

Theodotus of Ancrya: "A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."

Our human defects are an effect of original sin. Mary is untouched by them. She's an exception to the rule - a lily among thorns.

Peter Chrysologus: "she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."

We are made the first instant God infuses our souls into our bodies at conception. We don't acquire our souls weeks or months after we are conceived as Buddhists believe. Mary was actually pledged to be the Mother of God as soon as God fashioned her soul and sanctified it. Why should this be a problem?

Jacob of Sarug: "The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary."

God predestined Mary to be the mother of our Lord before she was conceived. She wasn't chosen at the time of the Annunciation. How could there be the most holy human creature in all of humanity unless she was exempted from all stain of sin: original and personal by the grace of God?

Theotokos of Livias: "she who is of a pure, immaculate clay"

This has an ontological ring to it, don't you think?

Germanus of Constantinople: "having no affinity with sin whatever."

He is describing Mary as having a spontaneous and natural hatred for sin. The state of original sin doesn't fit the bill. And I doubt Bishop Germanus was Pelagian. The truth is God made Mary this way by His grace so she would be the most perfect mother for His Only-begotten Son.

John of Damascus: "O most blessed loins of Joachim (Mary's father) from which came forth a spotless seed!"

Mary came forth from the womb spotless. And loins and seed have to do with conception. Notice he doesn't use the word offspring. "Blessed loins" and "spotless seed" are juxtaposed with each other. Joachim's loins ( a euphemism for genitals) are blessed because the child he conceived was made spotless at her conception.

It seems to me you prefer to pick and choose what has come down to us through the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. The first seven ecumenical councils don't include everything that has been believed and taught, because they are not mediums of divine revelation comprising the deposit of faith. Scripture and Tradition are the only two mediums. The councils function to preserve and uphold the deposit of faith. By the way, all the decisions reached by the councils in the wake of heresies had to be formally approved by the Bishop of Rome acting in his capacity as the chief universal shepherd or Pope.

"I will put enmity between you and the woman."
Genesis 3, 15

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

prodromos said:
No, I'm still waiting for one of your lot to supply links to the works. I have no idea whether they are genuine or not and neither do you.

That is the subject of a whole thread on its own. I recommend you pop over to TAW and ask.

I believe you were talking about how we read "their statements" about our Mother, Mary, through the lens of our understanding of Original Sin.

So I'm wondering what you believe the early Church fathers did and didn't teach about the Mother of God's holiness, and how the Orthodox differ from the Catholic Church as to Original Sin, if you know.

I'm also wondering if the Orthodox Church today refers to itself as catholic/Catholic in the way the early Church and the Council of Nicea, for example, did.

concretecamper · Dec 10, 2015

justinangel said:
What references might those be?

indeed

Arsenios · Dec 25, 2015

patricius79 said:
I'm wondering what you believe the early Church fathers did and didn't teach about the Mother of God's holiness,
and how the Orthodox differ from the Catholic Church as to Original Sin, if you know.

"More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, Thou who without corruption bearest God the Word and art Truely Theotokos, we magnify Thee!"

In more mundane terms, we simply look to the words we pray in the Divine Liturgy we celebrate as it was passed on to us from St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century... And going beyond that, the Liturgies of St. Basil and and St. Gregory and other early Christian Liturgies also bear Orthodox witness...

Are the Latins still serving the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

I know that they used to do so...

I'm also wondering if the Orthodox Church today refers to itself as catholic/Catholic in the way the early Church and the Council of Nicea, for example, did.

Yes, of course...

We are the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ...

We have been for 2000 years...

Rome was within our Communion for the first thousand years...

Arsenios

Arsenios · Dec 25, 2015

justinangel said:
First of all, there are more than seven ecumenical councils, including those that were convoked in the Catholic Church after the East-West schism. I'm sure you're familiar with the Council of Trent which condemned the Protestant heresies.

Second, no ecumenical council has formally defined the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, though this doctrine is a divine truth belonging to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. The closest thing to a definition occurred in the 7th century at the First Lateran regional synod at Rome by the decree of Pope Martin l who anathematized any Catholic who rejected this traditional belief and teaching of the Church. This council was convoked to condemn the Monothelite heresy in the East, where every major heresy had sprung. Thank Christ for his Vicar! (Luke 22:32).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm

Mary's Divine Motherhood was not the object of an independent or exclusive dogmatic declaration. The statement belongs to texts defining the person and natures of Jesus Christ. Thus the dogma of Mary being the Mother of God is an integral part of the christological dogma. Still this does not diminish its definitive and binding character. Further, the ECFs taught this doctrine since the time of Ignatius of Antioch in A.D.110. What made this an infallible teaching was the fact that it belonged to the deposit of faith, albeit a dogmatic definition.

Third, don't expect the first seven ecumenical councils to declare anything about Mary other than her Divine Maternity. The councils weren't convoked for the purpose of teaching anything, but to dutifully preserve and uphold those sacred traditions that were being challenged by individual clergy and their followers. From the very beginning, the Church had to constantly discern the authentic sacred traditions passed down from the apostles from many false accounts that had weeded their way in the oral tradition. These controversies and heresies, if they had been adopted by the Church, would have ruined the faith. You can't imagine just how close Arianism came to destroying what the apostles had planted all because of one Alexandrian priest, who even had the audacity to appeal to the Scriptures to support his reasoning. Hence, the seven ecumenical councils served as the antidote to such poisons in the life blood of the Church. If you examine all the heresies that had to be dealt with, none of them, save Nestorianism, had any connection with Marian doctrines. So don't expect any declarations on Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven from these council Fathers. As I've already shown, the Church Fathers, mostly from the East, implicitly and more explicitly taught that Mary was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin. Pope Pius lX appealed to the testimony of sacred Tradition in his Apostolic Constitution which defines the teaching and makes it binding on all Christians to believe.

What a lovely way you have of understanding the Latin Faith - God Bless You!

The fundamental problem with Latin Church's "Immaculate Conception" dogma is exactly as you have stated above - It has never been a subject of any dogmatic statement from any Ecumenical Council, nor should it ever be... The Fathers in Councils have been silent regarding Her... And beyond this, the theological problem that emerges immediately is the fact that, as Basil noted, Christ assumed OUR human nature, and healed it in His Own flesh in the Incarnation, beginning today, I might add, in the New Calendar Orthodox Churches... He also noted that in this assumption of our human nature, Christ healed what He assumed, and what he did NOT assume, he did NOT heal... The correlative of course is that he assumed our ENTIRE human nature... And THAT is a problem for the theory of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, because IF it were true, THEN what Christ assumed from her was NOT our fallen human nature, but instead was a human nature that NONE of us possesses, which is a human nature where we are immaculately conceived and not subject to sin and death... Therefore IF she was SO conceived, then Christ did NOT heal our FALLEN HUMAN NATURE...

It is pretty much unavoidable...

Observe the following statements and phrases:

Irenaeus: "“And just as through Eve man was stricken down and fell into death, so through Mary man was reanimated and received life. ... For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin’s intercessor.”

He's typifying Mary as the new Eve, that is Eve before the fall: Blessed above all women ( Gen. 3:15' Lk 1:42).

Well, that cannot be true, because if She is the NEW Eve, she simply CANNOT be the Eve before the Fall, but the one AFTER it...

Hippolytus: "

Click to expand...

exempt from putridity and corruption"

He's typifying Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant - fashioned pure and undefiled by God's specifications (Exodus 25).

She entered the Holy of Holies at age 3 - The question is "How?" Because such an act is inconceivable to us does not mean that the mechanism of its occurrence must be explained by a false doctrine... In this regard, have you read Homily 53 of St Gregory Palamas? It can take you inside the process she carved and continued in, wherein God filled Her with His Grace...

Ephraem: "there is no flaw in thee (Jesus) and no stain in thy Mother."

Click to expand...

The child Mary conceived was holy from the point of his conception. Ephrem is equating the two.

Her conception by Joachim and Anna was through the usual, if very elderly, means... She was carried in the womb of a very holy woman long past the age of childbearing who was herself very purified in her heart... IF you regard this as a TYPOS, establishing for us a way of sanctification as its fulfillment, then our very birth in the Waters of Regeneration at Baptism into Christ comes through those who, in varying degrees of purity of heart, serve the Living God...

Ambrose: "Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate,

Click to expand...

free of every stain of sin."

Every stain: original and personal.

This begs the question of HOW SO... And asserts without proof that her "Original Sin" (nature?) was bypassed at her conception...

Proclus of Constantinople: "he

Click to expand...

formed her without any stain of her own"

The magic word: formed - as in the womb, without any stain of her own. The stain of original sin is our own once we are conceived as descendants of Adam. It's the fallen state of our nature. We don't acquire it some time after we are conceived or born.

Proof texting the Fathers for theological demonstration can be tricky... I would want to see the quote in context in Greek... I suspect that it is addressing something other than your claim...

Theodotus of Ancrya: "A virgin, innocent, spotless,

Click to expand...

free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."

Our human defects are an effect of original sin. Mary is untouched by them. She's an exception to the rule - a lily among thorns.

Yes, the GREAT EXCEPTION from the whole of humanity... Yet she died... That is Patristic... We inherit death from Adam, and on account of that death, we sin, as Paul writes... Her great exception is that from her beginnings, she kept herself from sin, and the only way that this can be understood in rational terms is for her to have had sin kept from her, and not her keeping herself from it, thereby acquiring Grace from God...

Peter Chrysologus: "she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."

Click to expand...

We are made the first instant God infuses our souls into our bodies at conception. We don't acquire our souls weeks or months after we are conceived as Buddhists believe. Mary was actually pledged to be the Mother of God as soon as God fashioned her soul and sanctified it. Why should this be a problem?

From God's point of view, sure, because he sees beginnings from their endings, and He most assuredly fore-knew Her to become the New Eve - I love how Christ never calls her Mother or Mom... He calls her GYNE. WOMAN... Which is what Eve means, for she was "First Woman", and Mariam was the second "First Woman"

Jacob of Sarug: "The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary."

Click to expand...

God predestined Mary to be the mother of our Lord before she was conceived. She wasn't chosen at the time of the Annunciation. How could there be the most holy human creature in all of humanity unless she was exempted from all stain of sin: original and personal by the grace of God?

Oh She WAS exempted from all stain of sin by God, Who even translated her bodily into heaven AFTER She died... But the question is "How?" God's foreknowledge of Her prior to her conception does not mean she became exempted from the Fall of Adam... It means that She succeeded in overcoming that fall from her beginnings through Her conception and carrying to term by Anna, and then for three years until she was consecrated in the Temple, and ascended into the Holy of Holies, and Zacharias kept her there, and died at the hands of the Jews for having done so, who were convicted by Christ later...

Theotokos of Livias: "she who is of a pure, immaculate

Click to expand...

clay"

This has an ontological ring to it, don't you think?

Yes - It states she was clay... So are you and I - But she did not fail where you and I have failed...
Try Palamas - But be warned - You could be persuaded, if I am seeing you aright...

ermanus of Constantinople: "having no

Click to expand...

affinity with sin whatever."

He is describing Mary as having a spontaneous and natural hatred for sin. The state of original sin doesn't fit the bill. And I doubt Bishop Germanus was Pelagian. The truth is God made Mary this way by His grace so she would be the most perfect mother for His Only-begotten Son.

The question to ask is this: "What did Mary DO that attracted such Grace from God...??"

John of Damascus: "O most blessed loins of Joachim (Mary's father) from which came forth a spotless seed!"

Mary came forth from the womb spotless. And loins and seed have to do with conception. Notice he doesn't use the word offspring. "Blessed loins" and "spotless seed" are juxtaposed with each other. Joachim's loins ( a euphemism for genitals) are blessed because the child he conceived was made spotless at her conception.

The quote simply means the Blessed Virgin came forth from the seed of his loins...
You do seem to be stretching the parsing a tad...

It seems to me you prefer to pick and choose what has come down to us through the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. The first seven ecumenical councils don't include everything that has been believed and taught, because they are not mediums of divine revelation comprising the deposit of faith. Scripture and Tradition are the only two mediums. The councils function to preserve and uphold the deposit of faith. By the way, all the decisions reached by the councils in the wake of heresies had to be formally approved by the Bishop of Rome acting in his capacity as the chief universal shepherd or Pope.

Generally speaking, the Latin Church did not take part in them, and we had to translate the proceedings for him into Latin so he could be informed of what had happened in them... They were conducted in Greek... Few Latins were competent in Greek... Many Greeks in Latin...

Arsenios

"I will put enmity between you and the woman."
Genesis 3, 15

[/QUOTE]

patricius79 · Dec 25, 2015

Arsenios said:
"More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, Thou who without corruption bearest God the Word and art Truely Theotokos, we magnify Thee!"

In more mundane terms, we simply look to the words we pray in the Divine Liturgy we celebrate as it was passed on to us from St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century... And going beyond that, the Liturgies of St. Basil and and St. Gregory and other early Christian Liturgies also bear Orthodox witness...

Are the Latins still serving the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

I know that they used to do so...

Yes, of course...

We are the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ...

We have been for 2000 years...

Rome was within our Communion for the first thousand years...

Arsenios

I'm glad that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox agree that Mary is more glorious than the Seraphim. As I understand it, the Orthodox agree that Mary is Panagia (All-Holy)

I hear you saying: " She WAS exempted from all stain of sin by God, Who even translated her bodily into heaven AFTER She died"

That is wonderful. I'm glad we agree on that truth about the Mother of God.

I don't know about the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Do you agree that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and the New Eve?

Christ became fully human without needing to sin. Likewise he became fully human without needing His Mother to sin.

Do you believe that one cannot partake of death without sinning?

As far as Ecumenical Councils, I don't have any basis for determining which ones are Ecumenical apart from the Successor of Rock, the Vicar of Christ.

Arsenios · Dec 25, 2015

patricius79 said:
I'm glad that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox agree that Mary is more glorious than the Seraphim. As I understand it, the Orthodox agree that Mary is Panagia (All-Holy)

Yes, She is the Panagia, which means, in hyper-literal terms: all non-earthly, or All Holy...

I hear you saying: " She WAS exempted from all stain of sin by God, Who even translated her bodily into heaven AFTER She died"

That is wonderful. I'm glad we agree on that truth about the Mother of God.

The Latins regard as optional the dogma that She did die... For us, it is not optional...

I don't know about the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Are you a post-Vatican II child?

Do you agree that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

No - That idea is a Scholastic inference, and not a part of the Patristic revealed Tradition...

and the New Eve?

Click to expand...

Yes, and more, the Church...

And She is the Mother of monastics...

Her teaching is the hesychia of the Neptic Fathers...

Still well practiced in the Orthodox Faith...

Arsenios

Christ became fully human without needing to sin. Likewise he became fully human without needing His Mother to sin.

Do you believe that one cannot partake of death without sinning?

As far as Ecumenical Councils, I don't have any basis for determining which ones are Ecumenical apart from the Successor of Rock, the Vicar of Christ.

Click to expand...

Arsenios · Dec 26, 2015

patricius79 said:
Christ became fully human without needing to sin.

Yes...

Likewise he became fully human without needing His Mother to sin.

Yes...

Being born in Adam means a condition of one's humanity that suffers pleasure, pain and death - This is our fallen human condition... It does not mean "needing to sin" as you say...

Do you believe that one cannot partake of death without sinning?

Very few did, and Christ was one of them, and being God incarnate, His Life in His Body restored the fallen state of humanity within His Body... That is why we now find our Salvation in being MEMBERS of the Body of Christ.

As far as Ecumenical Councils, I don't have any basis for determining which ones are Ecumenical apart from the Successor of Rock, the Vicar of Christ.

Their histories tell the tale...

So you like my avatar baptism?

Arsenios

patricius79 · Dec 26, 2015

Arsenios said:
Yes, She is the Panagia, which means, in hyper-literal terms: all non-earthly, or All Holy...

The Latins regard as optional the dogma that She did die... For us, it is not optional...

Are you a post-Vatican II child?

Yes, I am a member of the Catholic Church. I know little, but I do accept in principle all the Ecumenical Councils, including Vatican II, because of the authority of the Successor of Rock.

Since we both agree that the Mother of God is the New Eve and was exempted from all stain of sin, I don't understand your position as to the Immaculate Conception.

prodromos · Dec 26, 2015

patricius79 said:
Since we both agree that the Mother of God is the New Eve and was exempted from all stain of sin, I don't understand your position as to the Immaculate Conception.

Her conception was no different from yours or mine (apart from her parents being elderly). That is why we reject the Immaculate Conception.

justinangel · Dec 26, 2015

Arsenios said:
The fundamental problem with Latin Church's "Immaculate Conception" dogma is exactly as you have stated above - It has never been a subject of any dogmatic statement from any Ecumenical Council, nor should it ever be... The Fathers in Councils have been silent regarding Her...

Neither was the Assumption/Dormition of Mary the subject of a dogmatic statement, since it, too, didn't have any connection with any of the Christological heresies that were addressed by the Councils. Still, in his "Synodal Epistle" approved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Patriarch Sophronius, of Jerusalem, described Mary as "holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from every contagion" (Epistola Synodica ad Sergium).But the EO believe in the Assumption, insofar Mary hadn't committed any personal sins in her entire life. Death and bodily corruption, however, aren't a consequence of any personal sins of ours; death has entered the world because of original sin. Paul tells us this in his Epistles. Even infants die and remain in the grave, though they are morally inculpable of sinning.

And beyond this, the theological problem that emerges immediately is the fact that, as Basil noted, Christ assumed OUR human nature, and healed it in His Own flesh in the Incarnation, beginning today, I might add, in the New Calendar Orthodox Churches... He also noted that in this assumption of our human nature, Christ healed what He assumed, and what he did NOT assume, he did NOT heal... The correlative of course is that he assumed our ENTIRE human nature... And THAT is a problem for the theory of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, because IF it were true, THEN what Christ assumed from her was NOT our fallen human nature, but instead was a human nature that NONE of us possesses, which is a human nature where we are immaculately conceived and not subject to sin and death... Therefore IF she was SO conceived, then Christ did NOT heal our FALLEN HUMAN NATURE...

First of all, the IC does not preclude Mary's being subject to inheriting the stain of original sin. Actually, it's because she was, that God intervened with His grace to make her most worthy to be the mother of our Lord. Second, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, there is a fine distinction between assuming and contracting a fallen human nature. The dogma of the IC does not hold that Jesus would have contracted the stain of original sin through his mother if she hadn't been preserved free from this stain by the grace of God. The sole reason for this singular privilege granted to Mary was the Divine Maternity. Thus Christ only assumed, by his own divine will, those defects which are a result of original sin, but do not separate man from God: privation of grace, concupisence of the eyes and of the flesh, the pride of life, ignorance, etc.. Defects of this kind would have rendered him inapt to offer the perfect satisafaction that was required of him to reconcile mankind with God in strict justice. It is because of original sin that we must suffer and die, but Jesus had to suffer and die in order to be the propitiation for our sins. He did not assume a fallen human nature in that he was sinful by human nature. Our Lord freely assumed many defects that are common in fallen humanity, but he did not assume all the defects. He bore the likeness of sin (Romans 8:3) which is suffering and death so that he could condemn sin in the flesh once for all through his own suffering and death (Romans 6:10). Christ was made "a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13) so that he could liberate mankind from the double burden of sin and punishment. He came to regenerate human nature by being sinless in his own humanity (Hebrews 7:26; 2 Corinthians 5:21) while assuming only those defects in our fallen state which should serve the Divine purpose.

Hence, Jesus did not assume those sinful defects that would have rendered his self-sacrifice unacceptable to God. By his substantial grace of union with the Father, Jesus was sinless by nature and did not commit any personal sins. Mary was no different from her Divine Son through God's intervening grace."Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother" [Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)]. Jesus was never for an instant separated from the Father or deprived of sanctifying grace. He was holy and pure in his humanity and remained so all his life by having no affinty with sin whatsoever in his thoughts, words, and deeds. And because he was still genuinely human albeit his separation from the rest of us with regard to sin, one doesn't divinize Mary by affirming her freedom from all stain of sin in her humanity. I doubt Basil implied that Jesus had a sinful nature, though he assumed our fallen state and bore the consequences of original sin.

Well, that cannot be true, because if She is the NEW Eve, she simply CANNOT be the Eve before the Fall, but the one AFTER it...

Do you believe that Jesus is the new Adam because he is after the fall of mankind? Do you suppose Jesus contracted a sinful nature as a descendant of Adam and, as a ressult, merely vindicated mankind for Adam's sin instead of meriting the initial grace of justification and forgiveness? Irenaeus describes Mary as Eve's "intercessor" and "advocate". In other words, Mary made temporal satisfaction to God for Eve's transgression when she pronounced her fiat at the Annunciation and morally suffered as she stood at the foot of the cross. By right of friendship with God, she achieved what Eve couldn't possibly have in her alienation from God. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man in strict justice because he had no affinty with the sin of Adam, just as Mary had been separated from sinful Eve in association with her Son in his redemptive work. Both the Mother and the Son had to be in the original state of justice and sanctity to fulfill the Divine purpose of restoring the fallen world to God's grace. The only difference between Jesus and Mary is that the former made eternal satsifaction for our sins. He alone opened the gates of Heaven. But it was through Mary that the Incarnation occurred, and what was lacking in Christ's suffering and death was made complete in the suffering and dying to self of the mother. The merits of our Lord's suffering and death hold no application in our lives unless we offer up our sufferings as a temporal means of restitution and are buried with Christ by dying to self. Mary acted on our behalf together with her Son, and so she too could not have been separated from God and sinful as Eve was no more than Jesus was as the second Adam and head of the human race.

She entered the Holy of Holies at age 3 - The question is "How?" Because such an act is inconceivable to us does not mean that the mechanism of its occurrence must be explained by a false doctrine... In this regard, have you read Homily 53 of St Gregory Palamas? It can take you inside the process she carved and continued in, wherein God filled Her with His Grace...

'The Ark of the Covenant was fashioned of the purest materials (gold and acacia wood) according to God's specified instructions, since it was designed to hold God's personally inscribed word. It was the most sacred religious object of the Jews upon its completion. No common person could touch it without dying even before it was placed in the Holy of Holies. The Ark did not become a holy and pure vessel over time or by degrees. Luke's clear comparisions between Mary and the Ark (Luke 1:39 - 2 Samuel 6:2; Luke 1:41 - 2 Samuel 6:16; Luke 1:43 - 2 Samuel 6:9; Luke 1:56 - 2 Samuel 6:11; 1 Chronicles 13:14) highlight the reality of Mary being the immaculate new Ark of the Covenant. Mary was made pure and undefiled the first instant God fashioned her soul and sanctifiied it (Luke 1:46-49), since she was predestined from all eternity to conceive the Divine Word in the flesh within the sanctuary of her pure womb and the sacred temple of her body.

Her conception by Joachim and Anna was through the usual, if very elderly, means... She was carried in the womb of a very holy woman long past the age of childbearing who was herself very purified in her heart... IF you regard this as a TYPOS, establishing for us a way of sanctification as its fulfillment, then our very birth in the Waters of Regeneration at Baptism into Christ comes through those who, in varying degrees of purity of heart, serve the Living God...

Joachim (Heli) and Anna were righteous people, but unlike Mary they were conceived in the state of original sin. God did not intervene by His grace when He created their souls. Neither Jesus nor Mary were in need of being baptized of water. We, on the other hand, since we have inherited Adam's sin (guilt by association) when we were first conceived (Psalm 51:5), are entirely washed and cleansed of all sin (sanctified and justified) at the moment we are baptized (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11). The washing of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification. We are "begotten from above" the first instant we are baptized (John 3: 3,5). Our regeneration isn't initiated by degrees, if that's what you mean. However, our sanctification and justification are an on-going process whose increase and decrease can be measured by how well we cooperate with God's actual graces and grow in spiritual perfection (1 Corinthians 1:18; 6:9-11; 2 Corinthians 2:15;1 Peter 1:9). We occasionally fall from grace by committing sins because our baptism does not remove the effects of original sin: concupisence of the eyes, concupisence of the flesh, and the pride of life. By being preserved free from the stain of original sin, Mary was freed from all its ungodly effects, which she would have contracted if God hadn't intervened by His grace. In this way, she was redeemed in the most perfect way by virtue of her Divine Maternity.

This begs the question of HOW SO... And asserts without proof that her "Original Sin" (nature?) was bypassed at her conception...

Free of every stain: original and personal. How could Mary not have ever sinned if she had a sinful nature? Jesus never sinned because he did not assume our sinful nature. If he had, he at least would have been inclined to sin. But the NT reveals no such thing. In the narrative of Jesus being tempted by Satan, the Greek word for "temptation" is peirazo, which does not mean that Jesus possessed the disordered desires that lead to sinful thoughts and actions. Rather it indicates that the Devil "tried to tempt" Jesus as he tries to tempt all of us. But he failed in his attempt to get Jesus to sin, because our Lord did not have a sinful nature.

Proof texting the Fathers for theological demonstration can be tricky... I would want to see the quote in context in Greek... I suspect that it is addressing something other than your claim...

"formed her without any stain of her own... so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."

The English translation from the original Greek text seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. Perhaps the EO position fails to correspond with what the Eastern fathers represented before the Schism.

"He came forth from her without any flaw, and made her for Himself without any stain."; And again: "Mary is the heavenly orb of a new creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished from her entire soul all the night of sin."
.(Proclus, Oratio 1 de Laudibus S. Mariae; PG 65:683B; Oratio 6; PG 68:758A)

Yes, the GREAT EXCEPTION from the whole of humanity... Yet she died... That is Patristic... We inherit death from Adam, and on account of that death, we sin, as Paul writes...

Actually, we die on account of our sins. I understand that the EO believe Mary never committed any personal sins, although she inherited the ancestral sin, which isn't an imputation of personal guilt. So how is it that she did have to die? We Catholics believe that God gave Mary the freedom to choose between dying like her Son - who was without sin - and being assumed body and soul into heaven without mortally passing away, since she was no longer subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and the penalties concommitant of it at the first instant she was conceived when God sanctified her soul. And although Mary did die, God did not allow her body to undergo corruption because she was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin. For this reason, too, Mary gave birth to Jesus without going into labour and suffering from the pangs of childbirth (Isaiah 66:7) which is Eve's lot after her fall from grace. Mary still had much of a life to lead after she gave birth to Jesus, didn't she?

Mary's assumption body and soul into Heaven has more to do with her state of nature than it does with her personal deeds. "O how could the Font of life be led to life through death? O how could she, who in giving birth surpassed the limits of nature, now yield to nature's laws and have her immaculate body undergo death? She had to put aside what was mortal and put on incorruptibility, seeing that even the Lord of nature did not excuse himself from facing death. He truly died in the flesh to destroy death by means of death; in place of corruption he gave corruptibility; he made death into a font of resurrection.... Even though your most holy and blessed soul was separated from your most happy and immaculate body, according to the usual course of nature, and even though it was carried to a proper burial place, nevertheless it did not remain under the dominion of death, nor was it destroyed by corruption. Indeed, just as her virginity remained intact when she gave birth, so her body, even after death, was preserved from decay and transferred to a better and more divine dwelling place. There it is no longer subject to death but abides for all ages." (John Damascene, Homily on the Dormition 10).

Her great exception is that from her beginnings, she kept herself from sin, and the only way that this can be understood in rational terms is for her to have had sin kept from her, and not her keeping herself from it, thereby acquiring Grace from God.

It was by the grace of God that Mary was preserved free from all stain of sin: original and personal. I see no reason why God should have to intervene just half-way, seeing He is perfect and whose mother Mary is. God's work in us, for whatever purpose he may have in mind, is never left incomplete. "Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). Mary couldn't resist God when He fashioned her soul in view of her destiny.

From God's point of view, sure, because he sees beginnings from their endings, and He most assuredly fore-knew Her to become the New Eve - I love how Christ never calls her Mother or Mom... He calls her GYNE. WOMAN... Which is what Eve means, for she was "First Woman", and Mariam was the second "First Woman".

Adam called his wife "Woman" (Isha) before their fall from grace. It wasn't until then that he called her Eve, which means "mother of all the living", the mother of all fallen Adam's descendants. Jesus called his mother Isha (Hebrew-Aramaic) at the start and the end of his public ministry in allusion to Eve before she fell from grace. Mary is the original woman who wasn't deprived of the original state of justice and sanctity when God created her.

Oh She WAS exempted from all stain of sin by God, Who even translated her bodily into heaven AFTER She died... But the question is "How?" God'sforeknowledge of Her prior to her conception does not mean she became exempted from the Fall of Adam... It means that She succeeded in overcoming that fall from her beginnings through Her conception and carrying to term by Anna, and then for three years until she was consecrated in the Temple, and ascended into the Holy of Holies, and Zacharias kept her there, and died at the hands of the Jews for having done so, who were convicted by Christ later...

God's foreknowledge does not determine our predestination to grace, but what God infallibly knows about us cannot be otherwise. God knew that Mary was the mother of His Son the first instant He created her soul, so it's only reasonable that He delivered her from what she was subject to inherit as soon as she was conceived. She was redeemed by a Divine preventive measure rather than a curative one, as it is with us. Our fallen state of nature isn't acquired after we are born. Hence, the necessity of infant baptism. Although we aren't born with Adam's sin personally imputed to us, we are, nevertheless, guilty by association. A sinner we are conceived in our mother's womb, and in guilt we are born (Ps. 51:5). Potentially we are all sinners because of our natural defects, and by our very nature we do fall short of the glory of God. Mary was able to lead a sinless life because she didn't have that potential to sin. She was "free from all defect" and morally flawless by nature through Divine intervention. There were no disordered passions in her nature that could result in any personal sins, venial or mortal. She was like Jesus in their shared humanity. "Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve, unclouded by womanly vanity...Even before the Nativity, she was consecrated to the Creator...Holy apprentice, guest in the Temple, disciple of the law, anointed by the Holy Spirit, clothed with divine grace as with a cloak, divinely wise in your mind; united to God in your heart...Praiseworthy in your speech, even more praiseworthy in your action...God in the eyes of men, better in the sight of God" (Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 6:11).

Yes - It states she was clay... So are you and I - But she did not fail where you and I have failed...
Try Palamas - But be warned - You could be persuaded, if I am seeing you aright...

If we fail, it's because we aren't made of "immaculate clay". Mary's Potter made her so that she wouldn't ever want to fail. And He didn't make her when she was born.

The question to ask is this: "What did Mary DO that attracted such Grace from God...??"

Mary couldn't have done anything. She was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. Likewise, we do not merit the initial grace of justification and forgiveness by any natural merit of our own when we are baptized (Ephesians 2:8-9).

John of Damascus: "O most blessed loins of Joachim (Mary's father) from which came forth

a spotless seed!"

The quote simply means the Blessed Virgin came forth from the seed of his loins...
You do seem to be stretching the parsing a tad...

"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens." [Homily on the Nativity, 2]

It is clear that the Eastern Church Father is telling us something far more important than the fact Joachim was Mary's father. He is referring to Mary's conception and formation in her mother's womb in such extraordinary terms. He wants us to notice that the entire physiological process of Mary's conception unfolded in a sinless and grace-filled fashion. The very seed of which Mary was conceived and born was utterly perfect. This concept of perfection goes beyond a simple absence of sin and corruption to include an exceptional richness of grace that informed her conception and birth.

Generally speaking, the Latin Church did not take part in them, and we had to translate the proceedings for him into Latin so he could be informed of what had happened in them... They were conducted in Greek...

Not true.
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/index.htm

Few Latins were competent in Greek... Many Greeks in Latin...

Just as many Latins and Greeks have failed to communicate with each other while actually understanding the same thing, but in different terms. Still we Catholics of the Latin rite and our brethren of the Greek Byzantine Catholic rite who are in communion with the Holy See at Rome have no communication problem.

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

justinangel · Dec 26, 2015

Arsenios said:
The Latins regard as optional the dogma that She did die... For us, it is not optional...

This is a contradiction in terms. If Mary's physical death was a de fide doctrine of the Catholic Church, then its members wouldn't have the option to refuse their assent. Still all Catholics are required to give their assent to the consistent teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Because of the consistency of the teachings of the Popes under the auspices of the OM, they are deemed to be infallible not much more than the unanimous teachings of the Patristic Fathers. There are several papal encyclicals that affirm that Mary did in fact die. Pope Pius Xll refers to them in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which defines the Assumption. Mary's death does not have to be defined by the Universal or Extraordinary Magisterium in order for Catholics to be obligated to believe in it.

Immaculate conception of Mary?

Newbie

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Called to Jesus Through Mary

I stand with Candice.

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency