Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

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

Of course I agree that Mary was conceived through holy sexual relations. But as the Orthodox poster, Arsenios has already stated, Mary was exempted from all stain of sin. And I agree with the Catholic Church that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Do you know if St. John Damascene, for example, taught that a "spotless seed' came forth from Mary's father (Joachim)?

 

[Arsenios]

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.

The difference then is just nominal?

Your Feast of the Assumption is simply a renaming
of the more ancient Feast of the Dormition
which you used to call it prior to your late doctrine of the IC,
and you are obligated by the Latin Church
to affirm that she did in fact die and was buried?

That is good news indeed!

So has the Latin Church EVER taught
that belief in Her death is optional?

I ran into that idea a lot over the years from my RC friends here in town...

And which "Ecumenical Council with Papal Approval"
authorized the changing of the name of the Feast of the Dormition...
to the new name, Feast of the Assumption?

And for what purpose was it changed?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Arsenios has already stated, Mary was exempted from all stain of sin.

I must be failing fast in my years! Forgive me my mis-statement...

And IF I EVER stated that you were EXEMPTED, then FORGIVE ME, O HOLY MOTHER...

I would NEVER knowingly denigrate you in such a manner, and accuse You of being such a weak and morally insignificant and Spiritually frivolous a Person that you needed God's exemption rather than His Grace that both leads and responds to the greatness of the human person that You are... YOU overcame as ALL of us FAILED to do, for You are greater beyond compare that ALL the Saints...

And I agree with the Catholic Church that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Do you not know that such a belief denigrates Her attaining of the exaltation which She alone bears?

Do you know if St. John Damascene, for example, taught that a "spotless seed' came forth from Mary's father (Joachim)?

She IS a "Spotless Seed"...

But the RCIC doctrine makes of Her just one more egg out of the bizillions and no different from any of them, except that this particular non-descript was given special powers AT its insemination...

ANATHEMA!

Because the very person of each of us is a Holy Mystery...

An irreducible Given of God's Creation...

And what we DO with the Talent we receive is a function of BOTH...

God's Blessings to you on this, the Second Day of the Nativity!

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

I must be failing fast in my years! Forgive me my mis-statement...

And IF I EVER stated that you were EXEMPTED, then FORGIVE ME, O HOLY MOTHER...

I would NEVER knowingly denigrate you in such a manner, and accuse You of being such a weak and morally insignificant and Spiritually frivolous a Person that you needed God's exemption rather than His Grace that both leads and responds to the greatness of the human person that You are... YOU overcame as ALL of us FAILED to do, for You are greater beyond compare that ALL the Saints...



Do you not know that such a belief denigrates Her attaining of the exaltation which She alone bears?



She IS a "Spotless Seed"...

But the RCIC doctrine makes of Her just one more egg out of the bizillions and no different from any of them, except that this particular non-descript was given special powers AT its insemination...

ANATHEMA!

Because the very person of each of us is a Holy Mystery...

An irreducible Given of God's Creation...

And what we DO with the Talent we receive is a function of BOTH...

God's Blessings to you on this, the Second Day of the Nativity!

Arsenios

Arsenios

My sense is that there is a lot of miscommunication here. It's like there is a language barrier.

Let's talk about what I believe--correct me where I'm mistaken--that we agree on:

--that Mary is a unique human person created directly by God with free will and with His grace

--that she never sinned.

--that she is holier, as you say, beyond compare than all the saints.

--that she is in Heaven, body and soul.

--that she is the New Eve and Mother of God and is Ever-Virgin.

 

[Arsenios]

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.

My Brother, we need to shorten our posts!

I promise to shorten mine...

Can you help out?

Is your name Justin? Or may I call you Justin?

We are "fallen humanity" because we have inherited death and corruption, and a darkening of the nous, from our forefather Adam...

It is ONE thing to never commit a sin, which we do well to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin...

And it is ANOTHER thing to say that Christ is sinless in His Life on earth...

There are sins of ignorance, unwilling sins, inadvertent sins, and so forth...

The difference between Jesus and Mary with respect to the power of their lives
is that Jesus is God, and She is NOT...

A sinless Marian life cannot take away OUR sin, you see...

First of all, the IC does not preclude Mary's being subject to inheriting the stain of original sin.

OK - Good...
I understood other RC posters to be denying this...
One said that the IC precluded her inheriting ALL stain of the Original Sin...

So your words, as is the case most of the time, are warming to my soul...

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.

Yes, Jesus assumed what Mary contracted,
and if she had NOT contracted it,
then He would NOT have assumed FROM Her
what She DID NOT HAVE,
according to the false doctrine of the IC...

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.

That was a tad treacherous to parse...

So step away from the term STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN for me, will you? Just for awhile... It is ambiguous... Paul is more clear:

We receive from Adam DEATH [the last to be overcome by Christ]
ON ACCOUNT OF this death, all have sinned...
Nothing here of the STAIN, which distributes itself between both voluntary sin and our death in Adam

So that your denial of necessity and affirmation of optionality of belief that Jesus would have contracted death even if His Mother had NOT been preserved from death by the Grace of God seems dissembulous...

The sole reason for this singular privilege granted to Mary was the Divine Maternity.

That is why it is so important to understand that your imagined IC is not the only possible path to His incarnation and Birth...

The other path is the one she actually took, which was her voluntary humility,
"For behold! He hath REGARDED the LOWLINESS of His Hand-Maiden..."

I doubt Basil implied that Jesus had a sinful nature,

though He assumed our fallen state
and bore the consequences of original sin.

A sinful nature is one that is subject to death, which Christ's human nature most assuredly was. Surely St. Basil affirmed this?
One additional note - There was no death in Christ's flesh either, because of Who He IS... His Death on the Cross was voluntary, as John reports in his Evangellos - A head fake, as it were, for which the demons in Hades fell...

Romans 5:12
Wherefore just as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by that sin;
so also death passed upon all men,
through which (death) all have sinned:

Sin led to death, and death in turn led to sin, and your "Stain of original sin" fails to differentiate the first from the rest...
Because the fact is, the stain of the original sin is death - We are born into that death...
And we all embrace and resist sin in varying degrees because of that death into which we are born...

A tad shorter, yes?

Drastic, I know...

But ya gotsta start somewheres!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

My sense is that there is a lot of miscommunication here. It's like there is a language barrier.

Let's talk about what I believe--correct me where I'm mistaken--that we agree on:

--that Mary is a unique human person created directly by God with free will and with His grace

--that she never sinned.

--that she is holier, as you say, beyond compare than all the saints.

--that she is in Heaven, body and soul.

--that she is the New Eve and Mother of God and is Ever-Virgin.

Yes - Our issues entail a fundamental disagreement regarding HOW she got there...

YOU say that her conception was given a special grace that no one else has ever or will ever receive, which exempted her from the stain of original sin...

We say that she had no such special exemptory head start, but that the Providence of God, foreknowing her role in the restoration of the Fall of Adam, saw to it that she was provided the positioning and needed ekonomia to effect God's purpose in her...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Yes - Our issues entail a fundamental disagreement regarding HOW she got there...

YOU say that her conception was given a special grace that no one else has ever or will ever receive, which exempted her from the stain of original sin...

We say that she had no such special exemptory head start, but that the Providence of God, foreknowing her role in the restoration of the Fall of Adam, saw to it that she was provided the positioning and needed ekonomia to effect God's purpose in her...

Arsenios

At the moment, I don't see the difference except in semantics, though I wouldn't use loose language like "head start" to describe the holiness of the Mother of God. However, my understanding is that the Orthodox don't believe in Original Sin. I read that the Orthodox priest Meyendorf said that the Orthodox would have accepted the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if they had believed in Original Sin.

What exactly is the objection to the Catholic Church's understanding of Original Sin?

 

[Arsenios]

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.

I love your optimism!

Would that it were simply a difference in Rites...

Please, God, let it just be a difference in Rites!

The practitioners of the Greek Byzantine Catholic Rite do not speak Greek...

They were GIVEN their Communion with Rome BY Rome...

They are NOT in Communion with the EOC...

In the early 1900s, their married priests were despised by Latin Bishops...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

At the moment, I don't see the difference except in semantics, though I wouldn't use loose language like "head start" to describe the holiness of the Mother of God. However, my understanding is that the Orthodox don't believe in Original Sin. I read that the Orthodox priest Meyendorf said that the Orthodox would have accepted the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if they had believed in Original Sin.

What exactly is the objection to the Catholic Church's understanding of Original Sin?

I have not read Fr. Meyendorf, so I am not qualified to respond to your question... But I can say that we have differences in our understanding of what the consequences of the Sin of Adam are...

But to your semantical point - To be exempted at the point of one's conception from the consequences of the Fall of Adam is a huge "head start" for any person desiring to live a life of Christian virtue, wouldn't you say? Was it you who posted that she was placed by it in the position of pre-fall Eve?

I hope you agree with me that this is just not true...

The 'head start' term does NOT refer to Her Holiness, but to the MEANS of Her Holiness...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

I have not read Fr. Meyendorf, so I am not qualified to respond to your question... But I can say that we have differences in our understanding of what the consequences of the Sin of Adam are...

But to your semantical point - To be exempted at the point of one's conception from the consequences of the Fall of Adam is a huge "head start" for any person desiring to live a life of Christian virtue, wouldn't you say? Was it you who posted that she was placed by it in the position of pre-fall Eve?

I hope you agree with me that this is just not true...

Arsenios

I hear you saying that there is a difference as to our understanding of the consequences of Original Sin. But do you know what they are?

It sounds like--and I've heard this before--that the Orthodox basically believe that if the New Eve is Immaculately Conceived, then her virtue wouldn't be real virtue.

But I don't see that. The first Eve and Adam were created perfectly yet fell into sin, didn't they? And the New Adam was created perfectly--and being God, was not capable of sin--yet His virtue is entirely authentic.

Both Christ and Mary could be created without any stain of sin, and yet still endure trials and suffer far more than all the rest of creation.

 

[Arsenios]

I hear you saying that there is a difference as to our understanding of the consequences of Original Sin. But do you know what they are?

Perhaps we can permit the differences to unfold in our discussions of other matters...

It sounds like--and I've heard this before--that the Orthodox basically believe that if the New Eve is Immaculately Conceived, then her virtue wouldn't be real virtue.

You have been reading my posting of apology to Her... For having said anything that even MIGHT have implied that she had some "Special Grace" at Her conception that exempted her from the condition of all the rest of mankind... And yes, what you say is true, but it is not the theologic truth, which is that "Only what is assumed of human nature by Christ is HEALED by Christ." So that IF she was released from the "Stain of Sin consequent from the fall of Adam" from Her very conception, then Her human nature is already fundamentally different from ours, and we are not to be healed by Christ's having come into His Creation through Her...

But I don't see that.
The first Eve and Adam were created perfectly yet fell into sin, didn't they?
And the New Adam was created perfectly--
and being God, was not capable of sin--
yet His virtue is entirely authentic.

The first Adam was created by God, and Eve from his rib... The second Adam was created by the New Eve according to the flesh, and IS God, and in His abidance in Her, She is sanctified more than any other being in all of God's creation...
The Divinity of Christ did not exercise virtue, but His Person did, and this in His Humanity...

Both Christ and Mary could be created without any stain of sin, and yet still endure trials and suffer far more than all the rest of creation.

I don't speculate in such a manner...

Christ was born under the Law which He gave to Moses designed to tutor sinners... Thus His body, which He received from His Holy Mother, was subject to sin, as She was, and in His assumption of this fallen human body and soul, He redeemed it from the corruption into which it had fallen... In Himself... Adam, prior to the Fall, would not have suffered in trials, but we in Adam sure do after the Fall, and those sufferings are sanctified when one is in Christ...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Perhaps we can permit the differences to unfold in our discussions of other matters...



You have been reading my posting of apology to Her... For having said anything that even MIGHT have implied that she had some "Special Grace" at Her conception that exempted her from the condition of all the rest of mankind... And yes, what you say is true, but it is not the theologic truth, which is that "Only what is assumed of human nature by Christ is HEALED by Christ." So that IF she was released from the "Stain of Sin consequent from the fall of Adam" from Her very conception, then Her human nature is already fundamentally different from ours, and we are not to be healed by Christ's having come into His Creation through Her...



The first Adam was created by God, and Eve from his rib... The second Adam was created by the New Eve according to the flesh, and IS God, and in His abidance in Her, She is sanctified more than any other being in all of God's creation...
The Divinity of Christ did not exercise virtue, but His Person did, and this in His Humanity...



I don't speculate in such a manner...

Christ was born under the Law which He gave to Moses designed to tutor sinners... Thus His body, which He received from His Holy Mother, was subject to sin, as She was, and in His assumption of this fallen human body and soul, He redeemed it from the corruption into which it had fallen... In Himself... Adam, prior to the Fall, would not have suffered in trials, but we in Adam sure do after the Fall, and those sufferings are sanctified when one is in Christ...

Arsenios

Since the New Adam was able to exercise virtue in his humanity, while at the same time being God, why cannot the New Eve exercise virtue while remaining free from all stain of sin?

Jesus was fully human without having any stain of sin. The same is true of His Mother.

 

[Arsenios]

Since the New Adam was able to exercise virtue in his humanity,
while at the same time being God,
why cannot the New Eve exercise virtue
while remaining free from all stain of sin?"

While at the same time NOT being God?

Of COURSE She could and did, as can you and I...

The difference is, we don't, and She did...

But I agree with you - It was Her exercise of virtue, and not Her exemption from the sin of Adam, that attained unto the Grace of God that made He the Birth-giver of God into the fallen human flesh that He obtained from Her...

Jesus was fully human without having any stain of sin.

Why do you use the term STAIN? What is the difference between saying "...without having any sin" and saying "...without having any stain of sin"? Why is STAIN so important a part of your confession here?

The same is true of His Mother.

Yes, but differently...
Because one is God, and the other is His human Mother according to flesh...

The first is the primary life-saving Grace...

The second was unable to do what the first did...

The first is the Creator...

The second is the created...

The first of the created, yes...

But created nonetheless...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

But I agree with you - It was Her exercise of virtue, and not Her exemption from the sin of Adam, that attained unto the Grace of God that made He the Birth-giver of God into the fallen human flesh that He obtained from Her...

I'm not a theologian, but that seems like a false dichotomy. I think that Mary's exercise of virtue can cooperate with her preservation from all stain of sin by God. grace and free will go together. Mary can receive fallen human flesh without receiving the stain of sin, as Jesus also can receive fallen human flesh--capable of death-- without receiving any stain of sin.

we talk about "stain of sin", I think, because--as an Orthodox poster said also--sin is not merely a concrete act, but a state of being that we are in, but which the New Adam and the New Eve have never been in.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm not a theologian, but that seems like a false dichotomy. I think that Mary's exercise of virtue can cooperate with her preservation from all stain of sin by God. grace and free will go together. Mary can receive fallen human flesh without receiving the stain of sin, as Jesus also can receive fallen human flesh--capable of death-- without receiving any stain of sin.

we talk about "stain of sin", I think, because--as an Orthodox poster said also--sin is not merely a concrete act, but a state of being that we are in, but which the New Adam and the New Eve have never been in.

The only state that they were not in is the state of one who has committed sin...

But they know every state of being born in the flesh in fallen human nature...

THAT is what needed HEALING...

That is what Christ healed in His Own Body...

The Body of Which we are members...

Is that more clear?

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

mistake

 

[patricius79]

The only state that they were not in is the state of one who has committed sin...

But they know every state of being born in the flesh in fallen human nature...

THAT is what needed HEALING...

That is what Christ healed in His Own Body...

The Body of Which we are members...

Is that more clear?

Arsenios

The New Adam and the New Eve are not, by nature, children of wrath like us. "Children of wrath" refers to us who are born deprived of holiness. The New Adam and the New Eve, in being fully human and entering into our sorrows--in order to heal us-- did not assume our deprivation of holiness.

 

[Arsenios]

The New Adam and the New Eve are not, by nature, children of wrath like us.
"Children of wrath" refers to us who are born deprived of holiness.
The New Adam and the New Eve,
in being fully human and entering into our sorrows
--in order to heal us--
did not assume our deprivation of holiness.

The forbidden fruit of which our progenitors ate was the fruit of the tree of knowledge [as in the one-ness of conjugal union] of BOTH Good AND evil... So that ALL born after them are, in their humanity, of this kind... Christ took on our fallen human nature unto Himself, in His very Person, and by living a totally sinless life, being God, RAISED human nature WITHIN HIMSELF... That is why Salvation is within His Holy Body, the Church... Because we are Baptized into Christ, into His Death upon the Cross, His Death to the world, in the hope and expectation and anticipation of His Holy Resurrection...

Christ took on each and every one of our temptations to sin upon himself in His own human body and soul and mind and emotion, and did not succumb to even one of any of them, and being God, He transformed the fallenness of our sorry lives within Himself, transforming what we had become into what He had originally created, and THEN He went beyond the Original Man, and united the now restored human nature within Himself TO Himself, which when we are entered into this New Human Nature, we BECOME a New Creation IN HIM...

I do not have your theology of the "Children of wrath"...

I simply understood them as those who had voluntarily embrace evil...

Normal and healthy and recovery for us who are fallen in this life is found in this: That we are entered into the Marriage of the Lamb... And this "Normal" is Sainthood...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Christ took on our fallen human nature unto Himself, in His very Person, and by living a totally sinless life, being God, RAISED human nature WITHIN HIMSELF... That is why Salvation is within His Holy Body, the Church... Because we are Baptized into Christ, into His Death upon the Cross, His Death to the world, in the hope and expectation and anticipation of His Holy Resurrection...

Christ took on each and every one of our temptations to sin upon himself in His own human body and soul and mind and emotion, and did not succumb to even one of any of them, and being God, He transformed the fallenness of our sorry lives within Himself, transforming what we had become into what He had originally created, and THEN He went beyond the Original Man, and united the now restored human nature within Himself TO Himself, which when we are entered into this New Human Nature, we BECOME a New Creation IN HIM...

I do not have your theology of the "Children of wrath"...

St. Paul says that we are, by nature, children of wrath. He means that we are born deprived of holiness. I agree with you that Christ (the New Adam) took on all of our temptations to sin. I think that Mary (the New Eve) did also. But they did so without being born deprived of holiness, nor ever becoming deprived of holiness. Let's say someone is baptized into Christ and then falls into sin. Christ takes on all that person's suffering and guilt, yet in doing so does not in any way become guilty or deprived of holiness. And this is a mystery.

For the New Adam and the New Eve to enter into our sinful lives it is not necessary for them to be deprived of holiness in any way.

 

[Arsenios]

St. Paul says that we are, by nature, children of wrath. He means that we are born deprived of holiness.

The text does not say this - He writes that we are children of disobedience (Eph 5:60, for which cause the wrath of God descends upon us (Col 3:6)... He writes nothing about being born deprived of holiness... Unless I have missed it, in which case I pray you to bring me to my senses with a good and truthful word...

I agree with you that Christ (the New Adam) took on all of our temptations to sin.

Good - He was born into a body of death, which he received from the Blessed Virgin, and overcame all sin, and then death on the cross, for the sake of our Salvation - eg His Bride...

I think that Mary (the New Eve) did also.

She took on Her own sins and overcame them - I have seen no Patristic writings from the first thousand years of the Christian Faith on earth of Her taking on ALL the sins of mankind... Could you perhaps show me some?

But they did so without being born deprived of holiness, nor ever becoming deprived of holiness.

So far, that idea qualifies only as your pious personal opinion...

Let's say someone is baptized into Christ and then falls into sin. Christ takes on all that person's suffering and guilt, yet in doing so does not in any way become guilty or deprived of holiness. And this is a mystery.

The Fathers of the Church do the same, in that they overcome the demons causing the person's fall into sin, because they are one with Christ... They CAN know evil AND overcome it... That is why Adam was warned... He was not yet mature enough to eat of both Good and evil and live... The Holy Fathers in the Church ARE...

For the New Adam and the New Eve to enter into our sinful lives it is not necessary for them to be deprived of holiness in any way.

Well perhaps I have shown you HOW that transpires...

"To him overcoming, I will give [some particular Blessing]" Rev 2

Arsenios