Immaculate conception of Mary?

patricius79 · Dec 29, 2015

prodromos said:
She doesn't seem to be aware of that. Have you any idea of the abundance of miracles in the Orthodox Church through Panagia? .

I don't know about that. As far as Mary being the Panagia (All-Holy), one of the issues here seems to be how we understand Original Sin.

Arsenios has been explaining that the result of Original Sin was not the transmission of a stain of sin (deprivation of holiness) to all humankind, but in the transmission of Death (not physical death merely, but Death).

Can you explain what the Orthodox mean by this Death? As I understand it, Arsenios agrees that the New Adam and New Eve never sinned, even though Death caused all others to sin.

justinangel · Dec 29, 2015

Albion said:
I didn't say that the words weren't there. The idea or concept isn't there.

But "nice try," I guess. It's been used before, though.

The idea or concept is there, only you're unacquainted with the female vocative expression. And how do you know that the idea or concept of the Trinity is in Scripture, if not by Tradition. Hindsight bias?

justinangel · Dec 29, 2015

Arsenios said:
Are you unaware that St. John the Theologian had the same thing happen to his body after he died and was buried like Her? There exist NO primary relics of either of them for that very reason. We do have the Sash of the Theotokos...

The Church has never universally taught that St. John the Theologian was assumed body and soul into Heaven. If such a tradition exists, then it must belong to some private cult within the Church. Certainly none of the Church Fathers have taught that. And just because his bodily remains may have been lost, that doesn't necessarily mean he, too, was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Such a claim contradicts the Scriptures. All the saints, excluding Mary, must wait until the Last Day for the redemption of their bodies because of original sin (1 Corinthians 15:20-23) which Mary was preserved free from contracting by the grace of God. One cannot believe in the Assumption and reject the Immaculate Conception without contravening Scripture. Either both events occurred or none of them did.

The essential feature, however, in the Dogmatikon of the Church, is that She died, and not that She was bodily assumed into heaven, and this because her death, unlike Christ's Death on the Cross, affirms that it was the fallen humanity of Adam that she bequeathed sinlessly to Her Son...

Peter and Paul died, but the Church commemorates only their martyrdom. Unlike with the Solemnity of the Dormition, there is no proclamation of these two apostles having been resurrected and translated into Heaven body and soul in the commemoration of their deaths. The dogma of the Assumption proclaims something far more significant and exceptional concerning the Mother of God - that her body was exempted from undergoing corruption. This was a singular privilege granted to Mary. Only Jesus and Mary gloriously exist body and soul in Heaven.

justinangel · Dec 29, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
You stated -

The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

Do you think that Enoch and Elijah were not taken up, body and soul, into heaven? If not, where did they go?

Enoch and Elijah couldn't have been assumed body and soul into Heaven, since Jesus is the firstfruit of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). We aren't even sure whether the two were actually taken bodily from this world. One's conclusion depends on how he interprets the Hebrew word "translate". One biblical scholar I came across believes they were transported from one place on earth to another. Some Church Fathers believed they were taken to a terrestial paradise of a higher dimension, but not to Heaven. I'm inclined to heed the Church Fathers, since Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in his Transfiguration.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

justinangel said:
The idea or concept is there

No, it's not. But I'm willing to hear your reasoning if you give me the verses you have in mind.

justinangel · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
No, it's not. But I'm willing to hear your reasoning if you give me the verses you have in mind.

No? How would you know? Are you receiving private messages from Jesus?
We're on the subject of Luke 1:28: Kecharitomene. See my blog. But I don't expect you to agree with me, since you have already formed a conclusion.

https://justinangelblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/hail-full-of-grace/

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

Apparently that means that you don't have any Bible verses in mind that do support your contention. I'm not surprised. There aren't any.

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Apparently that means that you don't have any Bible verses in mind that do support your contention. I'm not surprised. There aren't any.

I think the fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus support's the Church's dogma that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think the fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus support's the Church's dogma that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

So we've moved from pretending that there's anything in Scripture that indicates an immaculate conception to the logic of the belief. OK. So answer this for us--Why would being Jesus' mother prove that she was "the Immaculate Conception" as well?

justinangel · Dec 30, 2015

Arsenios said:
I think that this is where Rome and Orthodox Christianity divide... The Feast is not of Her assumption, but of Her death, Her Dormition, which acknowledges that she was assumed, but the Feast affirms that Christ received from Her the fallen and dead humanity of Adam which we all possess... That is the essence of the Feast - It demonstrates her fallen humanity... The Assumption is, dogmatically, irrelevant, but a lovely and wonderful fact of that Dormition..

If Mary had contracted original sin, she wouldn't have been assumed body and soul into heaven. God's mercy cannot negate His justice. And it makes no difference whether Mary died. What is important is that her body did not remain in the tomb to undergo corruption. If Enoch and Elijah did in fact not die and were translated bodily to another world, they can't be in heaven. Paul is clear that all the saints who sleep in Christ must wait until the Last Day for the redemption of their bodies.

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
So we've moved from pretending that there's anything in Scripture that indicates an immaculate conception

I think that some Protestants are set in their oral traditions which oppose the truth about the Immaculate Conception.

Job8 · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think the fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus support's the Church's dogma that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Since Mary called God her Saviour, it should be crystal clear that she saw herself as another human being (who was essentially a sinner in need of a Saviour). As Scripture says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God", and "There is NONE righteous, no not one". The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Man who had no sin, did not sin, and could not sin.

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Job8 said:
Since Mary called God her Saviour, it should be crystal clear that she saw herself as another human being (who was essentially a sinner in need of a Saviour).

I think that God can save us from committing sins. A persons can be rescued after having fallen into a pit. Or they could be rescued (prevented) from falling into a pit.

justinangel · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Apparently that means that you don't have any Bible verses in mind that do support your contention. I'm not surprised. There aren't any.

Now you're being evasive. We Catholics look at the Bible as a whole. And Church doctrines have never originated by proof-texting the Scriptures, as is the case in Protestantism which originated out of a vacuum 1500 years after the Church was born and is divorced from sacred Tradition.

Luke 1:28 is a starter. From there we can move on to typology: for instance, the Ark of the Covenant. May I suggest you do your own research at Catholic sites if you're sincerely willing to try to understand the Catholic position. There's really no point for me to try to explain things to any obstinate skeptic whose bent is only to object without providing any reasonable counter-arguments. See my signature.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

Job8 said:
Since Mary called God her Saviour, it should be crystal clear that she saw herself as another human being (who was essentially a sinner in need of a Saviour). As Scripture says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God", and "There is NONE righteous, no not one". The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Man who had no sin, did not sin, and could not sin.

...and those are possible proofs from Scripture that Mary could NOT be an immaculate conception. I have been simply asking if anyone who believes that doctrine has a verse that in any way indicates that she was conceived without sin.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

justinangel said:
Now you're being evasive. We Catholics look at the Bible as a whole.

Talk about evasive. I asked if you have any Bible verse or passage that might indicate any immaculate conception, and you waste all this time not doing so.

Luke 1:28 is a starter.

How does that indicate that Mary was conceived free from sin? It doesn't appear to do so. Quoting from a Catholic translation of the Bible, we have this: "Upon arriving, the angel said to her; 'Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women."

Nothing there even hints at a sinless conception. She is favored by God, and blessed. Nothing at all about being conceived without sin. Nor is there any reason to think that it's impossible to be highly favored without also being the one mortal in all history conceived without original sin.

See my signature.

A cherub flapping his ears?

justinangel · Dec 30, 2015

Job8 said:
Since Mary called God her Saviour, it should be crystal clear that she saw herself as another human being (who was essentially a sinner in need of a Saviour). As Scripture says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God", and "There is NONE righteous, no not one". The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Man who had no sin, did not sin, and could not sin.

Catholics do not deny that Mary was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and in need of being redeemed like everyone else, which is what Paul means by the statement "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The Immaculate Conception is the most perfect and complete form of redemption by the foreseen merits of Christ. Mary was saved by being kept from falling into the mud, while we are saved by being pulled out from it. Mary's redemption was preservative, while ours is curative. In Romans 5:19, Paul writes "Many (polloi) were made sinners. He isn't contradicting himself by not using the word "All" (pantes), since what he means to say in both passages is that all people are subject to original sin, but not everyone rejects God. He certainly doesn't mean to say that everyone has sinned, since infants and mentally handicapped people cannot sin. The act of sin requires full knowldege and consent on the part of the subject.

Now, with regard to "There is none righteous (who does good) no not one" (Psalm 53:1-3), reference is being made only to those who have rejected God and have fallen away. Paul is not referring to fallen mankind as a whole. The moral is those who are faithful do good. "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him" (Matthew 12:35). Total Depravity is a false doctrine which originated with Calvin. None of the Church Fathers taught that, since it wasn't handed down from the Apostles in any shape or form.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

justinangel said:
Catholics do not deny that Mary was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and in need of being redeemed like everyone else

But that is the doctrine of the immaculate conception--the notion that she DID NOT inherit original sin. So, it is your position that she was conceived without sin but had sinned by the time that the angel spoke to her?

justinangel · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Talk about evasive. I asked if you have any Bible verse or passage that might indicate any immaculate conception, and you waste all this time not doing so.

You asked me for a reason, and I provided my blog link. Did you read the content? If not, then you're the one who is being evasive, and you're wasting my time. If you don't agree with what I wrote, fine. But don't tell me I'm being evasive.

How does that indicate that Mary was conceived free from sin? It doesn't appear to do so. Quoting from a Catholic translation of the Bible, we have this:

"Upon arriving, the angel said to her; 'Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women."

Nothing there even hints at a sinless conception. She is favored by God, and blessed. Nothing at all about being conceived without sin. Nor is there any reason to think that it's impossible to be highly favored without also being the one mortal in all history conceived without original sin.

The Greek Kecharitomene: Literally "highly favoured by grace." The root verb is charitoo: "endow with grace (charis)". See my link. then sqwak.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

justinangel said:
You asked me for a reason, and I provided my blog link.

Just give me the verse. You do that every other time when you think Scripture supports your position.

Immaculate conception of Mary?

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Newbie

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

Facilitator

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency