Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

Saints Cyril and Methodius were sent from Constantinople by Patriarch St Photius.

I don't know about that. That may be so, as they were from Thessalonica, weren't they? Thought I read that somewhere. As I understand it, they also worked with the Papacy, and testified to the divinely-given authority of the Papacy. I believe the Pope made them both Bishops.

How happy they must be now to see the Immaculata and her Divine Son in the face!

 

[patricius79]

When Fr Harrison was investigating Orthodoxy in Sydney, which would have been the late sixties or early seventies, the Orthodox Churches in Australia then were still primarily serving first generation immigrants. The situation is very different today. The Catholic Church has gone through similar stages of ethnic enclaves in it own history.
It is rather ironic that learning Greek was such a barrier to Fr Harrison learning about Orthodoxy, seeing as he is now serving at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico and as such is now fluent in Spanish

I'll go along with that to a point. I mean, personally, it wouldn't matter that much to me if the liturgy was in another language, such as Latin or Greek or any language. As long as I received instruction or had a missal to translate the words, I don't have a problem with it. Plus, once one has known the Liturgy for a long time, they pretty much can tell from the heart what is going on. Of course theScriptures, if they are in a dead language like Latin, would also have to be read in the vernacular. And the preaching would have to be in the vernacular. I would imagine that the Church did so, so that the people could understand. One article I read at Catholic Online did indicate that the West favored using Greek and then Latin, while the East did use the vernacular. Possibly the West made a mistake in that. I don't know. Though I suspect there are practical, psychological, and spiritual advantages to having part of the Liturgy in a universal ecclesial language

 

[Arsenios]

Have you ever read such a quote from the Mother of our Lord
in the entire first thousand years of Christianity?

I don't know about that.

She does not speak that way to the Orthodox faithful

I know that after our Mother appeared and spoke such consoling and motherly words,, there were millions of conversions of the native Mexicans in several years, after she left a miraculous image that cannot be explained naturally.

http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2014/12/12/four-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/

The Catholic Church says that this apparition of the Immaculate Lady at Guadalupe is worthy of belief. And I know her personally.

God bless your faith...

I think you know the difference between a personal encounter, which IS Orthodox,
and an apparition speaking to the 'masses', which is not...

Mass conversion by apparition of the Mother of God is not part of the Orthodox understanding...

You will not find it in the first thousand years of your Communion...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I suspect there are practical, psychological, and spiritual advantages
to having part of the Liturgy in a universal ecclesial language

Well, one must concede that there is no such language...

Yet we love our KJV English as liturgical, and we love to hear the Lord's Prayer in both Greek and Arabic, after it is recited in English, and we love to hear the sound of Greek and Arabic chanting... And I, for one, love the sound of Georgian Chant, which is like no other...

I know the Ethiopian Church has its Bible written in an ancient language which must be learned by those who would become priests, and the service is given in it... But the final exam is given for priests by their doing the service, without anyone asking or answering any oral questions... And the decision is made on the basis of Spiritual discernment alone...

I have attended Services in Greek, and simply prayed the Jesus Prayer throughout, and the blessings still poured forth... Yet the point of Services in part is to by repetition instill the phronema of the Church in heir celebrants, and a part of that is the conceptual content of the words of the Services... There is great precision in the Greek that is lost to varying translations of it, like English and Latin...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

She does not speak that way to the Orthodox faithful
....I think you know the difference between a personal encounter, which IS Orthodox,
and an apparition speaking to the 'masses', which is not...

I think it was a personal encounter with the tenderness of the Immaculata, and God in her. I think the Catholic Church believes that God can work in whatever unique way is best according to His Wisdom. I think that Mary has spoken to millions of people through the miraculous image of Guadalupe, including myself. But the apparition itself was a to particular, simple convert to the Catholic faith, Juan Diego, to whom she spoke so sweetly and motherly. I know that Mary relates to each one of us in a unique way as our Mother. St. Louis and St. Alphonsus says that if we were to combine all the love of mothers for their children into the love of one mother, we would not have as much love as Mary bears to each individual person. I don't think the Church at any time has taught that God can't convert people through an apparition of Mary as happened at Guadalupe.

 

[prodromos]

I don't know about that. That may be so, as they were from Thessalonica, weren't they? Thought I read that somewhere.

Their initial missionary activity was at the behest of St Photius but their activity in Moravia was at the request of Prince Rastislav of Greater Moravia, as he wanted to maintain independence from his germanic neighbors.

As I understand it, they also worked with the Papacy

They were supported in their missionary efforts by Pope Adrian II after the German clergy had brought accusations of heresy against them for providing the liturgy in their native tongue. The Germans wanted to enforce Latin so they could maintain their influence and control. (as an interesting aside, I have just learned that Pope Adrian II was married and had a daughter).

and testified to the divinely-given authority of the Papacy. I believe the Pope made them both Bishops.

I've read nothing supporting the first part. Pope Adrian II did consecrate Methodius as bishop, but Cyril took monastic vows and died shortly after. A synod of German bishops deposed Methodius and had him jailed on his return to Moravia, but Pope John VIII had him released and reinstated, however unlike his predecessor he forbade him from serving the Liturgy in Slavic. Pope John VIII was later assassinated, the first Pope to suffer this fate. Lots of intrigues occurring in the Vatican at this time.

 

[patricius79]

Their initial missionary activity was at the behest of St Photius but their activity in Moravia was at the request of Prince Rastislav of Greater Moravia, as he wanted to maintain independence from his germanic neighbors.
They were supported in their missionary efforts by Pope Adrian II after the German clergy had brought accusations of heresy against them for providing the liturgy in their native tongue. The Germans wanted to enforce Latin so they could maintain their influence and control. (as an interesting aside, I have just learned that Pope Adrian II was married and had a daughter).

I've read nothing supporting the first part. Pope Adrian II did consecrate Methodius as bishop, but Cyril took monastic vows and died shortly after. A synod of German bishops deposed Methodius and had him jailed on his return to Moravia, but Pope John VIII had him released and reinstated, however unlike his predecessor he forbade him from serving the Liturgy in Slavic. Pope John VIII was later assassinated, the first Pope to suffer this fate. Lots of intrigues occurring in the Vatican at this time.

I think it's interesting because one of the issues for both sides in the matters between Catholics and Orthodox is that history is very complex. Historically, most people wouldn't have had access to much information along these lines I suppose offhand. And for people like, me, it's all just beyond me. Mostly, what I have is just my devotion to Jesus through Mary and what I've picked up piecemeal over the years from the Scriptures, the Catechism, tiny bits of history, etc. And I have my classics about Mary which I read daily, like True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis. Also, we are getting not entirely the same information. My sources quote Cyril and Methodius testifying to the divinely-given authority of the Papacy, and say that Pope John 8th approved the Liturgy in Slavonic, but only said that the Gospel should be read first in Latin, then in Slavonic.

 

[patricius79]

Personally, I'm still not very clear on what the Orthodox believe about Mary in some ways. And where they have some disagreement with each other. I know they believe that she is the New Eve, our spiritual Mother, and is more glorious than the Seraphim. I'm not sure whether they agree that she was Assumed into Heaven, body and soul.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm still not very clear on what the Orthodox believe about Mary in some ways...
I'm not sure whether they agree that she was Assumed into Heaven, body and soul.

We agree dogmatically that She DIED...
Her Assumption into Heaven is believed...
It is not dogmatized...
We also believe that St. John was so assumed as well...
We have NO primary relics of either...
John's grave was also found empty...

She is the Mother of all those in Christ - The Living...
She is NOT the Mother of those not in Christ - The dead...
She births Christ in us in Baptism...
We see the ongoing incarnation of Christ in His Saints...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

We agree dogmatically that She DIED...
Her Assumption into Heaven is believed...
It is not dogmatized...
We also believe that St. John was so assumed as well...
We have NO primary relics of either...
John's grave was also found empty...

She is the Mother of all those in Christ - The Living...
She is NOT the Mother of those not in Christ - The dead...
She births Christ in us in Baptism...
We see the ongoing incarnation of Christ in His Saints...

Arsenios

Thank you. The Orthodox Church in America site said that the Orthodox believe the Mary (the New Eve) did not sin. But somewhere i got the idea that some Orthodox believe she did sin.

 

[prodromos]

Also, we are getting not entirely the same information. My sources quote Cyril and Methodius testifying to the divinely-given authority of the Papacy, and say that Pope John 8th approved the Liturgy in Slavonic, but only said that the Gospel should be read first in Latin, then in Slavonic.

It would help if you state or link what your source is.

 

[patricius79]

I've read this article at the Greek Orthodox site, and found this interesting. Obviously some of the differences we have in regard to our Mother have to do with the Papacy and a different ecclesiology.

This article from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America says that if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power.

Our theological statement on the nature of the Church (1974) and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox‑Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the body of Christ. This kind of ecclesiology means that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole.[37] Thus, if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

 

[patricius79]

It would help if you state or link what your source is.

I gave the quotation and link for the quotes from Cyril and Methodius about Papal authority.

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

New Advent says that John 8th approved the Liturgy in Slavonic:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592a.htm

 

[Arsenios]

Patricius -

Do you know the difference between Primacy and Supremacy?

Would you explain it to us?

Which do you think the Pope possessed with us?

Arsenios

 

[prodromos]

I gave the quotation and link for the quotes from Cyril and Methodius about Papal authority.

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

New Advent says that John 8th approved the Liturgy in Slavonic:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592a.htm

Unfortunately all the above gives is a reference to Brianchaninov's book and gives no reference to any primary source. From the best I can figure out, it appears to be a forgery. The whole of the article you linked to is one of the worst examples of quote mining I've seen from Catholic apologists. Lots of little texts completely bereft of any context. It is worse than rubbish.

As to the newadvent article, when it makes a statement like the following;

Despite their success, they were regarded by the Germans with distrust, first because they had come from Constantinople where schism was rife,​

I trust it about as far as I can kick it.

 

[justcoolforyou]

Forgive me my brother -
If I were speaking for myself alone, I would of course be wrong...
If for my parish and my priest, I would be wrong...
If for my Bishop or Metropolitan, I would be wrong...
If for but one, My own Pope or Patriarch, I would be wrong...
And if for all the Popes and Patriarchs for a brief time in the history of Christianity...
Even then I would be wrong...

But the Church, you see, is the Communion of all the Apostolic Churches throughout the History of the Body of Christ upon this earth, and the whole of ALL these Sacred and Holy Churches is of ONE accord in this matter of the mortality of the Mother of our Lord throughout the entire history of the world since the Incarnation of God on earth...

For them ALL, Her mortality is DOGMA...

I must agree with you, that there is but ONE Apostolic Communion that has separated Herself from ALL the other Apostolic Communions and CHANGED that dogma into an OPTIONAL belief, and thereby declared Herself to be standing in Schism from the Body of Christ on earth... And within that Communion, the Latin Communion, I agree with you that there are "some schismatic groups (that) believe one thing or the other", but the Body of Christ on earth, the Apostolic Faith of Christ, all and with one accord, receive the Apostolic teaching from tthe very beginnings, that Mariam is Mortal, that She died and was buried... Her bodily Ascension into heaven is not yet a dogmatic tenet, but is received by all as well...

There is only one schizmatic Communion in the entire 2000 year history of the Church on earth that wrongly thinks that belief in Her mortality and death is not a Dogmatic Truth of the Faith of Christ, and believes, as you say, "one thing or the other"... ALL the rest believe ONE thing, and NOT the other...

We can discuss WHY this Truth is true, and WHY one Apostolic Communion alone by Herself has historically come to believe that it is NOT true, but the HISTORY of its reception BY the Church of Christ on earth cannot be contradicted... The Latins are the ONLY Church to officially make this Dogma of the Faith an OPTIONAL belief for Her Faithful... They renamed the Feast Day of the Dormition of the Theotokos to be called "The Feast of the Assumption" falling the same day...

The Church has Spoken in Truth and in Deed on this matter...

Arsenios

The latin communion believe in her morality... the dogma states at the end of her earthly life she was taken to heaven... the dogma can be interpreted as her death on earth... other interpretation loss the meaning of (end of earthly life)

 

[Standing Up]

I gave the quotation and link for the quotes from Cyril and Methodius about Papal authority.

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

New Advent says that John 8th approved the Liturgy in Slavonic:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592a.htm

That's what Peter told the elders in Asia Minor (1 Peter). So, if that's the transference of some "primacy", then Peter passed it to unknown elders in Asia Minor who presumably passed it on to other unknown elders across the world.

 

[Arsenios]

As to the newadvent article, when it makes a statement like the following;

Despite their success, they were regarded by the Germans with distrust,
first because they had come from Constantinople where schism was rife,​

I trust it about as far as I can kick it.

It does have a certain spiritual viciousness about it...
A kind of snide back-bite in passing with venom...
Yet this is how we are historically seen by them...
Conversely, we see them lost in their Papal vanity...
Demanding our submission to their exalted Pope...

It is easy to be an authoritarian Christian...
When the military is on your side...
Try it sometime under Islam...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Patricius -

Do you know the difference between Primacy and Supremacy?

Would you explain it to us?

Which do you think the Pope possessed with us?

Arsenios

I think that Primacy and Supremacy are the same. That's why Jesus said to St. Rock, "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."

As I understand it, the Greek Orthodox site said that if the Church is a universal organism, then it must have a single Bishop as its organ of supreme power.

I believe I read Fr. Schmemann, an Orthodox priest, say the same thing in the book "the Primacy of Peter". Or it might have been another Orthodox source in that book.

In the alleged quotation from Sts. Cyril and Methodius, it says that the leges (laws) of Rome are immutable. My understanding is that St. Athanasius quoted Pope St. Julius who said that Athanasius should never have been deposed without the approval of Rome. I suppose that would be an example.

I"m not a historian. That's just my simple understanding.

It also makes sense to me intuitively that just as the first Eve and the first Adam were created without a deprivation of holiness, so likewise the New Eve would be--like the New Adam-- immaculately conceived, and far more glorious.

 

[patricius79]

Unfortunately all the above gives is a reference to Brianchaninov's book and gives no reference to any primary source. From the best I can figure out, it appears to be a forgery. The whole of the article you linked to is one of the worst examples of quote mining I've seen from Catholic apologists. Lots of little texts completely bereft of any context. It is worse than rubbish.

As to the newadvent article, when it makes a statement like the following;

Despite their success, they were regarded by the Germans with distrust, first because they had come from Constantinople where schism was rife,​

I trust it about as far as I can kick it.

It does come down to whom we trust. I don't know whether the quote is true or false. I do know that Christ built the Church on St. Rock, and that I think the Papacy and the Immaculate Conception are true.