This seems to be an interesting paper. Any comments on it? MY BELIEF IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOCTRINE Part I (there are three parts, each page leads you on) By Daniel Joseph Barton

http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/barton1.html

Dear Pani Rose,

The author doesn't seem to take the Orthodox side seriously at all in discussing this doctrine and is trying to make the argument that EC's should accept it and its underlying Augustinian theology.

That is certainly NOT what the Catholic Church means when she asks EC's to return to their Eastern spiritual roots.

That Mary was conceived in holiness is something the East has always confessed (notwithstanding WHICH definition of Original Sin we prefer) and established the feast of the "Conception of Saint Anne" in the sixth century - something that the West was very slow to accept on its local calendars later on.

I personally don't agree with the argumentation that Kallistos Ware puts forth against the IC doctrine - but then again he is not the ultimate Orthodox authority in any event.

Sometimes, Eastern CAtholics can be their own worst enemies.

Alex

Alex,

I agree; your perception of him is very consistent with the outlook that Daniel has long espoused on CINEast with respect to this and other subjects.

In my opinion, he typifies a way of thinking that says: "Since the Latins have a great viewpoint on _____ (fill in with any subject of your choosing), let's adopt it as our (Eastern) way too!"

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

The only thing EC's should be adopting from the West is . . . those who wish to become EC!

God bless!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I read your comment above with a smirk! I have to agree with you! I repeat for the 100th time here, that if an ECC were near me, I would sure be there, a lot!

It hit home for me again while perusing the hymnbook selections we were singing for Christmas at my RCC. The traditional Christmas hymns sung in the RCC were written in the 1700-1800s for the most part. How many of them were written by Protestants is only my guess, but I would guess at least 50%. Perhaps a musician here knows more. On the other hand the ECC has the deep, theological and mystical chants from the earliest centuries. My heart is filled with longing again for a renewal of this rich Eastern tradition all over the world, but especially right here in the mountains of Virginia is my own selfish prayer.

But in our heart's longing is the spirit God has placed there. Our desires and prayers will not go unrewarded.

Peace and the holiness of Christ be with you,

Tammy

Neil I didn't know that was who wrote it.

I have a really hard time getting Romans to understand that it was always there. I mean from the beginning the Church understood Mary's role, it wasn't like the Holy Spirit knocked on the door and handed them something new.

Dear Tammy,

You mean Charles Wesley was NOT a Roman Catholic?

One learns something every day . . .

Alex

You mean that there are Romans who claim that this was something new????

Mr Barton may not have given a sufficiently serious treatment of all of the Orthodox persepctives on this issue, but then again he did treat it with more seriousness than the dimissive remarks made about his essay and himself.

Probably true.

Dear djs,

Actually, ANY of the Orthodox perspectives.

I was just waiting for you to come in to defend him . . .

Happy New Year!

Alex

I found this quite interesting.
Regardless of the viewpoints, I don't think that the Dogma of the IC, as it applies to the Theotokos, would be a unity breaker.

Brad

Very interesting article. i do find that Daniel Joseph Barton's defense of the IC by citing St. John the Forerunner being sanctified in the womb a bit unfounded... while St. John may have been sanctified in the womb (i have not read the Church Fathers on this), he was not Immaculately Conceived, was he?

In my small and humble opinion, the IC should have been relegated to Latin canon law and not raised to the level of dogma, but then again, i am not in a position of authority. This is only my opinion.

Peace,
the_grip

What an intriguing comment...
So how long after conception was he sanctified?

Happy New Year, Alex!

i have no idea. Do the Church Fathers indeed claim that John was Immaculately Conceived? Pardon my ignorance here.

Yours,
the_grip

What I found intriguing was the idea of stipulating to sanctification in the womb, but objecting to immaculate conception. You seem willing to accept of sanctification at any point in gestation EXCEPT its inception. I find that position intriguing.

i am not particularly objecting to sanctification at conception, rather, i am stating that his argument of John's sanctification in the womb is not necessarily in support of his position - unless, that is, the Church has taught that John was sanctified at conception in the way Mary was according to the teachings of the dogma of the IC (in which case, why is the IC of John also not dogmatic?). It would also presume the Western understanding of Original Sin which itself is not dogmatic.

Regarding sanctification at conception, i do not doubt that it is possible. My hesitation is at the dogma of the IC is in its explicits - i simply don't know the explicit details of the holiness of our Lady, and i don't know of any Church Fathers that push this point explicitly as requirement unto salvation. As with all things, however, i am prone to error and could be wrong.

i should also state that the notion of the IC is probably not a breaking point of unity (to me, anyways - small as i am). It is my experience that it is the dogmatic inferences of it that are the sharp edges of the issue.

Peace to you,
the_grip

Sorry to be too busy work on answers, but your remarks are very nice, and make me want to comment. The first part of the quote gives a lot of food for thought on the issue of the necessity of the dogma. The second... well, the link to exclusively Western ideas of Original Sin - whatever they may be - that link is frequently invoked never rigorously forged.

As to the impediment to unity. In my youth, discussions of "issues" with Russian Orthodox Greek Catholics and Syrian Orthodox revolved around papacy, filioque, and maybe epiclesis. Now, with the OCA and Antiochian Orthodox there is considerably more attention to Marian Dogma. Wonder what happened?

From an old Eastern Orthodox Catechism

Q. How did He become a man?

A. At the time when the Virgin Mary was consecrated to the service of God,
and was in the Temple, the Archangel Gabriel came and announced to her the
unprecedent miracle which would take place within her. Then the Holy Spirit
descended and, after He had first cleansed her from the original sin, gave
her the power to conceive within her the Son of God, who after nine months
was born a man.

How this helps?

In Jesus & Mary,
+Fr. Gregory

I don't know about OCA people elsewhere, only in my area. Their one church in this area is made up heavily of people who were unhappy and left other churches. To no one's great surprise, they are still unhappy, but now they are Orthodox. Can a Baptist change his spots? He will probably be just as argumentative no matter where he goes. The local OCA priest tells me that Mary was not immaculately conceived, but she was without sin. Is this hairsplitting? You decide for yourself. Is there a difference in dogma here, or just a desire to oppose anything that comes from the RC Church? I don't think the pettiness and pickiness is as common in historic Orthodox jurisdictions. The Greek Orthodox here are very reasonable and lovable people. OCA, judging by the folks here, evidently feels it has something to prove, whether to itself or others. Beats me. If you have a better explanation, please share it with me. I would love to hear it.

It is an interesting to ask, Father, when this teaching of sanctification at the Annunciation developed. Here's a link to an essay by DTB:

http://www.cin.org/imconcep.html

btw Father's Demetry's catechsism is on-line and has some very interesting comments on the Fall and Original Sin.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html

Thanks for the cin.org article. That's a keeper.

I seriously ask you to visit more OCA Churches!!! We are wonderful people!!!! Of course, you wil find the convert mentality in every Church but please do not judge the entire OCA by those you see in one particular parish. I don't think the CHurch of Fathers Schmemann and Meyendorff thinks it has anything to "prove"

Peace,
Brian Seraphim

Brian, I am sure OCA people are wonderful. The ones I have met here are a bit argumentative about anything involving Rome. That is my limited experience with OCA. And wouldn't you know, the most argumentative are converts. Some are converts several times over since they have already been everything else. The congregation used to be conservative Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox. The only other Orthodox here are the Greeks, and the Antiochians who are actually Old Catholics. I do hope to visit some other churches next summer while on vacation.

Dear All,

I have my own unique viewpoint on the Immaculate Conception.

For one, I heard that it was not accepted by certain RCC saints, (I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas and SAint Katherine of Sienna), and also heard that it was accepted by certain Greek saints or theologians.

Yet the Immaculate Conception was revealed to two highly miraculous RCC saints in the 19th century. It seems that our Lord in all His Wisdom, has presented beliefs that appear contradictory.

The contradiction is not a lie or deceit on some Saints part, (as many would like to believe), nor does it change our Lord's 'Truths'.

Rather, taking into account that our minds are not able to fully comprehend God's Wisdoms, maybe, just maybe, our Lord enlightens certain saints with only partial comprehensions in order to fight some heresy that might have appeared.

Of course one could always be certain, that whenever something is made dogma in the RCC, the Orthodox Church will immediately take the opposite stand.

Zenovia

Dear Friends,

Christ is Born! Let us Glorify Him!

Whenever we speak of the Theotokos being sanctified in the womb AND the Immaculate Conception, we need to understand the distinction between the two terms.

It is easy to think of one being the same as the other, but that isn't the case and isn't helpful in these discussions.

The IC is about preventing the "stain of Original Sin" from ever being contracted by the Most Holy Theotokos and from her Conception.

In other words, without being conceived immaculately, the Mother of God would have been born with the stain of Original Sin.

RC theologians today understand the notion of "stain" in a way that is not necessarily the way Eastern theologians have always understood it.

I don't care to go into that issue any further right now.

The Eastern perspective is that the Mother of God was sanctified at her Conception.

There would not have been a Feast of the Conception of Saint Anne otherwise or that of the Nativity of the Theotokos.

And we should know that Original Sin in the East has nothing to do with "inherited guilt" or a stain of actual sin passed down from Adam (again, we're not equating this with RC perspectives - I'm leaving that alone).

The Mother of God was sanctified perfectly at her Conception and was born a Saint (indeed, the Saint of Saints).

There was no need for the East to canonize this as a dogma as the "Lex orandi" principle was already there.

The same is true about the St John the Baptist's holy Conception, which is honoured with a Feast day as well. He was already sanctified at that time in the womb of his mother. Western tradition sets John's sanctification at the time of the Visitation.

Again, no need to codify this view of the Forerunner's Conception.

St Nicholas of Bari as well has a feast of his nativity on August 11 in the Orthodox calendar - he too, by the lex orandi, was sanctified at his conception in the womb of his mother and so was born a saint.

Some have posited that St John the Theologian, who the East believes was translated to heaven body and soul, was likewise sanctified from his Conception.

These cases are not "Immaculate Conceptions" where the stain of Original Sin is kept away from the souls of these holy people with special, exalted roles to play in salvation history.

They are sanctifications by the Holy Spirit that made perfect Temples of these persons with His Indwelling at their Conception.

Even if the Holy Spirit had not sanctified them, there would not have been a need for an Immaculate Conception for the Theotokos to declare her free of actual sin of any kind.

It is a matter of complete All-Holiness, rather than what could be understood in the IC as the "negative" idea of simply "preventing."

Ultimately, both sides take different paths to come to the same conclusion.

However, I understand that RC perspectives are now very close to the Eastern one on this matter.

Alex

A clarification. The essay is actually not mine but is the work of Fr Casimir Kucharek.

It's still a keeper, no matter who wrote it!

Well, one can look at that from two perspectives. Either that Orthodoxy would always respond negatively to any dogmatic statement from Rome or more accurately, that Orthodoxy does not make dogma by "pronouncements" such as was the case with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. It is not the way that the Eastern Church "does" theology.

Dear Brian,

Blessed new year to you, my brother in Christian Orthodoxy.

What Zenovia is describing is what I, as a cradle Orthodox imbued with the ethos and mentality of many of my fellow cradles, (which I won't get into: suffice it to say, it is like the sibling rivalry of an estranged younger brother to an older brother) like to call 'a knee jerk reaction'. LOL!

Ofcourse, we take different approaches to theology-- that is a cultural given-- but even Bishop Kallistos Ware has spoken of Orthodox reactions to the RC church...and do not think that they are benign--they are changing our age old traditions and beliefs as we speak. (ie: as also described by Bishop Kallistos--the belief in the Assumption of our blessed Lady Theotokos)

Getting back to topic, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, at the end of the 1800's, in a correspondence with the Pope mentioned many Orthodox grievances.

Among those he mentioned the unilateral 'dogamatizing' of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but nothing of the actual title.

I firmly believe that with a really open mind like that of the saints, and even more important, with a truly humble heart, all differences between East and West CAN be understood and worked out. I never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit in abolishing ego on both sides, and of setting up love and unity.

Fondly in Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice, CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM! I agree. I think that a GREAT many of the differences between the various ancient Churches (whether Roman Catholic or Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox) can be attributed to either approach or even just simple wording and the meaning of the words we use or have used in the past. Unfortunately, instead of dialogue, we often bristle and become defensive...rather than prayerfully talk with one another...in a spirit to charity and kindness. I've done this myself at times...and I am thankful that there have been people in my life (like YOU) who have taught me that there is another/better way.

In Our Most Blessed Lady,
+Fr. Gregory

Someone once explained the E-W difference to me this way: The East always understood Mary to be without stain, without sin, so there was no need to codify it. So when the West decided to make her sinlessness official and promulgated the Immaculate Conception, the East just scratched its collective heads and said, "What are y'all goin' on about? Of COURSE, she's ever virgin, ever pure! Do you need a doctrine to tell you that? Jeesh, you folks are bozos!"

A simplistic explanation, I grant you, but I liked it.

Dear Father Gregory,

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

A most blessed New Year to you!

Thank you, both humbly and from the bottom of my heart, for your kind words.

With love in Christ,
Alice

Dear Pentha Tria,

I love your post! Thanks for sharing it!

However, it only goes to underscore what I know as 'the knee jerk reaction' of my brethren! We DO believe in things the same ways, albeit with different approaches, (scholastic vs. mystical), yet NOW some Orthodox seem to be changing that!

With love in Christ,
Alice

WOW SO MUCH MEAT HERE!

Hello folks,

I have a question:

Who is right? A glass that's half empty or half full???

So, in the same way RCC and Orthodox views are like speaking about a glass that's half empty or half full....both are not wrong...both are right answers.

I believe that both Churches believe that Mary is without stain of sin from the moment of her conception to all eternity (our existence begins at conception...once we exist, we will never cease to exist).

In fact, whenever I go to Great Vespers in the Orthodox Church, I hear prayers at the end, "Most Holy Theotokos, save us! Who are more honorable than the Cherubin, more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Who without stain barest G-d the Word, thou art truly Theotokos, we magnify thee."

So, Does the Orthodox object that prayer above?

So, in the RCC view, Mary is perceived without Sin and in the East she is perceived to be full of grace. Then again, it's the half full half empty theory.

So, in conclusion, it appears that the Orthodox is objecting to IC only because it was pronounced by the Pope. Pure and simple. So, I find it very uncharitable towards Theotokos for trashing IC dogma simply because the Orthodox don't like the Pope. It would be better to trash the Pope than the Mother of G-d!!! Makes me mutter these words to myself "Shame on these Orthodox" for dishonoring the Mother of G-d because of some political pride.

I'm a Byzantine Catholic, so I'm not living the RCC dogma, nor do the Byzantine Catholics observe the dogma of Original Sin. WHY? Because we are Eastern Christians that hold the same theological approach as the Orthodox.

Both views are totally complementary to each other. That's why I have a clapping smilie....as in sign language...clapping 3 times (3 rhymes of that word) means Complimentary.

We have to understand that the purpose of the Pope's pronouncement is because the belief among Roman Catholics about the fact Mary is without sin was being challenged and there were many disbeliefs about that...which could spew out few heresies, etc. So the pronouncement simply was done to stamp out any doubts or disbelief that the Mother of G-d is pure and immaculate (full of Grace...without any stain).

This pronouncement is one of the two ONLY dogmatic pronouncement of the entire 2,000 year history.

I do not think the Council is necessary to define the purity of Mary...as both Churches..of the East and West...have ALREADY drawn the very same conclusion based on our 2,000 Church Sacred Tradition...just expressed differently (half empty...half full). IN other words, why have a Council to discuss what we ALREADY believe in?

So, again I say this, the controversy about Immaculate Conception is really all about the Pope, not Mary. So, please Orthodox Christians, pick on the Pope fine with me, but don't pick on Mary's integrity about her holiness/immaculateness.

I truly believe that the Churches of the East and West with different theological/dogmatic expressions are totally complimentary and both Churches CAN live together...it is FULLY POSSIBLE!!! The Byzantine Catholics are the living WITNESS to that! Amen! Let's go for Church Unity for sake of G-d! Amen!

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzanine who desires unity.


Of course, if Mary is truly glorious beyond Seraphim, more honorable than Cherubims, I would be more inclined to believe that she would be sancitified (or conceived without stain of any sin) at the moment of her conception...so she is holy longer than John the Forerunner who was sanctified upon the visitation of Elizabeth. So, Mary is #1! John is #2. Hehe

By the way, I have another question..I've heard of this "tradition" that when Mary was born, the priests at the Temple heard evil growls all night (of course poor satan was groaning in pain..that's TOO BAD!) Does anyone know where I find that tradition or "story?"

Hi PaniRose: Merry Christmas to all the Julian folk! I attended a Christmas Divine Liturgy yesterday morning at an Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic church. It was sooooo beautiful. As a pleasant surprise, the pastor asked me to proclaim the Gospel in English. That was a good sign for me in my search for spiritual sanity! Here is an article I thought you might like to read on the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception!

I've said this before: I would give my live for this Catholic Truth!

John
O Mary, conceived without sin; pray for us who have recourse to thee and for those who do not have recourse to thee.


Dogma of Immaculate Conception Opened a New Era


Interview With Journalist Vincenzo Sansonetti

ROME, JAN. 8, 2005 (Zenit) - Proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a providential event that reinvigorated "an exhausted Church" by reminding the faithful of "the existence of original sin and Christ's redemption."

So says Vincenzo Sansonetti, who worked for the Italian episcopal conference's newspaper Avvenire from 1976 to 1989.

In this interview with us he highlighted striking passages of his new book "The Immaculate Conception. From Pius IX's Dogma to Medjugorje" ("L'Immacolata Concezione. Dal Dogma di Pio IX a Medjugorje"), published in Italy by Piemme.

Since 1989, Sansonetti has been special envoy of and responsible for the cultural pages of the weekly Oggi; he also contributes to reviews such as Mass Media, Studi Cattolici, and Timone.

Q: When and why did the Holy See, all of a sudden, change its position on this mystery of faith, the object of devotion since the very first years of the Church?

Sansonetti: Rather than a change, one may speak of progressive maturation through the centuries which led the Popes to "support," with discretion but attention, popular devotion and the liturgical feast, for centuries already present in the Church.

The Popes were like arbiters in the disputes, often bitter, between the "maculates" and the "immaculates," led by Dominicans and Franciscans.

However, if one wishes to identify a crucial point, it must be found in the forced exile of Pope Pius IX, forced to flee to Gaeta, a fortress located in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, to remove himself from the fierce anti-Catholic and anti-papal persecution of the Roman Republic, led by Freemason Giuseppe Mazzini.

The book opens with an almost cinematographic scene, on a cold morning of January 1849, when Pope Mastai Ferretti went out on the balcony of the palace that offered him hospitality and saw a stormy sea. He was worried. Cardinal Lambruschini, who was by his side, said to him: "Your Holiness, the world will only be cured of the evils that oppress it ... by proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Only this doctrinal definition will re-establish the sense of Christian truths."

A few days later, from Gaeta, Pius IX published the encyclical "Ubi Primum" in which he asked all bishops worldwide to define themselves on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The result was virtually a plebiscite and, on December 8, 1854, the Pope pronounced the solemn declaration that "the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by special grace and privilege of God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

Q: The promulgation of this dogma took place in a period, heir to the Enlightenment, which in Italy enabled Giuseppe Mazzini to say: "A new era is arising which does not admit Christianity" and that was, as you affirm, characterized by a certain decadence in the life of the Church. Do you believe that this historical and ecclesial event had some affinity with what happened, for example, with the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe and, therefore, that it must be interpreted as the response of grace to an impossible human situation?

Sansonetti: The Guadalupe apparition in Mexico completed the evangelization of Latin America in the 16th century. The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, gave back vigor, in the mid-19th century, to an exhausted Church in a tight spot, by recalling the existence of original sin and the redemption of Christ.

They were providential events, which corresponded to a mysterious divine plan. And it is amazing that, four years after the proclamation of the dogma, on February 11, 1858, Our Lady appeared in Lourdes calling herself the Immaculate Conception, confirming the dogma.

She could have done so earlier -- there were tens, if not hundreds, of Marian apparitions prior to Lourdes -- but the Virgin respects the human way, the steps of the Church. And she described herself as the "immaculate" only "after" Pius IX's Bull of December 8, 1854.

Q: Can you tell us something about the supernatural events that reporters of that time wrote in regard to the promulgation of the bull "Ineffabilis Deus"?

Sansonetti: On the morning of December 8, 1854, in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, a ray of light fell on Pius IX at the moment of the reading of the bull "Ineffabilis Deus." An amazing phenomenon, because in no season, and much less so just before winter, and from no window of the Vatican basilica, could a ray of light reach the apse where the Pope was. It was seen as a kind of heavenly approval, the hope of a joyful future in the midst of the tormented life of the Church at the time.

A few months later, on April 12, 1855, Pius IX was visiting the "Propaganda Fide" School in Rome. All of a sudden the pavement opened up. That instant, the Pope cried out: "Immaculate Virgin, help us!" Miraculously, no one was hurt. For a century in that school the custom continued among the students, when dismissed for a break, to repeat the prayer "Immaculate Virgin, help us!"

Q: In "Ineffabilis Deus," Pius IX, in declaring the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, said that it was destined for "the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the enhancement of the Christian religion." What were the benefits obtained with the definition?

Sansonetti: It was another Pope who described the benefits for the life of the Church: St. Pius X, in the encyclical "Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum," published in 1904, fifty years after the proclamation of the dogma.

In addition to "the hidden gifts of graces" given by God to the Church through the intercession of Mary, Pope Sarto recalled: the convocation of Vatican Council I in 1870, with the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility; the "new and never before seen fervor of piety with which the faithful of all classes and nations, have been coming, for a long time, to venerate the Vicar of Christ"; the longevity of the pontificates of Pius IX and Leo XIII, most wise pilots of the Church; the "apparitions of the Immaculate in Lourdes and the flourishing of miracles and piety."

Missions, charity and culture flourished again, and the presence and visibility of Catholics returned to social life. An amazing example: On the day of the Assumption of 1895, after the courageous example of the Catholics of Roubaix, Eucharistic processions, which had been prohibited, resumed throughout France.

Q: During John Paul II's visit to Lourdes [last] year, on the day of the Assumption, papal spokesman Navarro Valls said: "The Pope has come to ask for healing not only of physical illness but of the gravest sickness that torments the modern world: forgetfulness of original sin."

Sansonetti: In reality, with his reminder of original sin, John Paul II did nothing other than repeat something already clear at the end of the 19th century, the century of Pius IX and of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And, on top of that, in environments that were certainly not clerical.

At the end of the 19th century, the poet Baudelaire, who was certainly not a flatterer, said: "The greatest heresy of our time is the negation of original sin!" This heresy is still alive and acting.

Suffice it to think of the campaign against the former Italian Minister Rocco Buttiglione, a Catholic, obliged to give up his candidature for European Commissioner for Justice and Liberties, for having used the word "sin" during a hearing.

Sin and original sin are denied because there is the desire to affirm the idea of man totally liberated from a supernatural dependence, from a Creator, a man who does not acknowledge his limitations and puts himself in God's place.

But man, freed from this bond, without a religious reference, becomes a tyrant to himself, prey to utopias and totalitarianisms. From a man without God, spring Nazism, Communism and the present terrorism that uses the word "god" for its bloody ends.

Mary Immaculate, with her gentle and benevolent smile, just as she has been pictured, has crushed the serpent's head and leads us by the hand toward Paradise, toward the immaculate condition that is her privilege, though promised to us all.


Contact: Catholic Online
http://www.catholic.org CA, US
Catholic Online - Publisher, 661-869-1000
Keywords: Immaculate Conception, Mary, Church, Catholic, Christ, Sin

PRAISE GOD!

It seems to be an obsession of the West to battle over what goes on in someone's womb.

Mary was still a human in need of salvation, right? Why did she refer to her son as "My Lord" ? Was it Mary and not Jesus who was born in everyway a human but sin? Or was conception of Mary similar to the Adoptionist understanding of Jesus becoming divine at his Baptism?

Cardinal Newman wrote beautifully of the Immaculate Conception and its lessons for us. He asks us to suppose that Eve had stood the trial instead of succumbing to the temptation, that she had kept the grace that was hers and ours in the beginning, and then to suppose that she had children. Those children, from the first moment of their existence would, through divine bounty, have received the same privileges that Eve had possessed. As she was taken from Adam's side clothed in grace, so her children in turn would have received what may be called an immaculate conception. We, her descendants, would have been concieved in grace as in fact we are conceived in sin.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is placed before our eyes as a daughter of Eve unfallen, and thus she shows us what our nature would have possessed supernaturally and by privilege if Eve had not fallen.
Ours is the same human nature that Our Lady possessed and, therefore, in the splendor of Mary's Immaculate Conception, we have a promise of something of what we yet may be if we cooperate with the grace of God that is restored to us by Jesus, Our Savior, but was hers from the beginning.
(From the writings of Cardinal John Wright)

O Mary, conceived without sin; pray for us who have recourse to thee!

John

Yes, Mary is still fully human and STILL need salvation. G-d still saved her just as He saved us on the Cross. Mary could NOT be conceived without stain of sin (Sin=inclination to sin, distortedness, death, etc) WITHOUT G-d's doing. She can't be conceived that way on her own.

Jesus didn't become Divine at his Baptism. He IS Who IS (I am) just as G-d identified Himself to Moses (I am). Jesus is ALREADY Divine even before His incarnation into Mary's immaculate womb. He is G-d.

That is why Mary MUST be pure and without sin from all eternity to her conception (Conception of St. Anne), so that G-d would be comfortable in a "sphere" of holiness just as G-d is holy. G-d cannot tolerate sin, not even an atom of sin...not EVEN for just a billisecond throughout her ENTIRE existence.

It's all for the GLORY of G-d, not for Mary. G-d deserves to be inside the purest vehicle for His Mission. He did that for Himself since as I mentioned before, He cannot tolerate sin.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Mary who is more spacious than the heavens.

i don't think the issue at hand regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception pertains to Christ being born without original sin. i think every Christian would attest to that - regardless of where they stood on the issue of the Immaculate Conception.

The question is why do we have to be dogmatic about the details? All teachings about Mary are focused on Christ - for without Christ, she is just "another" woman (as we are all just "other" people without Him). A case in point is her title of Theotokos.

What needs to be affirmed (and is) is that Christ was born without sin. i just can't get my mind around the reason of why we have to be explicit about the details regarding Mary's conception in this. Why are the details forced here when there is no need?

i ask this in all humility - i simply am seeking answers. i hope i haven't sounded argumentative or divisive as that is not my intent.

Peace,
the_grip

Excellent point/question. Mary's ontology is not necessary, but the West's tendancy to ontologize is unique. For instance, instead of how the Eucharist is spiritual 'food', which is to be consumed and not adored, the West needs to focus on its ontological, not soteriological, reality. So we end up with Eucharistic Adoration - a focus on the substance of its reality, not its role in our deification/partakers of the divine nature/theosis. Jesus said, "Take eat," not, "Take look."

Likewise, instead of focusing on St. Anne's conception - and being done with it - the West needs to ontologize the Immaculate Conception. As a result, we honor more Mary's 'immaculate' conception more than Jesus' conception on the feast of the Annunciation. This gives explanation to why the West will consider the ontologized feast of Anne's conception a "Holy Day of Obligation" rather than Jesus' "Most Holy Transfiguration."

The switch from a soteriology of Jesus (early Jewish Christology - Who is Jesus and how did he play in the economy of salvation?) to an ontology of Jesus (later Greek Christology - What is Jesus and how does he relate to the nature/essence of God?) was only natural because of the question: Who is this Jesus? Even the Gospels reflect this reflection on Jesus' person; the later the Gospel was written, the earlier it goes back in answering the ontological questions: Mark (at Jesus' Baptism), Matthew/Luke (at Jesus' Nativity), and then John (at his Pre-Existence). Such an ontological quest is only natural here since Jesus, not Mary, was God-Man. It was Arius who confused Jesus' subordination in the economy of salvation with his subordination in the essence of God.

But instead of the Conception of St. Anne (a soteriological event), we immortalize Mary's Immaculate Conception (an ontological quest). Instead of Mary's Dormition/Falling Asleep, we immortalize her bodily Assumption. Again, a focus on an ontology of her person.

Mary is the Mother of God (or Theo-tokos). This is the highest role any human person can attain in this life. She is the Queen of our hearts only because she is the supreme example of what humans must do: cooperate with the Holy Spirit (synergy) on their own free will - the eternal YES. She is the Christian par excellence. She is the heart of the Church; hence the reason why her image is depicted on the image of Pentecost (even though she is not mentioned in such an event in the Book of Acts).

But Mary is not, nor was she ever, God. I believe it was St. John Damascene who defined the difference between dulia (or hyperdulia) and latria. We don't worship Mary. There is no need to speculate on her person as far as Jesus, whose nature was/is God-Man.

Funny how the two major Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, deal with events found in the non-canonical Gospels, which even the Church did not accept. Like bookends, they lie outside the corpus of the Good News, which is still Jesus the Christ. So, I guess ANY speculation outside the scope of the canon can be without limit. So, ontologize away! What the canonical Gospels have to say about Mary is more critical. She is an ever-virgin because Isaiah said it-had-to-be. Such is the e-con-o-my. Mary wondered; Joseph pondered. Let's don't think we can come up with the answer if they didn't. Let it be.

Joe

grip,

Who is to say there was no need to define some of the "details"? You? Me? Or the Church? And how "detailed" is unnecessary? I know most Protestants would shudder in revulsion at the details the Church in the East has given to Mary and "forces" upon her followers. Where do we draw the line? The lowest common denominator? Many believe that even the title "theotokos" is unnecessary and should not be "forced" upon believers.

Often those in the East are consternated about definitions applied by the Church in the West. It is true, as J Thur indicated, that we are somewhat "ontologically obsessed". However, this is who we are, and therefore, this is where our heresies come from as well. The East has not had the same heresies as the West, and often cannot understand our need to define things that were never an issue for them (aside: it seems the 1st millenium consisted in battling heresies that originated in the East, whereas the 2nd millenium was consumed with heresies in the West: I wonder what this millenium will bring?).

I recently read an article by Mark Shea about the " Case for Marian Devotion ". In it, he explains why he believes the Church defined both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. They were both defined in response to incorrect (and dangerous) worldviews that permeated the western world at the time. Who are we to say the definitions were not "needed"? We are unable to see all the ramifications of such an act.

Dear Friends,

There certainly are doctrines that are "forced" such as the doctrine of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos.

What need not be forced ( and should not be) is a particular dogma that relates to the theological tradition of a particular Church (in this case, the Latin) and that, as a result, has no relevance to Eastern Churches that work within other traditions.

However, I believe that today RC's may accept the Orthodox position on Original Sin.

Alex

Dear Cantor Joseph,

You said that Mary is not mentioned as having been with the Apostles at Pentecost.

I think you are wrong.

In the first chapter of Acts, the Apostles are listed along with Mary the mother of Jesus, among others, who continued "with one accord in prayer and supplication." (verse 14)

In the second chapter, it is stated "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." (verse 1).

The Church, by approving icons of Pentecost with the Mother of God, has also affirmed that she was indeed with the Apostles, along with other women who worked with them.

Women were present at the Resurrection. They were present at Pentecost too.

Alex

francis,

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. i do find your point valid in the Latin church, but i still struggle with this outside of it. Since i still can't seem to come to grips (no pun intended) with the universal Papal authority, i am wrestling with this. i find the main reasoning for this to be along the lines of (albeit this is a simplified way of putting it), "The Pope said so, so it's dogma." Apart from that, i can't find grounds for the explicit details. As i said before, i definitely agree with the results of what the Immaculate Conception espouses (as i do with Transubstantiation, which was just mentioned). i don't think any Christian could dispute the results.

i definitely know that i could be wrong about my position. May the Lord save me from error if so, and i would appreciate a prayer if indeed you think i am in error.

Orthodox Catholic,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts as well. Is what you said above true? Does the Latin church only require this of those who are in the Latin church? i thought dogmas were to be binding on all Christians.

Your friend,
the_grip

Dear Grip,

I guess the question is whether the Latin Church can force a doctrine and its theological formulation on other Churches that have always accepted the "pith and substance" of the same doctrine (ie. Mary's total holiness and sinlessness), but have other theological perspectives that are non-Latin (or non-Augustinian).

In that case, if the Latin Church insists on "forcing" such on other Churches, what it is really doing is forcing nothing else than Latin theology, rather than universal Christian truth.

Alex

Alex,

Time elapsed since stating earlier, "When they entered the city ... All those devoted themselves with one accord to prayer ... with some women, and Mary ..." (Acts 1:13,14)

Then the author states, "During those days ... Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers ..." (Acts 1:15)

Later, Acts 2:1 states, "When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together."

Who are they? This is the big question.

In Byzantine iconography, "they" may include only the Apostles at Pentecost with tongues of fire. Sometimes, Mary is seated in the middle (without the "other women" mentioned in Acts 1:14), not because she is the prime Apostle, but because she is the "heart" of the Church.

Who was in that room at the time of Pentecost is made clear in later verses. Peter's speech at Pentecost counters the arguments that the multitude of languages spoken was because they were drunk.

We read: "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven ..." and again, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, ..." (Acts 2:14, 37) The Eleven (actually, The Twelve including Peter) does not include Mary or any other women.

Though Mary and the "other women" were mentioned earlier in Acts, other events later occured when Mary and the other women were not present or at least implied in Acts.

Of course, all history is written by the victors, so Mary Magdalen could have been the true prime apostle, whereas Peter and the rest got jealous and banished her, then accused her of being a whore in order to discredit her. This is a contemporary interpretation. But interesting enough, Mary Magdalen is not celebrated on the same feast day as the Woman caught in adultery. So, who started this messy theory?

But this makes fuel for another thread, no?

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Well, as you know, I wasn't there . . .

But I think that since the Church allows for the Mother of God to be present in iconography and in the words of some of the Fathers, it's probably a safe bet!

The Spirit was sent to the Body of Christ.

As Fr. Meyendorff of blessed memory once wrote, just as the Mother of God nourished Christ when He was on earth, so too she now nurtures the members of the Body of Christ that is the Church.

Certainly, she did that at Pentecost and throughout the ministry of the Apostles and her own ministry as well.

The deuterocanonical book on the Dormition of the Mother of God (and the Church took much from it that went into the services for this feast) depicts the Mother of God as someone who, following Pentecost, was a great miracle-worker while still on earth, loved by everyone and giving counsel that many, including non-Christians, sought of her.

St Mary Magdalene is "Equal to the Apostles."

She could do everything the Apostles could do, except with respect to the Mysteries and church leadership.

I'm almost positive she could beat the Apostles in a fishing derby though . . .

Have a good evening!

Alex

One could do a beautiful meditation on the Virgin Mother of God by using the Icon of the Feast of Pentecost. If you look at it there is the Mother of God seated in the very midst of the Apostles "Queen of the Apostolic College" and the the center of the Church...receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, Whose bride she was! How magnificent! What a poet could do with this icon!!!

In her service,
+Fr. Gregory

Bless, Father!

I've often thought that a number of Western devotions take their inspiration from such biblical/iconographic themes i.e. "Queen of Apostles" "Our Lady of the Eucharist" etc.

Interestingly enough, the more I've had an opportunity to drink the sweet waters of the Byzantine liturgical tradition, the more convinced of this I've become.

Alex