www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Orthodox Study Bible

Who knows maybe if they translate "chaire kechariomene" right I might just donate to the work.
Stephanos I
PS I met Fr Jack and an Armenian priest recently at a conference of Easern Catholic Clergy.

Dear Stephanos,

If interested, see my comments on St. Luke 1:28 on Amplified Bible thread. Btw, what is Fr. Jack's attitude towards Eastern Catholics? Who was the Armenian priest? Do you know if he was Catholic or Orthodox?

Dear Stephanos,

I just wanted to let you know that I've received my answer from my Armenian expert biblical consultors. Apparently "shnorhali" is the word used in the most accurate Armenian contemporary Bible (which is a faithful translation of the Classical "Grapar" Armenian a.k.a. the "Queen of Translations"). Shnorhali is a word every Armenian is familiar with becuase it is the title of one of our greatest doctors: St. Nerses Shnorhali also known as the "Father of Ecumenism" becuase of his unprecedented ecumenical spirit towards the Greeks and Latins. Shnorhali means "grace-filled." So, apparently Armenian Church Tradtion concurs that "full of Grace" is a faithful rendering of the original Greek. No wonder when our Church produced the first English edition of the Armenian Bible, they used the RSV Catholic Edition (RSVCE) for its base text. (Of course our OT Canon differs slightly from the Roman Cathoilc Canon).

Just thought you'd be interested to know this. Perhaps the new OSB will be closer to this rendering. Thanks again for your input in this thread.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Bless, Father Stephanos,

I just read over this thread . . .

The issue you raise about the Immaculate Conception is a purely Western one involving Augustinian perspectives.

The texts present no problem whatever for the Eastern Church which, nevertheless, has always believed the Mother of God (and St John the Baptist) to have been sanctified by the Spirit from their Conception.

Alex

Good to hear from you brother Alexander. Thanks for your input.

Ghazar

Dear Alex:

It has been my understanding that Mar Yohannan Mamadhana aka St. John the Baptist was sanctified by the Holy Spirit not at conception but about six months later, the point when his mother Elizabeth was greeted by the Mother of God (see Lk 1:15 fulfilled in Lk 1:41).

Is the sanctification of St. John from his conception a standard view among the Byzantines?

God bless,

Rony

Dear Rony,

Actually, the Latin Church does believe St John the . . . what you called him was sanctified at the time of the "Visitation" of the Mother of God with St Elizabeth.

But that view is based on the Latin Church's view of Original Sin.

The Byzantine Church celebrates the Feast of the Conception of St John the Baptist, and in so doing, proclaims the Spirit sanctified him at that moment, as He did with the Most Holy Mother of God Whose conception we also celebrate.

The services of both feasts already acclaim these two holy individuals, those "least unworthy" of Christ our Lord, as Saints and this at their Conception.

Only the liturgical feasts of Saints may be celebrated and this is why only the feasts of their Conception is celebrated.

But there is also a tradition that St Nicholas of Myra was also conceived in holiness in the same way, although a feast day has never been established for this - but I've seen liturgical propers written for the "Conception of St Nicholas" and it is quite legitimate to privately venerate this holy saint in this way.

Alx

Dear Alex:

Wow, this is quite interesting

Since you mentioned that sanctification at the visitation is a Latin view, then I think that's from where I picked up my understanding.

However, I checked the Calendar of my Church and also the Calendar of the Assyrian Church of the East, and I noticed that they do not referrance his conception but simply state that we celebrate the memorial/commemoration of St. John the Baptist.

I havn't checked for a more formal answer, but I now think that perhaps the Chaldean/Assyrian view is to not pinpoint exactly when St. John was sanctified but just simply say that he was sanctified "even from his mother's womb" as how the angel says in Lk 1:15, and leave the issue open as to when exactly in the womb it happened.

As to LK 1:41, I can see now how it might be interpreted and harmonized with the Byzantine liturgical tradition. For instance, while St. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, that does not necessarily mean that this was the point when St. John himself received his sanctification, since St. John's soul is separate from that of his mother. As to the Scripture referring to his leaping for joy, well that might just mean a supernatural internal kick in the stomach as many pregnant mothers experience naturally but not necessarily implying that sanctification of the child has just occured.

Having said that, the Latins are entitled to their view and I respect it. Likewise, the Byzantines are entitled to their view and I respect it as well.

Now, what do the Byzantines say about the lifelong holiness of St. John? Did he remain sinless all his life like the Holy Virgin? What about the tradition of St Nicholas of Myra, do you know if the tradition says that he also remained sinless? I presume that St. Mary was the only one, apart from our Lord, who remained sinless all her life and would be very much surprised to learn that St. John as well as St. Nicholas are seen in the same way by the Byzantine tradition.

I'd love to hear what the Armenians, Coptics, and Maronites say about this? Ghazar, Mardukm, Yuhannon?

God bless,

Rony

Dear Rony,

While I do not know what the �Latins� think - we Roman Catholics believe in a way similar to what you express Rony. It comes to us from tradition and by way of commentary from some early fathers of the church, that John the Baptist was sanctified upon the greeting of Mary to Elisabeth at the Visitation.

There exists a mistaken interpretation of the Roman Catholic views - which mistaken interpretation has it the Catholic doctrine is that sin can be transmitted through the (huh) body fluids during the sex act. Sorry to be so blunt. As I say, this is a mistaken interpretation and not a Catholic teaching even at the same time it had been a widely held view among early Christians.

The context of the times of these early Roman Catholic debates and discussions on the subject, helps when one reads them. Agustin and Aquinas are milestones in the progression from 'sin is in the blood'.

The Jewish belief (and very early Catholic belief) was that sin was in the blood. This was widely held to be true in the early Eastern cultures. It held that: For the remission of sin - the shedding of blood was necessary - because sin was �in the blood� in some material like way.

You see, to these Jews and early Christians, the heart was the spiritual center of a person. The �heart� was the center of the person. It was were all passion and thought originated. One did not think with his head - he thought with his heart. Emotions were not the release of endorphins in the brain spiritual effluence which originated in the heart. A very good explanation of this early view is given by Bishop Kallistos Ware in his tapes �The Prayer of the Heart�.

The Jewish ban on eating meat of which the blood had not been toughly drained meant that the person risked become more animal in nature (think a bit of the Island of Dr. Moreau). In as much as the spirit and flesh co-mingled - in the heart - and it was the blood which carried the spirit of the heart to the rest of the body.

This of course is symbolic, and understood by some in its symbolic meaning, but from others it was taken in a literal and fundamentalist way.

Sin certainly exists �in the heart� but spiritual �heart� should not be confused with the physical heart or blood. While a person can be said to have been conceived �in sin� that old phrase refers to the passions of lust and has no real bearing on the state of the soul of the baby conceived but is rather a commentary of the state of the souls of those involved in lustful sex. In Victorian times the fundamentalist view that sex = sin became very predominant.

The philosophical or theological discussions of Augustine and Aquinas were significant steps forward from the early beliefs which were widely held in the pagan world as well as by most Christians, and was the basis of the continuation of �class� levels and social status divisions. It can be seen in the Leper cities of Eastern cultures and the Untouchables of India. Augustine was the first significant Christian �thinker� to lay out the logic of �sin is in the blood� and show it did not make sense. Aquinas finished the work (also by showing that the logic did not hold) and Christianity (as a society) was finally freed from it. Without Augustine and Aquinas we might still believe that diseases such as Leprosy are due to the personal sins of the Leper - that a man born blind is blind due to his own sins or the sins of his parents - or that sin is somehow passed to us when we tounch someone of a �lower class�.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary - refers to the state of her own soul, of course. While others might be sanctified (brought from sin to holiness) Mary was conceived having already full grace. Sinless. No sanctification (the act of taking someone from his sin into holiness) was necessary nor could it be done.

As Stephanos remarks (and he should be trusted) scriptures and tradition note that only Jesus and Mary are referred to in such a way as to indicate �full of grace� - meaning �no grace lacking� and no sanctification needed or possible. Neither Jesus nor Mary could be sanctified nor referred to in any way as sanctified.

The greatest among men (according to Jesus) was John the Baptist sanctified while in the womb. We are to assume that none other was sanctified in the womb but after birth in normal daily life.

These are just my opinions.
-ray

Dear Ray the Roman Catholic ( ),

No problem about your discussion of bodily fluids - it fits well with the St Valentine's Day theme I'm trying to develop in the Town Hall!

It never ceases to amaze me about how our Latin friends go to such lengths to exonerate Augustine and the Augustinian tradition of the "stain of Original Sin" - which statement is in the papal definition of the Immaculate Conception.

So where did the Popes get this notion from? Not from the Eastern Fathers!

There is, in the Spanish Church as well, a school of Josephology that regards him as being immaculately conceived as well.

Does the Latin Church celebrate liturgically the feast of the Conception of St John the Baptist?

If it does, and I'm not sure it does, then, to the East, this would already be a liturgical assertion that John was sanctified at his conception - and not at the time of the Visitation.

The East rejects the idea of the inheritance of the guilt of Original Sin from Adam - which it regards as nonsensical in any event.

But the sanctification of a soul at conception, which the East believes, by way of the "lex orandi," occurred with the Theotokos and with the Forerunner and could have occurred with others, was to prepare them for their important roles in the mystery of Salvation in Christ.

This sanctification mitigated the effects of Original Sin in their lives. For example, as the Eastern liturgy sings, the Theotokos felt no pain at her birth-giving of Christ.

You perhaps could comment on why today one would find support in the Latin Church for BOTH the traditional "stain of Original Sin" perspective as well as the Patristic Orthodox position.

Why can't you Westerners agree on one position here and be consistent for a change?

(Remember, this is not a Catholic board, so you Latins are fair game. You would be fair game in any event whenever Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are around though . . . ).

God bless, O New Latin Illuminator!

Alex

Dear Rony,

I don't know what the Latins say about this (and after reading Ray's post above, I still don't ), but the Byzantine East has its own tradition based on its "lex orandi" in its liturgy.

The East only defines two doctrines about the Mother of God - that she is Ever-Virgin (before, during and after the birth of Christ) and that she is the Most Holy Mother of God, of Christ our Lord, God and Saviour.

Liturgically, the Byzantine East (I have to remember that your Church is further "East" than ours! ) venerates her Conception, the Conception of St Anne, as Holy - only the feasts of Saints can be celebrated liturgically and so the Mother of God was holy, or sanctified already at her Conception.

And so was St John the Baptist whose Conception we also celebrate. The great Melkite Archbishop Raya writes that our salvation begins with the holy conception of St John the Baptist and the propers for that office praise him as a saint and precursor and forerunner of the Lord Jesus.

In addition, St Nicholas of Myra is so highly venerated in the East in general. There is the general, liturgically-affirmed belief that he too was conceived in holiness.

John the Theologian is VERY highly venerated in the East, his Gospel really defines Eastern spirituality regarding Christ and he too is believed, but not by the force of a doctrinal statement, to have been conceived in holiness - and to have been TRANSLATED to heaven bodily.

He was placed while yet alive into his tomb at Ephesus, according to his wishes, and the stone was placed on top.

The next day, his disciples came by and saw that he had gone - he had been taken to heaven by the Lord and there are no physical remains or relics of him. Instead, a gentle breeze blows around those who hold services at his empty tomb in Ephesus, enveloping them with particles that fill the air - and this is all mentioned in the Akathist service to him, and is affirmed by pious and hagiographic tradition.

I also see nothing wrong with the Western tradition of seeing St Joseph the Betrothed as having been conceived in holiness too.

Alex

Alex,

The Latin Church does not celebrate the Conception of the Forerunner nor does any other Church as far as I can tell, which points to the late introduction of this feast. His Nativity and Beheading and Synaxis are the most ancient Feasts in his honor. Also the text of the Feast of his conception refer to the miraculous way the conception took place and do not imply he was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception the way the Theotokos was. So I think it would be erroneous to conclude that the Byzantines teach that St. John was without sin from his conception. His cleansing in the womb at the visitation seems the more ancient tradition East and West.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Well, in Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" that I just happened to have open when I read your post above, he has this to say on page 193:

"The Orthodox Church . . . does venerate the conception of the Mother of God, as it does also the conception of the Holy Prophet and Forerunner John."

In both cases, it is a miraculous occurrence that is being venerated - and in both cases, as Fr. Pomazansky (and others) show, it is the very CONCEPTION of these two Holy People ("those least unworthy of Christ") that is being venerated.

What you say about the feast of the Conception of St John is ALSO true about that of the "Conception of St Anne" - its miraculous and grace-filled occurrence.

If you say, as you appear to be saying, that what is honoured is the miraculous manner of conceiving - rather than the holiness of the persons who were conceived at that time - then you would be clearly wrong - both the miraculous nature of the event and the holiness of the persons so miraculously conceived are honoured.

The event of John's conception is not separate from the holiness of his person when he was conceived. The "subject" of the feast is St John the Baptist himself - just as the subject of the feast of the Conception of St Anne is the Mother of God herself.

There were and are, for example, Churches dedicated to the Conception of St John the Baptist and to the Conception of St Anne. The latter dedication is in the Kyivan Caves Lavra.

As Archbishop Raya states in his "Byzantine Daily Worship" our salvation begins with the Conception of the Forerunner - the prayers are addressed to him on the feast of his Conception - this can ONLY mean that he was sanctified at that time, just as the Conception of St Anne means that the Mother of God was sanctified at the time of her Holy Conception in the womb of her mother, St Anne.

Only these two individuals have their conceptions celebrated liturgically - whether these feasts are late or not, whether other Churches have them or not, affects not our understanding of them, but their rank in the overall scheme of salvation history.

In fact, the Latin feast of the Visitation is TOTALLY absent from the Byzantine calendar, it was never in it and if there ever was an Eastern Father who held to the view that the Baptist was sanctified when the Most Holy Virgin Mary visited her cousin, then this is most certainly not given any notable liturgical attention as it is in the Latin Church.

Furthermore, "cleansed" is not the Eastern understanding of Original Sin since there was no stain of guilt that needed to be cleansed from the soul of John the Baptist.

The Holy Spirit overshadowed John in his Conception, as He did in the Conception of the Virgin Mary and filled them both with His choicest gifts to prepare them for the singular roles they were to play in salvation history.

The West adopted the feast of the Conception of St Anne only locally, in England as you know.

For the West, the feast of the Conception of St Anne was focused on the Mother of God and her miraculous conception as well. But the view of her Immaculate Conception (which was always generally accepted by the West dating from Augustine) required, according to the way the West does theological "business," formal definition - and this occurred 150 years ago this year when the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed.

As the OCA website entry for the feast of the Conception of St Anne demonstrates, the icon for this feast is, in fact, an image of the Mother of God with arms lowered and flanked by her parents, the Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna.

This icon is identical to the Western image of the Miraculous Medal or "Our Lady of Grace" and several iconic versions of it are listed in Professor Poselyanin's book "Bogomater."

There can be no doubt but that the feast of the Conception of John the Baptist means the same thing - that it points to the celebrate of sanctity in his life at his Conception, in the same way that it does in the liturgical celebration of the Conception of St Anne.

And, once more, the Visitation is completely passed over as a feast-day in the East.

But these two feasts have not the rank of other festivals of our Lady and the Precursor - the festival of the Immaculate Conception in the West has a very high liturgical rank indeed, both as a feast and as a dogma.

And the East did not, and will not, dogmatize about the Holy conception of either, nor is this issue a most important one for the East - thus, the root of why the feasts are late in coming, just as veneration to the Mother of God is later than that paid to Christ etc.

The fact that ONLY the Byzantine Church celebrates the festival of the Conception of St John really does underline its importance in how our family of Churches understands, as Archbishop Raya wrote, "the beginning of our salvation."

And the pious view of the holy conception of St Nicholas and St John the Theologian - it is suggested in the services to them. I came across a formal Troparion and Kontakion for the "Feast of the Conception of St Nicholas of Myra" - but this is clearly in some sort of anticipation that such a feast would be eventually declared by the Orthodox Church.

And the fact that other Eastern Churches do not celebrate this Byzantine festival in honour of the Precursor does NOT mean they would necessarily disagree with the liturgical and theological implications underlying it.

Only the West, with its peculiar understanding of Original Sin required a "time for cleansing" for the Baptist, even if it was in the womb of his mother.

The feast in question means that John the Baptist was conceived in holiness as was the Mother of God.

That the Holy Spirit infilled him again at the time of the Visitation - no one would deny that, or at the time of the Lord's Baptism.

The Orthodox who deny the Immaculate Conception doctrine sometimes affirmed that our Lady was sanctified by the Spirit at her Annunciation.

Of that there can be no doubt - but she was clearly infilled by the Spirit at several times in her life, beginning with her Conception, at Pentecost etc.

To paraphrase the words of the First Council, "This is the Orthodox Faith!"

Have a great day, love y'a!

Alex

I'm with our brother Alexander on this. First off does it even make sense in the Eastern Tradition to speak of at what point someone was "cleansed of sin." Do we even teach that a baby needs to be cleansed of sin?

Secondly, the Armenian tradition affims St. Mary was "Grace-filled" (St. Lk 1:28). Yet we have several saints who also bear that title, the Catholicos St. Nerses the Grace-filled (Shnorhali) being one of the most prominent. Yet I'm sure all would agree that the Asdvadz-a-dzeen (Mother of God) was Grace-filled in a more pre-immenent way.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Alex,

Interesting to see that you have relapsed in your perspectives on the "inheritance of the guilt of Original sin" and the "stain of guilt". God bless your students.

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000756