The immaculate Theotokos in the fathers

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

I've been reading a good number of posts on the Immaculate Conception, and it seems that it would be useful to take a closer look at what the Fathers and Saints of the Church say about it, so I will post some quotes, and invite others who are interested in what Tradition contains on this subject.

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373), "the lyre of the Holy Spirit", says this in his "Nisibene Hymns", ("Script. Syri",Corpus Scriptorum Orientalium, vol 218, p. 20; vol. 219, p. 76, ed. E. Beck, Louvain, 1903+)

"Certainly you alone and your Mother are from every aspect completely beautiful, for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Then there is St. Ambrose of Milan (339-397):

"Adopt me, however, not from Sarah but from Mary, so that it might be an incorrupt virgin, a virgin by grace free from all stain of sin."


(Message edited by alexis_bugnolo on 26 May, 2005)

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Then there is St. Abraham of Ephesus (6th Century), who founded a monaster at Constantinople, and then became bishop of Ephesus.

He says (Patrologia Orientalium, Vol. XVI, p. 452) of the Theotokos at Golgotha: "there was enough suffering from each side, to cause the soul of the most pure one to be torn as by a sword."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Next, there is St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740), who said (Homily I On the Nativity, 812A, tr. H. Graef.) in regard to the Theotokos at Her birth:

"Today the pure nobility of men receives the grace of the first creation by God and thus returns to itself: and the human nature, which clings to the newly born Mother of the Beautiful One, receives back the glorious beauty, which had been dimmed by the degradation of evil, and the best and most marvelous new formation. And this new formation is truly a re-formation, and the re-formation a deification, and this restoration to the first state."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Then, there is Chrysippus of Jerusalem (399-479), who puts these words into the mouth of Satan in regard to Eve and Mary (Patrologia Orientalium, Vol. 19, pp. 340-1):

"How does it happen that the instrument which became my helper in the beginning is now opposed to me? A woman brought it about that I should take the human race into tyranny and a woman has thrown me out from tyranny. The ancient Eve exalted me, the new One threw me down."

Which could not have happened if Our Lady was ever without the grace of God, for if she was without it even for a moment, she would have fallen under the devils power; ergo..

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

The great Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215) likens the Church to Mary, saying of the Church (Paedag. Bk. I, ch. 6, n. 21);

". . . for she alone is not a woman but a virgin and a mother, immaculate as a virgin, loving as a mother . . .

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Next, there is Euthymius of Constantiople (c. 834-917) a monk and Patriarch of the City, confessor to Emperor Leo VI "the Wise", who says of Mary (Patrologia Orientalium, Vol. 19, 5, p. 501):

"most brilliant, most holy, from pure, immaculate and distinguished blood"

and again (ibid., Vol. 16, 3, p. 508-9):

"the pure, unsullied, untouched, most immaculate and most beautiful spouse of the invisible and unfathomable God."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And who could forget what St. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390) said in his 38th Oration, n. 13,

"He took all things human save sin: conceived of a Virgin who had been purified previously (prokathartheise) by the Spirit in soul and body, for it was becoming to honour child-bearing and show preference for virginity."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And likewise, who can passover what the famous Gregory Palamas (d. 1359) said of the Immaculate Theotokos (Ed. of Sphocles Oikonomos, Athens, 1861, 6):

"God has kept this Virgin for Himself from before all ages. He chose Her from among all generation and bestowed on Her grace higher than that given to all others, making of Her, before Her wondrous childbirth, the Saint of Saints, giving Her the honours of His own house in the Holy of Holies . . . Wishing to create an image of absolute beauty and to manifest clearly to angels and to men the power of His Art, God made Mary truly beautiful . . . He made of Her a blend of all divine, angelic and human perfection, a sublime beauty embellishing the two worlds, rising from earth to heaven and surpassing even this latter."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Then, there is the great St. John Damascene (c. 675 - d. c. 750), who wrote a beautiful prayer of marian consecration, and who said in another passage (Patrologia Graeca, Vol, 96, p. 664B):

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew and was formed by the increase gradually received from her! O womb in which a living heaven, vaster than the vastness of the heavens was conceived!"

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And it is worth mentioning that Joseph Bryennios (d. 1436/38), a Orthodox theologian who opposed the union of the Council of Florence, said of Mary that She was "sanctified in the womb" (Works of Joseph Bryennios, Leipzig, 1768-84).

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And then there is the Emperor Leo VI himself, who said of Mary (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 107, p. 164D):

"Christ's hands, which contain all things, receive your stainless soul; whereas, your pure and immaculate body is transported to the purest place."

In another passage he says that Mary is the "root planted by God".

Is not what is planted by God is perfect and without any stain of sin?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Roman Catholic theory about the Most-pure Theotokos Immaculate Conception states that she was immaculate from conception. This is because of the notion that a human with sin could not bear the sinless Christ. Seeing her in this way removes her from the whole context of God's providence for mankind as a process of deification.

The Mother of God participates in God's providence for mankind as much as any other person. Indeed it is on this that her intercessory role so dear to Orthodox Christians rests.

As the Patristic quotes above show the Orthodox Church sees the Theotokos as being stainless but she became so due to her leading a holy life in accord with the will of God. In other words there is nothing inevitable about this but rather she first assented to the will of God and then her sanctification takes place within the context of theosis- a growing into the Light of Christ.

The phrase "sanctified in the womb" refers not to an Immaculate Conception in the Roman sense but rather to how the Theotokos is already from before birth set within the context of how her parents, Joachim & Anna, have offered her to God. There si the willing accord of her parents of also of the Theotokos. Without this there is no salvation possible. It is precisely in this sense that she is the fulfillment of the hope of the Jews for their deliverance & of the providence of God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Alexis asked:

Is not what is planted by God is perfect and without any stain of sin?

This reminds me of the discussion we had here at monachos not long ago about whether God's creation is perfect. As Matthew S pointed out at the time it is the assumption behind the question itself which is the problem. For perfection (again I am just trying to repeat what I thought was Matthew's point) is not an absolute state from the moment of creation but rather a dynamic process of theosis. So perfection is something we all strive for but which really (since God's good is infinite) is a never-ending process of finding our life in Him. As the Scriptures & Holy Fathers say, "from glory to glory." As one of us and our dear Mother the Theotokos is not above or beyond this growing into Christ. She is precisely our Mother because she shares in this process.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Dear Father Vereshack,

If creation can never be perfect from the moment it is first created by God, then God is not omnipotent and therefore not God: what you say here about theosis would impugn God's own generosity, power, and dominion over creation, by forcing Him always to act in a process, through secondary causes. You ennunicate this theory, but I do not find it anywhere in Scripture or the fathers.

True, theosis does take place, but it does not require an imperfect beginning. For even Christ grew in knowledge and grace, yet He is forever perfect. No Roman Catholic denies that Mary participated in theosis of this kind.

If God does something, it may or may not be perfect, but certainly it cannot be said to be sinful. For in biblical terms sin is "an obstruction" between God and the creature. Hence God cannot be its author.

But the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin does not regard sin in the sense of a moral, imputable condition of the will or person conceived, but rather the absence of the grace that makes one holy in the first moment of a human persons existence, so the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, says that Mary was created by God in communion with Him, and not outside of this grace which sanctifies, and that therefore, and that this special privilege was won for Her by Her Son in His Passion.

I think we can see from these quotes that I'll be posting, and which others surely can find, that the Immaculateness of the Theotokos is a doctrine which the Orthodox gave the Romans, and not vice versa.

As for the Immaculate Conception, though, it is surly worth another thread: here I proposed only to discuss Patristic and Historic monuments to Her Immaculateness.

[Father Anthony]

Fr. Raphael's comments about the "Immaculate Conception" ought to have been helpful in this thread, but it's also important to add to them.

The heresy of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary, by virtue of God's eternal fore-knowledge of her consent to bear the Christ, was preserved by God from "Original Sin" at her conception in the womb of St. Anna.

That is because the RCRO teaches that every individual is born with the *guilt* of Original Sin (rather than simply subject to the various "effects" of what the Orthodox more correctly term, "Ancestral Sin."

The Orthodox know that every individual is born free of the *guilt* of so-called "Original Sin" and therefore each of us is - according to the Latins' definition of "Immaculate Conception" - also immaculately conceived.

This is simply another example of error leading into error. The heresy of inherited guilt leads to the heresy of "Immaculate Conception."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Furthermore, there is the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, (1391-1425) who said of Mary (Patrologia Orientalium, Vol. 16, pp. 552-553):

"At the same time as the blessed one was born, I might also say, as She was conceived, He who had predestined Her with His own grace . . He was never not united to Her, from the very moment She had Her first beginning in the womb of Her barren mother."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And let us not forget the Emperor Matthew Cantacuzenus (d. 1356), who retired to a monastery, and who wrote (Patrologia Greca 152, p. 1036 D) of the Theotokos saying that She is:

"the tower of David, always protected against the attacks of the evil one, who has never been able to approach Her."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And then there was Neophytus the Reclus (1134-1220), a monk styled as the "Chrysostom of Cyprus", who said of Mary (Marianum, Vol. 36, 1974):

"Thou certainly, O illustrious Lady, have no need for praise from mortal lips, Thou who dwell in the heavenly kingdom, Spouse of the Father, Mother of the Son, Receptacle of the Holy Spirit, because Thou art immaculate."

and in another passage (Patrologia Orientalium, vol. 3, p. 530):

"Anne, delivered by the Creator of nature from the bonds of sterility conceives, by her spouse, Mary a daughter of God, to whom today she gave birth as the first-fruits of our salvation and the Immaculate Mother of God the Word, and, as the first fruits of the renewal of our nature, aged, and tarnished by the transgression of the divine precept."

and he uses these titles to praise the Theotokos (Marianum, ibid, passim):

"immaculate Spouse of Christ"
"blessed, untouched, immaculate Spouse, divinely acceptable to the immortal Father"

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And surprisingly, Nicephorus Callistus, a monk who had access to the library of Santa Sophia and who died c. 1335 -- and who is said by M. Jugie to be the first Orthodox theologian to deny the Immaculate Conception (which doctrine had just been proposed in its final form by Bl. John Duns Scotus, OFM, before the masters of the University of Paris c. 1300) -- hesitated to affirm his denial in a prayer to the Theotokos asking forgiveness saying (M. Jugie, L'Immaculée Conception, p. 219):

"if I have gone astray in deciding to speak of stain in regard to the All Pure One."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Then there is St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. c. 897), who says in one of his histories, that the Fathers of one of the great Ecumenical Councils hailed the Theotokos with these words (I ask pardon for forgetting the exact citation),

"Thou who art immaculate from the first moment of Thy existence!"

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And who could forget the wonderful words of St. Sophronius (d. 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, a resolute opponent of the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius. St. Sophronious says (In S.S. Deip. Annunt., 22, Patrologia Latina, vol. 87c, p. 3248):

"Others before Thee have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to Thee has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as Thou, none adorned with holiness like Thine; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you . . ."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

St. Theodore of Studion (c. 759-826) calls the Theotokos (5, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 96, p. 685A-D) to:

"the soil not cursed as the first" had been.

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Next, there is Theophanes of Nicaea (d. 1381), archbishop, who in his homily on the Most Holy Theotokos says that She was

"from the origin of Her existence united to the Spirit, the author of Life . . . participation in the Spirit was for Her participation in being, and Her conception was the image and type of the conception of Her Son."

[Theopesta]

the Most-pure Theotokos, said about her self in humble true feelings: luk1:46- 48
My soul doth magnify the Lord

47 (AKJV) For he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from now on all generations shall call me blessed.

the Most-pure Theotokos, she not present in the hevenly scene in Rev 5, 7

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

And there is Theophylact (died after 1092), a disciple of Michael Psellos and tutor to the son of Emperor Michael VII, who said (4, Patrologia Greca, Vol. 126, p. 133A) of Our Lady:

"She had been justified from the womb."

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Father Anthony,

The Catholic dogma on original sin does not have anything to do with inherited guilt of sin, but rather on inherited effects of the sin of Adam. The moral guilt is entirely his and in no way that of his offspring. The Catholic church not only does not teach that we are born personally guilty, but rather teaches that we are born without any moral guilt.

"Guilty of original sin" when it is used, is used metaphorically to mean that the one conceived is deprived of the grace that makes one holy, in which Adam and Eve were created."

Yours is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine: see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

for more on this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alexis,
About creation & perfection go to: below from this thread is a post from Matthew S. which really is to the point.

Posted on Friday, 06 May, 2005 - 9:50 am:
Dear friends,

[beginning cut]...

What does it mean to speak of a 'perfect' creation? Or, more specifically, a 'perfect' human person? Challenges against God's 'power' often begin from this premiss, that God has created an 'imperfect' world; but this statement can't be interpreted without some picture of the 'perfect' world one feels God has failed to manifest.

What is a perfect human person? We can articulate a response that is primarily categorical -- free from disease or deformity, capable and strong, intellectually free and able -- but such a response is highly secularised, inasmuch as we're speaking primarily of biological and abstractedly intellectual 'fitness'. Yet surely the Christian understanding of humanity's perfection must rest cardinally in the vision of union with God. The 'perfect man' is he whose full humanness is fully in communion with God's divinity, living as human a life of communion with God. To define human perfection in such a way, however, in fact eliminates the possibility of the kind of static categories that we tend to favour when thinking of 'perfection'. The being of God with which humanity is joined is infinitely beyond that which we are. A perfect communion with God's being is always a dynamic reality; perfect humanity is a humanity that is always being transfigured and transformed.

Christian visions of perfection have, then, at their very core to be dynamic and developmental. We are growing, changing, becoming the sons and daughters of God. Such growth is fraught with challenges (just as is the case, as a parallel, with the growth of a human child in the normal course towards physical adulthood), but such challenges are part-and-parcel with an understanding of perfection that is necessarily dynamic, as God is dynamic. If humanity truly is the 'image and likeness' of a God whose nature is Trinitarian relation, among whose chief gifts to the creature is intellectual reason and freedom, then 'being perfect' requires the constant challenge of bringing one's will and intellect into conformity with the will of God, such that we might be joined into a relationship that is united to him.

This kind of perfection will not allow for the kind of making static of experience and action that is so common in discussions on creation and perfection. God's power is exemplified in the fact that he did fashion a creation capable of change and mutation (which must always mean the capability for negative, as well as positive change), for it is only in this context that perfection through growth is possible. Else God merely makes some manner of perfect diorama, a set stage piece that has only the appearances of perfection. Yet God is Trinity, eternally in dynamic relation, a God whose 'image', humanity, must similarly be dynamic if it is to have any iconic connection to its source (which is what 'image' demands).

INXC, Matthew

You write:

"True, theosis does take place, but it does not require an imperfect beginning. For even Christ grew in knowledge and grace, yet He is forever perfect. No Roman Catholic denies that Mary participated in theosis of this kind."

From the context of your overall point the problem is how you or the Roman church define "an imperfect beginning". For us we do not say that God's creation is imperfect because Adam & Eve would still seek to grow in Him. Indeed a central aspect of perfection is how man & creation seeks its completion in a never-ending process even in Paradise.

Further about the theory of the Immaculate Conception read Fr Anthony's comments. The theory of the Immaculate Conception could only be called Orthodox if seen from outside of an Orthodox context & perspective. Thus our point is not only a disagreement over doctrinal issues. We are also making the point that one cannot claim to properly represent Orthodox doctrine from outside of the Orthodox Church. Inevitably there will be a misunderstanding & misinterpretation of Orthodox doctrine.

For many of us who are Orthodox it seems that modern Roman Catholicism is trying to have it both ways. Rejecting fundamental aspects of Orthodox doctrine while at the same time implying that we are really Roman Catholics if we would only recognise this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father Anthony]

Alexis Flavian Bugnolo (is he an Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic, I wonder?) wrote:

"The Catholic dogma of original sin does not have anything to do with inherited guilt of sin..." and "'Guilty of original sin' when it is used, is used metaphorically...'"

Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin."

If "original sin" is "forgiven" those who are forgiven are of necessity guilty of it.

The modern-day spin put on the RCRO doctrine of "Original Sin" notwithstanding, it *has* been and continues to be taught as inherited guilt. If it is not, then the false doctrine of "Immaculate Conception" is bogus within the RCRO, as it has no standing apart from the doctrine of original guilt.

Among the effects of "original sin/original guilt" is death. Yet, since the Theotokos died (we celebrate her Dormition on August 15), she was clearly not preserved from *that* effect.

At any rate, I refuse to argue the doctrine of the RCRO, since it's irrelevant to us as Orthodox Christians, other than to point out its errors in relation to Orthodox belief.

The Orthodox hold the view that the Theotokos is "More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim..." Anything more is inconsequential. She is held in this special honor because of who she is in relation to Christ, which makes her pre-eminent among the saints.

As I mentioned above, there is a modern "spin" put on the "Immaculate Conception" as well as on other key RCRO doctrines, which tends to make them more acceptable to non-Roman Catholics. A look at published documents pre-and post-Vatican II up to the present time reveals this tendency.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Alexis,

This subject matter has been discussed in the past on many occasions. You may do a search on the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Matthew Steenberg had summed things up quite well
in a post on another related thread a while back.

Posted on Monday, 20 October, 2003 - 12:19 pm:

Dear all,

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of 'original sin' as centred in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this 'congenital defect' that the Virgin's lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer 'like me' in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary's person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was 'protected from sin' from 'before her birth', specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn't sin, but that she couldn't sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well -- often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary's holy birth and sinless life -- which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy 'has no doctrine of original sin'. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC.

INXC, Matthew

[leandros]

Dear Alexis Flavian Bugnolo,

There is an important difference in the semantics differentiation in the use of the word "Immaculate" by Roman-Catholics and by Orthodox Christians.

The Roman-Catholics are referring to Immaculate Mary as a created human being. They are talking about an attribute of her nature. In this context she is the only human being that has such an immaculate nature, by birth or by grace is irrelevant. What is important is that she is one of a kind, a species by her own.

The Orthodox are referring to Immaculate GodMother as a person. We are talking about her personal participation - not by her nature - in God's uncreated Life by a transcendental way. While she remains a common human being - having the same nature as all humans, being born like everyone else - she is the only human person that is such an immaculate PERSON. What is important is that she is one of a kind, as a person.

This is the same the old difference between Roman-Catholics and Orthodox that emphatically have been surfaced in the dialogue between St. Gregory Palama and Barlaam the Calabrian in the 12th century.

This difference becomes obvious in the way that Orthodox are - almost - never referring to the Mother of God by her human name of "Mary". In the contrary the Roman-Catholics are using her human name "Mary" in almost every occasion.

There is nothing wrong in using her name, Mary, but this is a difference in semantics originated from the substantial relation with her that each Church suggests.

I dare to say that Catholic Church uses the name of Mary in the same context that it uses the name of Jesus - as a Name that guides to salvation, while the Orthodox Church is using only the name of Jesus in this context but accepts her names of "mother of God": Theotokos, and "Most Holy of all people": Pan-Holy and Virgin in this context and not her name of "Mary".

Orthodox never add her name Mary to "Virgin Mary" or "Pan-Holy Mary" or "GodMother Mary". Mary as a name of her human nature is importand and significant for historical reasons, in a way to guide us infront of her in a non-historical dimension by facing a person of a Virgin that gives birth to a baby and still remains virgin, a person that is the Mother of God, being herself absolutely and exclusively human like us all,a person that is Pan-Holy as the most humble of all humans.

In our Liturgies, in our prayers we never call her Mary.

In this context, dear Alexis Flavian Bugnolo, all Christian Saints have talked of Immaculate Mary - GodMother - but in an Orthodox point of view this was a statement about her participation to Uncreated Energies of God, a notion that the Catholic theology never adopted as a living reality of Church's life.

Thank you for your posts. It shows that you are honest and freehearted.

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

I will now address the objections advanced by Fathers Raphael and Anthony, and Matthew.

First, I started this thread not to speak about the Immaculate Conception, or Original Sin, but rather the "Immaculateness" of the Theotokos. But it seems from these objections, that you all concede that the quotes of the Orthodox Fathers, Saints, theologians and Emperors, I cited, do lead to this discussion.

It is clear that in the East their was an explicit faith in the holiness of the Theotokos which admitted that

1) She was without personal sin
2) She was presanctified, before conceiving Our Most High Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Father
3) This presanctification took place in the womb of Anne
4) The Theotokos was without the stain of any sin from the first moment of Her existence

If anyone would like to object to these conclusions drawn from the quotes, I cited, or cite other ancient Orthodox Fathers, Saints, theologians, or Emperors, I'd be more than interested to discuss them.

Now, before addressing the objections, I will briefly summarize what the Roman Church teaches on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception; but first Original Sin, because with the doctrine of Original Sin, the precise definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception becomes clear.

Original Sin

Here are two good links.

"Original Sin" an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not an official publication of the Catholic Church and which is known to contain errors: but this article is good)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm


The Decree on Original Sin, from the 5th session of the Council of Trent (this decree is official, but this translation in English from the original Latin is not)

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html


Now on to a discussion of Original Sin

"Original Sin" in Catholic theology means 2 different things

(1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) the spiritual consequence of this first sin in the descendents of Adam from the first moment of their creation in the womb of their mother


I - The Sin of Adam

The sin of Adam was a personal sin. Catholics hold it to be a deadly sin (what we call a "mortal" sin, since "mortal" is from the Latin, mortalis, meaning "of death"). St. John the Apostle speaks of deadly sins in one of his letters, where he says, "I do not say pray about a deadly sin."

In Catholic theology a mortal sin is any grave transgression of the 10 commandments and all that they imply. For example, not only adultery, but also taking pleasure in the thought of it, and this is but Christ's teaching, "If a man so much as look at a woman desiring her, he commits adultery with her in his heart."

In Catholic theology a mortal sin is called mortal "because it turns away the soul from its final end, robs it of its supernatural life and of sanctifying grace, makes it deserving of eternal death in Hell, and destroys all merits acquired, so that they no longer avail for salvation, until they revive by the recovery of grace; mortal sin also prevents us from obtain merit for eternal life from the good works we do, so long as we do not confess the mortal sin and receive the forgiveness of Christ from a priest." (cf. Catholic Catechism, Cardinal Gaspari, Kennedy & Sons, 1932, English edition, p. 57)

The Sin of Adam is also called the Capital Sin, since Adam was the head of the human race, and "capital" is from the Latin meaning "head". By this personal sin Adam lost certain gifts which God had given to him and which God would have given to all of Adam's posterity. These gifts are primarily cited in Ecclesiasticus 17:1-12 (this book is often called Sirach).

Among these gifts were

1) physical strength (Eccl. 17:2)
2) power over all other corporal creatures (v. 3)
3) dominion over all the earth (v. 4)
4) the gift of counsel (v. 5)
5) the gift of knowledge (v. 5)
6) the gift of the science of the spirit (v. 6)
7) the gift of wisdom (v.6)
8) the gift of the knowledge of good and evil (v. 7)
9) the gift of incorruptibility (Wisdom 2:23)


"But by Adam's sin death entered into the world"

Eccl. 25:33 "From the woman came sin, and by her we all die."

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

Romans 5: 13 "But sin was not imputed, when the Law was not"

Romans 5:14 "But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam"

Romans 5:15 "But if by the offence of one, many died"

Romans 5:16 "For the judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation"

Romans 5:17 "For

Romans 5:17 "For if by one man's offence death reigned through one"

Romans 5:18 "For if by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life."


NOW THIS LAST QUOTE from St. Paul makes the nature of the principle spiritual effect of Adam's sin evident. It is a loss of the justice without which man is doomed to death.

But justice is something spiritual, and hence in the soul.

And what can keep a man from ever dying is obviously supernatural.

And that this "justice" is the grace which makes one holy and a friend of God, and enables eternal life, St. Paul teaches in Romans 5:21,

"That as sin hath reigned to death, so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord"



II -- The Consequence of Adam's sin

This is what in Catholic Theology is more often meant by the term "original sin", as opposed to the personal sin of Adam which is called "the original sin".

**Note Well, that in English the article "the" makes an important distinction. This is not so obvious in the Latin texts of the Roman Catholic Church's official documents, since Latin, unlike Greek or English, has no word for "the", and hence the understanding of whether "the" is meant or not has to be taken from the context or custom of the term being used.

Now elsewhere St. Paul says that we are all born "children of wrath", and in this he refers to the fact that we are born under the consequences of Adam's sin, which is not just the deprivation of the gifts God gave Adam, but of the grace of justification, which is the grace that makes one holy.

Thus the doctrine of original sin (not of "the original sin") states that all the descendents of Adam, on account of his personal sin, are conceived and born without supernatural grace, in darkness and in spiritual death. And to be delivered from this they must be illuminated in Baptism by the grace merited by Christ.

Now it is clear that the doctrine of original sin becomes more clear when it is understood that human life begins at conception, and that the spiritual state of any human person begins at that moment. That a human person can receive grace in the womb is taught in the Gospel of Luke, when St. John the Baptist is presanctified in the womb at the moment his mother hears the greeting of the Theotokos in her ears.

In the same gospel, Luke reports that the Archangel Gabriel addresses the All Holy Theotokos with the term "kekaritomene", that is an specific form of the Greek perfect, which means "one who has been favored and remains so in the past".

In Latin "favor" is "gratia", which in English is rendered "grace". The grace which makes one favored by God is of God and makes one a sharer in His Divine Nature (cf. 2nd Letter of the Apostle Peter 1:4). Which is what the grace of justification does, as St. Paul says above.

Hence the conclusion is this: the Holy Theotokos received back the grace Adam lost before the Angel Gabriel visited Her.

Now from the quotes of the Orthodox writers I cited in previous posts, we can see that over the ages, the Church in the East came to understand that the precise moment this occurred was the very first moment of the Theotokos' existence, or as we say in modern medical terms, the moment of Her conception.


The Immaculate Conception

You can read the official teaching in English (a non official translation) at

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

and a good article on it at

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm


Official Teaching of Catholic Church

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Here by "revealed by God" the Pope means "implicit in Revelation", for Catholics say that not only are all truths explicitly contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition revealed, but also all truths which are implicit and can be inferred by the conjunction of one or more other truths.

As one can see, just as Original Sin has nothing to do with the personal sins of you or I, so the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with making the Theotokos something other than human, it just makes Her holy.


NOW TO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIONS

1) The immaculate conception and original sin doctrines do not stand or fall on whether one admits that creation was perfect. They depend on revealed truths contained in Revelation, namely that Adam sinned, that by Adam's sin we are conceived with a soul that has not grace, that the Theotokos was presanctified at the moment of Her conception, and that Christ merited this grace inasmuch as He Redeemed not only sinners from sin after the fact, but preserved His Mother from sin, by the same means He sanctifies all babies in Baptism, by giving Her the grace which makes one holy, so that She was never apart from His favor and friendship.

2) Forgiveness for the guilt of original sin is not forgiveness of the moral guilt imputable to a person for a personal sin, but the forgiveness of the consequences of Adam's sin, inasmuch as the soul is restored to God's favor. This forgiveness, most moderns would not call forgiveness, since in modern terms forgiveness is nearly always for moral faults, not the consequences of those faults. But the Latin term for forgiveness is "remittere" which is more aptly translated "remission" or "dismissing". The Official Position of the Catholic Church on the forgiveness of Original sin is often misunderstood because it is read in a modern translation, and not in Latin.

I humbly submit, therefore, that the objects were founded on misunderstandings of what Roman Catholics believe, and not on what we truly believe, and that therefore they are unfounded.

[leandros]

Official Vatican theology about "THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY" Link here (http://w1ww.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

53. The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is "the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head."(3*) Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.
...
56. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.(5*) Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God's command, by an angel messenger as "full of grace",(286) and to the heavenly messenger she replies: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word".(287) Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."(6*) Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith."(7*) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living,"(8*) and still more often they say: "death through Eve, life through Mary."(9*)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear brother in Christ Alexis,
You wrote:

First, I started this thread not to speak about the Immaculate Conception, or Original Sin, but rather the "Immaculateness" of the Theotokos. But it seems from these objections, that you all concede that the quotes of the Orthodox Fathers, Saints, theologians and Emperors, I cited, do lead to this discussion.

I think that many of us will not concede this point. As Matthew S has pointed out there is some common ground about the Most-pure Theotokos between us- that she is all-holy & pure and our Intercessor before her Son. But there are also differences which point to the fundamentally different ways in which we see soteriology. So to concede your point as if we are really on the same page if we could but recognise it is wrong for it overlooks what still fundamentally divides us.

For these many long centuries now it has been the judgement of our Church that the divide between us is of a fundamental theological nature flowing from the roots of how we define salvation. And in like manner Roman Catholicism judged us at least until recently. On what basis then is it recently being implied or said openly that actually we are both Orthodox if we could but see this? For us we cannot in good conscience say anything that would imply that our Holy Fathers were in delusion concerning these fundamental doctrines which led to our seperation. For us the past does not vanish into thin air because for us the saints and their holy vision is still alive and guiding the Church. So we have a difficult time accepting whatever denies this not out of prejudice but rather from a desire to be faithful to what we believe Christ gave us to be faithful to -His Church, the Theotokos & the saints.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dr. Alexander Roman of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

The Immaculate Conception
The Orthodox Church never subscribed to the extreme Augustinian view of "inherited guilt" with respect to Original Sin.

According to this view, we not only inherit the "effects" of Original Sin on our nature e.g. death, concupiscence and so on, but also the guilt of the personal sin of disobedience committed by Adam.

The Orthodox Church, following the Fathers of both East and West, affirms that Original Sin is experienced by us in our weakened natures, in the fact of death and the like - we cannot be held accountable, however, for the sin committed by someone else.

If, therefore, the Mother of God physically died, and the tradition and liturgical prayers both affirm that she experienced a blessed repose in her dying, a "Dormition" or falling asleep, then the Mother of God inherited the effects of Original Sin.

However, the Orthodox Church has always affirmed that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Holy Spirit even at her Conception in the womb of her mother, St Anne - and this is owing, of course, to her high calling as the Mother of God the Word Incarnate, our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

So for the Orthodox Church, "Original Sin" doesn't mean an actual inherited stain of sin. To say that the Mother of God was somehow exempt from Original Sin, as does the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would, for the Orthodox Church, be the same as saying she did not die.

Does this mean that the Orthodox Church considers the Mother of God to be less holy than the Roman Catholic Church?

Not at all!

Since only the feasts of Saints can be kept, the fact that the East has a long, long tradition of honouring the Virgin Mary's Conception (December 22 Old Calendar) already demonstrates that the Orthodox Church glorifies the Mother of God as All-Holy and Ever-Holy from the first moment of her existence.

The Mother of God, as the liturgical texts sing, felt no pain in giving birth to Christ and felt no pain in falling asleep upon her death. In other words, the effects of Original Sin that we ourselves experience in our lives were highly mitigated in the life of the Most Holy Mother of God because of her great holiness and sanctification by the Spirit of God.

For the Orthodox Church, then, the Roman Catholic Marian doctrines are completely unnecessary since the Ever-Virgin Mary's total holiness and glorification in heaven in both body and soul have always been affirmed and believed. In addition, the extreme Augustinian view of Original Sin is outrightly rejected by the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church, as you know, really outstrips the West in its veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God in its frequent daily and annual liturgical commemorations, its great celebrations of her feasts and in the veneration to the thousands of miraculous Icons that are honoured throughout the Orthodox Church.

In fact, when the seer of Lourdes, St Bernadette, saw the miraculous Byzantine Icon of Our Lady of Cambrai, venerated in France, she said that that Icon best represented the way in which the Mother of God appeared to her in the grotto at Lourdes. She insisted that that icon be enshrined at Lourdes, but a statue was enshrined instead. A copy of that icon can be viewed on the Marian site of the University of Dayton.

[leandros]

I find the following proposition in its totality to be one of the most distorted doctrines from the official Vatican theology (Vatican II): http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

"...But what the Lord preached that one time, or what was wrought in Him for the saving of the human race, must be spread abroad and published to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), beginning from Jerusalem (cf. Luke 24:27), so that what He accomplished at that one time for the salvation of all, may in the course of time come to achieve its effect in all.

4. To accomplish this, Christ sent from the Father His Holy Spirit, who was to carry on inwardly His saving work and prompt the Church to spread out. Doubtless, the Holy Spirit was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified.(5) Yet on the day of Pentecost, He came down upon the disciples to remain with them forever (cf. John 14:16). The Church was publicly displayed to the multitude, the Gospel began to spread among the nations by means of preaching, and there was presaged that union of all peoples in the catholicity of the faith by means of the Church of the New Covenant, a Church which speaks all tongues, understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel.(6) For it was from Pentecost that the "Acts of the Apostles" took again, just as Christ was - conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary, and just as Christ was impelled to the work of His ministry by the same Holy Spirit descending upon Him while He prayed.(7)"

(emphasis was marked by me)

I think that from an Orthodox point of view, there is no need for arguments against such a "theological proposition". (It would be as fighting with shadows).

In this context, the Catholic doctrine of "immaculate Mary", is exactly the same as the doctrine of the Immaculate Athena, Goddess of Wisdom in ancient pagan greek-roman religion.

In Vatican theology there is an ignorance of the experience of the Uncreated Energies of God in such an absolute degree, that makes me wonder how will they ever realize what they fail to see!

Forgive me, for my desparation over them.

[Kosmas Damianides]

St Ambrose of Milan: "....a virgin by grace free from all stain of sin."

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390) said in his 38th Oration, n. 13: "He took all things human save sin: conceived of a Virgin who had been purified previously (prokathartheise) by the Spirit in soul and body, for it was becoming to honour child-bearing and show preference for virginity."

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ

I have read your posts and none of the quotes from the Saints would go against what the Orthodox Church also believes. As I undersand, we who are Orthodox and (the Eastern Catholics) truly believe in the Immaculate Virgin, but not in the Immaculate conception of the Virgin.

You see the Immaculateness of Mary came by
1. Her free choice to remain a virgin.
2. The grace from God.
3. The power of the Holy Spirit which cleansed her just before the birth of Christ.

Points 2 and 3 go hand in hand. But 1. is very important. It shows us that it was by her free will that Mary chose fisrstly to remain a virgin and then to become the perfect and immaculate mother of God, thereby becoming a servant and a slave to the will of God.

There must be a reason that there is a common misinterpretation by the Catholic church concerning this dogma.

I am not aware of any Orthodox Saint who talks of the immaculate generation/conception of Mary.

This, as many of the Orthodox posts have pointed out, is because the Orthodox Church has not accepted Augustines thoughts on the "tranference of guilt".

Why did Mary have to be imaculately coceived?

The Church in the West (see Pope Siricius 384-399) introduced a new dogma in order to defend the Church from the extreme views of the Jovinians

Pope Siricius made a rule that all priests must abstain from their wives at all times prior to cultic acts (ie sacraments). This may sound fine but but elevated virginity to such a high level that in time married priests and bishops were phased out.

The Orthodox Church also believes that virginity is considered to be a higher virtue than marriage. But sexuality is not a sin within marriage. whereas in the Catholic Church Sex is a sin and carries a guilt which can be transferd (ie. "Original Sin Theology")to the offspring. We don't believe in such a thing.

Hence in the understanding of Roman Catholicism. It would be a blasphemy to say that Anna the moher of the virgin had sex in order to conceive.

Therefore the Catholic Church by saying Immaculate Conception they also mean that Anna (Mary's mother) gave birth to Mary by Parthenogenisis Virgin-birth. This would mean that Mary was from birth a "new creation". But Mary was a new creation through the grace of God and by her free will. Where Eve is the example of disobedience Mary is to complete example of obedience (NB the original sin was not sex, as many wrongly claim), and thus she being 1 prepared and 2 made completely pure (immaculate) (Luke 1:35) gave us Jesus Christ our Saviour, "the only sinless one" as it is written in our hymns.

In Peace
Kosmas

[Matthew Panchisin]

As a matter of correction Dr. Alexander Roman is in communion with Rome via the unia, although I don't think he would be offended if he is referred to as being of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/uhoh.gif


Also adding a bit to what Father Raphael has mentioned we can read commentary on the matter from our Orthodox Hierarchs as is expressed in the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx


XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

We can trust that if the IC dogma was true and not a "novel dogma" it would be recognized as true.

Kosmas is correct in mentioning our hymns as we often hear in our Litugical tradition. I just came home from the funeral for a young Greek Orthodox Christian. It is interesting to note the merciful prayers that mention "You alone are without sin" in reference to God. I might further add that in the funeral service we can see the Orthodox understanding of the "keys" namely absolution. We can also see that accepting the idea of purgatory would render the keys as not effective. I mention this because this theological newness that you have accepted Br. Alexis would necessitate liturgical changes that would be a departure from that which has always been believed everywhere etc. The understandings of the Orthodox Catholic Church are correct and we rest assured that the gates of hades will not prevail against her.

The first-ranking priest approaches the deceased and says the following prayer in a loud voice; the other priests present simultaneously say the same prayer inaudibly.

O God of all spirits and flesh, Who has trodden down death, destroying the power of the devil, bestowing life on Your world. to the soul of Your servant (Name) departed this life, do You Yourself, O Lord, give rest in a place of light, in a place of green pasture, in a place of refreshment, from where pain and sorrow and mourning are fled away. Every sin by him (her) committed in thought, word, or deed, do You as our good and loving God forgive, seeing that there is no man that shall live and sin not, for You alone are without sin: Your righteousness, and Your law is truth.

For You are the Resurrection, the Life, and the Repose of Your servant (Name), O Christ our God; and to You do we send up Glory, as to Your Eternal Father and Your All-Holy, Good, and Life-creating Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Priest:

Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy.



Each of the priests in turn blesses the deceased and says:

For You are the Resurrection, the Life, and the Repose of Your servant (Name), O Christ our God; and to You do we send up Glory, as to Your Eternal Father and Your All;Holy, Good, and Life;creating Spirit, both now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

If the Funeral Service is presided over by a Bishop, he then says the following Prayer of Absolution.



Prayers of Absolution

For the loosing from every curse and interdict, read for the deceased person by the Bishop.

Priest: Let us pray to the Lord, Lord have mercy.

O Lord our God, Who by Your unutterable wisdom have fashioned man out of the dust and transformed him into comeliness and beauty; and have adorned him, as a precious and heavenly creature, for doxology and magnificence of Your glory and Kingdom, in that You brought him into existence as a being fashioned according to Your image and likeness; and Who, when he had transgressed the commandment of Your ordinance, and kept it not, although he participated in Your image, gave command for this reason, as God of our fathers, to prevent evil from becoming immortal, decreeing that his composite and mixture, this bond which You made for joining body and soul unbreakably, should be sundered by Your divine Will, and be dissolved; so that the soul would withdraw where it had required existence, and there abide until the general Resurrection; whereas the body would break up into the elements out of which it had first been compounded; for this reason we pray You, the beginningless Father, and Your Only;Begotten Son, and Your All;Holy, Consubstantial and Life;creating Spirit, that endured not to see the work of Your fashioning swallowed up by destruction, but rather let the body indeed be dissolved into the elements, and let the soul be appointed a place in the Choir of the Just: Yea, O Lord our God, let Your Immeasurable mercy prevail, and Your manbefriending love which is beyond compare; and if this servant has incurred the curse of father or mother, or a ban invoked upon himself (herself); or if he (she) has provoked any priest to bitter severity, and from him has incurred a ban unbreakable; or if he (she) has incurred a Bishop's very grievous interdict, but through thoughtlessness and needlessness has failed to obtain forgiveness; do You forgive him (her) through me, Your sinful and unworthy servant; and let his (her) body indeed dissolve into its elements, but his (her) soul do You appoint to dwell in the tentings of the Saints. Yea, O Lord our God, Who to Your holy Disciples and Apostles gave this authority for granting remission of sins, and did say that whatsoever things they would bind and loose, those things would be bound and would be loosed; and Who through them in Your manbefriending love has caused to be transmitted to us also, unworthy though we be, the same gift in equal measure; loose this Your servant (Name), now fallen asleep from sin of soul and body, and make him (her) to be now forgiven in this present world and in the world to come; through the intercessions of Your all-pure and Ever Virgin Mother, and of all the Saints. Amen.

Second Prayer of Absolution

Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy.

Greatly merciful Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our God, Who after Your holy, third;day resurrection from the dead gave to Your holy Disciples and Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and also the authority of Your Grace both to bind and to loose the sins of men, so that bound in Heaven would be whatsoever things through them might be bound on earth, and likewise loosed in Heaven whatsoever things; through them might be loosed; and gave also that as their successors, we, Your deficient and unworthy servants, should have, by Your unutterable and manbefriending love, this same exceedingly holy Gift and Grace from You, so that we in like manner should both bind and loose the things that happen to be done among Your people; Yourself, All;Good King, through me, Your humble and unprofitable servant, forgive this Your servant whatsoever mistakes as a human being he (she) has made in this present life: remit for him (her) whatsoever sins he (she) has committed in word, deed, and thought: and loose him (her) also from any ban which in any wise whatsoever has come upon him (her), whether he (she) himself (herself) out of recklessness or by some other fault has bound it upon himself (herself); or, by a Bishop or another, when, because of the envy and cooperation of the Evil One, he (she) stumbled into so grievous a state: be well pleased, as alone Good and greatly merciful, that his (her) soul be appointed a place with the Saints which from everlasting have been well pleasing to You, but that his (her) body be given to the nature which You have fashioned; for blessed and glorified are You to the ages. Amen.

Priest:

Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit both now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen. Lord have mercy; Lord have mercy; Lord have mercy.



Apolysis

Glory to You, O Christ our God and our Hope; glory to You.

May Christ our true God, Who rose from the dead, have mercy on us; He Who as Immortal King has authority over both the dead and the living. Through the intercessions of His spotless, pure, and holy Mother; of His holy and just friend Lazaros, who lay in the grave four days; of the holy and glorious forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; may He give rest to our brother (sister), who has departed from us, and number him (her) among the just and holy, through His goodness and compassion, as our merciful God.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Br. Alexis,

Do the prayers of the ancient and venerable Latin rite relect the same understandings?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Dear Matthew,

I will post the prayers for the Divine liturgy of the Dead in the ancient Roman Rite on another thread: "The Liturgies of East and West in comparison."

As for your other post on the Orthodox Encyclical, which calls the IC novel:

Matthew you say,

>We can trust that if the IC dogma was true and not a "novel dogma" it
>would be recognized as true.

If that was the case why was the veneration of Icons so long denied? It was never novel, yet it was denied. Ergo, just because something is traditional or novel does not guarantee that it will not be denied.

You can see, that every major heresy of the first 7 ecumenical councils arose in the East. Therefore you can scarcely argue that

"the gates of hades will not prevail against" The Orthodox Churches of the East, because prior to each of the 7 ecumenical councils, heresy did prevail against one or more of them.

To which church are you refering, when you say the "gates of hades will not prevail against her"? and if you claim she is infallible, tell me when do you know and how do you know that any particular teaching or expression thereof is infallible?

Take for example the Encyclical Letter you cite in response to those of Pope Leo XIII: is that infallible?

"That an encyclical letter of any patriarch is infallible" is no where taught in East or West before or after the 7 ecumenical councils.

And if you deny the dogmatic decrees of the Patriarch of Rome are infallible, then you can scarcely claim that those of your own Patriarchs are: it just is not logical.

Infact, you can see that even the 7 Ecumenical councils were not all accepted by the Patriarchs of the East.


It follows then, that to resolve any doctrinal dispute, if you claim to hold to the Traditions and Faith of the Church of the 7 ecumenical councils, you will have to likewise admit that none of your Pariarchs or Bishops has any right or authority to declare the Patriarch of Rome heretical or the doctrines he professes not-Orthodox, without convening an Ecumenical Council -- which, according to the Churches of the East, has never been done since 1054. And so by declaring Roman Catholics heretical, you only manifest your own inherent inconsistency of discipline and faith, and thus condemn yourselves as "novel in practice and discipline".

Why not rather call for an Ecumenical Council and then proceed to a dogmatic discussion?

I do not wish to argue, but I do wish to point out that you are not being logical nor consistent.

We Roman Catholics don't approach it this way, because we believe that the dogmatic decrees imposed by any council, approved by the Patriarch of Rome, are infallible, and so recognize Ecumenical Councils after the first 7 -- though not all were dogmatic, most were dogmatic and disciplinary, some just disciplinary.



Sincerely in Christ,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Br. Alexis Bugnolo,

I guess you didn't like my post.

I'll get back to you shortly as I have some other matters that require my attention for a few hours.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Vasilis Kirikos]

"As a matter of correction Dr. Alexander Roman is in communion with Rome via the unia, although I don't think he would be offended if he is referred to as being of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church."

He may not be, but I am. If he is not Orthodox than he is not Orthodox! Vasilis

[leandros]

This is an extract from an essay of St. Nikolaos Kavasilas: "About the birth of the all-glorified all-saint our Lady Mother of God", that I hope to show to us the Orthodox experience from the relation with the Virgin.

Original greek text: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/kavasilas_theotokos.html


"...In such a brilliant way God has created the humans. But humans, although they have received such a virtuousness nature and they were going to accept even much more better still, in the case they had remain faithful to the first gifts, on the contrary they distorted it (the nature) in such a way that, they administer what they already had in a false manner and by that they also failed to achieve the future expectations.

AND THE POWER AGAINST SIN WAS IN THE (HUMAN) NATURE AND IT WAS INSIDE EVERYONE, BUT NOBODY WAS TRANSFORMING THIS POWER INTO ACT, AND NOBODY LIVED ON THIS EARTH WITHOUT SIN. The illness starting from the first human and advancing through all dominated over all. In this context IT SEEMED that evil was in our nature. And the natural beauty of human nature was left under cover (hidden) AND IT WAS, IN ALL THOSE COUNTLESS HUMAN BODIES, THE HUMAN PERSON OBSCURE. For, everyone made use of the most evil inclinations of the soul and the good that existed inside them was not visible at all, inasmuch nobody lived according to it.

But, the unstained Virgin, being not a citizen of the heavens, having born not from the celestial bodies, but coming from the earth - from this ruined specie, that have forgotten his own nature - and by the same way as everybody else, she alone from every other human from all ages resisted, from the beginning until the end, to all evil. In this way she gave - stainless - back to God the beauty that He had gifted to our nature, and she used all the weapons and the power that He had put inside us - she alone and nobody else.

With the love (eros) that she had for Him, with the fibrousness of her mind, with the fairness of her will, with her magnificent wisdom, she vanquished every sin and she raised such a victoriousness trophy, incomparable with anything else. With all these achievements she brought to light the human being as was truly originally created. She also revealed God; she revealed His ineffable Wisdom and His illimitable love for humans.

In this context, she first imprinted and portrayed over herself, by her actions, Him who she presented afterwards when she swathed Him with a human body and made Him sensible to everybody's eyes.

And it was possible to all creation through her to truthfully know the Creator. Neither the law was proven capable to make known the divine virtuousness and wisdom, nor the tongues of the prophets, nor the artfulness of the Creator that is unveiled through the creation, nor the sky that recites the glory of God according to psalmist, nor even yet the forethought of the Angels for the human race, nor finally any other from the created things.

Because, only a human that carries within the image of God, when he presents himself as he is authentically, without having any spuriousness, then he could truly reveal God Himself.

But among all humans that existed until now or that will be in the future, the one that actualized all these and she preserved in a brilliant way the human nature unalloyed from anything extrinsic is the blessed Virgin.
Because nobody else was "clean from impurity", as the prophet says. And this is exactly what is beyond any miracle and causes surprise not only to humans but also to Angels and goes beyond any rhetorical exaggeration: how Virgin, being just a human being and having nothing more than everybody else, managed to escape, she alone from all the others, the common illness ?


How did she manage this?


For, God neither created Virgin on purpose such a creature, so that she may live in a constrainedly all-holy life, nor He honoured her with greater help than the other humans, while she lived a life same as everybody else. But Virgin conquer this unprecedented and admirable victory using JUST AND ONLY HERSELF AND THE WEAPONS THAT GOD GAVE TO EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE FIGHT FOR VIRTUE.

Because to assume that God introduces virtue into the moral of humans like He does with other created things, it's a proposition that first of all is against the nature of virtue itself, which is a voluntary good and the result of our personal will.

It will also be substantially malignancy from His side, while having the power to gift virtue to everyone, if He choose to do so for only few, or even for only one human.

Therefore, the help that he offered to His mother is not different or bigger from that He offered also to everybody else. By using this common help, by using this legitimate gift she weaved the wreath (of victory) for herself.

As I already said, God had put inside our nature the power to confront sin in staying alerted and in fighting against it. He would then ornament us, after our victory, gifted us with the perfect and permanent residence into goodness. Both these things were brought to human nature by the Mother of God. The first one by what she accomplished for herself, the later by Him whose mother she became.

Through Mother of God human nature clearly proved in action the existence of power over sin, that she curried within. Virgin was remain intact from any evil, from the beginning until the end of her life, thanks to her vigilant wariness, her solid will, and her unrivalled wisdom. On the other hand, humans received the gift from Christ that she gave birth in an expressionless way.

Christ was sinless, without need to fight and to win over sin, He came to human life being rewarded as a king that presents himself to the opponents holding the victory trophy, before even the beginning of the fight. He did not hold His will clean from any sin; like in the case it would have been possible to accept sin. His will was from the beginning absolutely free of sin and insusceptible from any evil, likewise He took His human body from the grave with no decay whatsoever.

As the status of our human race was, so the qualities of the gifts that God offered to us kept pace with. By becoming human sinless by Virgin's effort, brought the gift of possessing the good within in a permanent way.

In this context the first cleanness, was offered to the nature by the mother. The Son offered the second and most valuable. She presented here on earth, like was the case in paradise, a purified and integral human, like the one that was created in the first place, like the one that would have become afterwards, if he would have fought for his nobility.

For, in the need for the human and divine natures to meet one another and to unite under the one and same hypostasis there was a preceding need that both natures would be presented in an authentic/immiscible way. God was presented in the way He was able to be presented, and HUMAN NATURE WAS PRESENTED BY VIRGIN ALONE. Christ was presented, being God and became also a man, afterwards that each of his two natures were presented separately. And I think that, God took the human nature in these ages and not before of that, because at that time for the first time the human nature was present in its genuine/authentic way; before that there was not a true human nature.

In this context, the Unstained Virgin neither created the human nature, but she find it in pieces, nor she gave to us the human nature, but she preserved it, nor she shaped us as humans, but she offered whom that shaped us.

God did not found just an instrument that was fitted for his purpose, He found a capable cooperator, the blessed Virgin, so he presented himself. In a way of speaking, he waited until that time, because there was nobody capable of presenting Him. But the moment Virgin came in life, He also was obvious by her.

This is why we celebrate on this day. On this day not only Virgin came to life, but the whole world came to life. On this day that she first and alone saw the real human, from who originated the possibility for all to also become true humans."

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Br. Alexis Bugnolo,

Whatever the heresy might have been that required the attention of the Orthodox Catholic Church we believe that the Church speaks "infallibly" universally and ecumenically by means of full council. A council can be called from the mouth of a babe or any of Gods' creatures. It is for the Orthodox Church to discern their calling as well as the basis and what does or does not necessitate conciliar actions and movements. The councils had been called for just that reason, to not allow heresy to prevail against Her. As the Latin Church does, we cannot believe that they are called to embrace them or allow a heresy to prevail. If somebody lights a fire inside your house or outside your house it is logical to put it out, if it has been extinguished then it hasn't prevailed. Heresy did not and can't "prevail" against the Orthodox Catholic Church. I think that conclusion is logical as we believe and adhere to the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

I'm referring to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as we say in the Nicene Creed and that understands the keys and the words spoken to Peter in accordance with this brief explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, "the" , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him "Bar Jona", that is, son of Jona", as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation", speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, "This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said "O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for "ye remit", aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, "whose soever sins thou remittest", but since "ye" is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in acquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

As far as the Encyclical Letter I cited in response to those of Pope Leo XIII, we believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth guides our beloved Orthodox Church.

We don't believe that individual Patriarchs are infallible, however when a Patriarch, local Bishop or local Synod speaks it is reasonable to listen to what they have to say as we believe that Grace is present in their words.

His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew will bring back from Rome after 800 years the Holy Relics of his Holy Predecessors St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom.

http://www.ec-patr.gr/afieroma/epistrofi/en/message.htm


ADDRESS OF HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW PHOS HILARON "JOYFUL LIGHT" GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - WASHINGTON, DC

http://www.chez.com/saintjean/nlvers/art2.htm


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

(Message edited by Matthew_P on 28 May, 2005)

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Matthew,

If you want to discuss Infallibility in the Church, it probably would be better to start another thread.

Leandros,

You have posted a very important testimony to the Immaculateness of the Theotokos, can you tell me when this Saint lived, who wrote it?

In his text, he addresses an important question on grace, namely how can She have lived without sin?

I think if you consider what is written in the Sacred Scriptures you will see that St. Nikolaos Kavasilas' theory that all men receive the same kind of help from God is not entirely the truth.

Because we know that "many are called, few are chosen", as St. Paul teaches. Which means that the Most Holy Trinity does in fact love some more and others less.

Now God is the cause of all the good in creatures, and in those who have free will, He must first offer grace, and they second receive it, so as to be holy.

To say that the Immaculate Theotokos was holy by the same grace offered to all men, is true, in the sense that God prefers the salvation of all, and the grace of God, being a sharing in the Divine Nature is generically the same whenever and to whomever it is offered. But to say that God loves Her or loved Her to the same degree as He loves all men, cannot be true. Because surely He must love His Mother more than other men. And that therefore, He must have offered Her an exceptional degree of participation in His Divine Nature. Yes, the same kind, but not the same degree. Otherwise, one would have to conclude as does St. Nicholaos, that the Theotokos is the sole cause of Her own holiness, and that God is not the primary cause of it. But that would be to rob God of the glory due Him as First Cause of all things, and would make of the Theotokos an equal First Cause, a goddess and a sort of idol.

St. Nicholaos' theory then does not take into account these fundamental truths of Revelation.

Sincerely in Christ,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

[leandros]

Dear Alexis Bugnolo,

St. Nikolaos Kavasilas was born in my home town of Thesaloniki in 1322. He studied oratory, Theology, philosophy and natural sciences in Thessalonica and Istamboul. For one interval was adviser of Prime Minister Katakoyzino who in the last years of his life, became monk and resided in the Abbey of Maggana. St Kavasilas followed the opinions and teachings of St Gregory Palama for the Eastern mysticism and the hermitistic spirit. He was prolific writer of Theological, explanatory, functional, ascetistic and instructive work, and eminent festive orations, letters, epigrams and texts of political and social content. He rebut the false theology of Barlaam and of Akindinos regarding Uncreated Energies of God. He slept peacefully in 1391. His sanctification became in July 1983.

What I had posted is a small part of his work about Virgin that he hold dear, and therefore he wrote many essays about Her.

His whole work is one of the most authentic representatives of Orthodox spirituality and Theology.

I understand that you fail to realise the meaning of his work and that you disagree with his theology, which is the Orthodox Theology. You must first free yourself from Neo-Platonist Augustinian doctrines that the roman-Catholic church has founded her theology, and then you will be able to meet with St. Kavasilas free purified Spirit.

Let me not be misunderstood, I do not blame you, I just state that you are talking of qualities and quantities of God's Grace, while Orthodox Church theology talks about Uncreated Energies. The difference is that you, as a catholic, meet God and know of God's nature, while the Orthodox meet God and know absolutely nothing of God's nature. But, this is an issue for another thread.

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Dear Leandros,

>>Let me not be misunderstood, I do not blame you, I just state that you are talking of qualities and quantities of God's Grace, while Orthodox Church theology talks about Uncreated Energies. The difference is that you, as a catholic, meet God and know of God's nature, while the Orthodox meet God and know absolutely nothing of God's nature. But, this is an issue for another thread.

First a Word on Metaphysics

In heaven the Saints see and know God in the Three Persons of the Trinity and in the Divine Nature, as It is, as St. John the Apostle says, "You shall know as you are known". and "For we shall see him as He is." But we distinguish between knowing and comprehending. No created intellect can comprehend ever the uncreated Divine Nature. That's obvious. But if you know nothing of the Divine Nature in the absolute sense of "knowing" and "nothing" then you cannot be an adopted son of God by baptism, because in baptism we are illuminated and given true knowledge of God.

Yes, in this life, by faith we know the true God by Faith, but we do not know Him as He is, but as in a mirror and through an enigma (St. Paul).

As for the uncreated engeries of God, inasmuch as they can be communicated to a creature, the are what we call graces. The uncreated energies of God in themselves cannot be communicated, anymore than the Divine Nature can exist outside of itself.

There is then, no difference, in the metaphysics. Nor does it justify departing from the revealed truths of Sacred Scripture.

Nor can one say that the uncreated energies of God are distinct or have a number, because if you say that there is any real number in God other than the number 3, you are not a Christian. All the uncreated energy of God is one and the same thing as the Divine Nature, for in God to be and to be powerful are the same Act and the same Being.

This has nothing to do with Augustine or Neo-platonism, but everything to do with the foundation of the Christian Religion and Orthodox Catholic Faith.

And I agree, it is for another thread.

But we should avoid saying "I have my truth" and "You have your truth", or saying "We have eastern truth" and "you have western truth": because truth is one, and mutually contradictory expressions, understood with the same sense of terms cannot be equally true.


Now to address the question of the quantity and quality of grace.

I spoke of degrees of God's grace and not quantity. Of course you cannot quanitify objectively the grace that makes a soul holy. But we can qualify it in asmuch as we can qualify its effects. As in the Theotokos, it born the fruit of perfect sinlessness; but in you or I it does not bear this fruit. That is a qualitative difference, eventhough it is the same genus of being, that is, since grace is the created participation in the uncreated life of the Trinity, one cannot have more or less according to number, but one can have a deeper or more vivid quality of the same grace.

Otherwise, you would have to admit that Christ Jesus, considered in His Human Nature, to have the same grace as you or I, or even as the Theotokos, and this would be blasphemous.

God is supremely hierarchical. This entails that God's love and conferral of grace on creatures also has a hierarchy. We must therefore admit that the holiness of the Saints has a hierarchy, because God is the cause of this Holiness in its first instance, since He offers grace first, and only by cooperating do the Saints become Saints.



Sincerely in Christ,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

[Matthew Panchisin]

Here is a response from Patriarch Bartholomew I in an interview.

The Catholic Church this year celebrates the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. How does the Eastern Christian and Byzantine Tradition celebrate the Conception of Mary and her full and immaculate holiness?

Bartholomew I: The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin – a mistaken one for us Orthodox – according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith – according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.

As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity – understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone – she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don’t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Br. Alexis:

Christ is risen!

Please let me quickly and humbly respond to a few of your comments:

"You can see, that every major heresy of the first 7 ecumenical councils arose in the East. Therefore you can scarcely argue that

"the gates of hades will not prevail against" The Orthodox Churches of the East, because prior to each of the 7 ecumenical councils, heresy did prevail against one or more of them."

We Orthodox do not believe that the verse to which you refer has in mind any one local church, be that the Church of Rome or the Church of Antioch, etc, but rather to the universal Church. Furthermore, while these heresies arose in the East, they were also refuted by the East, often without the participation of the Bishop of Rome.

"It follows then, that to resolve any doctrinal dispute, if you claim to hold to the Traditions and Faith of the Church of the 7 ecumenical councils, you will have to likewise admit that none of your Pariarchs or Bishops has any right or authority to declare the Patriarch of Rome heretical or the doctrines he professes not-Orthodox, without convening an Ecumenical Council. -- which, according to the Churches of the East, has never been done since 1054. And so by declaring Roman Catholics heretical, you only manifest your own inherent inconsistency of discipline and faith, and thus condemn yourselves as "novel in practice and discipline"."

It is rather strange that anyone would claim it takes an Ecumenical Council for something to become heretical. Arius was not heretical because a Council merely confirmed him as such, but was heretical because he taught heresy. Whether or not the Bishop of Rome is heretical or schismatic or none of the above is a different discussion entirely; nonetheless, if he is heretical, it is because he teaches heresy, not because an Ecumenical Council merely proclaims that he is heretical.

"We Roman Catholics don't approach it this way, because we believe that the dogmatic decrees imposed by any council, approved by the Patriarch of Rome, are infallible,..."

Which Patriarch of Rome 'approved' the decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council? I can't believe it was Pope Damasus, the Patriarch of Rome at the time of the Council. After all, he was not even in communion with the Council's president, St. Meletius of Antioch, but was in communion with the city's second bishop, Paulinus, who was not even considered by the Council as the legitimate bishop of Antioch.

Aaron

[Kosmas Damianides]

The fact that the RCC is in communion with he Eastern Catholic Church, also concerns me since the Roman Catholics accept their dogmas (for the sake of unity) which are completely different from theirs but don't believe in them.

Isn't this a bit weird? And why don't the Uniates accept the dogmas of the R-Catholics as being correct but accept union with them?

This shows, to me, that there is no synodal concord/agreement in the Roman catholic Church after the schism. They only accept what the Pope says and that is it.

Since you agree that no-one is perfect surely you must see that the Orthodox Church used councils (7) and still uses synods of Bishops and Patriarchs to resolve issues in the Church, not accepting the decisions of only ONE being infallible because nobody is infallible. The Ecumenical councils are infallible only because more than one person decides in accordance with the Bible and Saints of the Church - as the name suggests Ecumenical means according to "the whole and universal world church" (Gk. ecumeni = all the world).

It's a Democratic deccision or rather a Theocratic decision, because it is inspired by God in consensus with the holy fathers and those present.

It is not a Totalitarian/Despotic decision where only ONE person dictates what is to be infallible dogmatic truth. So if a Uniate cardinal is putin the Papal office would you then also have to believe in the "new dogmas" he would pronounce?

Even Saints make mistakes that's why I believe we should never take what one Saint says without comparing with what other Saints say or the Church says.

[Alexis Flavian Bugnolo]

Aaron D. Warwick, et alia:

See the thread "Papal Infallibility" for my response to your posting here and Matthew's just above this.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Furtermore:
Dear Arron & Alexis, and all other R.Catholics

If you ask most normal Roman Catholic Christians they will probably tell you that they don't agree with the decisions of the Pope. they don't agree with papal infallibility, they don't agree with priests not being allowed to get married they don't agree with being sprinkled during baptism and I hear a whole lot of other complaints.

Dont get me wrong, I don't agree we should follow the opinions of lay people alone...

But did you know that in the old days the people and clergy used to vote for their Pope, Patriarch and bishops (as they still do in the autocephalous Church of Cyprus this very day)? It was clergy + laity electing who would fill the Episcopal role.

I believe that If people would again be allowed to vote for heir Pope today I bet you that we would be united again as quickly as you can say SUPERCALAFRENCHALISTICESPIALADOCIUS.

Papalist followers however i am sad to say have a different mentality all together. Most (not all) Seminarians are trained to think in this narrow way.

I don't write these things to offend only to help open your minds a little. Do yourselves a favour, conduct this survey, ask someone about these common objections and write us what they say.

Humbly yours

Kosmas

[Theopesta]

the fathers take their orthodox dogma from the bible so I find this commentary in
Anthology of commentaries Electric Notes (Darby, Kelly, Grant and others)

The immaculate conception of the virgin is disproved by the fact that she fulfilled the days of purifying, and brought a sin-offering according to this chapter. But of her Son it was said by the angel Gabriel, "The holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God" #Luke 1:35. Of Him alone it could be truly and fully said, that He was "holy to the Lord." The Child was begotten in her of the Holy Spirit #Matt 1:18,20, and the body in which He came was prepared of God #Heb 10:5, wholly apart from any taint of sin. He was "the holy one of God" #John 6:69. Three things are said of Him in words taught by the Holy Spirit: "who did no sin" #1Peter 2:22, "Him who knew not sin" #2Cor 5:21, "In him sin is not #1John 3:5. I have no doubt that it is because the selfless humanity of the Lord Jesus was in the view of the Spirit of God that the uncleanness of the mother is spoken of in Leviticus 12 and not the uncleanness of the child. It is "she shall be unclean... and the priest shall make atonement for her; and she shall be clean."

as the childbirth law is reminder for the mother with the consequences of the original sin and the judjment of God on the women

before the fallen god give blessing to humen to fruitfulness not spak about suffering except after fallen

all the born come to world with the case of the sin even before act sin or speak or thought (job 25: 4, ps51: 5)

st. anna surly complete the law of the mother and birth uncleanness

I give many apologizes If any one above write this idea and I repeate it as I am not read reacently what is written

[Nina]

On the Most Holy Theotokos

From Fr. Silouan the Athonite


"O, if we might only know the Love of the Most Holy Mother of God for all who keep the Commandments of Christ, and how She pities and sorrows over sinners who do not reform!...

Verily is She our advocate before God, and alone the sound of Her name rejoices the soul. But all heaven and earth, too, rejoice in Her Love. Here is the wondrous thing that passed understanding: She dwells in heaven and ever beholds the Glory of God, yet She does not forget us, poor wretches though we are, and spreads Her compassion over the whole earth, over all the peoples.

And this Most Pure Mother of His, the Lord has bestowed on us. She is our joy and our expectation. She is our Mother in the Spirit, and kin to us by nature, as a human being, and every Christian soul leaps to Her in Love.

What could I give our Most Holy sovereign Lady for coming to me and bringing enlightenment, instead of turning away in loathing from my sin? I did not behold Her with my eyes, but the Holy Spirit gave me to know Her through Her words, which were filled with Grace, and my spirit rejoices and my soul leaps to Her in love, so that the mere invocation of Her name is sweet to my heart.


O, if we might only know the love of the most Holy Mother of God for all who keep the commandments of Christ, and how She pities and sorrows over sinners who do not reform! I had experience of this myself. Of a truth I say, speaking before God, Whom my soul knoweth: in spirit I know the Most Pure Virgin. I never beheld Her but the Holy Spirit gave me to know Her and Her love for us.

Were it not for Her compassion I would have perished long ago but She was minded to come to me and enlighten me, so that I should not sin. This is what She said: 'It is painful for me to look upon thee, at what thou doest.' And Her words, soft, quiet and gentle, wrought upon my soul.

Over forty years have gone by since then, but my soul can never forget those sweet words, and I know not what to return to make for such love towards my sinful self, nor how to give thanks to the good and forbearing Mother of God.

Verily is She our advocate before God, and alone the sound of Her name rejoices the soul. But all heaven and earth, too, rejoice in Her love.

Here is a wondrous thing which passes understanding: She dwells in
heaven and ever beholds the glory of God, yet She does not forget us, poor wretches that we are, and spreads Her compassion over the whole earth, over all peoples.

And this most pure Mother of His, the Lord has bestowed on us. She is our joy and our expectation. She is our Mother in the spirit, and kin to us by nature, as a human being, and every Christian soul leaps to Her in love."