Incorruptible Catholic relics

[Bob Nicholas]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I was taught that incorruptable relics strongly indicate deification.

Is the same true for Roman Catholics?

http://members.aol.com/ccmail/incorruptbodies.html

Thanks,

Bob

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Bob,

Regarding the incorruption of the body as a sign of personal sanctity, the Church has long taught that this is a mysterious and holy gift of God's grace. The presence of God, which sanctifies not only the mind and heart of the believer but also the flesh and bones, has so filled some great saints that the incorruptibility of the Divine has become, to some degree, evident in their own physical remains which do not decompose -- either at all, or at the same rate as is normal for human remains. Some of the most blessed of the faithful have thus shown forth their sanctity after their death, and provided those who remain among the living with concrete, 'touch-able' examples of the transformative power of the Trinity. Other saints have only come to be known as saints through this very grace, by which the true sanctity of their persons, which was hidden while they were among the living, became known after their departure.

With regard to your question as to whether this same mystery holds true for Roman Catholics (i.e. those of non-Orthodox faiths): this is perhaps much broader a question than it might originally seem.

First of all, before even beginning, I should point out that some of the 'incorruption' of Roman Catholic bodies noted on the website you mentioned, has little in common with the Orthodox conception of this mystery: the individuals mentioned there have been embalmed. For an embalmed body 'not to decay', or to decay very slowly, is no great mystery. Science can preserve the body for generations, centuries. This is not a miracle of God's grace showing forth an individual's sanctity. The Orthodox understanding of this mystery is that God, not embalming, preserves a body incorrupt -- because that body has been deified by the incorruptible energies of God's presence.

But to the larger question: the Church does not speak dogmatically on God's activities outside the Church when it comes to those events commonly known as 'miracles'. God's grace will work where it will, for God moves where He will. To say, for example, that 'God only preserves bodies incorrupt within the Orthodox Church' is to be unabashed in claiming to know fully the mind and will of God. God often works great miracles outside of the Church, specifically so that those who encounter them might turn to the Church and find life.

But neither does the Church claim to interpret miracles outside of the Church. God often reveals the nature of miracles performed within the Church (e.g. it may be revealed to wise elders that the incorruption of certain relics is due to the specific holiness of the person, as is recorded in many Lives, etc); and thus when such occurrences take place within the realm of Orthodoxy, the Church is comfortable speaking of what such things 'mean'. But when miraculous happenings are perceived to have occurred outside of the Church's bosom, the Church leaves them to God. She does not focus upon them with any great intent or concern. God gives to man only to know so much; beyond that, one treads at one's risk.

Essentially, then, the Church's attitude towards reports of miracles that take place outside the Church is generally one neither of condemnation nor embrace -- but rather of detachment. Her mission is to embrace what God has given and entrusted to her, to shine it forth to all the world as a light on a hill. Reports of miraculous happenings outside of the Church are taken as external. Certainly God will do what God will do, wherever He will do it. But God has given the Church to be the Church, to save the world as the Church; and it is on this that she focuses.

INXC, Matthew

NB: Some additional reading on the subject here (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/mummies.htm).

[Bob Nicholas]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for the time spent writing your reply. You are very kind.

---"Regarding the incorruption of the body as a sign of personal sanctity, the Church has long taught that this is a mysterious and holy gift of God's grace. The presence of God, which sanctifies not only the mind and heart of the believer but also the flesh and bones, has so filled some great saints that the incorruptibility of the Divine has become, to some degree, evident in their own physical remains which do not decompose -- either at all, or at the same rate as is normal for human remains. Some of the most blessed of the faithful have thus shown forth their sanctity after their death, and provided those who remain among the living with concrete, 'touch-able' examples of the transformative power of the Trinity. Other saints have only come to be known as saints through this very grace, by which the true sanctity of their persons, which was hidden while they were among the living, became known after their departure."

Thank you. This is what I've been taught.

---"First of all, before even beginning, I should point out that some of the 'incorruption' of Roman Catholic bodies noted on the website you mentioned, has little in common with the Orthodox conception of this mystery: the individuals mentioned there have been embalmed."

All of them? Going back to the 1300's? Were medieval embalming techniques really that good?And that's not what the introduction at the top of the page says. Perhaps they are misinformed?

---"Science can preserve the body for generations, centuries."

I recall having read that those silly soviets had quite a bit of trouble preserving the body of V.I. Lenin over a period of just two or three generations. If I am not mistaken (and I can be mistaken about a great many things) the best way science knows to preserve a body for centuries is cryogenic suspension. And, I think, when you say "science" you are projecting a modern view backards to much earlier times. I'm not quite ready to believe that european science back then had the capability to preserve bodies for a long period of time. Perhaps they could and the soviets could not, but that doesn't seem likely. Maybe you know better than I.

---"But to the larger question: the Church does not speak dogmatically on God's activities outside the Church when it comes to those events commonly known as 'miracles'. God's grace will work where it will, for God moves where He will."

I am familiar with the agnostic approach the Church takes toward question of Grace outside Her boundaries. In regards to Catholics, this stance seems contradicted by our accepting their priests by vesting only. In contrast, a mormon bishop (equivalent in responsibility to a parish priest) will be baptised, christmated, and ordained if he is to ever become an Orthodox priest. Even an Anglo-Catholic(high-church)priest is not likely to be just vested. He will problably be chrismated and then ordained years later, if at all. The obvious implication is the Catholic church has Grace and the Anglo-Catholic church(s) and the mormon eccesiastical organization does not. This of course does not imply that the Catholic church has the fullness of Grace. But this practice does seem to imply that it does have some, maybe quite a bit, of Grace. If one were to say our bishops are using economy, then why for Catholics and not Anglo-Catholics?

---"God often works great miracles outside of the Church, specifically so that those who encounter them might turn to the Church and find life."

IF God is performing this miracle on the bodies of Catholic saints, that will not lead them to us. It will fortify their faith in the Catholic church. This would then beg the question of why God would favor the Catholic church in this way.

Begging His mercy and your correction,

Bob

P.S. This awful program deletes my forward slashes in an unpredictable manner, or just doesn't italicize my quotations even when it preserves my formatting. So I changed the way I quote.

[sinjin smithe]

Bob brought up some very interesting points here. I am bothered by the agnostic stance taken by the church with regards to grace outside of it. I guess the main question that underlies this whole issue is that does God only save those who are in the orthodox church, i.e. the rest of Christians are left to fend for themselves? Who(which church) is correctly teaching the way to salvation and how do we know this?

[Owen Jones]

This train of thought leads to a dead end, in my opinion, Sinjin. If carried to its logical extreme, I could argue that anyone outside of ROCOR has no hope of salvation. It's best, I think, to focus on obeying His commandments and leaving the saving up to Him. Why is it important for me to know who is saved and who isn't? What business is it of mine? My confidence should not depend on that kind of calculus.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Bob,

Indeed you are correct in asserting that embalming techniques from the middle ages were (obviously) not up to par with those of the present. I was speaking intentionally of present-day capabilities; apologies for the confusion there. But regardless of the particulars, I think the central point still holds: the incorruption of human remains as a sign of sanctity is something that comes entirely apart from any process of preservation in which the application of human sciences is involved -- whether they be modern day cryogenics or ancient practices of mummification.

As to the detailed particulars of the persons mentioned on the website you referenced, it is undoubtedly me, and not you, who mis-read the material there. I will admit to have given it only a cursory glance (partially because it displays horrifically on my web browser, making it intensely difficult to read). I rather share the Church's general attitude toward miraculous happenings outside her provenance: namely that I am more inclined to focus my attention elsewhere. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

I stand by my earlier statement on the Church's tendency not to speak dogmatically on God's activities (of this sort) which might occur outside of the Church -- which is a position that emphatically does not insist that God only 'lives' in the Church and any 'place' else is bereft of His presence and activity.

But I would add to my earlier point only this: that many of the God-bearing Fathers, especially the most ascetic and those most attuned to what modern man is prone to call the 'miraculous', warn repeatedly that the Devil comes often in the guise of an angel of light. The 'supernatural' is not always the working of God. It is for this very reason that such Fathers warn against dwelling too much upon visions, signs and the 'miraculous' in general; for therein the Evil One finds ample room to lead our thoughts and our lives astray. And these are Fathers warning against excessive obession with the apparently miraculous within the Church, much less outside it!

Refusing to speak dogmatically about God's activities, with respect to certain situations, among those outside the Church, is prone to make many feel uncomfortable; it is too easy, I think, to call such an attitude 'agnostic'. This is not a position that comes from a defeatist approach to the economy: it is an active position taken up in recognition of the fact that some things are purely and simply not for man to know. There is a saying among those of the great monastic father, St Antony the Great of Egypt, which always comes to my mind when I think of such things as these:


'One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, "You have not understood it." Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, "How would you explain this saying?" and Abba Joseph replied, "I do not know." Then Abba Anthony said, "Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: 'I do not know'."' (Apothegmata (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../monasticism/desert_fathers.shtml): Anthony the Great, 17)

A similar line of thought comes in the form of a much more recent story: one I heard from Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (some years ago now, so I am sure that my paraphrase from memory will be poor). In a conversation that the bishop was having a long while back with the former Greek archbishop of Great Britain, the topic turned to a discussion of the various historical views of who 'could' or 'could not' be saved at the end; and eventually --as might be imagined-- Origen's heretical notions of the final restoration of all things came into such a discussion. Bishop Kallistos, while obviously acknowledging that the dogmatisation of such a view is heresy, nonetheless wondered of the archbishop's thoughts on the subject. He asked something akin to the following: 'What do you think of Origen's idea that the demons too can be saved?' To this, the archbishop replied: 'I think you should mind your own business'.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I am certain that I have incorrectly remembered much of this little anecdote; but hopefully its message is still apparent. Some things are beyond human knowing; pondering too long upon them detracts our attention from our own struggles - which should be of primary concern.

INXC, Matthew

[sinjin smithe]

Thank Owen and Matthew for responding. I think this issue is best left to God alone because when humans start to focus on it, it turns into a sectarian war or leads to 'I'm okay, your okay too because it is the same God.'

[Bob Nicholas]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I agree, with reservations.

Thanks to all,
Bob

[Richard McBride]

It truly startled me a few years ago when I mentioned the presence of guardian angels to a very sweet but totally un-Christian friend. I was expecting some sort of rejection of the angelic notion, but instead he completely accepted my report of angels, for it seems he did indeed believe in them. Yet, he was still as un-Christian -- indeed, thoroughly uneducated and inexperienced in any religion -- as ever he had been. I was not only surprised as his response, but I was at a loss to understand it.

This friend was not at all of the cloth of previous friends and acquaintances. Back in the days of the Grant Street Beatniks, there on the edge of China Town in San Francisco, I had many friends who daily practised self induced entrancement. One friend told of being at the coast one day with a pal who was in a yoga trance sitting on a rock. He gradually and slowly slid off the rock into the lapping waves two or three feet below. The pal waited for the entranced one to stand up. When after several minutes he failed to appear, the pal stepped in and pulled him out of what apparently would have been his grave. And he was still in a trance; yet, he suffered no problems from being submerged several minutes under water.

Many of my friends from those days on Grant Street (I lived for a short time on Grant Alley in a warren of Beatniks) practised entrancement through various methods, and I am convinced that such practices were then as now, due as much to living in California as to the predilections of Beatniks. Never was it induction through Christian methodology. Still, none of those many, many experiences with entranced friends accounted for this new situation. This later event was entirely the opposite of those highly drugged Beatniks.

And this is the point of this (ever too long) remark. For what I have discovered in the several years since my later friend’s admission of spiritual interest, is that he, as so many like him, falls into the loose group we call New Age. I was only then finding out that New Agers are as inclined to accept signs, angels and trances as part of their world as they accepted Shirley MacLaine’s pyramid power. It was Matthew’s pertinent remarks on such that recalled all this. He said:

“...the Devil comes often in the guise of an angel of light. The 'supernatural' is not always the working of God. It is for this very reason that such Fathers warn against dwelling too much upon visions, signs and the 'miraculous' in general; for therein the Evil One finds ample room to lead our thoughts and our lives astray. And these are Fathers warning against excessive obsession with the apparently miraculous within the Church, much less outside it!”

It is dire warning to those who seek the cultic status of New Age perversions. They should be aware that there are only two basic powers at work in the world: There are the forces for salvation operating through the Holy Trinity, and there are the damned forces for destruction, operated by the enemy and his minions. When one sides with in-between notions, such as Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings -- much less those (and there are so many that it makes me sick) who have the notion that they are good, or white, witches -- indeed, even when one is encouraged to accept fairy tales as harmless and entertaining, or any of the plethora of attitudes which call for naive embroilment in innocent seeming fables, one should never fail to ask: Is it of God? Does it represent the work of the Lord? For, if one cannot answer with an unequivocal “Yes!” to such questions, then there is one other, and only one other, resort: It is of the enemy! There are only these two.

As the Apostle said, All the gods of the heathen are devils. I feel compelled to say again, there are only the devils and works of the Lord. Only these two forces are at issue, and if one fails to choose the latter, then no matter how innocent one may feel about it, one has thereby chosen the former. Is everyone aware that at Fort Bliss, in El Paso, Texas, the US Army has officially deployed a chaplain to serve wickan? Yes, it is an official prostration to the enemy, done in the guise of pc diversity. But I suppose this is not surprising coming from the same governmental system which denies to Christians the right, publicly, to recite their prayers -- the same which would not dream of laying that prohibition upon non-Christian religions.

Then, there is the California school system which mandates not merely the prayers of Islam, but dressing up and acting out the anti-Christian mandate of Islamic culture. As error filled as all these details may be, I am more worried by the naivete, indeed stupidity, of this newest New Age as a whole. Such flirtations with demons will have awful consequences -- perhaps, for all of us, not them alone.
.......................

Yet, when it comes down to it, Matthew’s Greek Bishop is correct to say, 'I think you should mind your own business'. I’m certain New Agers should like to tell me that. They would be right to say it, for as yet, I cannot seem to remove the beam from own eye. In the end we should pay heed to Matthew’s final remarks in that message:
“Some things are beyond human knowing; pondering too long upon them detracts our attention from our own struggles - which should be of primary concern.”

I pray that everyone may forgive these lengthy ramblings which I seemed called upon to heap over the heads of the faithful. I further pray that it be the Holy Spirit who calls, and not the other.

richard

[Bob Nicholas]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dearest all,

I note a not-quite-subtle concern about whether or not asking questions about Catholic relics indicate that I might be distracted from spirtual warfare. There is, of course, that ever-present danger of distraction, and I thank you for your concern. But I assure you that I am in no danger of getting involved in Trancendental Meditation, New Age delusions, or other such devices that exist to distract and ruin the unwary, including perhaps Christian relics.

I have distractions enough, such as glottony, sexual passion, jealousy, and pride, tempermant, fundamentalism, ect...

Thank you again for your sound advice. Your concern for my spiritual welfare is, indeed, most humbling.

I think this subject has been exhausted. Perhaps now would be a good time to close this thread?

Yours in Christ,
Bob

[Richard McBride]

No Bob, I knew you would have no problem with the New Age values;
but I thought others might be on the edge, judging from certain messages.
Maybe, someone else will read it?

Ah, well.
richard

[Owen Jones]

The idea of a new age is a veritable constant in history. Modern expectations of a New Age begin with the movement called the Rosicrucian Enlightenment, a phenomenon of the Italian Renaissance. The court of Elizabeth the I represented her as a New Age cult figure. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. almost all of them saw America as the harbinger of a New Age without sin -- a new secular order. The contemporary examples of New Age thinking and cultish behavior are vulgarized versions of all of this. You might even say trivial in comparison.

[Richard McBride]

"The idea of a new age is a veritable constant in history."

Indeed, it has been. And some theologians have long seen the NT as the New Age. But the point to be made has to do with those which have adhered to Gnosticism as their root and power.
And if you are going for longivity, Gnosticism, as the engine of the New Ages, has been around so long, it was here even before it was Gnostic.

Its own roots began in the Persian fire religions, esp that of Mazda and Zorathrustrianism, graduated to Manichianism (which those prefer who have gnostic leanings, but don't wish to seem so) and then into Gnosticism itself.

None of which makes its blend with contemporary modern values any the better to contemplate.

[matt]

Just an FYI if you're into this topic- there is a book entitled "The Incorruptables" about this in the western experience. Very interesting

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dead bodies sometimes don’t decay because of low temperatures, chemicals in the soil, etc.

The Orthodox church believes, however, that when no embalming has taken place and when the above factors are absent then there is a connection between how virtuous the life of the dead person was and the state of his/her body when dead. Another indication that the dead person was worthy of being considered a saint is the fact that his/her dead body has a wonderful fragrance. The body itself however is unimportant – what is important is the virtuous life of the person involved..

The Roman Catholic Church also believes in the incorruptibility of saints’ bodies..


Perhaps I’m not a good Orthodox, but I believe that it would be the height of arrogance to assume that only the Orthodox Church has godly, virtuous people who live according to God’s commandments. I would not convert to Roman Catholicism, for example, because I truly believe that the Orthodox church is the only church which has not deviated from the early church and from Christ’s teachings, but this doesn’t mean that Catholics or Protestants are not also searching for God.

I agree with Mathew’s statement “which is a position that emphatically does not insist that God only 'lives' in the Church and any 'place' else is bereft of His presence and activity.”

And I also agree with the following : The 'supernatural' is not always the working of God. It is for this very reason that such Fathers warn against dwelling too much upon visions, signs and the 'miraculous' in general; for therein the Evil One finds ample room to lead our thoughts and our lives astray. And these are Fathers warning against excessive obsession with the apparently miraculous within the Church, much less outside it! “

St. Teresa of Avila – a Roman Catholic nun – also believed that “miraculous” visions and signs might be from God but they might also be a figment of an overindulged imagination or even from the Devil.

I tend to concentrate on my own relationship to God – something that is sadly in need of much work – and when reading complicated theories of this or that go back to the Philokalia. Reading the seeming simplicity of it calms me and allows me to see that men malign God by much of what they believe. Certain people over the ages have , through their faith and the grace of God, come close to Him – their words and their lives serve as a example to us. Everything else is sophistry and there are many, many people who delight in tearing something apart in order to prove how wise and all-knowing they are…..

Words are cheap, no matter who utters them. Christ said that a tree is known by its fruit…… perhaps if this were also applied to churches we would have a clearer indication of what to believe and what not to.

Effie

[Joshua Greve]

Effie, I just wanted to say that I don't think anyone could say you are a bad Orthodox for saying that there are holy people outside of the Orthodox Church... even Protestantism has produced very holy people (e.g. Bonhoeffer), so this would be all the more expected of the RCC (from my point of view). I, like you, would never become Roman Catholic for I am convinced that, by the Grace of God I am part of the fullest and most beautiful expression of the True Church. However, I also could never say that Roman Catholic Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are invalid. I simply don't believe that… much less an idea that would suggest that the RCC hasn't produced hundreds, if not thousands of extremely holy and virtuous people (declared Saints or not). Sainthood is not achieved through a Theology test (and how many of us Orthodox would pass that anyway… how many of our Saints would pass it?). Not to diminish the importance of our differences, but I think it’s important that, as Orthodox, we take a moment to realize all that we do have in common with our “separated brethren”... On the common level, there is more that binds us then separates us. God bless,

Joshua

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Friends:

I must join Joshua in applauding Effie's wise and humble words--and his own as well.

A man I once knew, and for whose prayers I still pray--a man born and raised in Russia before the Revolution, who was in his old age (when I knew him) radiant with the love of Christ and of his fellow men--used to say (and I think he was in turn quoting someone else, perhaps Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, who possessed much unquestionable wisdom and holiness along with some unorthodox, but not necessarily un-Orthodox, opinions): "We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not."

In practical terms, that insight calls us to rejoice humbly and gratefully in the knowledge that we as Orthodox are within the Church, with all the beautiful and costly burden that that truth represents. But it also calls us not to judge those who are not (yet) visibly among us in the visible Church, but instead to seek out and affirm what is Christlike in them, and to leave the rest trustingly to Him.

Thank you, Effie and Joshua, for exemplifying how to do that with your words.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Andrew]

Thank you Effie and Joshua. This is something that has been weighing heavily on my heart.

Most unworthy, Andrew

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Hi There!http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

What we can say about Bernadette Soubirous incorrupted body?
See for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernad ette_Soubirous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous)
http://www.marypages.com/bernadette Eng.htm (http://www.marypages.com/bernadetteEng.htm)
I think this is the most amazing case of incorruption.

The Lourdes apparition seems to have things against orthodox faith like "I am the Immaculate Conception" and of course The Orthodox Church does not recognize this apparition.
So is it possible for us to say something about Bernadette's incorrupt body? Is there an explanation or could her be a true saint even being wrong in faith and outside the Church?

Thank you very much!

[Herman Blaydoe]

The main reason the body of Lenin rests in Red Square was to "impress" the Orthodox with an "incorrupt body", to give the Communists their own "saints". There are cases of incorrupt Buddhist bodies. On the Holy Mountain of Athos, there is a story of a cave that was sealed up. The incorrupt bodies found there were feared as perhaps evidence of the "undead". Therefore, an incorrupt body, in and of itself, means very little.

[A humble guest]

I believe that Lenin's body was imbalmed.

The state of incorruptability in a *known holy person* is most definitely a given sign of sainthood in the age old tradition of Orthodoxy. Additionally, there is often a beautiful scent which comes from the incorrupted body to further give evidence of the person's sainthood.

When I attended my Archdiocese camp in Greece many years ago, our priests took us to venerate the incorrupted bodies of St. Dionysius and others. This was my first experience with our pious tradition and it was explained to us as a sign of sainthood.

This was also a tradition in the first millenium Church which was undivided. I believe that this has also continued in the Roman Catholic Church.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jose, Herman and others,

The question of incorrupt relics within the context of multiple Christian traditions was the subject of a discussion had in this Community some years ago. You can find it (and are welcome to continue the discussion there, if interested to do so), in the thread Ecclesiologies in Relation >> Incorruptible Catholic Relics (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/2049.html).

(I will move posts from the current thread to that shortly, as more topical.)

INXC, Matthew

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

As a Roman Catholic who's fallen in love with Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches, I love to criticise Roman Catholicism, as I do feel it has deviated from the Church teachings more than the Orthodox. I like to think the RCC may have legitimate reasons for having deviated from Orthodoxy and also that it retains the possibility of correcting its past mistakes in the present in hope of someday soon becoming fully Orthodox. I am very idealistic.

The incorrupt bodies of Saints and other Holy people is for me a sign that the Catholic Church has profound holiness in it. I do take them as miracles. When I see incorrupt bodies in the Orthodox Churches it is also a sign that they have profound holiness. Think what you will but I dont know of any other religions which have as many incorrupt bodies and miracles to them as Catholics & Orthodox do.

I dont think that the Saint Mary saying "I am the Immaculate Conception" to anyone is a sign that it is a false apparition. I do not feel that the Immaculate Conception is actually anti-Orthodox Theology, it's terms and scholasticism are latin but I think it can be translated into an Orthodox Theology if one tries to. Perhaps someday, God willing, an Ecumenical Council might discuss it.

Let me quote you a syriac prayer to show you what I mean:

Apeksha

Oh! divinely pure and great mother of God, who has given birth to the omnipresent and omnipotent God, who abides in the lofty position of purest among the pure and above all saints, please lend your ears to our earnest requests and safeguard us from all the sorrows. You are the beginning of all kindness and the treasury of all goodness. Oh mother of God, since you do not turn down the imploration of those who come to you and also since you do not let shame fall on those needy ones, please protect those of us who are coming to you in submission and in prayers. Oh virgin mother of God we depend on you and we direct our prayers to your purity and goodness. Strengthen those of us who are weak by your intercession with your only son.
Heal our sicknesses. Cleanse our tarnished names. Purify our souls, Clean our thoughts, make our deduction very clear. Oh mother of God, untie us from all the bindings of the evil one. Straighten our paths. Re-affirm those of us who are perturbed by the various difficulties in the path of life. Let your intercession remove our debts and sins. Oh! mother of God let your precious prayers be a support for those of us who are weak due to old age. Nourish and protect the young adults among us. Provide the proper growth and protection for the youth among us. Bring those who are away to their homes peacefully. Protect those of us who are near. Oh mother of God, protect those who are immature, with your untainted and qualified prayer requests. Let grace and relief be with the departed believers. Let the cruelties of evildoers stay away from all of us. Protect us from the generation that lack kindness. Oh! mother of God, guard the church and its members with your intercession. Protect the group of believeres that seek refuge in you. Oh mother of God, turn away the attention of the traitors from these children of yours, who are standing in prayer in front of your divine purity. Accept the prayers, supplications and lent of these believers. Protect them within the fortress of your kindness continuously and at all times. Shield them from all kinds of dangers and mishaps. Make them winners in the way of life. Protect them from illness and difficulties, provide peace and relief to those, who come to your presence with mental agony and prayers, through your intercession. Protect them from the evils caused by known and unknown enemies. Kindly guard all those believers, ourselves who are weak, all the priests and deacons and the group of believers who have come prepared. We repeat "Kurielaison' three times with loud voices.

Is that prayer so diferrent from the "Immaculate Conception" ?

The "conversion of russia" was always explained to me only to mean that atheistic communism would disappear someday, NOT that Russia would ever be Roman Catholic (I dont want that at all! although it is better than atheism ;) I adhere to the Balamand Statement at all times.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I do not feel that the Immaculate Conception is actually anti-Orthodox Theology, it's terms and scholasticism are latin but I think it can be translated into an Orthodox Theology if one tries to. Perhaps someday, God willing, an Ecumenical Council might discuss it.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia:


In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."


At least as read it this would mean that Mary as Mother of God cannot sin.

For us as Orthodox it is not that she cannot sin, rather it's that she does not sin. That is, what is involved is her willing obedience to God's will. Thus the Incarnation is linked to the Theotokos' willing obedience to God & does not override it afterwards.

This indeed is how she is true intercessor for us to her Son since she is fully human even while bearing God.

Thus a major doctrinal problem of the Immaculate Conception for us as Orthodox is that it seems to result in, probably without intending to, the Mother of God no longer being of human nature but rather Divine.

In turn at the root of this is a concept of original sin that we also would not agree with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

Father Raphael, bless:
In overcoming a protestant upbringing, I have been faced with alot of what can be called "Facing up to Mary". 2 questions if you will concerning the understanding of the Theotokos...


1) If Christ is the only sinless one, how is it the Theotokos (human nature only) chose not to sin and never did? Does that not make her also a sinless one? Equal to Christ in sinlessness? Was there no sin in her at all? Even just a little sin somewhere in her life will make her more human to me.

2) The Theotokos was resurrected before St. Thomas had a chance to pay his respects to her. So she was taken up before the second coming of Christ? I thought the whole need for his second coming was to call us to himself. She got an advanced ticket? My mom would if I were He.

Forgive my weak mind. I want to understand the mysteries. Perhaps I should just believe and not question so much? So many questions and so few years to figure it all out.

Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!

Paul

[Antonios]

Hi Paul,

If I may reply to your post (which I hope will not preclude Father Raphael from replying, being that you would learn from him much more than I can offer), I would like to give you my understanding. Not that I know for sure the orthodox answers to your very important questions, but rather that out of love and admiration for our Blessed Mother of God, I feel compelled to answer.

In regards to your first question, the Theotokos in her earthly life was just as human as you or me. That is, she also was born in this corrupt, fallen flesh, alien to the true nature God intended us to be. The ineffable wonder is that she did not succomb to the 'natural' tendency to sin. She rose up above the temptations. She did what no other human had done (or has done), which was live a completely pure life, in obedience to God. It is this reason that she was chosen, out of time, to be the vessel of the Word of God. Without her, there is no Incarnation as we understand it to be now. For this reason, she is called the New Eve, the Queen of Heaven, and the Mother of God. She was chosen before time, and her economia in the Incarnation and her role in our salvation should never be underestimated.

For the second question, the Orthodox teaching is that she died (dormition), and afterwards, she was raised, bodily, to heaven (assumption). Why did she get such special treatment? Well, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, though she was human, she was unlike any other human who lived, and as you mentioned yourself, the Lord did just what either one of us would do to honor our mother!

It is truly meet to bless Thee, O Theotokos, the ever blessed and most immaculate, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Thee, who without defilement gavest birth to God the Word, the true Mother of God, we magnify Thee.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I thought the whole need for his second coming was to call us to himself. She got an advanced ticket? My mom would if I were He.Well, in that respect she is NOT totally unique. Elijah was bodily taken up into Heaven. Lazarus was brought back from the dead. She was the true "Ark of the Covenant", who contained the uncontainable. Some sort of "special treatment" seems appropriate to me, particularly for our Mother!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Raphael, bless:
In overcoming a protestant upbringing, I have been faced with alot of what can be called "Facing up to Mary". 2 questions if you will concerning the understanding of the Theotokos...


1) If Christ is the only sinless one, how is it the Theotokos (human nature only) chose not to sin and never did? Does that not make her also a sinless one? Equal to Christ in sinlessness? Was there no sin in her at all? Even just a little sin somewhere in her life will make her more human to me.

2) The Theotokos was resurrected before St. Thomas had a chance to pay his respects to her. So she was taken up before the second coming of Christ? I thought the whole need for his second coming was to call us to himself. She got an advanced ticket? My mom would if I were He.

Forgive my weak mind. I want to understand the mysteries. Perhaps I should just believe and not question so much? So many questions and so few years to figure it all out.

Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!

Paul


Antonios' reply is so good I can add little.

Just remember that the Theotokos fully shared in our human condition in that she faced death as we all do, while overcoming it by her obedience to God from the beginning of her life.

This is not identical to her Son Who overcame death not just by an act of will. Rather in submitting Himself to death He destroyed its overpowering force for all of us in virtue of the fact that by nature He is deathless.

So the Theotokos while without stain, as we sing in the hymn 'more honourable than the Cherubim...', is not sinless in the same sense as her Son. He Who is sinless by nature cannot be touched by death even as He submits to it, while she by willing obedience is touched by death but is not overcome by it. That is why she is the first born from among our kind to be taken up bodily to her Son at her dormition.

Even if not to the same extent as she, the Theotokos is still a sign for us of how we also can overcome death if we follow her way. After all, the bodies of the saints often manifest the signs of grace even after their death. And faithful Christians also in their death often manifest Christ's grace within themselves. For that matter faithful Christians manifest this overcoming of death even in the midst of their daily lives.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

One of the reasons Orthodox reject the immaculate conception is due to the fact that its a solution to a problem that never really existed in the first place.. at least thats what I've been told. By that I mean that Orthodox do not uphold the same view of original sin that the Catholic church does. The Catholic doctrine of original sin (influenced by St Augustine and others) made it necessary for the Catholic church to create the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Not being exempt from original sin via an immaculate conception in Catholic doctrine implies that a person inherits the guilt of Adam which isn't something they wanted to attribute to Christ (who obviously received his humanity from the Theotokos).. However, if you don't accept that theory of original sin their is no reason to exempt her from the effects.

the Orthodox Church teaches that we inherit the fallen nature, mortality, weakness, the flesh, disordered passions etc but we do not inherit a "guilt" for the sin of Adam. We only become guilty when we participate in sin ourselves. If thats the case then there is no need for an immaculate conception. The Latin view of original sin also caused the controversy regarding unbaptized infants or babies who died before birth and their after death status. If they are guilty of the sin of Adam then many thought they would go straight to hell. Others didn't like that so they invented Limbo (which I guess the Catholic Church rather recently removed from their teachings despite the fact that a few "infallible " Popes seemed to believe in it .).

[Andrew]

One of the reasons Orthodox reject the immaculate conception is due to the fact that its a solution to a problem that never really existed in the first place.. at least thats what I've been told. By that I mean that Orthodox do not uphold the same view of original sin that the Catholic church does. The Catholic doctrine of original sin (influenced by St Augustine and others) made it necessary for the Catholic church to create the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Not being exempt from original sin via an immaculate conception in Catholic doctrine implies that a person inherits the guilt of Adam which isn't something they wanted to attribute to Christ (who obviously received his humanity from the Theotokos).. However, if you don't accept that theory of original sin their is no reason to exempt her from the effects.

the Orthodox Church teaches that we inherit the fallen nature, mortality, weakness, the flesh, disordered passions etc but we do not inherit a "guilt" for the sin of Adam. We only become guilty when we participate in sin ourselves. If thats the case then there is no need for an immaculate conception. The Latin view of original sin also caused the controversy regarding unbaptized infants or babies who died before birth and their after death status. If they are guilty of the sin of Adam then many thought they would go straight to hell. Others didn't like that so they invented Limbo (which I guess the Catholic Church rather recently removed from their teachings despite the fact that a few "infallible " Popes seemed to believe in it .).

Original sin and the heretical atonement theology of Anselm come from a legal-juridicial view of divine-human economy. Orthodoxy does not see things in this way; the experience of God bearing saints, the hymnody of the Church, and the teachings of the Fathers tell us that Adam's choice to sever communion with God brought about the introduction of death into existence; man was meant to be the link between created and uncreated, between rational and animal, and such. With the sin of Adam came the chaos that struck all of Creation... we are meant to be the point of unity of all Creation, and when we become less disordered inwardly as Persons, the whole created order takes part in the salvific work of Christ. As Saint Maximus the Confessor taught, Christ united all of creation and healed it. When we are full of the Holy Spirit, the entire Creation rejoices... Salvation in Christ is not freedom from God's wrath, or a ticket out of Hell. Salvation is divine life in communion, in theosis.

So back to the sin of Adam; sin is severing ourselves from communion with our All Loving, All Compassionate, Always Forgiving Lord. It is not the breaking of a law. So, Adam brought death and disorder into the created order, in which we are a part. He brought into the universe sin. But the New Adam brought in new life and remade us! Glory be to Jesus Christ!

The Immaculate Conception uses a Latin scholastic methodology... it tries to answer the question of, if all of mankind inherits the juridicial guilt of Adam (ie Adam broke God's law, God punished man, man goes to a created place called Hell, Jesus came to accept the punishment of God for man so that people can go to a created place called Heaven, etc.) then how can a mere human contain God within her if she is unclean with sin, and has broken God's law? Also, St Augustine taught that sin passed to people through sex... so, the Theotokos was conceived just like everyone else was, so she must bear sin. The Scholastics said that she was a special case in which God lifted the state of Adam's guilt away from her conception, and she was created as a wholly pure vessel in which God would be incarnate. To their credit, they never said that she was 100% deterministically free from the possibility of ever sinning... but, the Immaculate Conception, according to Orthodoxy, is the result of a thoroughly anti-Patristic, un-experiential mode of discourse. It is the brainchild of academics rationalizing about such and such, not the direct experience of Uncreated Light, of Glorification, in which the Fathers speak of from direct experience.

[Paul Cowan]

I thank you all. It is not that I search for an answer I like. What I most appreciate about Monachos is the various ways the same things are discussed. With so many people expressing themselves, someone is surely to hit a chord in my brain that says "oh. That's what that meant."

I appreciate you all. For those that do not post but just read, I hope you will consider posting your thoughts on various subjects so people like me might finally "get it" with your personal viewpoint of a topic.

May God bless you all during His Nativity this week. I can't wait for the Royal hours in the morning.

Paul

[Anthony]

Original sin and the heretical atonement theology of Anselm come from a legal-juridicial view of divine-human economy. Orthodoxy does not see things in this way

Has it actually been declared heretical?

[Scott Pierson]

by a singular privilege and grace granted by GodThat raises an interesting point. Does God offer the same grace to all of us in terms of being able to overcome sin (which we often times reject of course) or does God help some out more than others? If the results of rejecting God are suffering in hell one would think He would give everyone the absolute maximum and not give some people "special breaks" and the varying results you see are simply people accepting vs rejecting what God is offering. If granting the Virgin Mary that singular grace and privilege in regards to sin didnt violate Gods will to insure free will than why wouldnt God just give everyone that grace so no one would ever have to go to hell and we could all be as holy as the Theotokos?

I think it makes God out to be a respecter of persons to imply that (that the Virigin Mary had a special and singular help ) and also makes Him appear unfair to everyone else whose neck is on the line in this life in terms of suffering hell. I also think it lessens the greatness of the Virgin Mary. If the Virgin Mary couldnt sin and then she didnt, big deal. But if she is just like us and was offered no more help than God is willing to offer anyone else and still did it then that is a big deal and its very heartening to know its possible!

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

What does the IC dogma do to the poet William Wordsworth's words who wrote of the Theotokas; "our tainted nature's solitary boast"

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

now i wonder why original sin was even thought up in the west and has it been declared heretical by anyone?