[Kolokotronis]

“Dear friend, what was written in my post are words that come from from Saint Thomas Aquinas himself regarding Mary”

Back to the books, +SF! What Aquinas spoke of was The Most Holy Theotokos’ sinlessness, which is in accord with the consensus patrum. He rejected the notion that she was born free from “Original Sin”. A number of great Latin Rite saints similarly rejected the notion, for example +Bernard of Clairvaux. As I said earlier, the whole notion of the Immaculate Conception is necessitated by the non-Patristic Augustinian anthropology of the West. Panagia was born fully human and subject to the same “distortion” of her nature as all humans. By her response to uncreated grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, she was able to resist sin throughout her life. Whether this indwelling of the HS happened in the womb or after we don’t know, though it is interesting to note that we celebrate as feast days only three Nativities and Conceptions, that of Christ, of course, and those of Panagia and +John the Forerunner (whom we also speculate was graced while still in the womb).

If one rejects Augustian notions about sin, there is quite simply no need for a dogma like the Immaculate Conception.

“Why do you think Mary is lesser then Eve?”

and

“I find it strange why Orthodox do not seem to accept Mary as the New Eve.”

Good heavens, +SF, the whole concept of Panagia as the New Eve comes from the Greek Fathers. It is a thoroughly Orthodox concept. To tell you the truth, to us Orthodox, Latin Rite Marian devotion seems at many levels pretty thin gruel and at others almost cultish. How do the Orthodox speak of the Most Holy Theotokos? At every Divine Liturgy, just after the consecration, we pray:

“It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.”

I don’t see anything like that in the Latin Rite Liturgy, +SF. Try a read of the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos; its a regular Lenten Devotion done multiple times in Great lent and the Lent of the Dormition in August. Here are a couple of the Eikoi and a link:

” Rejoice, you through whom joy shall shine forth. Rejoice, you through whom the curse will vanish.
Rejoice, the Restoration of fallen Adam. Rejoice, the Redemption of the tears of Eve.
Rejoice, O Height beyond human logic. Rejoice, O depth invisible even to the eyes of Angels.
Rejoice, for you are the King’s throne. Rejoice, you bear Him, Who bears the universe.
Rejoice, O Star revealing the Sun. Rejoice, O Womb of divine Incarnation.
Rejoice, you through whom creation is renewed. Rejoice, you through whom the Creator is born a Babe.

Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride.”

and

“Rejoice, Ray of the spiritual Sun. Rejoice, Beam of the innermost Splendour.
Rejoice, Lightning, enlightening our souls. Rejoice, Thunder, striking down the enemy.
Rejoice, for you caused the many-starred Light to dawn. Rejoice, for you caused the ever-flowing River to gush forth.
Rejoice, you who depict the image of the Font. Rejoice, you who wash away the stain of sin.
Rejoice, Laver purifying conscience. Rejoice, Wine-bowl over-filled with joy.
Rejoice, sweet-scented Fragrance of Christ. Rejoice, Life of mystic festival.

Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride”

http://www.monachos.net/library/Akathist_Hymn_to_Our_Most_Holy_Lady_Mother_of_God_(Theotokos)

After you read the Akathist, make a comparison with the foolishness of visions of Panagia in cheese sandwiches or baking pans or the mass hysteria caused by visions of her in damp stains on bridge abuttments and tell me what you think. Do you still think we place her lower than Eve?

[stfassisi]

Dear Friend
Here is an excerpt from this article from Notre Dame University
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/conway03.htm
There is no need to expatiate on the fact that St. Thomas was a consummate logician, and consequently not likely to teach in one part of his writings the contrary to what he lays down in another. In the First Part of the “Summa Theologica,” Question XXV, art. 6, ad. 4, he writes: “The Blessed Virgin, in that she is the Mother of God, has a kind of infinite dignity from the Infinite Good, which is God, and on this account nothing better than her can be made, just as there ~is nothing better than God “. Again in the Third Part, Question XXVII, art. 3, he says: “The closer a thing approaches to its principle in any order, the more it partakes of the effect of such principle. Hence Dionysius states in the fourth chapter of the ‘Heavenly Hierarchies,’ that ‘the angels being nearer to God, share more fully of the Divine perfections than men do’. But Christ is the principle of grace authoritatively according to His Divinity and instrumentally in His humanity, as St. John declares in the first chapter (of the Gospel). ‘Grace and truth are made through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ But the Blessed Virgin was closest to Christ in His humanity, since He drew His human nature from her, and therefore she ought beyond all others to receive the fullness of grace from Christ.”

From these two passages we gather St. Thomas’s teaching as to Mary’s prerogatives. 1. She possessed an almost infinite dignity from her closeness to God, in this surpassing the angels. 2. She ought, that is, she had the right, to receive the fullness of Divine grace beyond all other creatures. Since then it is the work of grace to purify the soul by imparting to it the Divine beauty, it follows necessarily that grace wrought absolute sinlessness in her soul, and created boundless holiness. In this dual capacity of closest union with God, and being the appointed instrument of Christ’s humanity, she surpassed the angels, who never knew sin: she had a kind of infinitude in merit which none of them ever could have. How then can such teaching of St. Thomas be reconciled with the idea that Mary had ever been sullied for an instant with original sin? Let the theory be once admitted that Mary had been so defiled, then his two principles given above fall to the ground; admit his principles, and the Immaculate Conception is the logical result. The holy Doctor was well aware of the grace bestowed on those pre-eminent saints, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, yet he does not hesitate to place Mary incomparably beyond them, and attributes their sanctification to her as well as to her son. She must then, logically speaking, have received a greater grace than cleansing after conception.

In his exposition of the “Hail Mary” he distinctly declares the doctrine. “Thirdly, she exceeds even the angels in purity: because the Blessed Virgin was not only pure in herself, but even procured purity for others. She was most clean from fault, because she incurred neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin.”

In his “Commentary on the Epistle to Galatians,” III, lect. VI, the original text runs thus: “Of all women I have found none who was altogether exempt from sin, at least from original sin, or venial, except the most pure, and most worthy of all praise, the Virgin Mary”.

Again in his “Commentary on the Epistle to Romans”: “All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin”.

Please accept my apology to alluding that you might think Mary is lesser than Eve(I should have worded that better!) and thanks for the devotion.

BTW,The link you provided did not work.

It makes perfect sense to me that Mary would have original removed upon conception because she was to be the Mother of God and God being perfect could not join Himself and enter the world with anything less.

Please feel free to provide me with any other info regarding this.

I wish you a Blessed day