Enero Uno: Kapistahan ng Kadakilaan ni Maria Ina ng Diyos

Originally Posted at Iglesia ni Cristo 2000 Blog

MARIA, INA NG DIYOS.

Isang malaking balakid para sa mga kalaban ng tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo ang isa sa mga titulo ng Inang Birheng Maria bilang INA NG DIYOS. Sa mga Protestante, hindi parepareho ang kanilang pananaw tungkol kay Maria. Ang mga Lutherans ay hindi katulad ng mga Anglicans o mga Episcopalians. Ganon din ang mga Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist at iba pang mga sinaunang grupo ng mga Protestante. Sila ay maituturing nating iba rin sa mga evangelicals (o mga "Born Again") at hindi rin sila sumasang-ayon sa bawat isa sa mga Baptist, at hindi rin sila katulad ng mga paniniwala ng mga Pentecostals. Sa Pilipinas, ang mga kaanib sa iglesiang tatag ni Ginoong Felix Manalo ang madalas na kumakalaban sa Iglesia Katolika sa radyo man, telebisyon o sa mga limbag na magasin at aklat. Ang Iglesia Ni Cristo®-1914 ay kabilang sa sangay ng Protestante na kung tawagin ay "Restorationists" at kabilang sila sa mga ereheng sumasalungat sa Doktrina ng Trinidad na kung tawagin ay mga Unitarians (halos silang lahat ay sumulpot sa Estados Unidos o Europa).

Ngunit ang isang bagay na sila'y nagkakaisa, ito ay ang kanilang pagtutol sa mga parangal na ibinibigay ng mga Katoliko at mga Orthodox kay Maria bilang INA NG DIYOS (THEOTOKOS). 

Bakit nga ba si Maria ay tinatawag ng 'Ina ng Diyos'? 

Ang titulong ikinabit kay Inang Birheng Maria ay hindi parangal sa kanya bilang tao kundi ito ay PAGPAPATIBAY sa katotohanang si JESUS AY DIYOS!

Ang pagtawag kay Maria bilang 'Theotokos' (God-bearer) o Ina ng Diyos ay hindi na bago sa kasaysayan ng Santa Iglesia. Ito ay matagal nang pinaniniwalaan at sinasampalatayanan ng Unang Iglesia. At upang mapanatili ang pangkalahatang paniniwalang ito, sa Konsilyo ng Efesus (431 A.D.) ginawang opisyal ang titulo ng Inang Maria bilang "Ina ng Diyos".

"Kung ang sinuman ay hindi magpapahayag na ang Diyos ay tunay na Emmanuel (nagkatawang-tao), at sa saligang ito ang banal na birhen ay ang" Theotokos "(sapagkat ayon sa laman ipinanganak niya ang Salita ng Diyos, naging laman sa pamamagitan ng Kanyang pagsilang) siya nawa ay itiwalag." (If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the "Theotokos" (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the word of God become flesh by birth) let him be anathema. -The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD)

Bakit hindi na lamang tawaging 'Ina ni Cristo'?

Tanggapin man natin o hindi, hindi lahat ng mga taong nagsasabing sila'y mga 'Kristiano' ay naniniwalang si Cristo ay Diyos. Isa na rito ang mga kaanib ng INC™-1914. Para sa kanila, si Cristo ay TAO LAMANG.

“TAO rin ang kalagayan ng ating Panginoon Jesucristo sa Kanyang muling pagparito sa araw ng paghuhukom. Hindi nagbabago ang Kanyang kalagayan. Hindi Siya naging Diyos kailanman! TAO ng ipinanganak, TAO ng lumaki na at nangangaral, TAO ng mabuhay na mag-uli, TAO nang umakyant sa langit, TAO nang nasa langit na nakaupo sa kanan ng Diyos, at TAO rin Siya na muling paririto.” -PASUGO, Enero, 1964, p. 13 (Sinulat ni Emiliano Agustin)

Sa kanilang opisyal na limbag na magasing Pasugo na ating sinipi sa itaas, ang Iglesia Ni Cristo®-1914 ay pinagdidiinan ang pagka-TAO ni Jesus at TINATAKWIL ang Kanyang orihinal na kalikasan bilang Diyos.

Taliwas sa mga bagong sulpot na relihiyon sa Pilipinas, ang orihinal na Iglesia, si Cristo na ITINATAG NI mismo ni CRISTO ay naniniwalang HINDI LAMANG TAO ang Panginoong Jesus kundi SIYA AY DIYOS at NAPARITO ayon sa LAMAN (naging TAO). Kaya't sa maikling salita, si Cristo ay TOTOONG DIYOS at TOTOONG TAO at sa kabuuan ng kanyang 'essence at being' SI CRISTO AY IISA, hindi siya kalahating Diyos at kalahating Tao. O hindi siya dalawa (Jesus na Diyos at Jesus na Tao) kundi IISA ANG PANGINOONG HESUCRISTO. Si CRISTO ay DIYOS bago isilang; DIYOS pa rin hanggang ipinanganak ayon sa laman (sa pamamagitan ni Maria) at naging TAO (Juan 1:1-4, 14) at Diyos pa rin hanggang sa kanyang pagbabalik (paghuhukom)!

Iyan ang PINAGDIDIINAN sa SULAT sa mga HEBREO (13:8)  na ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay MANANATILING SIYA KAHAPON, NGAYON AT MAGPAKAILAN MAN.

Kaya't kung si CRISTO ay DIYOS noon, siya ay mananatiling DIYOS ngayon, at DIYOS pa rin MAGKAILANMAN hanggang sa Kanyang paghuhukom.

Malinaw itong sinampalatayanan ni Apostol San Pablo sa kanyang sulat sa mga taga-Filipos:

"Taglayin  ninyo ang mga damdamin na tinaglay din ni Cristo Jesus, na bagaman NASA KANYA ANG KALIKASAN NG DIYOS ay hindi niya inangkin ang matulad sa Diyos; sa halip ay pinawi ang sarili, kinuha ang kalikasan ng alipin at TUMULAD SA MGA TAO." (Ang Banal na Biblia)

Para kay Apostol San Pablo, si Cristo ay taglay ang KALIKASAN NG DIYOS ngunit sa Kanyang kababaang-loob ay KINUHA ang KALAGAYAN BILANG TAO, naging animo'y alipin, masunurin hanggang kamataya ~ oo, kamatayan sa Krus.

Kaya't sa mga KATOTOHANANG ating binanggit, ang IPINANGANAK ng Inang Birhen ay DIYOS NA TOTOO. Samakatuwid, si MARIA AY INA NG DIYOS! (CCC 963)

BABALA NG BIBLIA AT NG SANTA IGLESIA

Ang babala ay mula kay Apostol San Juan (1 Juan 1:2-3), ang sinumang HINDI TANGGAP si CRISTO (Diyos) na NAPARITO SA LAMAN siya ay ANTI-CRISTO!

Batid ni Apostol San Juan ang PAGDATING na mga EREHE at mga HUWAD NA MANGANGARAL mula noong IKA-16 SIGLO sa Europa hanggang dumating ito sa Pilipinas noong 1900's at umusbong ng husto noong 1914.

"Sapagkat nagkalat sa daigdig ang maraming mandaraya na ayaw kumilala na si Jesucristo ay nagkatawang-tao; ganyan nga ang mandaraya at ang anti-Cristo. Mag-ingat sana kayo..." (2 Juan 1:7-8a Ang Mabuting Balita)

Ang di-pagtanggap kay Maria bilang INA NG DIYOS ay katulad ng hindi rin pagtanggap kay JESUCRISTO bilang DIYOS na NAGKATAWANG-TAO.

"If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the "Theotokos" (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the word of God become flesh by birth) let him be anathema". -The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD

At sa mga katulad nila, ibilang sila bilang mga kampon ng kasamaan, mga bulaan, mandaraya, manlilinlang ~ mga ANTI-CRISTO!

The Feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception Explained!

On December 8, 1854 Pope Pius IX defined the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin. By this dogma, the Catholic Church confesses: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC #491-492, 508)

A brief overview of the history and significance of the feast of the Immaculate Conception which is celebrated during Advent on Dec. 8th throughout the whole Church. The video is not-for-profit, and is intended for religious teaching, scholarship, and research purposes only (Fair Use Doctrine: Title 17, para. 107).

Addendum: "Theotokos" literally means God bearer.

Dave Armstrong: Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Source: National Catholic Register

Puto (1490–1576), “The Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple of Jerusalem”

Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (CCC 510)

Dave Armstrong

Once upon a time, almost no Christians denied that Mary the mother of Jesus was perpetually a virgin: including Protestants. Of the early leaders of that movement, virtually all fully accepted this doctrine: including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Turretin, and Cranmer. Moreover, most Protestant exegetes continued to believe it for at least another 350 years or so.

But today, for various reasons, things are very different, so it's helpful to revisit the biblical arguments, since the Bible is the authority all Christians revere in common. A surprising number can be found.

1) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?

2) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “cousin.” The New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word (sungenis), but Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic (a late version of Hebrew), and the Hebrew word ach is literally translated as adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.” In the Bible, it has a very wide range of meanings beyond “sibling”: just as “brother” does in English. Thus, it is routinely used in the New Testament to describe cousins or kinsmen, etc.

3) Jesus Himself uses “brethren” (adelphos) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other's“brothers”: the brotherhood of Christians.

4) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphein John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus' siblings.

It's not mere special pleading to argue in this fashion, nor an alleged “desperation” of Catholics who supposedly “read into” the texts their prior belief in the dogma of perpetual virginity. Plenty of Protestant exegesis and scholarship confirms these views: especially in older commentaries. For example, the prominent 19th century Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, states, regarding Matthew 13:55 (my italics added):

An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion. . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties.

5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Jesus certainly wouldn't have done this if He had brothers (all of whom would have been younger than He was).

6) Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son . . .

This passage has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant commentary also states (my italics again):

The word “till” [until above] does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word “first-born” decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.”

John Calvin used the same counter-argument in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. In fact, in his Harmony of the Gospels, commenting on Matthew 1:25, he thought the contention of further siblings based on this passage was so unfounded that he wrote, “No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

7) Jude is called the Lord's “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus' blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James' brother.

This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord's brother” (Gal 1:19).

It's true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and -- to say the same thing another way -- nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture.

Why is there a picture of the Virgin Mary sleeping?

Source: Aleteia

By Philip Kosloski | Aug 12, 2017

The image corresponds to an early belief of the Church called the "Dormition of Mary."

Public Domain

Many in the ancient world described the act of dying as “falling asleep.” This concept is also found in the Bible, where in the Psalms we find this prayer, “Consider and answer me, O Lord my God; lighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death” (Psalm 13:3).

St. Paul also uses this imagery in his Letter to the Thessalonians in reference to Jesus raising the dead, “God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

When contemplating the mystery of the Virgin Mary’s departure from this world, many early Christians referred to it as the “Sleep of Mary,” or “Dormition of Mary” (from the Latin domire, meaning to sleep). This highlighted the belief that Mary died before being assumed into heaven.

St. John of Damascus, in the 8th century, relates how “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known … that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”

This particular tradition was very common in the early Church and has different variations, but most revolve around Mary dying in the presence of the apostles. The Eastern Church still celebrates the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God on August 15, the same day that Roman Catholics celebrate the Assumption. Both celebrate the same event, but use different terminology and emphasize different aspects of it.

[Read more: What does it mean to be “Roman” Catholic?]

Officially the Church does not teach the exact nature of how Mary was assumed into heaven or if she died first. The Church teaches only that “the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” However, St. John Paul II did mention in a General Audience, “To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.” The dormition/assumption was a unique grace given to Mary, a fruit of her Immaculate Conception.

With this in mind many ancient artists depict Mary’s dormition as her sleeping on a bed, surrounded by the apostles. Christ is typically in the center of the picture, often holding a miniature version of Mary, representing the action of Jesus taking Mary’s pure body and soul up to heaven.

[Read more: When art came to the rescue: Depicting Marian doctrine]

It is a beautiful image to meditate on, and brings to mind the only way we can truly rest in peace, in the arms of our Savior.

SOLEMNITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY INTO HEAVEN!

TOMORROW August 15 - SOLEMNITY OF THE ASSUMPTION of the Blessed Mother into HEAVEN. It is a Day of Obligation for all Catholics which is equivalent to Sunday Mass. Missing the Mass without valid reasons is a Mortal Sin that needs to be confessed before receiving a Holy Communion on Sunday!

Our Lady Conqueror of Muslim Hearts: The Virgin Mary's Coming Conquest Of Islam

Ultimately, the Blessed Mother of God will be Muslim's most hated Christian when she would finally conquer evil of terrorism!

Source: Catholic365.com By Nate Lauer

Photo Credit: Flickr/Our Lady of Fatima International Pilgrim Statue

On September 11th 1683, Vienna was besieged by Islamic Ottoman Turks. Christians throughout Europe prayed the Rosary in the midst of a desperate situation. At Vienna, vastly outnumbered European Christian forces miraculously and wonderfully delivered a crippling blow to Muslim expansion into Europe, preventing a grim invasion of the continent by Muslim forces. 41,000 Christian forces (including 30,000 troops of Polish King Jan III Sobieski that Pope Innocent XI had called upon) defeated a 140,000 man strong Turkish army the night of September 11th over three centuries before the 9/11 attacks on the United States that were also caused by Islamic terrorism. September 12th, the day after the great victory of Christianity at Vienna, came to be known as the feast day of the Holy Name of Mary (a feast day that has been restored to us thanks to Pope John Paul the II doing so not long before he died.)

Over a century before, On October 7th, 1571, Christian Europe stood on the verge of collapse before the onslaught of a large Muslim navy fleet. The battle of Lepanto it was known as. Also widely recognized was our Lady’s intercession at that historic moment when Christianity’s European fate stood on the edge of a knife. When hopes were fading, the Admiral, one Andrea Doria, pleaded in his cabin before an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, sent him by Archbishop Montufor of Mexico. In sending this image, the good Archbishop had been well foresighted in ascertaining the grave consequences of a potential defeat of Christianity on the high seas. Such a loss would likely mean that the waves of Islam would sweep Christendom away, changing dramatically the spiritual landscape and the course of history if it came to pass.

We are told that as the admiral prayed before the Guadalupe image, the tide turned against the Muslims, with winds literally changing directions unfavorably against them, and an encouraged Christian fleet triumphing over Islam that day, shattering two-thirds of the Muslim Navy, the 200 Christian Ship Navy magnificently overcoming the previously presumed unbeatable 300 ships. Also important to note is the fact that the Pope implored, and people indeed did, pray the Rosary to Mary, “Our Lady of Victory”. Ultimately, October the 7th came to be known as Our Lady of the Rosary, and the month of October dedicated to the Rosary.

For many years now, the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, unpainted by human hands, the great mover in the mass conversion of the Aztecs to Christianity, has held many enthralled and brought so many to Christ. It seems likely, especially considering the Great Battle of Lepanto, that the quarter moon on which Mary stands in the miraculous Guadalupe image represented not only the Aztecs, but also the Muslims, each of which had as symbol that same quarter moon. Mary triumphs over both the Aztecs and the Muslims. Mary’s triumphs are for the defense of Christ’s Church, and for the conversion of all mankind to Christ. She sought to gather the Aztecs to her son. She wishes to do the same for the Muslims.

It may have been the beloved Archbishop Fulton Sheen that first inspired more serious consideration of the subject of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her relationship to Islam. In what I, and many, consider to be one of the best Catholic books of the 20th Century, The World’s First Love: Mary Mother of God, Archbishop Sheen devoted a chapter to this topic in his book titled “Mary and the Moslems”. In this chapter, his very words concerning the coming powerful rise of Islam were prophetic, but so too, it appears, were his reflections on the means to convert the hearts that beat for Islam.

In this regard, an encouraging characteristic of Islam is its devotion and honor to the Virgin Mary. Inarguably, there are errors and misconceptions with the Koran regarding Mary, including the false view that Christians worship Mary and consider her part of the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, Muslims do believe that Mary stands above all other women. Mohammed stated “Thou shalt be the most blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary”, speaking in reference to Fatima, his own daughter. And as for Fatima, that name should ring a bell to you.

You may recall that in the early 20th Century, in the 1917, the Virgin Mary appeared to three children in the small Portugese village of Fatima. The apparitions would go on to become Church approved, and Our Lady took on the title of Our Lady of Fatima. More than ironically, that very village of Fatima, once reigned over like so much of Portugal and Spain by Islam (recall that many were the onslaughts of Islam against Christian Europe through the Middle Ages, and that Europe did not always keep Islam completely at bay), was named after the daughter of the last of the Muslim chiefs who ruled over Portugal, she who in turn had been named after Mohammed's own daughter, Fatima. This chief’s daughter fell in love with a Catholic young man and converted to the Catholic Faith for him, staying behind in a Portugal reclaimed for Catholicism whilst Islam had finally been banished from the southwestern coasts of Europe.

This is all fascinating because, given the Muslims already warm reception of Mary, her now title of “Our Lady of Fatima” was sure to, and has been, an effective mechanism in relations with Islam, with Muslim nations embracing the devotion to Mary under this title in many regards. With God there are no coincidences.

It is widely recognized that Muslims are exceptionally difficult to convert to Christianity, but it has become clear in recent decades to at least some theologians that the way home to the hearts of the Muslims is through the heart of Christ Jesus’ Mother, Mary, whom they already have a soft spot for. As Mary prepared the world for, and brought us our Savior, so she can, and it is the belief of many Christians that she will ultimately bring the Muslims to Jesus. Though Muslims refuse to believe that Jesus is himself God, As Archbishop Fulton Sheen points out to us, “The Moslems should be prepared to acknowledge that, if Fatima [Mohammed’s daughter] must give way in honor to the Blessed Mother, it is because she is different from all the other mothers of the world and that without Christ she would be nothing.”

It thus appears that Muslims will come to Christ not through a direct encounter and conversion, but gradually, through our encouraging and fostering their devotion to Christ’s Mother. We know that the Blessed Virgin Mary always points us towards, carries us to, and forms us in Christ. At a time when Hellish and cruel Islamic terrorist attacks rage against Christians, we have cause to pause and reflect on the fact that the Holy Spirit is working gently through Mary’s hands to establish a peaceful, beautiful widespread conversion of the Muslim people that some in the past and today consider an incredibly unlikely feat to achieve. But I hope they will recall that momentous day when the Angel Gabriel, in Luke Chapter 1:37, announced to Mary just before she gave her assent to become the Mother of God, “For with God, nothing will be impossible.” The time will come when the Muslim people, gazing at Mary lovingly and devotedly, shall look upon her as did the servants at the Wedding Feast of Cana once also looked upon her when she said to them regarding her son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5), and following her direction, they will follow Christ and she shall triumph over the quarter moon of Islam, and even for the converted Muslims, remembrance of the watery waves of Lepanto shall be turned into the wine of gladness recalling the victory of Mary for her Son, their Lord Jesus.

"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev. 12:1)

Are we forbidden to pray from the Bible? Is the Holy Rosary a "pagan" prayer? -Iglesia Ni Cristo's Response

Here is another deception by a paid Minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo® of Manalo taken from Pasugo Mailbox: (Pasugo God's Message, August 2004, Vol. 56, No. 8, ISSN 0116-1636, pp. 4-5)

LETTER TO PASUGO:

The Holy Rosary is a Gospel Prayer of contemplation with Mary on the life of Jesus Christ and Mary. 

How can the rosary be judged that it is of pagan origin?  I do believe that the rosary beads were very much in fashion then and even up to now, that's  why they are universally found and used in their own representations by Paganism; Buddhism; Hinduism; Islam; and Christianity.  Rosary beads are not the sole property of the pagans therefor the Holy Rosary can not be branded as such.

I have been praying the Holy Rosary since I was a child, even without thoroughly understanding the beauty and meaning of what it is.  Yet over the years praying the Holy Rosary played a big role in my family life as the source of the strength that held us together.  During my growing up years the rosary was just like all the other prayers that we must memorize so  that we can participate in the weekly rosary held at my grandparent's house on weekends.  As I grew older and well verse enough to lead the prayers I never thought that there is more to it than just words in sequence.  I started to reflect on the words that I was saying, even more so when our family must gather to pray the Holy Rosary for my father and grandmother who were in critical condition because of an accident.

It is also during our rosary prayer time that many secrets are revealed among us such as our hopes, dreams and aspirations as well as our faults and shortcomings.

As a family we pray as on for all our intentions as we also reflect, meditate and discern our mistakes and shortcomings asking for God's guidance and wisdom and always trusting in His mercy and His infinite love.

I cannot count the number of times when many unbearable [instances] became bearable and many things became possible.  The strength of our bond as a family and the Holy Rosary that we fervently prayerd in all sincerity and humility has a very powerful prayer force that we know will intercede so that my father and my grandmother can survive and surpass those most critical hours.

We never doubted the powerful prayer force of the Holy Rosary because the one who prays with us is no other than Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.  For all our reason the Holy Rosary has been and will continue to be a part of our life time prayers.

No matter how I detest and disagree with your statements regarding the rosary, it is also true that I must consider the fact that your knowledge about the rosary comes from books and other references that unfortunately doesn't give justification to its definition or meaning.  There is more to the rosary than just the beads and its definitions and being a non-Catholic would make it complicated to grasp and understand.  I, for one took years to know and understand that the knowledge and understanding that I know now is only the beginning.

I am enclosing a Pastoral Letter which explains further the meaning of the Holy Rosary, what it is, the mysteries, meditations on biblical themes and other details from the point of view of a Catholic who prays the Holy Rosary fervently and regularly.  He is the best authority in terms of knowledge and experience.  Moreover, the always speaks from the heart.

I hope reading this can give you a better, clearer and broader  view and understanding of the Holy Rosary that we Catholics contemplate with Mary on the life of Jesus Christ.  It is also my fervent hope that somehow your despicable statement would be properly stated as befits its rightful descriptions and definitions. I hope you don't mind my sentiments but it is of utmost importance that the Holy Rosary be described or defined properly and rightfully, please.

"So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance, because of their hardness of heart" Eph., 4:17-18 "and be renewed in the spirit of your minds", "and put on the new self, created in God's way in righteousness and holiness of truth." Eph., 4:23-24 (new American Bible)

Thank you and God bless.

Barbara C. Lim

Makati City, Philippines

IGLESIA NI CRISTO'S RESPONSE:

We understand your reaction to our reply to another letter sender concerning the Rosary.  it is a but natural to react in this manner when one's religious practice done with great love and sincerity is being considered as against the God's will.

The reference we cited were written by recognized Catholic authorities to show that the rosary is indeed repetitious and thus contrary to the statement of Christ in Matthew 6:7. To defy  Christ's admonition against repetitious prayers is not only unbiblical--it is choosing to be an enemy of Christ.  Repetitious  reciting of prayers, says Christ in the same verse, is the way pagans pray.  Apostle Paul states in Ephesians 4:17-18 that Christians must "give up living as pagans do with their futile notions" (Revised English Bible).

Thus, any praying in the same way as what pagans are doing contradicts Christ's admonition on how to pray properly.

"...the old pagans or Rome... before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence, constantly used beads in reciting the many prayers..." (Roman Catholics in the Light of Scripture, p. 137)

"The practice of using beads, etc., as a help to memory in reciting a set number of prayers is not distinctively Christian.." (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 717)

You explain that rosary beads have been very much in fashion before and up to know that is why they are universally found.  You also claim that they are not the sole or exclusive property of the pagans and conclude that the Rosary "can not be branded as such."  The fact, however, that there is no mention of it being commanded by Christ and the Apostles or used by the early Christians, and not even by the people of God in the Old Testament indicates that the Rosary was adopted by the Catholic Church not from the Holy Scriptures.  As you yourself know, history proves that the Rosary had long been widespread among pagans even before the existence of he Roman Church.

You expound that aside from the recitation of the vocal prayers, the Rosary includes meditation on the "mysteries" and putting into practice what is meditated upon and expressed in vocal prayers.  You then conclude that "the Holy Rosary is biblically based."

Meditating on important events in teh life of Jesus and other virtuous servants of God and living it out in the daily life are indeed noble activities, but there activities can be done even witout ritually reciting memorized prayers while using beads which the pagans also use.  God's people in the Bible practiced meditation and were prayerful, but non of them used vain repetitions or rosary beads in his prayers.

Moreover, at least two of your so-called "mysteries" involved in praying the Rosary are obviously not warranted by the Holy Scriptures.  In announcing the "Fourth mystery-- the Assumption of our Lady" in your so-called "Glorious Mysteries," you proclaim:

"We recall how Jesus has taken His Mother to heaven with body and soul as a generous reward for her devoted love to Him while earth." (How to Say the Rosary, p. 22)

But nowhere in the Bible can we find that "Jesus has taken His Mother to heaven with body and soul."  What the Bible teaches is that the dead are in the grave (Ps. 88.5, New King James Version), including those who are holy (Ps. 86:2; Acts 2:29, 34), and that the "soul clings to the dust" when a person dies (Ps. 119:25, NKJV).   Those who are worthy of salvation will enter the kingdom of heaven on the Second Advent of Christ (Mt. 25:31-34) or Judgment Day (Jude 1:14-15).

In the "Fifth Mystery-- the Coronation of Our Lady in Heaven" of your so-called "Glorious Mysteries" you announce:

"We recall how Mary enter[ed] heaven and is greeted by the endless jubilation of angels and saints.  Jesus sets upon her head the crown as Heaven's Queen." (How to Say the Rosary, p. 23)

Regarding the "Glorious Mysteries," your Pope John Paull II himself in his Apostolic Letter "The Rosary of the Virgin Mary" (the "Pastoral Letter" you sent us) states:

"In the Ascension, Christ was raised in glory to the right hand of the Father, while Mary herself would be raised to that same glory in the Assumption, enjoying beforehand, by a unique privilege, the destiny reserved for all the just at the resurrection of the dead.  Crowned in glory-- as she appears in the last glorious mystery--Mary shines forth as Queen of the Angels and Saints..." (p.16)

Again, these teachings are without biblical basis.  Even your Pope can not read from the Scriptures that Mary was "crowned in glory"... as Queen of the Angels and Saints" and that "Jesus sets upon her head the crown as Heaven's Queen." As a matter of fact, no less than Catholic priests and authorities testify to the fact that Mary's Assumption" or being "taken... to heaven with body and soul" is not found in the Holy Scriptures:

"There is no statement of the Assumption in Holy Scripture.  Moreover, if we consult the historical writings of the first five centuries, we find them void of any historical data to certify the fat of the Assumption." (God the Redeemer by Charles G. Herzog, S.J., p. 98)

"There is no explicit reference to the assumption in the Bible, yet the Pope insist in the decree of promulgation that the Scriptures are the ultimate foundation of this truth."  (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, 1967, p. 972)

No doubt, the Rosary can be prayed with the best of human intentions, but this doesn't change the biblical truth that it is against the will of God and it is of pagan origin.  Neither the prophesies nor Christ, nor the Apostles taught it and therefore, the Rosary is a prayer as a commandment of men, who have not been commissioned by God to teach His words.

As to prayer made to God by people who teach and obey the commandments of men, Christ quoted these words from God: 

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt. 15:6, King James Version)

Therefore, while there's still time, put away the commandments of men, and learn to accept the truth no matter how painful it may be. The truth will set us free (Jn. 8:32)

-Bienvenido C. Santiago

CD2000: What do we expect from a paid worker of Manalo Mr. Bienvenido Santiago? He's trained to hate the Catholic Church and must continue to demonize every teaching and doctrine of the original and only true Church of Christ-- which is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (PASUGO, April 1966, p. 46; PASUGO, July-August, 1988, p. 6; PASUGO, March-April, 1992, p. 22) or what he called as the "Roman Church" so that by deceit, he could convert cafeteria Catholics to Manalo's INC™ Church.

In fact, it was the same "Roman Church" which the Apostle Paul told all the churches of Christ to "send their greetings" (Rm. 16:16), not the Iglesia Ni Cristo® founded in the Philippines by an apostate self-proclaimed "Last Messenger" or "Huling Sugo" who left Christ's fold and founded his own. Neither the prophets, nor Christ nor the Apostles made mention of a certain Felix Manalo to come and perfecting the salvific mission of Christ who died for our sins but he remained a complete failure as implied by Manalo's assertions of his "Last Messenger" doctrine.

In his letter to the Church in Rome, the Apostle Paul made mention of how he was spiritually joyful for knowing that the faith of the "Roman Church" is heralded throughout the world (Rm. 1:8 NAB).

The Apostle Paul even confirmed how special the "Roman Church" is for God--"called to belong to Jesus Christ" and "...called to be holy..." (Rm. 1:6-7 Knox Translation)

So that at the last chapter of his letter (chapter 16), St. Paul the Apostles fondly sends the greetings of "all the churches of Christ" to the "Roman Church" for having a faith known throughout the whole world; for being called to imitate Jesus Christ; and to exemplify holiness. Have we not done that?

In fact, no other churches christianized much of the world except the Catholic Church alone.  The Church transmitted the faith through words and deed (the Living Tradition) for the first 400 years until the list of Bible books (which the Iglesia Ni Cristo® and other Johnny-come-lately churches use)  was finally compiled in the year 382 A.D. and 419 A.D. at the Council of Rome, Hippo and  Carthage.

Thanks to the ingenuity of Catholics such as Sir Johannes Gutenburg, who invented the first printing machine that helped in the mass production of the Word of God or which we Catholics called the "Bible"!

The term BIBLE wasn't a termed given by the Iglesia Ni Cristo® and their anti-Catholic cronies.  It was obviously Catholic in origin. They have no contribution to the Bible whatsoever!

The word "bible" was derived from Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book (Online Miriam-Webster).

The Septuagint Bible version called it "in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books" (Dictionary.com)

And since the Bible is a Catholic Book, a commission of Cardinals in Rome was created to ensure that the Bible remains to be a Catholic Church property, protecting for the proper interpretation and defense of it. (read Biblical Commission)

Mr. Santiago made mentioned of Matthew 6:7 about Christ's comparison with pagan prayers babbling, but failed to quote the next verses 9-15 where He taught the 'Lord's Prayer"

Does Mr. Santiago mean that verses from the Bible being repeatedly prayed goes against Jesus Christ who was the source of that prayer? Does he mean praying is OK as long as it's not repetitive? Where is it mentioned in the Bible that we're not allowed to read and pray from the Bible repeatedly? And so doing, everyone who repeats again and again verses from the Bible makes us an "enemy of  Christ"?

Here are the prayers being recited in the Holy Rosary:

• The Summary of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith (the Apostle's Creed)
• The "Lord's Prayers" (Mt. 6:9-15; Lk. 11:1-4; 
• The Greetings of the Gabriel to Mary  (Lk. 1:28)
• The Greetings of Elizabeth to Mary (Lk. 1:42-45)

Are they from pagan sources? Was Christ, Gabriel, Mary and Elizabeth pagans?

Ephesians 4:17-17-18 does not talk about prohibition from praying the Holy Scriptures but prohibition from living like pagans, just as how the paid ministers of Manalo do.  Demonizing the Church is not coming from Christ but from the Devil, their father, the deceiver!

I wonder why Santiago selectively refused to accuse the Joyful, Luminous, Sorrowful Mysteries of the same Holy Rosary as unbiblical while earlier he said that the rosary is a pagan prayer?  Does it mean, he conceded to the fact that these mysteries are biblical? What made him skip those mysteries and jumped only to the Glorious Mysteries-- the Assumption and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven is quite revealing!

In Saint Pope John Paul II's Pastoral Letter called "Rosarium Virginis Mariae" (No. 23), he perfectly summarized the whole mystery surrounding the Doctrine of the Assumption.

And who else could understand that extra-biblical doctrine except those who assent to the teachings of the Church-- the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).  Pope  Saint John Paul II was a Theology giant unmatched to Mr. Santiago, whose biblical credentials is not even scholarly unrecognized.

Who says the Assumption and the Crowning of Mary isn't biblical?

In addition to Genesis 3:15, there are several other Scripture passages that point to the Assumption of Our Lady. For example, there is Luke 1:28, since her bodily assumption is a natural consequence of her being “full of grace.” Other passages include Revelation 12:1, in which Mary’s coronation implies her bodily assumption, and 1 Corinthians 15:23 and Matthew 27:52-53, which support the possibility of a bodily assumption. And lastly there is Psalm 132:8, which provides: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.” Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, who physically bore the presence of God in her womb before bearing Christ to the world. (Source: Catholics United in Faith)

And how about the name of Felix Manalo? Him being the "Last Messenger"? And the Great Apostasy? And the emergence of the original Church of Jesus in the Philippines? Where was it written explicitly in the Bible?

But here is biblical. The coming of the Deceiver who will deny Jesus coming in the flesh! Felix Manalo fulfilled the prophesy:

"Many false teachers have appeared in the world, who will not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in human flesh; here is the deceiver you were warned against, here is Antichrist." (2 Jn. 1:7)

Therefore, if Felix Manalo is the deceiver and Antichrist for denying Jesus coming in the flesh, what's left for his paid ministers to teach except deception and lies?!

As for Mr. Santiago and members of Manalo's Church, while there is still time, put away the commandments of men--deceiver and antichrist-- and learn to accept the truth no matter how painful it may be.  The pillar and bulwark of truth--the Church-- will set us free. (Jn. 8:32)

Simpleng katekismo tungkol sa Kapistahan ng IMACULADA CONCEPCION (Solemnity of the Immaculate Concepcton)

Photo Source: America Needs Fatima

Alam niyo ba na ang KAPISTAHAN ng IMACULADA CONCEPCION ay isang HOLY DAY OF OBLIGATION at isa sa PINAKADAKILANG KAPISTAHAN sa loob ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA?

At ayon sa unang nakasaad sa Batas ng Santa Iglesia, sa mga araw na Holy Day of Obligation ay TAYO ay DAPAT MAGSIMBA at TUMANGGAP ng KOMUNIYON sa araw na ito?

Kaya't kung hindi niyo po nagawa 'yan, naku, may pagkakasala na po tayong dapat i-kumpisal sa pari. Ang pagliban sa Misa sa mga araw na itinakda ng Santa Iglesia ay katulad din ng pagliban sa Misa sa tuwing araw ng Linggo at ito ay KASALANANG MORTAL.

Alam niyo ba ang epekto ng Kasalanang Mortal? Ito ay kasalanang 'nakamamatay ng kaluluwa'.  Ibig sabihin, kung lugmok po tayo sa Kasalanang Mortal, mamamatay po tayong WALANG KALULUWA na parang hayop.

Hindi ko po katuruan 'yan. Ito po'y MALINAW na katuruan ng Santa Iglesia:

Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

§2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and aVairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Heto naman ang sinasabi ng ating Opisyal na Katekismo:

CCC # 2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

Para sa karagdagang kaalaman, maaari pong basahin ang Is Missing A Mass a Mortal Sin?

Anyway, kaya ko naisipang ibahagi sa inyo ang kaalamang ito ay sapagkat, nalungkot ako sa misa nang NAKALIGTAANG IPALIWANAG ng pari kung ano, saan, kailan at kung paano nagkaroon ng Kapistahang ito bagamat wala naman tayong mababasa sa Biblia tungkol sa Imaculada Concepcion.

Ano nga ba ang ito?

Ang KAPISTAHAN o SOLEMNITY po ng IMACULADA CONCEPCION (Immaculate Conception) ay HINDI po bago sa kasaysayan ng Kristianismo.

HINDI po ito IMBENTO lamang ayon sa kasinungalingan ng mga Protestante.

Ito po'y ipinadiriwang na noon pang ika-7 siglo, libong taon bago pa man nagkaroon ng Iglesia Protestante ni Martin Luther noong 1517.

Lalong wala pa si Ellen G. White na nagtatag ng  Seventh-day Adventist Church na dating pastora ni Felix Y. Manalo na nagtayo ng kanyang sariling iglesia-- ang Iglesia Ni Cristo® o INC™.

Lalong wala pa si Eddie Villanueva ng Jesus Is Lord® (JIL™) o ng Members of the Church of God Internationa, Inc (ADD™) ni Eliseo Soriano.

Ayon sa kasaysayan ng ating pananampalataya, ang kasinungalingan ng mga Protestante ay TINULDUKAN ni Papa Pius IX noong ika-8 ng Disyembre 1854 sa kanyang Apostolic Constitution na INEFFABILIS DEUS.

"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."

Na ang ibig sabihin ay DAPAT paniwalaan ng LAHAT ng mga Kristiano ang DOKTRINA ng IMACULADA CONCEPCION bilang KATOTOHANAN hindi mababali kailanman.

Ano ba ang KATOTOHANANG ito?

Ang Imaculada Concepcion po ay HINDI po tungkol sa PAGLILIHI kay CRISTO. 

Ito ay ang PAGLILIHI kay MARIA sa SINAPUPUNAN ng kanyang ina na si Santa Ana.

Bakit kailangang ideklara ng Iglesia Katolika si MARIA ay IPINAGLIHI na WALANG BAHID na KASALANAN? 

Hindi ba't ang sabi ng Banal na Kasulatan sa Roma 3:23 ay 'LAHAT [ng tao] AY NAGKASALA'? Bakit hindi ba kasama si Maria sa "lahat" [ng tao]? 

Kung TAO si Maria samakatuwid, siya'y KABILANG sa [lahat na] mga NAGKASALA!

Pero hindi ba't 'in every rule there is an exemption' ika nga?  Hindi ba pwedeng si Maria ay exempted sa Roma 3:23?

Bakit sinabi kong maaaring exempted ang Mahal na Birheng Ina?

Sapagkat kung tatangapin natin ang argumento ng mga Protestante (kasama na diyan ang Iglesia Ni Cristo® ni Manalo) na si Maria ay TAO at kasama siya sa may  BAHID na kasalanang minana natin kay Adan at Eba, lalabas na si Jesus na Dios at Taong totoo ay IPINAGLIHI sa KASALANAN dahil MAMANAHIN niya ito mula kay Maria na kanyang (tao) Ina. Lalabas na si Jesus ay ipinanganak ng may BAHID na KASALANAN.

HINDI 'yan ang PAGPAPAKILALA ng Biblia TUNGKOL kay JESUS, hindi po ba?

Ayon sa Biblia, si JESU-CRISTO ay WALANG BAHID ng KASALANAN.  SIYA ay WALANG PAGKAKASALA. WALANG DUMI ang makikita sa kanya (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pt. 2:22).  

Kaya NARARAPAT LAMANG (it necessitates) na si Maria, bilang Ina ng Dios Anak ay IPINAGLIHING WALANG BAHID na KASALANAN!

Karapat-dapat lamang na si MARIA ay WALANG BAHID NA MANTSA ng KASALANAN upang ang SINAPUPUNAN niya ay mananatiling PURE, UNDEFILED, UNSTAINED, IMMACULATE and HOLY worthy of the SON OF GOD-- JESUS CHRIST our LORD and SAVIOR!

Dahil diyan, nakita ng DIOS AMA na MALINIS si MARIA.  At ang kanyang sinapupunan KARAPAT-DAPAT ipagbuntis ang ANAK NG DIOS--ang ating PANGINOONG JESU-CRISTO upang ang PAGKAKATAWANG-TAO NIYA ay alinsunod sa BIBLIA-- and the [LIVING] WORD OF GOD became FLESH and HE made HIS dwelling amongst us! (Jn 1:1-9; Fil. 2:2-9)

At dahil sa KATOTOHANANG iyan, ang ating MAHAL na INANG BIRHENG MARIA ay siyang bagong KABAN ng TIPAN (Ark of the Covenant) na mababasa natin sa Revelations 11:19.

Upang lalo tayong maliwanagan dito, basahin ang Scott Hahn on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Kaya bagama't HINDI literal na nasusulat sa Biblia ang Imaculada Concepcion, ngunit ang kanyang diwa ay NASA KAIBUTURAN ng BANAL NA KASULATAN! Ang mga PANGAKO ng PAGLILIGTAS ng DIOS ay nakaugat sa kanyang kalinis-linisang paglilihi.

The Immaculate Conception: What About the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

by Mark Shea from National Catholic Register

One objection raised by some Protestants is this: If the Immaculate Conception is truly apostolic teaching, then why do the Eastern Orthodox Churches reject it? After all, those Churches trace their lineage to apostolic times just as the Catholic Church does. To answer that, we have to understand why the Roman Church developed her doctrine in the way she did and why the East did not take the same path.

Some people have the notion the Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the Immaculate Conception because a few early Eastern Fathers (Origen, Basil, and John Chrysostom) expressed a couple of doubts about Mary’s sinlessness. Origen thought that, during Christ’s Passion, the sword that pierced Mary’s soul was disbelief. Basil had the same notion. And John Chrysostom thought her guilty of ambition and pushiness in Matthew 12:46 (an incident we have already examined).

But the remarkable thing about these opinions is how isolated they turn out to be. Essentially, they demonstrate (once again) something about the development of doctrine that we’ve already seen in connection with the Trinity: The Catholic Church is not a monolith and her people, even very good people, sometimes voice in good faith ideas that end up departing from the orthodox norm. For the reality is that, apart from these three, the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers in both east and west is that Mary is “most pure,” (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) “formed without any stain,” (Proclus, Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort., I, 3) “all-Holy,”( Hippolytus, Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII) “undefiled,” (Ibid) “spotless,”( Hippolytus, A Discourse on the End of the World) “immaculate of the immaculate,”( Origen, Homily 1) “inviolate and free from every stain of sin,”( Ambrose, Commentary on Psalm 118, 22–30) and created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures.( Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140) In short, for the Eastern Fathers, as for the Catholic Church, Mary is as St. Ephraim describes her:

Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity . . . alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate( Ephraim the Syrian, Precationes ad Deiparam in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524– 37).

So if the Eastern Orthodox Churches ignored Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom when they speculated that Mary was sinful, why do they reject the Immaculate Conception? In a nutshell, they reject it because the Immaculate Conception is the answer to a number of questions the Eastern Christians were never much interested in asking. And if you don’t ask the questions, you don’t come up with the answers. But, as we shall see, that’s cold comfort for Evangelicals. Read more here...