Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mary- Yoldath Aoho - Part 4

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John Kunjukunju
    To Dear Dr Babu Paul: Your article basing on mine, I welcome it. I have no doubt or contradiction except about one thing. I did not elaborate all matters about
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      To Dear Dr Babu Paul:

      Your article basing on mine, I welcome it. I have no doubt or
      contradiction except about one thing. I did not elaborate all matters
      about St Mary. I was just replying to a specific question and I wrote
      only those points I felt then necessary.

      However, I do not think the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was
      sanctified in the embrionic form in the womb of Hanna. Dr Babu Paul
      in his book, "Veda Sabda Retnakaram" page 499, after explicitely
      presenting the Orthodox position, in the foot-note says, (may not be
      literal translation-which he can offer, if so pleases) 'there is reason
      to agree that St Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb'. He cites
      observance observance of Ettunombu as a reason justify. My humble
      opinion is that Ettunombu is not a canonical one, but laiety sponsored
      as he has already said.

      As he rightly pointed out, St John the Baptist was filled with Holly
      Spirit in his mother's womb and the holy fathers duly considered this
      speciality and set apart one Sunday for his birth. Though birth of St John
      the Baptist is remebered on a Sunday, we do not consider it as feast('Moronoyo').

      For those who are not familiar with feast-details I would add without
      elaboration that the Holy Church has distinguised three catagories of
      the feasts namely,

      1, Those most important feasts which are directly linked to our Lord
      such as, Soonoro, Yeldo, Mayaltho, Quomtho, Sooloko, etc.

      2, More but less than the first catagory, which are, Soonoyo, Mid-Nineve-
      lent, Sleehanombu veedal, etc

      And the third catagory is least of the other two, which are mostly of
      Saints, Patron-saints, etc.

      Church does not insist the third catagory as a canonical requirement
      but strongly recomments it.

      While birth of the Baptist does not fall even in the third catagory,
      September 8 is considered in the third catagoty. It is because of the
      special honor we assign to St Mary in general and not particularly
      considering her sanctification in her mother's womb. I do not find any
      reason for believing it. Whether or not she was purified in her embrionic
      stage, he is special and exalted.

      Another reason might be, I am not betting, that Patriarch Mor Abdulla was
      in Roman faith before becoming the Patriarch for about 9 years, and in all
      probability he might have brought in this thought. We also did not have,
      and still does have, a canonizing system and in most cases simply followed
      what the patriarch decided to be correct.

      The foot-note also says, 'Church does not commommorate birthday's of
      the one who is born with original sin.' as sufficeient reason to justify
      sanctification in her mother's womb. I humbly disagree, the original
      sin need not be a criterion. St Augustine says, "On account of the honour
      of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sin for
      how do we know that what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin
      was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom
      there was no sin," Nature and Grace, against Palagius. Roman Catholics later
      interpretted it in favor for their theory. Our fathers also gave due credit
      to what St Augustine said but did not go with Roman teaching on the dogma
      nor said they have fathomed all the mysteries concening.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.