Donatism and the Locus of Grace

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Excerpted from: The Church Is Visible and One
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf

The East’s response to the Donatist schism was different from the West’s.
Both East and West agreed that the moral character of the celebrant did not invalidate the mysteries,
but they approached it from a different perspective of grace.

The Western view, shaped almost entirely by Augustine, is that
Grace inheres in individuals,
and the Church is the means
through which this grace is dispensed.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, maintains that
Grace inheres in a community (the Church),
and one partakes of that grace
by participating in the life and activity of the Church.

The Church is the community of grace
rather than the dispenser of grace to individuals.

Orthodox see grace as the dynamic life of God Himself rather than an instrument that God uses.
This life emanates from Christ and is what enlivens his body, the Church.
Therefore grace is primarily communal.

Orthodox see this clearly in our doctrine of Apostolic Succession. We emphatically maintain that
the succession only exists (and that it only makes sense) within the community of the Church.
This reflects the Orthodox communal view of grace. It seems that the corresponding statement
about baptism is the most Orthodox: that baptism is a sacramental action of the community that
unites an outsider with that community. Similar statements can be made about the other
mysteries: they are communal actions of the Church and can be understood only in context of
the community. By their very definition as actions and celebrations of the community, they
cannot exist outside the community.

The Western view is quite different.

In general, the West sees sacramental grace as residing in the individual.
For instance, they maintain that ordination makes an indelible mark upon the soul of the ordained.
This solves the Donatist problem, since one’s sacraments are valid if one has the mark on
one’s soul (a valid ordination), but it also means that, in the Western view, valid sacraments can exist
outside the Church.

[The Orthodox solution to the Donatist problem is that all sacraments celebrated by
the community are valid (by definition) regardless of the moral character of the celebrant, but if one
leaves the community one no longer participates in the actions and life of the community.]”

So is this a fair assessment of the Roman Catholic view of the locus of Grace?

And if yes, then what is the Roman Catholic response?

Arsenios

[maudman]

Excerpted from: The Church Is Visible and One
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf

The East’s response to the Donatist schism was different from the West’s.
Both East and West agreed that the moral character of the celebrant did not invalidate the mysteries,
but they approached it from a different perspective of grace.

The Western view, shaped almost entirely by Augustine, is that
Grace inheres in individuals,
and the Church is the means
through which this grace is dispensed.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, maintains that
Grace inheres in a community (the Church),
and one partakes of that grace
by participating in the life and activity of the Church.

The Church is the community of grace
rather than the dispenser of grace to individuals.

Orthodox see grace as the dynamic life of God Himself rather than an instrument that God uses.
This life emanates from Christ and is what enlivens his body, the Church.
Therefore grace is primarily communal.

Orthodox see this clearly in our doctrine of Apostolic Succession. We emphatically maintain that
the succession only exists (and that it only makes sense) within the community of the Church.
This reflects the Orthodox communal view of grace. It seems that the corresponding statement
about baptism is the most Orthodox: that baptism is a sacramental action of the community that
unites an outsider with that community. Similar statements can be made about the other
mysteries: they are communal actions of the Church and can be understood only in context of
the community. By their very definition as actions and celebrations of the community, they
cannot exist outside the community.

The Western view is quite different.

In general, the West sees sacramental grace as residing in the individual.
For instance, they maintain that ordination makes an indelible mark upon the soul of the ordained.
This solves the Donatist problem, since one’s sacraments are valid if one has the mark on
one’s soul (a valid ordination), but it also means that, in the Western view, valid sacraments can exist
outside the Church.

[The Orthodox solution to the Donatist problem is that all sacraments celebrated by
the community are valid (by definition) regardless of the moral character of the celebrant, but if one
leaves the community one no longer participates in the actions and life of the community.]”

So is this a fair assessment of the Roman Catholic view of the locus of Grace?

And if yes, then what is the Roman Catholic response?

Arsenios

Hello George..


At a glance most your comments seem right.... But I would also convey that corruption, although it has its problems isn't as big a deal as some think in the RCC.. Although at times it depends on the type of Corruption but not a broad stroke..

Peace and Godbless

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hello George..


At a glance most your comments seem right.... But I would also convey that corruption, although it has its problems isn't as big a deal as some think in the RCC.. Although at times it depends on the type of Corruption but not a broad stroke..

Peace and Godbless

Finally an RC response! Thank-you...

The issue is the locus of Grace - Does it abide in the individual who is consecrated? Or is it a holistic function of the Sacramental Life of Christ's Body, the Church? Rome seems to affirm that it is the office of the individual Apostle Peter that confers Grace upon the Church of the Latin confession above all others, whereas the Orthodox see this as a matter of honoring his position among the Apostles, and regard the Grace he received as being a function of the Church he was martyred in at Rome... Today, for instance, once a person is made a priest, does not Rome regard his individuality as having the power of the sacraments permanently? Do they not see his soul as changed by his investiture as a priest thereby conferring a divine gift permanently, rather than as a function only exercised in the services of the Church?

We see the bestowal of the Grace of the Priesthood as confirmed only within the Communion of the Church, you see... We do NOT see it as a change in the ontology of the person of the Priest...

Arsenios

[maudman]

Finally an RC response! Thank-you...

The issue is the locus of Grace - Does it abide in the individual who is consecrated? Or is it a holistic function of the Sacramental Life of Christ's Body, the Church? Rome seems to affirm that it is the office of the individual Apostle Peter that confers Grace upon the Church of the Latin confession above all others, whereas the Orthodox see this as a matter of honoring his position among the Apostles, and regard the Grace he received as being a function of the Church he was martyred in at Rome... Today, for instance, once a person is made a priest, does not Rome regard his individuality as having the power of the sacraments permanently? Do they not see his soul as changed by his investiture as a priest thereby conferring a divine gift permanently, rather than as a function only exercised in the services of the Church?

We see the bestowal of the Grace of the Priesthood as confirmed only within the Communion of the Church, you see... We do NOT see it as a change in the ontology of the person of the Priest...

Arsenios

Well It seems that there is a difference in how one approaches these things... Maybe I can Help?

Essentially the Office is a Principal or primary deposit of the Divine no doubt... This would be for the institution itself as sanctified In a sense like God foreknew those in the womb as liken to a person..It is a Primary Projection of the causation of the will of God.. It Gives the institution of reason structure... In a sense this isn't entirely different for each person that holds a particular Office.. Is that person Predestined to Be that which is willed by God? We would say yes.. Were so many tend to think of offices as Christ statement about offices or positions... The individual is also sactified in the Grace... We would see the Person or individual as Preselected to do God's will.. CHrist prayed; Father I have kept them whom Thou Gavest to be with me.. We believe that all that has recieved the call as in a Preist, Bishop ect..ect.. are in fact Part of the will... In schisms Ordained individuals Carry with them their ordained vestments of the divine gifts..

We tend to logically think or want something different, it all make sense to us as an institution as we think some stray from the institution, and what we tend to ignore is the Person as a projection of God's will... The master Potter wasn't just shaping an office but the Persons to fill those seats? I heard a Preist say even deacons can be permanent mistakes... So it goes Down to the Decons as I heard, but that is all that was mentioned but there isn't anything that say's it doesn't trickle down to each person.. If God knows the numbers of hairs on a head who knows what depths God has control of? That God has things figure to the hair on our heads to give us great comfort that Gods not letting anything go to chance.. Not that chance can't happen but that God still has overcome with his Grace and Mercy that which has been predestined..

Peace and Godbless George..

[apostoli]

Excerpted from: The Church Is Visible and One
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf

The Western view, shaped almost entirely by Augustine, is that Grace inheres in individuals, and the Church is the means through which this grace is dispensed.

In general, the West sees sacramental grace as residing in the individual. For instance, they maintain that ordination makes an indelible mark upon the soul of the ordained. This solves the Donatist problem, since one’s sacraments are valid if one has the mark on one’s soul (a valid ordination), but it also means that, in the Western view, valid sacraments can exist outside the Church.

So is this a fair assessment of the Roman Catholic view of the locus of Grace?

I would say "No!", The above, imo, shows a misunderstanding of the RCC teaching on grace (admittedly a somewhat complicated teaching, but one reasonably easy to comprehend). in the RCC view (as I was taught it) "grace" is an unmerited free gift bestowed on an individual directly by God. As you know "charis" connotates "undeserved loving kindness", and in my RCC education it was taught that, it is our recognition of the receipt of this "charis" that draws us to the gathering of like citizens (ἐκκλησία=church), and thus we sustain each other, guided by our overseers (priests, bishops etc, who have received special gifts/graces to aid them in nuturing us).

Here are two articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia that are worth considering...
Actual Grace
Sanctifying Grace

"in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace). For this reason we adopt this distinction as our principle of division in our exposition of the Catholic doctrine."

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I would say "No!", The above, imo, shows a misunderstanding of the RCC teaching on grace (admittedly a somewhat complicated teaching, but one reasonably easy to comprehend). in the RCC view (as I was taught it) "grace" is an unmerited free gift bestowed on an individual directly by God. As you know "charis" connotates "undeserved loving kindness", and in my RCC education it was taught that, it is our recognition of the receipt of this "charis" that draws us to the gathering of like citizens (ἐκκλησία=church), and thus we sustain each other, guided by our overseers (priests, bishops etc, who have received special gifts/graces to aid them in nuturing us).

Here are two articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia that are worth considering...
Actual Grace
Sanctifying Grace

"in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace). For this reason we adopt this distinction as our principle of division in our exposition of the Catholic doctrine."

The OP was primarily addressed to the grace of the priesthood, the abiding grace that inheres in the priest...
That Grace, in the Orthodox Faith, abides in him as a function of the Church, and outside the Church does not abide... In practice, this means that if a Priest leaves the Church, the Grace of the priesthood departs from him, for it only abides so long as he is a member of the Church...

The Latin Priest carries this Grace to his grave, I believe - It is a permanent affixture to and within his soul that cannot be removed, so that if he departs from the Church, he can still consecrate the Host... Now I do not know if that is true, but if I have it right, that is what this article is saying is true...

Arsenios

[apostoli]

The OP was primarily addressed to the grace of the priesthood, the abiding grace that inheres in the priest...
That Grace, in the Orthodox Faith, abides in him as a function of the Church, and outside the Church does not abide... In practice, this means that if a Priest leaves the Church, the Grace of the priesthood departs from him, for it only abides so long as he is a member of the Church...

The Latin Priest carries this Grace to his grave, I believe - It is a permanent affixture to and within his soul that cannot be removed, so that if he departs from the Church, he can still consecrate the Host... Now I do not know if that is true, but if I have it right, that is what this article is saying is true...

Arsenios

I'm unsure if "grace" is the valid term in regards to an excommunicated priest / bishop. Imu, in the RCC teaching, "grace" can be lost. Imu, when an individual is ordained he in effect signs a life long covenant with God (and therefore with the Church as God's visible manifestation on earth), grave breach of that covenant could lead to excommunication or suspension. Thus whilst an .excommunicated priest can Baptise and perform the Eucharist they would be valid but illicit (illegal). as he is out of communion with the church. So using .your terminology, in a legalistic sense, the church is the locus of grace where the sacraments are concerned.

Here is a Q&A on "If a priest is excommunicated..." that might be helpful...
http://gwcatholicforum.blogspot.com....municated.html

______________

I was just thinking about this and Mt 18;20 came to mind "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" so from a scriptural viewpoint the RCC position is, imo, valid.Which raises the question of church discipline - which is what excommunication is meant to address. Every thing else is between God and the individual.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The blog indeed answered the question - For it affirms that the ordination of a priest is non-revolkable:

"The priest when he is ordained is permanently configured to Jesus Christ."

That is the meaning of a "permanent configuration" of the person ordained to the Person of Christ...

Such a configuration is obviously by Grace, which makes that Grace permanent... eg It is a function/possession of the individual priest...

It then goes on to say that even if the Priest becomes excommunicated, it abides in him:

"If a priest is excommunicated,
the only sacraments he celebrates validly are Baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Mass);
they would be valid but illicit (illegal)."

The distinction between legal and valid regarding God's Grace is above my pay grade...

For the Orthodox, of course, the matter is less tidy because communally understood - The Grace of the Priesthood in the person of the Priest only abides in him so lone as he is functioning within the Community of Grace, which is the Body of Christ, which is the Church... As soon as he is ex-communicated from the Church, that Grace no longer abides in him, and if he were to perform the Eucharist, there would only be bread, wind and water that he would be giving from the chalice...

I was just thinking about this and Mt 18;20 came to mind "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" so from a scriptural viewpoint the RCC position is, imo, valid.

We take this to mean that the Grace of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the priest alone, but in communion with others... Indeed, a priest alone cannot consecrate the Host... There must be two or more...

Which raises the question of church discipline - which is what excommunication is meant to address.
Every thing else is between God and the individual.

Sin impacts ALL the faithful...
So too does virtue...
And holiness...

Salvation means Communion...
"Me and God alone" is not Orthodox...

Remember St. Mary of Egypt?

Arsenios

[apostoli]

The blog indeed answered the question - For it affirms that the ordination of a priest is non-revolkable:

"The priest when he is ordained is permanently configured to Jesus Christ."

That is the meaning of a "permanent configuration" of the person ordained to the Person of Christ...

Is baptism revocable? In the RCC we see receipt of all the sacraments as irrevocable.


In RCC thought a person is led to ordination via receipt of graces from the Holy Spirit (not from the Church), and these graces can be revoked by the Holy Spirit (not by the Church). It is the "priestly character" that is attached to the soul and so endures not the "sacramental grace".

Such a configuration is obviously by Grace, which makes that Grace permanent... eg It is a function/possession of the individual priest...

Here is the complication George, in RCC opinion "Grace" can be lost.

The Priest in Union with Christ by Fr Garrigou-LagrangeOur,
Part 1, chapter 2 Priesthood: the Sacramental Character and Grace
http://www.pathsoflove.com/priest-in...art1-chapter2/

...It might be objected that the sacramental grace of the priesthood is of less worth than the priestly character for although the latter is indelible, sacramental grace, like sanctifying grace, is lost by mortal sin. This is a serious difficulty, since the more perfect an accidental reality, the more firmly does it inhere in the substance to which it belongs. Therefore grace which can be lost does appear to be less perfect than the character which can never be lost.

In reply to this objection, notice why it is that the character cannot be lost. It is not because of its own perfection and greater dignity, but because it is conferred for the valid celebration of Mass and for the valid administration of Penance, which provide for the spiritual welfare of the faithful. This is very well explained by St. Thomas, Ilia, q. 63, a. 5c: "The sacramental character is a sharing in Christ's priesthood by his faithful . . ."; also in answer to the first objection: "Grace is present in the soul as a form complete in its being, whereas the character is there as an instrumental power. Now a complete form is present in its subject according to the condition of that subject, so that grace is present in the soul of a person here on earth according to the volatile nature of the will. But an instrumental power is to be considered rather from the point of view of the condition of the principal agent; hence the character is indelibly present in the soul not because of any perfection of its own but because of the perfection belonging to Christ's priesthood from which the character originates as an instrumental power."

...St. Thomas says: "The character endures even after this life, in the good as redounding to their glory, in the wicked as stressing their disgrace, just as the character of military service remains in a soldier after the victory has been won, as a mark of honour in the victors, as a mark of dishonour in the vanquished."

....Our own priesthood, on account of its character and the sacramental grace, is subordinated to Christ's priesthood in such a way that the same effect of consecration is produced by both, just as the writer and his pen combine to produce the same effect.

If you want to get an understanding of RCC reasoning on the subject have a read of Thomas Aquinas' objections raised and his responses...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm

It then goes on to say that even if the Priest becomes excommunicated, it abides in him:

But the RCC are not taking about "Grace" but the "priestly character" two different things, so you are working from a false premise.

"If a priest is excommunicated, the only sacraments he celebrates validly are Baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Mass); they would be valid but illicit (illegal)."

in the RCC teaching, in special circumstances, anybody can perform a valid & legal Baptism as long as the formularies are observed, though it is usually restricted to an ordained priest, so nothing remarkable there. As for the Eucharist, the changing of the bread & wine to the body and blood of Christ is not a power invested in the priest, this is a direct act of God, the priest is just a faciltator...

More importantly, an excommunicated priest is prohibited from performing any of the other sacraments - marriage, confession etc. If he does these are invalid & illegal.

The distinction between legal and valid regarding God's Grace is above my pay grade...

Read the following and get a pay rise...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit

Imu, when something is refered to as "legal" or "illicit" it is refering to Canon law, the regulations of the Church. When reference is made to "valid" it refers to "in the eyes of God".

For the Orthodox, of course, the matter is less tidy because communally understood - The Grace of the Priesthood in the person of the Priest only abides in him so lone as he is functioning within the Community of Grace, which is the Body of Christ, which is the Church... As soon as he is ex-communicated from the Church, that Grace no longer abides in him

In terms of "Grace" RCC opinion agrees, but in RCC opinion the office of priest is not an "accident" but is indelibly imprinted on the person's character. Could Aaron or his sons have revoked their priesthood?

and if he were to perform the Eucharist, there would only be bread, wind and water that he would be giving from the chalice...

Do you assume your priests have mystical powers while in "Grace"? In the RCC, it is held that the priest in performing the Eucharist is just a faciltator for the direct action of God, the additional "graces" he receives are to sustain him in his work as priest, teacher etc

In the RCC, excommunication is not a penal act but a medicinal act, it is intended to encourage the person towards penance and back into full communion with the Church. Interestingly, in the RCC an excommunicated person is not viewed as being cast out of the church, he/she remains a full member, albeit is prohibited from receiving any of the sacraments until their excommunication is annulled - though they are encouraged to attend mass (albeit anybody that causes strife within the Church might be totally shunned eg: heretics).

...Mt 18;20 came to mind "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" so from a scriptural viewpoint the RCC position is, imo, valid.

We take this to mean that the Grace of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the priest alone, but in communion with others... Indeed, a priest alone cannot consecrate the Host... There must be two or more...

Imu, where 2 or more people gather in Jesus' name at any time (eg: prayer group, bible study etc), the spirit of Christ is present - no need for the Eucharist to be present.

To ensure I'm giving a fair representation of RCC opinion, I have had to do some remedial study (such conversations as ours are not commonly discussed in the RCC). What puzzled me is how it was possible for an excommunicated priest to perform Mass (valid but illicit) but not take Confession (invalid & illicit). In the case of Confession the answer appears to be that the power to forgive sins is invested in the Church not the individual, and the priest in this respect is a conduit of the Church (which is a conduit to Christ) - so the excommunicated priest is simply disconnected from this function. As for the Eucharist, the priest acts as a faciltator, by which God directly transforms the bread and wine. Imu, the argument also appeals to Lk 22:19. Thus whilst the excommunicated priest under Canon Law sins in performing Mass (it is illicit for him to do so), the Mass is valid (in most cases) for the congregation that receices the Eucharist.

I had a long think about this, and imo, it is a very practical viewpoint, especially when one reflects on church history with various bishops excommunicating each other on a regular basis and then reconciling - must have been very confusing to the ordinary people.

Which raises the question of church discipline - which is what excommunication is meant to address.
Every thing else is between God and the individual.

Sin impacts ALL the faithful...So too does virtue...And holiness...

Indeed! Though many a priest (EOC or RCC) live a life of sinfulness through pride, vanity, nationalism etc which rubs off onto their congregations. Platitudes are wonderful things, but the reality is there is nothing special in the person of a priest, he suffers the same human frailities as everyone else. I think it unhealthy to venerate priests or anyone else. Respect their office and even admire their personal accomplishments definitely...but, imo, it must be remembered that they are essentially no different to you and me.

Salvation means Communion..."Me and God alone" is not Orthodox...

There is a half truth in what you say. In the NT Salvation is personal/individual not communal, consider texts like Phil 2:12-13 "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure". On the other hand, communion (mutual association) is for upbuilding each other, which aids in perseverance in the faith. Contemplate those christians imprisoned by the Chinese and who spent decades in solitary confinement, they persevered in their faith. Reality George, we each need to be certain we can persevere in the faith without community should we find ourselves in the same predicament. For now the community of the faithful is a plus factor in strengthening us.

Remember St. Mary of Egypt?

A good example of "Me and God alone", she set herself apart from the community and as an act of penitence lived in the desert as a hermit until she died.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Remember St. Mary of Egypt?

A good example of "Me and God alone", she set herself apart from the community and as an act of penitence lived in the desert as a hermit until she died.

She went into the desert to confront her sins in obedience...

She did not die until she received Communion from the priest Zosimas...

Our struggles with self are solitary - No one else can struggle FOR us...

But the hermit-saint is in Communion with the whole world...
It is the highest calling of monastic life...

Both she and Zosimas had made a request of God, remember?
They both received their reward...

When it comes to sin, it is me and self... And calling on the Name of the Lord... [eg Grace]

But by Baptism we are entered into the Communion of the community [ekklesia] of the Body and Blood of Christ...

No "me and God alone" there... Except in one's own sins...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Salvation is personal/individual not communal

You cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ except from the Body of Christ at the hands of one consecrated to give it to you...
And without it, you "have no life in you"...
Hence the community of the faithful is the Life of the Body of Christ, the Church...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

What puzzled me is how it was possible for an excommunicated priest to perform Mass (valid but illicit) but not take Confession (invalid & illicit).

An excommunicated Orthodox Priest can neither consecrate the Host nor hear Confession...
BECAUSE...
He is OUTSIDE the Holy Communion of the Body of Christ, that IS the Church...

To EX-COMMUNICATE, you see, is to place OUTSIDE of COMMUNION...
And it is the Communion of Christ that defines the boundaries of the Church...

Arsenios

[apostoli]

She went into the desert to confront her sins in obedience...

She did not die until she received Communion from the priest Zosimas...

Our struggles with self are solitary - No one else can struggle FOR us...

But the hermit-saint is in Communion with the whole world...
It is the highest calling of monastic life...

Both she and Zosimas had made a request of God, remember?
They both received their reward...

When it comes to sin, it is me and self... And calling on the Name of the Lord... [eg Grace]

But by Baptism we are entered into the Communion of the community [ekklesia] of the Body and Blood of Christ...

No "me and God alone" there... Except in one's own sins...

Arsenios

George, I wish to share with you an Orthodox sermon..and ask you to contemplate it carefully....
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/s...aryofegypt.htm

A partial cite....

"...Zosimas had become a prisoner to his own idea of himself, a man who deceived himself about who he was, the life he lived and why he lived it in that way. He did not know himself honestly, and so he became captive to his own life. How far from the freedom with which Mary had lived, and loved, and lived again! But the Lord was compassionate with Zosimas, and spoke to him in a vision telling him to go to the desert beyond the Jordan, 'so that you may know how many and varied are the ways to salvation.'

Zosimas went, expecting to find a great and holy monk who would become his teacher. When he entered the desert, he walked for twenty days into its deepest and most desolate part, rwhere no sign of life could be found. Then he found Mary. The encounter was terrifying and wonderful. When first he saw her, the good priest could not tell whether she was an apparition, a Demon or an animal, and he crossed himself repeatedly to protect himself from the works of the devil. With a jolt, he realized this was a woman. She was naked, blackened by years of harsh desert sun, emaciated from her fasting, her hair short and pure white; and she fled from him, running away as fast as she could. Zosimas knew that here, in this utter wilderness, in this strange and frightening creature, he had at last met something he had never before known: the naked power and presence of God.

And so Zosimas, good man of God, found salvation and truth where he least expected it: in the life of a woman who had been as unashamedly sinful as he had been earnest in his life of devotion. And she, not he, was the Person in whom grace was found. "

[Rdr. Arsenios]

George, I wish to share with you an Orthodox sermon..and ask you to contemplate it carefully....
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/s...aryofegypt.htm

A partial cite....

"...Zosimas had become a prisoner to his own idea of himself, a man who deceived himself about who he was, the life he lived and why he lived it in that way. He did not know himself honestly, and so he became captive to his own life. How far from the freedom with which Mary had lived, and loved, and lived again! But the Lord was compassionate with Zosimas, and spoke to him in a vision telling him to go to the desert beyond the Jordan, 'so that you may know how many and varied are the ways to salvation.'

Zosimas went, expecting to find a great and holy monk who would become his teacher. When he entered the desert, he walked for twenty days into its deepest and most desolate part, where no sign of life could be found. Then he found Mary. The encounter was terrifying and wonderful. When first he saw her, the good priest could not tell whether she was an apparition, a Demon or an animal, and he crossed himself repeatedly to protect himself from the works of the devil. With a jolt, he realized this was a woman. She was naked, blackened by years of harsh desert sun, emaciated from her fasting, her hair short and pure white; and she fled from him, running away as fast as she could. Zosimas knew that here, in this utter wilderness, in this strange and frightening creature, he had at last met something he had never before known: the naked power and presence of God.

And so Zosimas, good man of God, found salvation and truth where he least expected it: in the life of a woman who had been as unashamedly sinful as he had been earnest in his life of devotion. And she, not he, was the Person in whom grace was found. "

The lecture is by a scholar, and is not a homily by a Church Father... I am not even sure it would qualify as a Church theologouminon... It is for sure not a patristic approach to the Life of St. Mary...

But your argument that Zosimas did not have Grace is facetious... He had asked God for an encounter with someone more advanced than he was, that is all... And God led him to her... He was a Saint of God... And she was higher than him... She simply desired Communion before death...

Let me see if I can find St. Gregory Palamas' homily on her life...

Arsenios

[apostoli]

The lecture is by a scholar, and is not a homily by a Church Father... I am not even sure it would qualify as a Church theologouminon... It is for sure not a patristic approach to the Life of St. Mary...

But your argument that Zosimas did not have Grace is facetious... He had asked God for an encounter with someone more advanced than he was, that is all... And God led him to her... He was a Saint of God... And she was higher than him... She simply desired Communion before death...

Let me see if I can find St. Gregory Palamas' homily on her life...

Arsenios

George, bury your head in the sand if you must, if your faith is so weak and interdependent that you can't accept simple truths without the political/sectanian gloss, so be it.

The lecture was delivered to eight representative Orthodox groups...and thought of as significant enough to be at least published by the Egyptian Church to whom St Mary of Egypt is a particular saint...

I doubt you have ever read the original 6h century source on the topic (via Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem), so I sourced a translation for you...
http://www.reu.org/public/saints/maryegyptherwords.htm

Anyone with eyes that can see & ears that can hear will realise the moral of the tale. A self righteous priest (Zosimas) is humbled by a true penitent (unlike him she could even walk on water)...