OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 02:31:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 116892 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,978


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #135 on: April 09, 2009, 07:58:51 PM »

But perhaps you are adding another dimension to the issue - i.e., the issue of predestination.  What I have addressed so far on the issue of free will relates to the question - "Does the fact that Mary had no concupiscence mean she did not have the free will to sin?"  I think what you are asking now is (in distinction) - "Does her being chosen by God to be the Mother of God mean she did not have the free will to resist?"  If the latter, then the usual understanding of the Churches on the matter should suffice - that predestination according to the Catholic and Orthodox understanding - refers to God's foreknowledge, not that God forces anyone to do something in the future.

I forgot to address this part.  Indeed, it is precisely this issue I was addressing.  However, I must disagree this doesn't answer it sufficiently, and perhaps this is actually leading quite dangerously to a Calvinist side of predestination imo.  Just because God has foreknowledge does not mean He makes the decision to do something to people before the people decide for themselves.  If that's the case, why waste time allowed Adam and Eve in Paradise, allowing them the Tree of Life?  Why didn't He just make them born in a state of death and move on from there?  Why did God anoint Saul king if He knew he was going to screw up, or Judas Iscariot an Apostle before betraying our Lord?

Why didn't God choose David from his birth, anoint him as king from his childhood?  Why did He wait until David was a very young adult?  Why did god wait to hear from Solomon his decision on choosing wisdom over riches when He already knew what he thought?  Why did God wait until Isaiah ask for his mouth to be cleansed?  Why does God wait for each and everyone of us until we die?  Why can't we just die and cleanse us or condemn us or send us to Paradise since He is so foreknowing?

These are all rhetorical questions of course.  But the idea that He already bestows upon the Theotokos a grace similar to baptism without having her make the decision first is unprecedented.  They must grow, they must be raised right, they must be sanctified for their growth, etc.  Then the grace upon which is given her must be given only after the decision, not before, even if God foresees all things.  The type of predestination you teach is not merely foreknowledge, but an active foreknowledge, making the decision no matter what happens, which is exactly what Calvin taught.

Finally, one has to also sit and ponder, did the Theotokos even know she was immaculately conceived, unique among humanity?  Did she know she was going to be the Mother of God from her youth?  Clearly, the answer to the latter question is "No," as has been evident in the accounts of Luke's gospel, when she was "troubled at Gabriel's saying" for being called "Blessed among women, and blessed is the fruit of her womb."  But knowing that, surely for consistency's sake, if she was IC'ed, instead of being troubled at Gabriel's saying, she could have acknowledged this, and easily said, "I, the handmaiden of the Lord, am now ready."

It's not merely "predestination," it's about pragmatism.  Practically speaking, this seems to sound like taking away free will.  Even if we can practice free will by nature, we can practically not change our own fate, for our fate is already written in stone as was the case in the IC of the Theotokos.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: April 09, 2009, 08:23:43 PM »


I at least am basing what I am saying on the infallible definition of the magisterial statement Munificentissimus Deus and on the Catechism.
Sorry.  I looked over it, and I simply could not find any place in Munificentissimus Deus that claims that Mary was "preserved from original sin."

That should not have been Munificientissimus Deus but Pope Pius IX's earlier Ineffabilis Deus of 1854.  I mixed up Munificentissimus with Ineffabilis.  All the same I am a little surpised that you are not sufficiently au courant with these matters to realise which is the correct Apostolic Constitution.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm


Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #137 on: April 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM »

I'm not sure how the "impure seed" idea relates to our discussion. Perhaps you can explain that a bit more.

Well, concerning the "impure seed," I'm not sure personally either, but I was personally interpreting that as Christ who did not want to inherit the seed of old, the seed of generations in sin, but presented to us a new Seed, to be the firstborn among the saved, and that we would inherit Christ's seed through baptism.  But then again, I'm not sure if that's what Leo intended.  I do want to point out however that according to Coptic teaching, the point of Christ being born a Virgin was not that virginity is "cleaner" than marriage, as I sometimes get the feeling some teach, but that precisely He wants to become the Firstborn, the First Seed of the New Covenant.  I'm not sure if that's your belief, but we reject any idea that being born of a Virgin lead to some incorruptibility of Christ's humanity.
All you say is true and wise.  I've found the same beliefs in my study of Catholicism.  When I first read the excerpt you gave, I was thinking it referred to the traditional belief that original sin was transmitted through the man, nothing more.  I didn't view it as a statement that marriage is a somehow a less holy or worthy state than virginity.

Quote
As for the alternative interpretation, thank you for that.  That actually puts things in perspective for me.  I guess this will be a homework for me to read some of Leo's works.
I love to learn, too.  The pedagogic element of our spirituality has always been a blessing for me.

Quote
Quote
To be honest, I regard myself as an Orthodox in communion with Rome.  As I mentioned in another post in these Forums, my translation to Catholicism was not a matter of me rejecting anything of my Coptic Orthodox heritage, but simply a matter of rejecting my heretofore MISconceptions about Catholicism. But that's a big topic that I'm sure would deserve a thread of its own.

I don't mean to offend you in any way.  Nevertheless, I think that by confessing the IC, you are dogmatically in contradiction to Oriental Orthodox tradition.  For we have no one in our tradition that confesses the IC, and the one saint I know that mentioned anything about a cleansing from Original Sin would be St. Jacob of Serugh, whose book I recommend reading, as is filled with amazing spirituality about the Theotokos.  He is in direct conflict with your beliefs in that he implies the Theotokos was born like anyone else, in Original Sin, and that the taking of away of such happened when the Holy Spirit cleansed her at that moment after the greeting of Gabriel in preparation of the Divine Incarnation.  Surely, if you consider yourself "Orthodox" then you and Coptic Orthodox Church, even the whole Oriental Orthodox communion, have different meanings of what "Orthodox" is.
Actually, I did consider that matter before I came into Catholicism.  When I was reading Catholic (not non-Catholic) materials on the IC, I was greatly surprised to discover that the teaching actually refers to her ensoulment, not her physical conception.  As mentioned, the dogma does not actually state "Mary was preserved from original sin PERIOD."  Rather, it specifically states that Mary was preserved from the STAIN of original sin, the STAIN meaning the spiritual consequences of original sin.  It is a very popular (perhaps even near-universal) belief in Catholicism that assumes that Mary was not born in original sin.  But, if that were actually true, there would be no possibility that she could have died, nor even aged!  No, all the dogmatic teaching actually asserts is simply that Mary was preserved form the spiritual consequences of the Fall, not the physical consequences.  In that sense, my belief does not contradict St. Jacob's.  

As far as the notion that Mary was purified at the Annunciation, instead of at her conception, I consider that a theologoumenon, to be honest.  I don't understand that belief to be so essential to my Coptic/Oriental identity as, for instance, our belief that distinguishes us from the Chalcedonians - at the very least, to the point that it could in any way justify schism.  When I was not in communion with Rome, I came upon many Copts who, when I spoke to them frankly about the topic of when Mary was purified, would flat out say, "who cares?" or "why would that matter to me or you?" You get enough of that response, and you begin to realize that this particular belief from St. Jacob is not exactly a Faith-defining issue.  I gather it is the same for all the Orthodox.  It seems strange to me for an Orthodox to press the point (I'm not saying you are doing this) on a matter that they otherwise believe is not really that important to the Faith, or their identity as Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern).

My understanding of "Orthodox" is, plain and simple, the reality of the Church when it was fully united in the first millenium.

I do so enjoy dialoguing with you, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #138 on: April 09, 2009, 08:52:29 PM »

Dear brother Mina,

To be honest, I don't know how to respond.  I DO believe the grace of the IC is fitting to the Theotokos, but as I stated earlier, though Catholics do use that as an argument, it is not the reason I came to believe in the teaching.  As I said, I came to believe in it simply because I did not find it contradicted anything of what made me an Oriental Orthodox.  So your challenge to the intellectual consideration of her fittingness via a consideration of the concept of predestination is not really relevant to my belief on the matter.  You would have to ask a Latin who makes it a point of making fittingness a matter of "proof" for the teaching.

I will respond to one point in your inquiry - namely, your comment about the Theotokos receiving a grace similar to baptism without her having made a decision first.  I would only point out to you that babies do not make a decision either.

Blessings,
Marduk

But perhaps you are adding another dimension to the issue - i.e., the issue of predestination.  What I have addressed so far on the issue of free will relates to the question - "Does the fact that Mary had no concupiscence mean she did not have the free will to sin?"  I think what you are asking now is (in distinction) - "Does her being chosen by God to be the Mother of God mean she did not have the free will to resist?"  If the latter, then the usual understanding of the Churches on the matter should suffice - that predestination according to the Catholic and Orthodox understanding - refers to God's foreknowledge, not that God forces anyone to do something in the future.

I forgot to address this part.  Indeed, it is precisely this issue I was addressing.  However, I must disagree this doesn't answer it sufficiently, and perhaps this is actually leading quite dangerously to a Calvinist side of predestination imo.  Just because God has foreknowledge does not mean He makes the decision to do something to people before the people decide for themselves.  If that's the case, why waste time allowed Adam and Eve in Paradise, allowing them the Tree of Life?  Why didn't He just make them born in a state of death and move on from there?  Why did God anoint Saul king if He knew he was going to screw up, or Judas Iscariot an Apostle before betraying our Lord?

Why didn't God choose David from his birth, anoint him as king from his childhood?  Why did He wait until David was a very young adult?  Why did god wait to hear from Solomon his decision on choosing wisdom over riches when He already knew what he thought?  Why did God wait until Isaiah ask for his mouth to be cleansed?  Why does God wait for each and everyone of us until we die?  Why can't we just die and cleanse us or condemn us or send us to Paradise since He is so foreknowing?

These are all rhetorical questions of course.  But the idea that He already bestows upon the Theotokos a grace similar to baptism without having her make the decision first is unprecedented.  They must grow, they must be raised right, they must be sanctified for their growth, etc.  Then the grace upon which is given her must be given only after the decision, not before, even if God foresees all things.  The type of predestination you teach is not merely foreknowledge, but an active foreknowledge, making the decision no matter what happens, which is exactly what Calvin taught.

Finally, one has to also sit and ponder, did the Theotokos even know she was immaculately conceived, unique among humanity?  Did she know she was going to be the Mother of God from her youth?  Clearly, the answer to the latter question is "No," as has been evident in the accounts of Luke's gospel, when she was "troubled at Gabriel's saying" for being called "Blessed among women, and blessed is the fruit of her womb."  But knowing that, surely for consistency's sake, if she was IC'ed, instead of being troubled at Gabriel's saying, she could have acknowledged this, and easily said, "I, the handmaiden of the Lord, am now ready."

It's not merely "predestination," it's about pragmatism.  Practically speaking, this seems to sound like taking away free will.  Even if we can practice free will by nature, we can practically not change our own fate, for our fate is already written in stone as was the case in the IC of the Theotokos.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,978


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #139 on: April 09, 2009, 09:01:43 PM »

Dear brother Mina,

To be honest, I don't know how to respond.  I DO believe the grace of the IC is fitting to the Theotokos, but as I stated earlier, though Catholics do use that as an argument, it is not the reason I came to believe in the teaching.  As I said, I came to believe in it simply because I did not find it contradicted anything of what made me an Oriental Orthodox.  So your challenge to the intellectual consideration of her fittingness via a consideration of the concept of predestination is not really relevant to my belief on the matter.  You would have to ask a Latin who makes it a point of making fittingness a matter of "proof" for the teaching.

Fair enough.  I guess I'll wait on Papist's answers then.

To your point in the previous post about the importance of the dogma, I find it quite sad you met a few people who didn't care.  It seems to me that the present Coptic synod actually does care, especially in her dialogue with the Latin Church.  The rejection is also clear in HH Pope Shenouda's writings.  Nevertheless, I understand what you mean by certain people.  There are people who do not know Church history but are quite obedient to the dogmas being taught to them by the ordained leaders.  I find it personally very enriching and edifying to do my own research, to make my religion my own, and not one that merely belongs to the ordained leaders.  I don't advocate disobedience though, but it helps me in the age of disbelief and questioning, and I wish many were like me, since they can be easily swayed one way or the other and not be strongly rooted in history and dogmatic understanding.

Quote
I will respond to one point in your inquiry - namely, your comment about the Theotokos receiving a grace similar to baptism without her having made a decision first.  I would only point out to you that babies do not make a decision either.

Blessings,
Marduk

I couldn't help but answer this point before you respond soon.  I hope you consider a difference in the IC and the baptism of children.  The IC was a preconceived notion/assumption from God that she WILL choose to be the Theotokos.  Baptism of children is on the assumption that the parents bear the responsibility of the salvation of their children.  Thus, even though there are similarities in function, the purposes for both are VERY different from each other, unless the Theotokos' parents told her to be ready to be God's mother, in which case, this indication of knowledge was not so according to Luke's gospel.

God bless.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 09:12:16 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #140 on: April 09, 2009, 09:03:57 PM »

Dear brother Mina,

As I reread your post, I suddenly found this comment intriguing:

Finally, one has to also sit and ponder, did the Theotokos even know she was immaculately conceived, unique among humanity?  Did she know she was going to be the Mother of God from her youth?  Clearly, the answer to the latter question is "No," as has been evident in the accounts of Luke's gospel, when she was "troubled at Gabriel's saying" for being called "Blessed among women, and blessed is the fruit of her womb."  But knowing that, surely for consistency's sake, if she was IC'ed, instead of being troubled at Gabriel's saying, she could have acknowledged this, and easily said, "I, the handmaiden of the Lord, am now ready."
Personally, I've never pondered the idea of whether the Theotokos knew she was immaculately conceived.  The interest on the matter would be on the same level as me wondering if the Theotokos knew at, say, age 7 that she would be the Theotokos.  I do not see any fruit that can come from an intellectual consideration of whether the Saints had an omniscient knowledge of exactly what Graces they had received/were receiving/would receive from God.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #141 on: April 09, 2009, 09:40:32 PM »

Dear brother Mina,

To your point in the previous post about the importance of the dogma, I find it quite sad you met a few people who didn't care.  It seems to me that the present Coptic synod actually does care, especially in her dialogue with the Latin Church.  The rejection is also clear in HH Pope Shenouda's writings.
Don't be too harsh on them. Smiley  I was, after all, not yet Catholic at the time, so they probably were just thinking, "why is this crazy guy so concerned about this matter?" Grin If I was Catholic, perhaps they might have responded differently.  Nevertheless, I think it does show that for the general laity, St. Jacob's belief on the matter really is not a Faith-defining issue.  At the very least, if the COC has made it a Faith-defining issue, it is a very recent development in teaching.  Since most documents from the Synod are not in English, maybe it will take some time. 

But I ask you this, honestly.  We both know that we don't live and breathe by every word from any human, even a Saint.  Do you think it is proper for the Synod to respond to the Catholic Church's making the IC a faith defining issue, by themselves making something else a faith-defining issue?  To me, it would seem the proper or even better course of action would be to leave the matter the way it always was - theologoumenon.

Quote
Quote
I will respond to one point in your inquiry - namely, your comment about the Theotokos receiving a grace similar to baptism without her having made a decision first.  I would only point out to you that babies do not make a decision either.

I couldn't help but answer this point before you respond soon.  I hope you consider a difference in the IC and the baptism of children.  The IC was a preconceived notion/assumption from God that she WILL choose to be the Theotokos.  Baptism of children is on the assumption that the parents bear the responsibility of the salvation of their children.  Thus, even though there are similarities in function, the purposes for both are VERY different from each other, unless the Theotokos' parents told her to be ready to be God's mother, in which case, this indication of knowledge was not so according to Luke's gospel.
These are good points to ponder.  I would ask that you consider the ramifications of your comments for our beliefs regarding the Forerunner.  St. John was sanctified even BEFORE he was born.  Does this mean St. John lost his free will, or any part of it?

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #142 on: April 09, 2009, 10:21:49 PM »

Dear brother Mina,

Here's something else I just thought about for your consideration (and then I must be off for the next couple of days):

Are you absolutely sure that the Synod and HH's appeal to St. Jacob is an indication that they are trying to make it a Faith-defining issue?  Is it possible that their appeal is simply to emphasize that there are Fathers (actually I can count only two in the early Church) who express the belief that Mary's sanctification occurred at the Annunciation?  In other words, maybe their point is not to make it a Faith-defining belief, but rather to insist on the fact that it remain theologoumenon.

For if it is their purpose to make it a Faith-defining belief, wouldn't that mean the Armenians are heretics for believing it (albeit not as dogma, but as theologoumenon).

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #143 on: April 10, 2009, 12:00:54 AM »

Sure, you are entitled to your ad hominem opinion.

It's an ad heresiem fact.

Quote
I already addressed them in my post to brother Marc.  Besides straw men, I forgot to mention the tactic of evasion to which polemicists are so prone.

You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

Quote
Point out the obvious why don't you.  Did I say that the dogma of the IC was not de fide?  No.  All I said was that it is lower on the rung in the hierarchy of beliefs.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Well, consult the rest of the hierarchy of beliefs by Otto, in the link posted.

Can you show us the Vatican's ladder, where the IC is "lower" on the rungs, besides here?  Because it doesn't appear in Otto, or the CCC.   Come to think of it, I don't see it left out of the Vatican's rites to accept converts.

Quote
Like I said, straw men.

You do seem to like that term.

Quote
Mmmmm?  Sounds like excommunication to me. Roll Eyes

Why, yes it does.

Quote
At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii).
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Quote
Well, I guess that's why it's theologoumenon. Grin
No. For you it is dogma.  For us (EO and OO) it is heresy.

Quote
Quote
(Bp Timothy Ware himself admits that it can be a legitimate theologoumenon).


Quote
The good bishop is wrong, as he is on women's ordination and legalized abortion.
In rhetoric, that would be a class of ad hominem otherwise known as "guilt by association."  That's another one polemicsts are prone to.
LOL.  Associating a man with his views.  No, that's de hominem.

Quote
In fact, if Orthodox really want to remain faithful to Tradition, they would not reject the teaching at all, since the substance of the teaching is celebrated in the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.  We add the word "Immaculate" to it and you get into huff.  The substance is the same, but you simply, in your polemic spirit, refuse to recognize it.
No, it's not.  Some of us have learned from Florence, Brest-Lvov and the rest of the lot, about the importance of saying what you mean and meaning what you say when it comes to lex orandi, lex credendi.

Quote
St. Paul had something to say about arguing over words, I believe. Grin

Why, yes he did.  Eph. 5:6; Gal. 1:8-9

Quote
Yes, I see.  This easily demonstrates the problem when someone appeals to non-official Catholic sources.  That's another polemical tactic, btw.

Are questioning the Catholicism of "Catholic Planet?"  How ad hominem of you.

Quote
This particular rhetorical error is known sensationalism.  No basis in fact, but simply exaggerated claims.

That's funny, that's EXACTLY what Bernard said about the IC in his day, you know, back when the Immaculate Conception was conceived.

Quote
No, your rhetorical errors and polemical tactics are becoming glaring and tedious.

Our readers can see that the documented facts I have presented have not been addressed.

Quote
Here's another straw man.  I specifically stated that I wasn't even sure the Latin Church uses this term,

Sure does, in the vain attempt to convince the unsuspecting Orthodox that Orthodoxy really taught the IC, but those polemic Orthodox bishops don't want to admit it because they want to stay in schism from the Vatican. Roll Eyes

Quote
but now he wants to blame the Vatican for it. And I already stated that I merely meant "the graces we receive at baptism," but now he creates a bunch of intentions for me out of thin air.

I argued this very point with Fr. Pachwa, on the air.

Quote
Mmmm?  I didn't know the Forerunner was also designated as the most perfect creation of God.  You learn something new all the time --- NOT!

Matthew 11:11.  I'll take His word on it:that's why St. John is on the Deisis, and practically every iconostasis.

Quote
So what have we learned from brother Isa today.  Nothing really, except that he is prone to rhetorical errors, and uses polemical tactics
So you keep saying.

When will you start proving?

Your posts, as far as I have looked back on this thread, have contained a lot of pontificating without little citation to your “infallible pontiff.”  You make many allusions, but as far as I can see you have only quoted Fr. Ambrose on CAF (and not by name), and Bishop Kallistos (in one of his more unfortunate ecumenical moments).  You did cite Trent, but not in pertinent part, as, as my citation from your pontiff ex cathdra shows, Trent did, according to the Vatican, touch on the issue of the IC.  At least he proclaimed it in part on that basis.  You “derive” the antiquity of the IC from the “Byzantine Office” of the Conception of Saint Anne, but cite nothing from it.  The very words of your church’s “magisterium” which you deride as straw, and those “theologoumena” of your co-religionists-who I have every reason to take on the same level as yourself to speak for the Vatican-which you dismiss as “non-authoritative.”  Talk about “rhetorical errors and polemical tactics becoming glaring and tedious”

Now all you say might be true, that the Scholastics denied the IC because of their ignorance of bio-psychology, that the Vatican makes a distinction between the body and soul of the All Holy Theotokos, etc. but, as not everything the pope of Rome says, so we are sometimes told, is infallible so too we must expect you to make your case with citation to authority and not your theologoumena.

The parallels in the lives of both the Theotokos and the Forerunner is not something to be ignored.  They are both the most immaculate and most perfect and greatest of all creatures and the closest to the heart of the Logos Incarnate.  The tradition is strong that veneration to both the Theotokos and the Forerunner seems to have parallel even if slightly unequal roles.  They are the only saints in the whole Church to which we celebrate the conception, the birth, and the departure, with the exception of the Theotokos who we celebrate the Assumption as well, whereas John enjoys his angelic nature, as he is prophesied as the "angel" coming to make the Lord's ways straight, which is also why there is an iconographic tradition of his "wings".

I am unconvinced at this point of the IC if it is not also extended to St. John the Forerunner.
Much better said.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 12:21:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #144 on: April 10, 2009, 12:46:43 AM »

Not to derail this thread, and I don't think I am; but what is the The Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit that you speak of? I can't seem to find anything about it. God Bless!

Dear Nicholas,

Plug this into a search engine and start reading.   Smiley

site:forums.catholic.com quasi-incarnation
Yeah, it's pretty silly, both in its concept and the polemical use of it by non-Catholics.  It's like - "OMG, I heard my Catholic grandma today say angels have real bodies.  That must mean it's offical teaching in the Catholic Church now!"  Polemicists are a pretty silly bunch that shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.  I would love to say "shouldn't be taken seriously PERIOD," but it is a fact that polemecists do manage to lead people astray.

No, it's like Bernard of Clairvaux saying "OMG, I heard the Catholic English peasants today say that the Virgin was conceived without original sin.  That migh become the official teaching in the Catholic Church now!"

Btw, that is not polemicists but APOLOGETICS that Father is talking about.  Like your saint, Maximilliam Kolbe
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #145 on: April 10, 2009, 12:59:04 AM »


I at least am basing what I am saying on the infallible definition of the magisterial statement Munificentissimus Deus and on the Catechism.
Sorry.  I looked over it, and I simply could not find any place in Munificentissimus Deus that claims that Mary was "preserved from original sin."

That should not have been Munificientissimus Deus but Pope Pius IX's earlier Ineffabilis Deus of 1854.  I mixed up Munificentissimus with Ineffabilis.  All the same I am a little surpised that you are not sufficiently au courant with these matters to realise which is the correct Apostolic Constitution.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

He isn't?
You mean this isn't it?

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
That's it.  But he is interpreting it wrongly.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #146 on: April 10, 2009, 01:25:33 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.
It's called logical thinking. The other two Latin contemporary Fathers (St. Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure) who opposed the introduction of the Feast into the West used noted were quite explicit on the matter of the difference between conception and ensoulment.  Here's a pro-life website that explains it a bit: http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm.  And btw, they weren't opposing the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. They were opposing the Eastern Feast of the Conception.

Quote
Quote
Point out the obvious why don't you.  Did I say that the dogma of the IC was not de fide?  No.  All I said was that it is lower on the rung in the hierarchy of beliefs.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Well, consult the rest of the hierarchy of beliefs by Otto, in the link posted.

Can you show us the Vatican's ladder, where the IC is "lower" on the rungs, besides here?  Because it doesn't appear in Otto, or the CCC.   Come to think of it, I don't see it left out of the Vatican's rites to accept converts.
The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of Faith."  CCC 234

In Catholic doctrine, there exists an order or "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith. CCC 90
There are references to the magisterial documents in the CCC (which you claim to have searched) on the matter.  Very sloppy - as  usual.

Quote
Quote
Mmmmm?  Sounds like excommunication to me. Roll Eyes

Why, yes it does.

Quote
At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii).
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
[/quote]
Why don't you quote the rest of it, where it goes on to explain how the meaning of excommunication has changed through the centuries in the Church, and how there are now degrees of excommunication recognised (from anathema to minor excommunication).  As usual, you are only interested in knocking down a cut-and-paste caricature of the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Quote
Quote
Mmmm?  I didn't know the Forerunner was also designated as the most perfect creation of God.  You learn something new all the time --- NOT!

Matthew 11:11.  I'll take His word on it:that's why St. John is on the Deisis, and practically every iconostasis.
Yeah, and please notice that His word states that there is another who is greater.  I would bet that this refers to Mary, whose humility in her fiat is extolled by all the Church to the present day.

Quote
Quote
Like I said, straw men.

You do seem to like that term.
Yes, because as evidenced above, only because you like to use them so often.  Brother, it is obvious that you are quite ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and really don't know enough about it to criticize it.  If you were a little more humble, a little more searching in your attitude, then it would be a more fulfilling endeavor to have discussion with you.  As it is, I will have to stop my correspondence with you and Father Ambrose (unless I sense either of you are being sincere in your questions and are not merely pointing fingers).  I will restrict myself to questions from those who I sense are willing to discuss the matter openly and sincerely. Sorry, but Your invalid, and oftentimes senseless attacks on the Catholic Church are no longer worth my time to consider during this Holy Season.

Have a blessed Pascha.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 01:27:32 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #147 on: April 10, 2009, 01:48:32 AM »

You evaded Bernard's objections, none of which have anything to do with this revision of the Vatican's dogmatic history, er, development of doctrine.  Where does Bernard state that the alleged difference between conception and ensoulment prompted his objections?  Nowhere.
It's called logical thinking. The other two Latin contemporary Fathers (St. Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure) who opposed the introduction of the Feast into the West used noted were quite explicit on the matter of the difference between conception and ensoulment.  

Marduk,

You continue to spin opinions out of the whirlpool of your fertile mind.  You apply "logical" thinking only to distort what these two Saints have said, to bend their writings to the argument which you wish to make.

Nowhere do either of these Catholic Saints state they they do not accept the Immaculate Conception but they accept or would accept the Immaculate Ensoulment.   This is sheer fabrication on your part.

May God gant you a wonderful Tridium.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #148 on: April 10, 2009, 03:06:17 AM »

[Dear Nicholas,

Plug this into a search engine and start reading.    Smiley

site:forums.catholic.com quasi-incarnation
Yeah, it's pretty silly, both in its concept and the polemical use of it by non-Catholics.  It's like - "OMG, I heard my Catholic grandma today say angels have real bodies.  That must mean it's offical teaching in the Catholic Church now!"  Polemicists are a pretty silly bunch that shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.  I would love to say "shouldn't be taken seriously PERIOD," but it is a fact that polemecists do manage to lead people astray.

The Quasi-Incarnation of the Holy Spirit

Coming soon to a church near you, the new dogma of the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit.   Smiley

The formula for use in the future infallible definition from Rome has already been coined:

"Filius incarnatus est: Jesus Christus. Spiritus Sanctus quasi incarnatus est: Immaculata."

IIRC from CAF days,  Scott Hahn, one of modern Catholicism's heavyweight apologists is inclined to it, as are the Franciscans at Steubenville.  And as we all know from history, when the Franciscans put their muscle behind a Marian doctrine they eventually get it accepted.

You can find various articles on the Net such as
"The Holy Spirit And Mary"
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4270

Brothers and Sisters, you are uniquely privileged to be looking at what Catholics call a "node point."    A node point is what provides the spring board for the process of a development in doctrine which one day eventuates in a new dogma being proclaimed.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #149 on: April 10, 2009, 07:44:22 AM »

Dear brother Mina,

Here's something else I just thought about for your consideration (and then I must be off for the next couple of days):

Are you absolutely sure that the Synod and HH's appeal to St. Jacob is an indication that they are trying to make it a Faith-defining issue?  Is it possible that their appeal is simply to emphasize that there are Fathers (actually I can count only two in the early Church) who express the belief that Mary's sanctification occurred at the Annunciation?  In other words, maybe their point is not to make it a Faith-defining belief, but rather to insist on the fact that it remain theologoumenon.

For if it is their purpose to make it a Faith-defining belief, wouldn't that mean the Armenians are heretics for believing it (albeit not as dogma, but as theologoumenon).

Blessings,
Marduk

Give it a REST!

The Armenians do NOT believe in the IC, as a dogma or as a theologoumenon. I have already quoted from their Catholicos' OFFICIAL (you raised the issue of "non-official Catholic sites") on that issue.  Please quote SOMETHING to make your case.

It is also rather odd for you to worry about the Armenians being heretics in the OO communion, when you have been downplaying disbelief in the IC as grounds for heresy in your communion.

Btw, quoting from the services etc. of the EO and OO (quoting which thus far you have not done) are a rather tricky business when the Vatican tries to prove its dogmas, and those who have submitted in the East chime in.  An egregious example would be the use of the quote of St. Ephraim of Syrian by the Chaldeans under the Vatican: they will dismiss St. John of Chrisostom's (an Antiochian in origin, btw) on the immaculateness of the Holy Theotokos, saying that "it wasn't proclaimed as dogma.  It wasn't binding."  They will, however, latch onto the earlier "You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])," and, because the IC, according to the Vatican, is binding on them, will say "a-HA! Immaculate Conception."

Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Use of that title is still a little, shall we say, uncommon among them.

Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration.

So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep.

Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns.

So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

Ironically, the dogma begins on the opposite end of Christendom from Syria, in England of all places (ironic in view of the English Reformation). The feast shows up there in c. 850, but the Immaculate part is not promoted as part of it until the 12th cent. by Anselm (Atonement Anselm)'s friend Eadmer, who defended English (he was Anglo-Saxon) folklore in a popular pamphlet, De Conceptione sanctae Mariae. Note, post schism. St. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-1153 Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine") preached against it as an innovation. The English persisted in spreading it, Duns Scotus inventing the syllogism potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it) as its "proof."

Btw, since Mina is asking about St. Leo, here are some more quotes:

Letter 31:2 -- "For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil’s yoke, and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror’s victory, if it had been won outside our nature."

Letter 35:3 -- "For although the Lord's nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences."

1st Sermon on the Nativity -- "...the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, 'no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.' Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body."

2nd Sermon on the Nativity -- "For God the almighty and merciful...foretold...that Christ would come in the flesh, God and man, Who born of a Virgin should by His uncorrupt birth condemn the despoiler of the human stock. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And 'ours' we call what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in and the deceived admitted had no trace in the Saviour. Nor because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the Divine....And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: 'because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.' The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained. Consider here not the condition of her that bare but the will of Him that was born; for He was born Man as He willed and was able....For the Lord Jesus Christ came to do away with not to endure our pollutions: not to succumb to our faults but to heal them. He came that He might cure every weakness of our corruptness and all the sores of our defiled souls: for which reason it behoved Him to be born by a new order, who brought to men’s bodies the new gift of unsullied purity. For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself....And, dearly beloved, this very fact that Christ chose to be born of a Virgin does it not appear to be part of the deepest design? I mean, that the devil should not be aware that Salvation had been born for the human race, and through the obscurity of that spiritual conception, when he saw Him no different to others, should believe Him born in no different way to others. For when he observed that His nature was like that of all others, he thought that He had the same origin as all had: and did not understand that He was free from the bonds of transgression because he did not find Him a stranger to the weakness of mortality....And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred. Her unsullied virginity knew no lust when it ministered the substance. The Lord took from His mother our nature, not our fault. The slave’s form is created without the slave’s estate, because the New Man is so commingled with the old, as both to assume the reality of our race and to remove its ancient flaw. When, therefore, the merciful and almighty Saviour so arranged the commencement of His human course as to hide the power of His Godhead which was inseparable from His manhood under the veil of our weakness, the crafty foe was taken off his guard and he thought that the nativity of the Child, Who was born for the salvation of mankind, was as much subject to himself as all others are at their birth...and knowing how he had poisoned man’s nature, had no conception that He had no share in the first transgression Whose mortality he had ascertained by so many proofs. The unscrupulous thief and greedy robber persisted in assaulting Him Who had nothing of His own, and in carrying out the general sentence on original sin, went beyond the bond on which he rested, and required the punishment of iniquity from Him in Whom he found no fault."

4th Sermon on the Nativity -- “’The Word became flesh’ by exaltation of the flesh, not by failure of the Godhead: which so tempered its power and goodness as to exalt our nature by taking it, and not to lose His own by imparting it. In this nativity of Christ, according to the prophecy of David, ‘truth sprang out of the earth, and righteousness looked down from heaven.’ In this nativity also, Isaiah’s saying is fulfilled, ‘let the earth produce and bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together.’ For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. And each one is a partaker of this spiritual origin in regeneration; and to every one when he is re-born, the water of baptism is like the Virgin’s womb; for the same Holy Spirit fills the font, Who filled the Virgin, that the sin, which that sacred conception overthrew, may be taken away by this mystical washing.”

8th Sermon on the Nativity – “In celebrating therefore the birthday of our Lord and Saviour, dearly beloved, let us entertain pure thoughts of the blessed Virgin’s child-bearing, so as to believe that at no moment of time was the power of the Word wanting to the flesh and soul which she conceived, and that the temple of Christ’s body did not previously receive its form and soul that its Inhabitant might come and take possession but through Himself and in Himself was the beginning given to the New Man, so that in the one Son of God and Man there might be Godhead without a mother, and Manhood without a Father. For her virginity fecundated by the Holy Spirit at one and the same time brought forth without trace of corruption both the offspring and the Maker of her race....the majesty of the Son of God in which He is equal with the Father in its garb of a slave’s humility feared no diminution, required no augmentation: and the very effect of His mercy which He expended on the restitution of man, He was able to bring about solely by the power of His Godhead; so as to rescue the creature that was made in the image of God from the yoke of his cruel oppressor. But because the devil had not shown himself so violent in his attack on the first man as to bring him over to his side without the consent of His free will, man’s voluntary sin and hostile desires had to be destroyed in such wise that the standard of justice should not stand in the way of the gift of Grace. And thereforein the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’ David’s Lord was made David’s Son, and from the fruit of the promised branch sprang One without fault, the twofold nature joining together into one Person, that by one and the same conception and birth might spring our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom was present both true Godhead for the performance of mighty works and true Manhood for the endurance of sufferings.”
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #150 on: April 10, 2009, 07:49:57 AM »

I believe that Mary not because of original sin but because her life was completely in conformity to that of her son, who died and most definitely did not posses original sin.

Dear Papist, you stated earlier that you have a mathematical mind and that is why you are so suited to Latinism.   But your statement above shows the opposite.  Firstly you must be aware that you are giving a private opinion and not the teaching of your Church.  No Pope has promulgated the "conformity" doctrine.

We know from the Catechism (1018)*  that anybody without original sin is immune to bodily death.

You contend that because Christ did His Mother was obliged to die too.

This is a problem because 1) no Pope has declared this and 2) the Catechism teaches that she was immune to bodily death.

So the question is:   HOW did she who could not die, die?   If God had decided that she had to die to conform to her Son, did He actually kill her?  How did He kill her?  How does your theory deal with this?


You know, if it weren't for the fact that we are speaking of humanity's most sacred personages, this would be uproariously funny!

-------------------
* CCC 1018: As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned.

It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
Quote
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Yes, I know Mardukm, "not an official web site, not an official web site..."
Quote
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Ooops.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 07:51:49 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #151 on: April 10, 2009, 08:33:20 AM »

Dear Orthodox brethren,

I am concerned that there are a few here who claim the teaching on the IC is heretical.  These assert that there is NO witness in the Eastern Byzantine tradition on the matter.  I just want to take the time to demonstrate that this really nothing more than a polemic lie against the Holy Eastern Orthodox Faith for the purpose (it seems) of nothing else than to perpetuate the ungodly schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

St. Proclus of Constantinople: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Homily 1

St. Ephrem of Syria: “Those two innocent women, Mary and Eve, had been utterly equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.”
- “You and your mother are the only ones IMMUNE from all stain; for there is no spot in Thee, o Lord, nor any taint in your Mother.”

St. Jacob of Sarug actually sits on the fence.  In one place, he states that Mary was free from the sentence of Adam and Eve at the annunciation, yet in another place, he states, “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier…if ANY STAIN had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”  Of course, for St. Jacob to state that God selected her based on her soul not having any stain means that Mary must have been “stainless” even BEFORE the Annunciation.  To me, the only legitimate interpretation possible is that St. Jacob believed that she received Graces to have a stainless soul BEFORE the Annunciation, while believing that the Grace she received at the Annunciation was a different kind of Grace.  For surely the Grace for Mary to be OVERSHADOWED by the FULL divinity must be of an entirely different order than the Graces received at Baptism by which creatures are cleansed of the stain of all sin.  In any case, St. Jacob certainly cannot be used to make any sort of DEFINITE statement against the teaching of the IC.

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem: “You have found the grace which no one has received…No one has been pre-purified besides you.”

St. Euthymes of Constantinople (patriarch), during a homily on the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne wrote that on the day of Mary’s conception, the Father fashioned the tabernacle for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” at this very time.

Theognostes of Constantinople (c. 885): “It was fitting indeed that she who from the beginning had been conceived by a sanctifying action should also have a holy death…”

An identical belief in the matter comes from St. Photius of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas, George Scholarios of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, and Gerasimo of Alexandria.

It seems that the Eastern Orthodox Church began to reject the teaching of the IC only after the Catholic Church had dogmatized it.  Before that time, it seems the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church was to uphold the teaching on the IC of Mary (as certainly reflected in the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne).

My dear EO brethren, please do your own research on the views of the EO Fathers I mentioned  - for the sake of unity, for the sake of holy knowledge, and because I simply did not have the time to type out  all the citations from the works of those Fathers above (though they were there in the sources I researched).  Admittedly, you also have one Father from the fourteenth century who explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception.  But all others it seems come after the proclamation of the dogma of the IC.

As I already stated in another post, I’m not here to try to convert anyone to my belief.  I simply want to demonstrate that, at the very least, it is not heretical and can legitimately be called a theologoumenon (as Bishop Timothy Ware has asserted).  It’s obvious that those who think the belief is a heresy have not really done any study on the matter as far as its history in the EOC, but are instead demonstrating a mere knee-jerk over reaction due to their prejudicial anti-Catholicism.

I pray my EO brethren that you seriously ponder the facts given above (and seriously do your own study with prayer).  IMHO, what better way to offer worship and living sacrifice for Pascha than to have peace with your brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #152 on: April 10, 2009, 08:38:59 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
Quote
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Yes, I know Mardukm, "not an official web site, not an official web site..."
Quote
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Ooops.
You silly goose.  You are a bad polemicist.  Read your quote again.  It says she "would not suffer corruption IN THE GRAVE."  Where's that banghead smiley when you need one.  That means when she died, the Lord did not allow her body to suffer corruption but granted her the grace of the Assumption.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I said I would no longer converse with you or Father Ambrose, but some of your errors and obvious displays of ignorance of Catholic teaching are so great they need to be commented on.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #153 on: April 10, 2009, 08:51:36 AM »

It would seem, according to Catholic Answsers, that both Papist and Mardukm have a problem with trying to seperate the IC from the pure Virgin's body:
Quote
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

You silly goose.  You are a bad polemicist.  Read your quote again.  It says she "would not suffer corruption IN THE GRAVE."  Where's that banghead smiley when you need one.  That means when she died, the Lord did not allow her body to suffer corruption but granted her the grace of the Assumption.

Are not the corruption of the grave and bodily death both a result of original sin?    If Adam and Eve had not sinned they would have known neither of them.

Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?

« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 08:52:47 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #154 on: April 10, 2009, 08:54:30 AM »

Praise God I found some Armenian texts online to combat the senseless polemics:

From a hymn sung during the Armenian Feast of the Conception:
“Thou art the Flower which cannot wither,
Thy birth was free from the condemnation of original sin,
Immaculate, holy Virgin, We glorify thee!”

From the book “Mother of God,” there is a foreword by Armenian Patriarch Torkom Mannogian of Jerusalem:
“The name of Mary, the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception who bore the Christ, will be honoured throughout eternity, as the quintessence of purity, innocence, sacrifice and devotion.  No other human being has ever received, or been worthy of such vereration as this humble woman, so full of grace, from Galilee.” (p. 7)

I must thank my OO brother Sub-Deacon Lazarus Der-Ghazarian for these quotes.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #155 on: April 10, 2009, 08:57:38 AM »

Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin.  Like I said, where's that banghead smiley when you need it.

You can repeat your straw man arguments all you want.  It's just a hollow echo now.  Your and brother Isa's polemics are all used up.

Have a great Pascha, Father.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #156 on: April 10, 2009, 09:16:57 AM »

Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin. 

That is a rather disingenuous prersentation of Catholic teaching.

Here is the real McCoy:

1. The stain of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace.

2.  The consequences of the loss of sanctifying grace are 1) concupiscence and 2) sickness and death.

If one has never experienced original sin one has never lost sanctifying grace.

If one has never lost sanctifying grace, one cannot be subject to sickness and death.

The Mother of God cannot have died, not unless God made a decision to kill her off because, according to Papist, He wanted her to die because His Son had died.

Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #157 on: April 10, 2009, 09:55:39 AM »

Father, you are just embarassing yourself now.

Can you please tell everyone here what it is that Baptism gains for us according to Catholic teaching?

Let me tell you from the horse's mouth - when we are Baptized, we gain sanctifying grace and original justice.

Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?

Nice try Father, but no cigar.  The real McCoy was already fully explained by me in an earlier post.

Please give it up Father.

Since the Catechism is clear that those who have no original sin are immune from bodily death,  how did she die?    Did God actually kill her off?
As repeatedly stated, the dogma does not say Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather from the STAIN of original sin. 

That is a rather disingenuous prersentation of Catholic teaching.

Here is the real McCoy:

1. The stain of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace.

2.  The consequences of the loss of sanctifying grace are 1) concupiscence and 2) sickness and death.

If one has never experienced original sin one has never lost sanctifying grace.

If one has never lost sanctifying grace, one cannot be subject to sickness and death.

The Mother of God cannot have died, not unless God made a decision to kill her off because, according to Papist, He wanted her to die because His Son had died.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #158 on: April 10, 2009, 10:23:54 AM »

Praise God I found some Armenian texts online to combat the senseless polemics:

From a hymn sung during the Armenian Feast of the Conception:
“Thou art the Flower which cannot wither,
Thy birth was free from the condemnation of original sin,
Immaculate, holy Virgin, We glorify thee!”

From the book “Mother of God,” there is a foreword by Armenian Patriarch Torkom Mannogian of Jerusalem:
“The name of Mary, the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception who bore the Christ, will be honoured throughout eternity, as the quintessence of purity, innocence, sacrifice and devotion.  No other human being has ever received, or been worthy of such vereration as this humble woman, so full of grace, from Galilee.” (p. 7)

I must thank my OO brother Sub-Deacon Lazarus Der-Ghazarian for these quotes.


LOL. Yes, we have met before:
The tour de force paper for understanding almighty God's truth:

Well, I guess the Vatican can put Humanae Vitae away.

Although I find the reduction of Orthodoxy to contraception and divorce a reductio ad absurdum (especially as triumpalism from the Vatican, where its differentiation between NFP and ABC is not supported by Patristics, and annullments ARE "Catholic divorces, just with Corban), I do agree with most of the conclusions.  I disagree with the conclusion that the case is so clear.

I was also curious about the writer: a Armenian name, but quoting EOs.  A search turned up a post (I'd link, but it's not allowed I believe):

Quote
To close I'd like to mention how I pray you some day consider me. I have read that Orthodox Saints are recognized as saints by the Catholic Church as long as they never attacked the Pope or Catholic teaching. The Armenian Saint Gregory of Narek is one example that this is true (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2678). Although St. Gregory was "post-schism" (meaning he belonged to an Orthodox Church after the split came about with Rome) he is still acknowledged by Rome as a Saint. This is the way I pray you some day consider me: not as a Saint, but rather as a faithful Orthodox Christian and deacon who has no animosity whatsoever for the Church of Rome; but rather as one who has great love, respect and veneration for the Church of Rome and her great moral leadership in a world crumbling away with sin. Please know that I spend a good amount of time every week defending Catholic teaching to Protestants and some Orthodox.
I am married to a Catholic. I want my kids to be close to Catholics. I work for the Archdiocese of Detroit (at Sacred Heart Major Seminary). I may even attend classes at a Catholic Seminary. So you may occasionally see me around somewhere in the Archdiocese, attending conferences and even worshipping with my brethren of "the other lung of the Church" (following H.H. Pope John Paul II's metaphor on the Eastern and Western Churches as two lungs of the same Church). If and when you see me, I want you to at least know that this is what is in my heart. Thanks for reading this and please feel free to write me and offer your forgiveness. It will be spiritually therapeutic for me to say the least.

So I'm less impressed from the Vatican line being spread by an apologist for it.

Btw, your paper praised Origen as a Biblical scholar.  He castrated himself on the basis of Matthew 19:12 (the Church canons castigate that, and it caused a scandal in Origen's day).  Talk about birth control.  Your source also fails to mention that the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized Origen.

Btw, more on Sub-Deacon William/Lazarus Der-Ghazarian is here:
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/index.html
Look on the right links: he claims he was transferred from the "Roman" church to the Armenian Church, but is still in communion with "Roman" church.  Maybe the Catholicos should look into what baggage the sub-deacon brought over, or the fine print in his "translation."

My understanding, since my post on the sub-deacon, is that if his credibility becomes an issue, I could post a link to where he makes these statements.  Mods?

I will congratulte you.  Finally we have something (although I am dubious above its validity, as I'll speak about in a moment) that is cited in support of your position.

Now, that being said, I have to state that having seen his posting on another forum (as no doubt you have), I wouldn't put his testimony as to what is Armenian Orthodoxy on a par with, say, Salpy's, as I would not put (no offense intended) your testimony on what is Coptic Orthodoxy on a par with, say, Mina or Ekhristosanesti, just in reverse: you both seem to have seem to lost something in your "translations."  The case I sighted above of what the Chaldeans do with St. Ephrem is a case in point.  Here, if, as you both claim, the Armenian Orthodox sing that hymn (which, btw, refers to her birth, neither her conception nor her ensoulment," then why does the official website of the Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian Orthodox, on the notes for the feast, EXPLICITELY state that the Armenians do not believe in the IC, as I have posted above?

I have seen a number of Coptic Orthodox who claim that the "Vision of Bernadette" which claimed "I am the Immaculate Conception" occuring on March 25 (whose Immmaculate Conception was that?) as proof that the title Immaculate Conception should refer only to Christ's.  It isn't clear from your post: whose Conception is being refered to (cf. the "confusion" over St. Leo's quotes)?

Since you praises God you found some Armenian texts online "to combat the senseless polemics," might you provide us links that we may praise Him too?  (I apoligize that I did not put the link up for the text of Ineffibilus Desu and Mufficentissimus Deus, an oversight).

I'll tend to your other posts later.  I am busy with our pope wanna be on other threads.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #159 on: April 10, 2009, 10:42:57 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

So basically, you don't trust brother DerGhazar because of his ecumenical spirit.  That just goes to show us that you are not really interested in the Truth on these matters, but are simply anti-Catholic and will say anything just to try to put Catholicism down.

And I didn't see the Catholicos say he rejected the teaching.  If he did, he certainly said it in a very round about way that is not very clear (but perhaps that is what you were hinging your whole argument on).  I already responded to your use of it earlier, but as usual you did not respond.  I stated that the Catholicos merely stated that the Armenian Church does not accept a teaching that would give to Mary any qualities reserved to Christ.  Great! Amen!  I as a Catholic agree.  But the dogma of the IC does not do that, so no problem there.  He also said that his Church does not accept new articles of Faith.  True, the IC is not an article of Faith in the Armenian Church - it is, rather, a theologoumenon.

You've demonstrated nothing.  Move on, please.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #160 on: April 10, 2009, 11:02:11 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

Some final comments:

Look on the right links: he claims he was transferred from the "Roman" church to the Armenian Church, but is still in communion with "Roman" church.  Maybe the Catholicos should look into what baggage the sub-deacon brought over, or the fine print in his "translation."
As a matter of fact, the Armenian Apostolic Church (as well as the Syriac Orthodox Church) both have official pastoral provisions with the Catholic Church for limited intercommunion.  Brother DerGhazar's statements of requesting communion in a Catholic Church is absolutely fine.  You shouldn't be making snide comments about matters of which you are ignorant.

Quote
I have seen a number of Coptic Orthodox who claim that the "Vision of Bernadette" which claimed "I am the Immaculate Conception" occuring on March 25 (whose Immmaculate Conception was that?) as proof that the title Immaculate Conception should refer only to Christ's.  It isn't clear from your post: whose Conception is being refered to (cf. the "confusion" over St. Leo's quotes)?
I would think an Archbishop would have a better understanding than the laity (though I'll concede that might not be immediately evident to you given your ecclesiology).

Quote
Since you praises God you found some Armenian texts online "to combat the senseless polemics," might you provide us links that we may praise Him too?  (I apoligize that I did not put the link up for the text of Ineffibilus Desu and Mufficentissimus Deus, an oversight).
I had to sift through several pages of a google search to get that (that's why I was so happy Grin ), and I don't remember what combination of search words I used.  If you want to verify them, maybe you can google search the terms in the quotation.

Blessings
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #161 on: April 10, 2009, 01:51:07 PM »

Dear brother Isa,

So basically, you don't trust brother DerGhazar because of his ecumenical spirit. 
LOL.  Because of his muddled ecclesiology.

The Catholicos of Armenia has a different view of Latin-Armenian relationships:
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=60&pid=10&lng=en

The Armenians anathematised those who accepted Chalcedon.  The Fathers at Chalcedon and the other three following Ecumenical Councils anathematized those who did not accept them.  We Orthodox, EO and OO, are working on that.

The Vatican has had its councils, which have anathematized those who do not accept them.  Like Florence, where anyone with any sense among the Orthodox learned all they need to about the "ecumenical spirit" at such robber councils:
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM17.HTM#3
Quote
After all these matters had been explained, the aforesaid Armenians, in their own name and in the name of their patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace this salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. They also accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed, they hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. They promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name as above, they will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of the apostolic see.

When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod's presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians, publicly read it out in Latin as follows.

Most blessed father and most holy synod. Recently the whole of this holy decree, which has now been read out in Latin in your presence, was clearly explained and interpreted to us word by word in our language. It was and is completely acceptable to us. To disclose our understanding more fully, however, we repeat its contents in summary.

The following is contained in it. First, you give to our people of the Armenians the holy creed of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, to be sung or read within the mass in our churches at least on Sundays and greater feasts. Secondly, the definition of the fourth universal council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one person of Christ. Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and principles of action of Christ which was promulgated in the sixth universal council.
The Catholicos's official Web site doesn't have the added phrase and the Son:
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=10474&pid=10472&lng=en

Quote
Fourthly, you declare that the synod of Chalcedon and most blessed pope Leo rightly defined the truth about two natures in the one person of Christ against the impious doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches. You order that we should venerate most blessed Leo as holy and a pillar of the faith and that we should reverently accept not only the synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of Ephesus, but also all other synods legitimately celebrated . . authority of the Roman pontiff

The only reference to Pope St. Leo on the Catholicos' web site is the history of the rejection of him.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=60&pid=10&lng=en

Quote
Fifthly, a short scheme of the seven sacraments of the church, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony indicating the matter, the form and the minister of each; and that while the chalice is being offered in the sacrifice of the altar a little water should be mixed with the wine.

According to the Catholicos' web site, they do not mix water into the chalice, making a point that do not.  Maybe the sub-deacon hasn't been close enough to observe.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=5814&pid=2429&lng=en

Quote
Sixthly, a compendious rule of the faith of most blessed Athanasius, which begins: Whoever wills to be saved etc.


Lots of refrerences to St. Athanasius, but none to the creed that the Vatican attributes to him.

Quote
Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees.

this is that Byzantization that you (I say with some justification) complain about.

As to the "plentitude of power" and "the order of the patriarchal sees," His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of Etchimiadzin and All Armenians doesn't seem to have signed on to this, claiming "To the Right Hand (of St. Gregory the Illuminator)and to Holy Etchmiadzin, the whole of the Armenian nation is bound"
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=4&pid=1

It seems sub-deacon's hand might be bound to Ethmiadzin, but his foot is stuck in the Vatican.

Quote
Eighthly, you decree that the following feasts should be kept on the following days, in accordance with the custom of the universal church: the annunciation of the blessed virgin Mary on 25 March, the birth of blessed John the Baptist on 24 June, the birth of our Saviour on 25 December, his circumcision on I January, the epiphany on 6 January, and the presentation of the Lord in the temple (or the purification of blessed Mary) on 2 February.

The Catholicos' calendar has nothing for 25 December.  Christmas is 6 January.  Annunciation April 7.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=26&pid=4&lng=en
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=12368&pid=11689&lng=en
Quote
Therefore we envoys, in our own name and in the name of our reverend patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace, just as your holiness affirms in the decree, this most salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. We accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed we hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. We promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name of the above, we will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of this apostolic see.

It seems that the Supreme Catholicos isn't obeying those "ordinances and commands of" the Vatican.  Sub-deacon cannot serve two masters.  Someone said that.


Quote
That just goes to show us that you are not really interested in the Truth on these matters,
I'm the one facing the truth of these matters head on.  Some else is the one who doing double speak.

Quote
but are simply anti-Catholic
No, they are pro Armenian Orthodox.

Quote
and will say anything just to try to put Catholicism down.

I will state the Catholic Truth of what the Armenian Apostolic and Orthodox Church teaches against distortion of it by the Vatican.

Quote
And I didn't see the Catholicos say he rejected the teaching. 


Then you were not looking.

Quote
If he did, he certainly said it in a very round about way that is not very clear (but perhaps that is what you were hinging your whole argument on).


Quote
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church declared as a doctrine of faith that St. Mary's conception was immaculate, thoroughly free of the original sin of Adam. However, our church and other churches do not accept articles of faith discovered or developed during recent times, and whatever is exclusively Christ God's cannot be attributed to any human creature.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=7762&pid=7736&lng=en
I don't know if understand the use of "however" as a disjunctive: it means what comes after contrasts with what comes before.  What part of "do not accept articles of faith" versus "declared as a doctrine of faith" is very round about and not very clear?

Your "source" says:
Quote
But even the Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, in his book “The Orthodox Church,” states that although there is certainly no dogmas among the Eastern Churches, individual Orthodox may freely choose to believe that the Theotokos was immaculate from her Conception.  In the book “The Mother of God” by the Armenian Apostolic Archimandrite Vatche Iknadiossian, there is an interview of Fr. Iknadiossian by a Catholic periodical.  When asked about the Immaculate Conception he replied, “the dogma of the Immaculate Conception officially proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, was not officially proclaimed by our Church.  Nevertheless we celebrate it as a very great feast, on 9th December (instead of 8th).
www.geocities.com/derghazar/ACRCMARY.DOC
So is the celebration the Conception or the IC?  And we can see why many, including myself, do not recommend "The Orthodox Church" anymore.  I'll leave it to the OO and the Armenians to comment on whether they find these statements by the Archmandrite and Patriarch in conformity with the teaching of their Supreme Catholicos.

(and watch out Father Ambrose: the same "source" says I am still researching the issue of the Immaculate Conception.  I have found that it is derived from the Eastern “Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos,” where she is honored as all-pure and immaculate, as you and I have discussed.  The Byzantine Liturgy states in reference to Mary’s Conception that she was, “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.”  Quasi-Incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the making?  A sixth Marion Dogma).

Quote
I already responded to your use of it earlier, but as usual you did not respond.


I think the thread demonstrates I respond to every "point," no matter how trivial.

Was your response before or after you said that you were not responding to me anymore, and I said I had to attend to our wanna be pope, but would return?

If I missed your post, I apologize.  Please quote, and I will know what to reply to.

Quote
I stated that the Catholicos merely stated that the Armenian Church does not accept a teaching that would give to Mary any qualities reserved to Christ.  Great! Amen!  I as a Catholic agree.  But the dogma of the IC does not do that, so no problem there. 


Yes, yes.  And Pope Honorios wasn't a heretic, and the Popes of Rome who banned the filioque from the Creed didn't  condemn it, and the pope condemned the Crusaders he sent while he was usurping the throne of Constaninople for a Latin patriarch, and the Orthodox in communion with Rome, yada yada.  We are all VERY familiar with this line of "logic."

Quote
He also said that his Church does not accept new articles of Faith.  True, the IC is not an article of Faith in the Armenian Church - it is, rather, a theologoumenon.

Quote
The concept of her being morally immaculate later developed into the question of her Immaculate Conception (from Anna), a doctrine adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854.  The Armenian Church, on the other hand, does not accept this, as it attributes to Mary that which belongs only to Christ; only Christ was immaculately conceived.  Yet, her purity is unquestioned.  According to the teaching of the Armenian Church, at the time of the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit entered her she was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was to be the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated.
(c)2009 Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
http://www.armenianchurch.net/worship/mary/index.html
i.e.  The official web site of Sub-deacon Der-Ghazarian's superiors.

Anything round about?  Unclear?

Quote
You've demonstrated nothing.


 Roll Eyes

Quote
Move on, please.

Down the Tiber, no thank you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #162 on: April 10, 2009, 04:19:21 PM »

Father, you are just embarassing yourself now.

Can you please tell everyone here what it is that Baptism gains for us according to Catholic teaching?

Let me tell you from the horse's mouth - when we are Baptized, we gain sanctifying grace and original justice.

Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?

Nice try Father, but no cigar.  The real McCoy was already fully explained by me in an earlier post.

Please give it up Father.


It is not me but you who are embarrassing yourself.

Read some Catholic theology.   laugh


There is, as you ought to know, an ontological difference between:

1.   those who have never known original sin and

2.  those who have known it and been rescued from it by baptism.

In the case of the latter, baptism removes original sin, that is, it restores sanctifying grace.   But it still leaves the consequences of the original loss of sanctifying grace - concupiscence, sickness and death.

In the case of those who have never known original sin, none of the consequences of original sin, including death or corruption in the grave, apply.   Indeed to place the consequences of original sin and the loss of sanctifying grace (death, disease, concupiscence, corruption)on anyone who has never ever been in the state of original sin nor ever lost sanctifying grace would be a transgression of divine justice.

Please consult a few books of theology to get a grasp of this not insignificant ontological distinction.


Of course it is at this point that the irrationality of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as it relates to the death of the Mother of God starts to seep out from under the edges.  This is why the Magisterium will allow you to believe as Papist does, as an Immortalist (that the Mother of God never died) or to believe as Pope Pius XI taught in Munificentissimus Deus that she did in fact die.    Roman Catholic theology cannot cope with the contradictions which it has created for itself on this point.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 04:23:43 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #163 on: April 10, 2009, 06:51:55 PM »

The Catholic Churches or the Orthodox Churches have never taught that death is the result of the the loss of sanctifying grace.

Both have always taught SIMPLY and PLAINLY that the original or ancestral sin resulted in several consequences for mankind.  In different words, these consequences are: 1) loss of sanctifying grace; 2) loss of original justice 3) concupiscence; 4) physical/tactile effects such as death/illness (including emotional instabilities)/corruption.  Except maybe for #3 as it relates to #1 and #4, there is no causal relation between any of the othe consequences with each other.  #4 is not the result of #1, #2 is not the result of #1, #1 is not the result of #2, #1 is not the result of #4, etc. etc.  Each is merely and simply regarded by the Church as consequences of the first sin of our parents.  #1, #2, #3 and #4 are all the direct result of only one thing - the sin of our first parents.

Neither Church has ever taught what you claim.  There's no intermediary steps in the equation as you have not-so-brilliantly concocted.  Neither Church has ever delved into the mystery as deeply as you, Father.  Perhaps you are not really an adherent to apophatic theology. 

You must have stayed up all night to think up of this novel argument as anyone will notice that it has come many days after the start of this thread, though you certainly had opportunity to present it many times earlier.  It's pretty obvious this novel argument came out of the blue (as I predicted early on - new arguments will always come out of the polemic mind).

Father, you are just embarassing yourself now.

Can you please tell everyone here what it is that Baptism gains for us according to Catholic teaching?

Let me tell you from the horse's mouth - when we are Baptized, we gain sanctifying grace and original justice.

Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?

Nice try Father, but no cigar.  The real McCoy was already fully explained by me in an earlier post.

Please give it up Father.


It is not me but you who are embarrassing yourself.

Read some Catholic theology.   laugh


There is, as you ought to know, an ontological difference between:

1.   those who have never known original sin and

2.  those who have known it and been rescued from it by baptism.

In the case of the latter, baptism removes original sin, that is, it restores sanctifying grace.   But it still leaves the consequences of the original loss of sanctifying grace - concupiscence, sickness and death.

In the case of those who have never known original sin, none of the consequences of original sin, including death or corruption in the grave, apply.   Indeed to place the consequences of original sin and the loss of sanctifying grace (death, disease, concupiscence, corruption)on anyone who has never ever been in the state of original sin nor ever lost sanctifying grace would be a transgression of divine justice.

Please consult a few books of theology to get a grasp of this not insignificant ontological distinction.


Of course it is at this point that the irrationality of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as it relates to the death of the Mother of God starts to seep out from under the edges.  This is why the Magisterium will allow you to believe as Papist does, as an Immortalist (that the Mother of God never died) or to believe as Pope Pius XI taught in Munificentissimus Deus that she did in fact die.    Roman Catholic theology cannot cope with the contradictions which it has created for itself on this point.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,901


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #164 on: April 10, 2009, 07:16:04 PM »

I was just alerted to the existence of this thread.  It's over 160 posts long and I'm not about to read through all of them.  I did, however, skim this page and I would like to address a few points:

The Armenian Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.  I have heard that emphatically and authoritatively taught in my church. 

I would not automatically rely on English translations from Classical Armenian, or even Modern Armenian, of prayers or other texts to support the idea that we do believe in such a thing.  Meaning often gets lost in translation and misunderstandings occur, especially if the translator is not a native speaker of English.  I have on more than one occasion come across people who thought the words "Immaculate Conception" referred to the Virgin Birth of Christ.

The Armenian Church has been rejecting Latin innovation since the early sixth century.  That includes all innovation, such as the IC and the Filioque. 

During the time of the Crusades, the Armenians in the Kingdom of Cilicia went into union with the Catholic Church for political and military reasons.  The Armenians in Greater Armenia reacted strongly against this and this eventually led to the Catholicosate being moved out of Cilicia and back to Etchmiadzin.  It also led St. Gregory of Datev, as well as some other Armenian theologians, to sit down and write out the traditional theology of the Armenian Church.  It is a great pity that St. Gregory Datevatsi's Book of Questions has never been translated into any modern language.  It exists today only in Classical Armenian.

I have always been told that apart from our Christological language, our beliefs are the same as the EO Church.  That is why Armenian clergy will give communion to EO's without reservation.

With regard to our relationship with the Catholics, our relations are very warm.  Our Catholicoi have often met with the Catholic Popes and they get along.  That doesn't mean, however, that we are in communion with them, or that we share beliefs that they have and which are rejected by our EO brothers.  We just happen to be good friends right now.

With regard to communing Catholics, the Armenian Church is more liberal than other Orthodox Churches and there are priests who will commune Catholics for certain pastoral reasons.  However, one should not read too much into that.  There are Armenian priests who will commune Assyrians for pastoral reasons, especially since intermarriage between Armenians and Assyrians is not uncommon.  However, that doesn't mean we share all their beliefs, especially their Christology.


Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2009, 07:50:35 PM »

Dear brother Salpy,

Thank you so much for your input.  I've heard that the IC is a theologoumenon in the Armenian Church.  So it comes as no surprise that there might be some Armenians who believe it, and some who don't.  It's like the situation with the doctrine of toll houses in EO'xy.  There are Eastern Orthodox who not only believe it, but also say it is an article of Faith, yet there are other EO who are just as adamant about rejecting it and make that claim for the ENTIRE EOC.  Similarly, You seem to claim lack of belief in the IC for your entire Church when you say "the Armenian Church does not believe..."  But that is only to be expected if it is merely theologoumenon in your Church.

I agree with the statement that it is not an article of Faith in your Church, as the Catholicos quoted by brother Isa stated.  All I've ever stated is that the belief is theologoumenon, and I don't know why brother Isa is in such knots over it. 

Blessings,
Marduk

I was just alerted to the existence of this thread.  It's over 160 posts long and I'm not about to read through all of them.  I did, however, skim this page and I would like to address a few points:

The Armenian Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.  I have heard that emphatically and authoritatively taught in my church. 

I would not automatically rely on English translations from Classical Armenian, or even Modern Armenian, of prayers or other texts to support the idea that we do believe in such a thing.  Meaning often gets lost in translation and misunderstandings occur, especially if the translator is not a native speaker of English.  I have on more than one occasion come across people who thought the words "Immaculate Conception" referred to the Virgin Birth of Christ.

The Armenian Church has been rejecting Latin innovation since the early sixth century.  That includes all innovation, such as the IC and the Filioque. 

During the time of the Crusades, the Armenians in the Kingdom of Cilicia went into union with the Catholic Church for political and military reasons.  The Armenians in Greater Armenia reacted strongly against this and this eventually led to the Catholicosate being moved out of Cilicia and back to Etchmiadzin.  It also led St. Gregory of Datev, as well as some other Armenian theologians, to sit down and write out the traditional theology of the Armenian Church.  It is a great pity that St. Gregory Datevatsi's Book of Questions has never been translated into any modern language.  It exists today only in Classical Armenian.

I have always been told that apart from our Christological language, our beliefs are the same as the EO Church.  That is why Armenian clergy will give communion to EO's without reservation.

With regard to our relationship with the Catholics, our relations are very warm.  Our Catholicoi have often met with the Catholic Popes and they get along.  That doesn't mean, however, that we are in communion with them, or that we share beliefs that they have and which are rejected by our EO brothers.  We just happen to be good friends right now.

With regard to communing Catholics, the Armenian Church is more liberal than other Orthodox Churches and there are priests who will commune Catholics for certain pastoral reasons.  However, one should not read too much into that.  There are Armenian priests who will commune Assyrians for pastoral reasons, especially since intermarriage between Armenians and Assyrians is not uncommon.  However, that doesn't mean we share all their beliefs, especially their Christology.



« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 07:57:40 PM by Mardukm » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2009, 08:04:20 PM »

I have always been told that apart from our Christological language, our beliefs are the same as the EO Church.  That is why Armenian clergy will give communion to EO's without reservation.

With regard to our relationship with the Catholics, our relations are very warm.  Our Catholicoi have often met with the Catholic Popes and they get along.  That doesn't mean, however, that we are in communion with them, or that we share beliefs that they have and which are rejected by our EO brothers.  We just happen to be good friends right now.
Are there OFFICIAL pastoral provisions between EO and the Armenians (like between the CC and the Armenians)?

Blessings
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,901


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2009, 08:08:42 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean.
Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2009, 08:35:11 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean.
Well. as far as I know, there are no actual written authoritative agreements between the EO and OO for pastoral provisions of limited intercommunion.  That is probably because the EO are not completely united on how they view the OO, unlike in the CC (on Eucharist, marriage, confession).  I realize that on a grass roots level, there is always some kind of pastoral reciprocity of the Sacraments, but the Church hierarchy itself do not officially (i.e., in an authoritative written document) recognize it with the EO, but DO officially recognize it with the CC (as far as the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Ancient Church of the East is concerned, anyway).

The only OFFICIAL pastoral provision I know of between the EO and OO is the one in Egypt between the COC and the EO Alexandrian patriarchate - but even that is not with regards to the COC in general but only to the Church in the boundaries of Egypt, and even then it is not with regards to the general laity, but only with regards to members of mixed marriages, and even then it does not apply to Sacraments in general, but only in regards to the Sacrament of marriage, and even then it does not apply to all marriages, but only to ones that does not violate the canons of the COC.  For example, the COC only permits divorce and remarriage in two instances - adultery and falling away from the Faith, but the EOC has many more reasons that allow for divorce and remarriage (some EO jurisdictions have more reasons than others). If an EO had a prior divorce due to reasons that are not one of the reasons permitted by the COC, then the pastoral provision would not apply, and the COC would not recognize that second marriage between the EO person and CO person, nor would the COC permit that ceremony in a CO church (i.e., building).

Did that explain it better?  Like I said, that there is no official pastoral provision between the EO and OO is limited to my knowledge.  I am wondering if your own knowledge can better supplement mine on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 08:36:19 PM by Mardukm » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,901


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2009, 08:42:28 PM »

I'm not aware of any agreements like that between the Armenian Church and the EO.  From the Armenian point of view, such an agreement would not be necessary, since they share the same faith as we do and we already commune them.  I'm not aware of any such agreement like that with the Catholics either.
Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2009, 08:59:11 PM »

Dear brother Salpy,

I'm not aware of any agreements like that between the Armenian Church and the EO.  From the Armenian point of view, such an agreement would not be necessary, since they share the same faith as we do and we already commune them.  I'm not aware of any such agreement like that with the Catholics either.
When I have time, I will do the research and provide the document here (if I have even more time, I'll post the the official agreement between the SOC and CC as well).  BTW, would you mind if I posted it in the Oriental Orthodox Forum instead (since I do not want to derail this thread on the matter any further).  Or perhaps some other Catholic reading this thread will do that.  It is a busy season right now, so please forgive.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,381



« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2009, 10:18:10 PM »



Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?


You should read the holy bible in your spare time. Wink

Romans 6:3-5 (King James Version)

 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #172 on: April 10, 2009, 10:27:14 PM »

Dear brother Isa,

Any one who reads these posts will, with a little bit of thinking, realize that all your comments are just hot air.  You have not EVER successfully challened the purpose of this - that those who reject the IC as heresy are simply rejecting it based on straw man arguments.  All you've done is address tangential issues like who states they do not believe it as an article of Faith, why you don't trust the testimony of certain people, give some historical data on the relationship between churches, differences in practices and disciplines, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  All for the purpose of trying to get people to not really think about the real issue and not think about the fact that you nor Father Ambrose have completely failed to demonstrate that the teaching of the IC is actually heresy - a very common polemical tactic.  You claim that you have addressed even the slightest matter in my posts, but that just demonstrates your tactic of trying to get people to focus on issues that are not really relevant - the typical tactic of the polemicists who have really no interest in the Truth.

I will address the more relevant aspects of your most recent post:

The Armenians anathematised those who accepted Chalcedon.  The Fathers at Chalcedon and the other three following Ecumenical Councils anathematized those who did not accept them.  We Orthodox, EO and OO, are working on that.

The Vatican has had its councils, which have anathematized those who do not accept them.  Like Florence, where anyone with any sense among the Orthodox learned all they need to about the "ecumenical spirit" at such robber councils:
This is just so much polemical hot air.  The Catholic Church has ALREADY worked it out with the OO.  That's why there's even OFFICIAL pastoral agreements between most of the OO and the CC.  What's your excuse?  I surmise the crux of the problem is Mt. Athos, who still regard the OO (like the CC) as heretics.  Wishful thinking, brother.  The EO will never break communion with Athos, and Athos, given its rigidity, will never stop considering the OO as heretics, unless the OO repudiates itself.  Don't make a statement like, "the EO and OO are working on that," then make some statement about the anathematizations of the Catholic Church with no other comment.  It just demonstrates the hypocrisy of your polemic mind.  The EO were just as involved in anathematizations over the matter as the CC, yet only the CC has concrete fruits of labor with the OO on the matter.  If the EO were really serious about resolving the issue with the OO, all they have to do publicly repudiate the views of Athos on the matter, which would be a sure sign to the EO world of what the hierarchy intends. But your own novel ecclesiology where even the laity can repudiate their bishops without the benefit of a Synod is the real problem, it seems to me.

Quote
Quote
If he did, he certainly said it in a very round about way that is not very clear (but perhaps that is what you were hinging your whole argument on).


Quote
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church declared as a doctrine of faith that St. Mary's conception was immaculate, thoroughly free of the original sin of Adam. However, our church and other churches do not accept articles of faith discovered or developed during recent times, and whatever is exclusively Christ God's cannot be attributed to any human creature.
http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=7762&pid=7736&lng=en
I don't know if understand the use of "however" as a disjunctive: it means what comes after contrasts with what comes before.  What part of "do not accept articles of faith" versus "declared as a doctrine of faith" is very round about and not very clear?
What about the word "article of faith" and "theologoumenon" do you not understand?

Quote from:
Your "source" says:
Quote
But even the Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, in his book “The Orthodox Church,” states that although there is certainly no dogmas among the Eastern Churches, individual Orthodox may freely choose to believe that the Theotokos was immaculate from her Conception.  In the book “The Mother of God” by the Armenian Apostolic Archimandrite Vatche Iknadiossian, there is an interview of Fr. Iknadiossian by a Catholic periodical.  When asked about the Immaculate Conception he replied, “the dogma of the Immaculate Conception officially proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, was not officially proclaimed by our Church.  Nevertheless we celebrate it as a very great feast, on 9th December (instead of 8th).
www.geocities.com/derghazar/ACRCMARY.DOC
So is the celebration the Conception or the IC?  And we can see why many, including myself, do not recommend "The Orthodox Church" anymore.  I'll leave it to the OO and the Armenians to comment on whether they find these statements by the Archmandrite and Patriarch in conformity with the teaching of their Supreme Catholicos.
We already know what the Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian says. He says that it is not to be accepted as an article of Faith.  You want to bend over backwards to make that mean "the teaching of the IC is a heresy" but you have miserably failed in your efforts.

Quote
Quote
I stated that the Catholicos merely stated that the Armenian Church does not accept a teaching that would give to Mary any qualities reserved to Christ.  Great! Amen!  I as a Catholic agree.  But the dogma of the IC does not do that, so no problem there. 


Yes, yes.  And Pope Honorios wasn't a heretic, and the Popes of Rome who banned the filioque from the Creed didn't  condemn it, and the pope condemned the Crusaders he sent while he was usurping the throne of Constaninople for a Latin patriarch, and the Orthodox in communion with Rome, yada yada.  We are all VERY familiar with this line of "logic."
As already stated, and this comment proves, you don't and can't address the real issue - i.e., is the dogma of the IC granting to Mary qualities that are reserved to Christ alone?  Is the teaching saying that Mary, like Christ, did not have a father?  Is the teaching saying that Mary, like Christ, is NATURALLY sinless, and not rather that she is sinless by Grace.  Is the teaching saying that Mary is divine?  Is the teaching saying that Mary's physical conception was not like any other human being's.  NO.  The teaching on the IC says none of these things.  So, obviously, if the Catholicos states that the Armenians Church does not accept any teaching that gives to Mary any qualities reserved to Christ, then he is not referring directly to the dogma of the IC as the Catholic Church teaches it.  Nor is her referring to the IC as the Armenians believe it.

Quote
He also said that his Church does not accept new articles of Faith.  True, the IC is not an article of Faith in the Armenian Church - it is, rather, a theologoumenon.
No response?  Good. That's settled then.

Quote
Quote
The concept of her being morally immaculate later developed into the question of her Immaculate Conception (from Anna), a doctrine adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854.  The Armenian Church, on the other hand, does not accept this, as it attributes to Mary that which belongs only to Christ; only Christ was immaculately conceived.  Yet, her purity is unquestioned.  According to the teaching of the Armenian Church, at the time of the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit entered her she was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was to be the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated.
(c)2009 Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
http://www.armenianchurch.net/worship/mary/index.html
i.e.  The official web site of Sub-deacon Der-Ghazarian's superiors.

Anything round about?  Unclear?
Nothing at all.  It simply demonstrates that the diocese in America has that teaching.  But as brother DerGhazarian indicated, there are Armenian hierarchs ELSEWHERE who accept the teaching.  Like I've always said - THEOLOGOUMENON.  Banghead smiley please.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #173 on: April 10, 2009, 10:39:25 PM »

Dear brother Demetrios,



Now, if, according to your rather poorly reasoned sophism, the physical consequences (death, illness, corruption) and concupisence are the result of the loss of sanctifying grace, can you please explain to everyone here why we still suffer death/illness/corruption even after we have regained sanctifying grace through baptism?
You should read the holy bible in your spare time. Wink

Romans 6:3-5 (King James Version)

 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
I'm not sure what you are implying.  Are you saying our bodies will not die simply because we are promised the resurrection.  The word "Resurrection" implies that we WILL die, don't you think? 

Father Ambrose apparently believes that we die as a result of the loss of santifying grace, not the Orthodox and Catholic teaching that BOTH our death AND spiritual privation are IMMEDIATE consequences of the sin of our first parents.  Therefore, he claims, since physical death is immediately caused by loss of sanctifying grace, then Mary's gaining of sanctifying grace at her conception means she would not die.  Of course, that idea is ludicrous.  You and I ALSO receive the SAME grace (that Mary received at her conception) during our Baptism.  If Father Ambrose's novel belief (or maybe he's just arguing it and not really believing it - you can't tell with polemicists) is true, then this must also mean that you or I will not die, since we get back sanctifying grace at our Baptism.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,901


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #174 on: April 11, 2009, 12:36:15 AM »

In the book “The Mother of God” by the Armenian Apostolic Archimandrite Vatche Iknadiossian, there is an interview of Fr. Iknadiossian by a Catholic periodical.  When asked about the Immaculate Conception he replied, “the dogma of the Immaculate Conception officially proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, was not officially proclaimed by our Church.  Nevertheless we celebrate it as a very great feast, on 9th December (instead of 8th).

December 9 is when we celebrate the Conception of the Mother of God.  I have never seen or heard it described as the "Immaculate Conception" of the Mother of God.  We don't celebrate that.


Quote
We already know what the Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian says. He says that it is not to be accepted as an article of Faith.  You want to bend over backwards to make that mean "the teaching of the IC is a heresy" but you have miserably failed in your efforts.

I and others at my church have been explicitly taught by someone who graduated from St. Nersess Armenian Seminary that the IC is not a belief of our Church.  It could be this was never explicitly addressed in a council or anything.  I don't know.  But I can tell you we don't share that belief with your Church.  Just because something has not been explicitly condemned in a council doesn't mean it isn't rejected. 

I have never heard anyone of any authority say that we believe in the IC.  I have heard it stated by those with authority that we don't.


Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #175 on: April 11, 2009, 12:55:10 AM »

Dear brother Salpy,

In the book “The Mother of God” by the Armenian Apostolic Archimandrite Vatche Iknadiossian, there is an interview of Fr. Iknadiossian by a Catholic periodical.  When asked about the Immaculate Conception he replied, “the dogma of the Immaculate Conception officially proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, was not officially proclaimed by our Church.  Nevertheless we celebrate it as a very great feast, on 9th December (instead of 8th).

December 9 is when we celebrate the Conception of the Mother of God.  I have never seen or heard it described as the "Immaculate Conception" of the Mother of God.  We don't celebrate that.


Quote
We already know what the Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian says. He says that it is not to be accepted as an article of Faith.  You want to bend over backwards to make that mean "the teaching of the IC is a heresy" but you have miserably failed in your efforts.

I and others at my church have been explicitly taught by someone who graduated from St. Nersess Armenian Seminary that the IC is not a belief of our Church.  It could be this was never explicitly addressed in a council or anything.  I don't know.  But I can tell you we don't share that belief with your Church.  Just because something has not been explicitly condemned in a council doesn't mean it isn't rejected. 

I have never heard anyone of any authority say that we believe in the IC.  I have heard it stated by those with authority that we don't.
I absolutely believe you.  You reject it, and eveyone you know rejects it.  However, there are obviously others who do believe it, as evinced by brother DerGhazarian.  If you want to go to CAF, there is a father deacon there named Diak who has had contact with an Armenian priest who personally believes in the IC.  As your Catholicos states, it is not an article of Faith in your Church, but that's all he says about it.

Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" precludes anyone believing it, albeit as theologoumenon (i.e., not as an article of Faith)?

Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" necessarily mean it is heresy?

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #176 on: April 11, 2009, 01:04:12 AM »

Father Ambrose apparently believes that we die as a result of the loss of santifying grace, not the Orthodox and Catholic teaching that BOTH our death AND spiritual privation are IMMEDIATE consequences of the sin of our first parents.  Therefore, he claims, since physical death is immediately caused by loss of sanctifying grace,

The many Catholic distinctions of types of grace - sanctifying grace, prevenient grace, subsequent grace, gratuitous grace, acccidental grace, operating grace, co-operating grace, etc., etc., are quite unknown to the Orthodox.

Quote
then Mary's gaining of sanctifying grace at her conception means she would not die.  Of course, that idea is ludicrous.  You and I ALSO receive the SAME grace (that Mary received at her conception) during our Baptism.  If Father Ambrose's novel belief (or maybe he's just arguing it and not really believing it - you can't tell with polemicists) is true, then this must also mean that you or I will not die, since we get back sanctifying grace at our Baptism.


You have simply not grasped the Catholic distinction between


1.   those who have never known original sin and

2.  those who have known it and been rescued from it by baptism.

In the case of the latter, baptism removes original sin, that is, it restores sanctifying grace.   But it still leaves the consequences of the original loss of sanctifying grace - concupiscence, sickness and death.

In the case of those who have never known original sin, none of the consequences of original sin, including death or corruption in the grave, apply.   Indeed to place the consequences of original sin and the loss of sanctifying grace (death, disease, concupiscence, corruption)on anyone who has never ever been in the state of original sin nor ever lost sanctifying grace would be a transgression of divine justice.



« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 01:07:42 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #177 on: April 11, 2009, 01:22:22 AM »

There are many threads on this forum concerning the Immaculate Conception.  I'm not sure why this one was started, as the issue has been looked at fairly intensely. 

At this point in time, it would seem that you are allowed to believe in the IC and be Orthodox at the same time, as far as I can tell. However, it is still an erroneous doctrine as far as the Orthodox Church  is concerned.  I remember that Metropolitan Kallistos Ware mentioned in The Orthodox Church words to  the effect that it is not problematic.  But I think he is wrong.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #178 on: April 11, 2009, 01:43:08 AM »

Father Ambrose apparently believes that we die as a result of the loss of santifying grace, not the Orthodox and Catholic teaching that BOTH our death AND spiritual privation are IMMEDIATE consequences of the sin of our first parents.  Therefore, he claims, since physical death is immediately caused by loss of sanctifying grace,

The many Catholic distinctions of types of grace - sanctifying grace, prevenient grace, subsequent grace, gratuitous grace, acccidental grace, operating grace, co-operating grace, etc., etc., are quite unknown to the Orthodox.
Is that supposed to be a response?  Your argument over words just demonstrates that you are not Orthodox in your belief over the matter.  What are the consequences of ancestral sin, Father?  

Quote
Quote
then Mary's gaining of sanctifying grace at her conception means she would not die.  Of course, that idea is ludicrous.  You and I ALSO receive the SAME grace (that Mary received at her conception) during our Baptism.  If Father Ambrose's novel belief (or maybe he's just arguing it and not really believing it - you can't tell with polemicists) is true, then this must also mean that you or I will not die, since we get back sanctifying grace at our Baptism.

You have simply not grasped the Catholic distinction between
Says the cow to the horse.

Here's what the Council of Trent taught on the matter:
"If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the command of God...and that through this offense he incurred the wrath and the indignation of God and incurred the death with which God had previously threatened him...let him be anathema."

Here's what the Vatican Council taught on the matter:
"But man, ungrateful to his Creator and Father...incurred the anger and the wrath of God; ...lost holiness and justice for himself;...handed down to the entire human race not only death and corporal punishment, but [also] the death of the soul."

Comment: the "death of the soul" is that state of a lack of sanctifying grace that separates the soul from God.

Mmmmm.  Nothing here about your novel idea that physical death is the direct result of the loss of sanctifying grace.  All we read about from the teaching of the Catholic Church is that physical death is the DIRECT result of the disobedience of our first parents (not that it is the direct result of the loss of sanctifying grace) and that loss of sanctifying grace is ALSO a DIRECT result of the disobedience of our first parents.

Quote from:
In the case of those who have never known original sin, none of the consequences of original sin, including death or corruption in the grave, apply.
Here's a perfect example of the way polemicists will tweak the words of Catholic doctrine for the purpose of misleading others.  The dogma never states that Mary had "never known original sin." The teaching simply states that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.

You never tire of knocking down your straw men, do you.  I do hope you go to confession for bearing false witness before offering the Holy Sacrifice, Father.

Dear Orthodox brethren - if you want to know about the Catholic Church - heck, even if only to criticize her - I beg of you, please do not turn to the words of NON-Catholics, much less the words of ANTI-Catholics, ABOUT the Catholic Church, but find out the information directly from her magisterial documents.  I advise you, don't even take it from a layman such as myself (nor from lay organizations).  I submit to you that the BEST teachers of the Catholic faith would be her own teachers - our ecclesiastical Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 01:46:20 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,901


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #179 on: April 11, 2009, 01:43:39 AM »

If you want to go to CAF, there is a father deacon there named Diak who has had contact with an Armenian priest who personally believes in the IC.  As your Catholicos states, it is not an article of Faith in your Church, but that's all he says about it.

So there's this discussion forum where someone says they know a priest who believes in IC.  That means nothing.  I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant I know who says they know someone who knows a priest who forbids people from reading the Bible.  

Even if this "father deacon" (obviously not an Armenian Orthodox--we don't call our deacons that) really does know a priest who said he believes that, it means nothing.  One priest doesn't represent the Church.  Also, as I said, a lot of Armenians mistake the phrase "Immaculate Conception" to mean something other than what it means in your Church.  Indeed the title of this thread indicates that it is misunderstood by many.  Especially with non-native speakers of English, you get people who think it means the Mother of God was conceived in a miraculous way (as in her parents were very old and infertile,) or they think it means the Virgin Birth of Christ.  I wasn't there for the conversation that took place between this deacon and the priest.  So I can't tell you what he really believes.  All I know is that this is not a teaching of our Church.  

Quote
Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" precludes anyone believing it, albeit as theologoumenon (i.e., not as an article of Faith)?

My problem here is that I don't know what the word "theologoumenon" means.  I've seen the word a few times since I have been here, but I don't know what it is.  I've only seen it used by EO's.

With regard to what individual Armenians believe, there are Armenians out there who believe in just about anything.  There was a guy at my church a few years ago who got involved with some Oneness Pentecostals and then started going around telling people that it is acceptable in the Armenian Church to not believe in the Holy Trinity.  I am also sure that the Armenian Vassula crowd believes in IC, as well as all the other Latin innovations that my Church has rejected over the centuries.  One of those ladies likes to go around telling people that the Pope in Rome is the "vicar of Christ," whatever that means.

Is that what theologoumenon means?  Is it a fancy Greek word for BS?  If that is the case, then yes, it's theologoumenon.  What it is not, however, is a legitimate teaching of my Church.
Logged

Tags: Immaculate Conception Theotokos Lev Gillet 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.26 seconds with 73 queries.