OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Salpy on January 31, 2011, 11:21:05 PM

Title: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on January 31, 2011, 11:21:05 PM
A few weeks ago, on Christmas day in fact, the mother of a friend passed away.  A sweeter Christian woman never lived, and it was really no wonder that she entered into paradise on the day Christ entered the world.  My friend, who called me upset about her mother, said that the only thought that made her feel better was the thought that her mother would be celebrating Christmas in heaven.

Anyway, a few days later my friends and I went to the house of my friend's sister, where the family was sitting in mourning.  We brought lots of things to eat, which is what Armenians do at these times, and we all sat and talked. 

As we were there, another old friend arrived.  I had not seen this woman for a long time, since she had left the Armenian Church.  She is a follower of Vassula Ryden, and her involvement in the Vassula movement caused her to eventually renounce the Armenian Church and convert to the Catholic Church.

Before long, this woman began telling us things that did not sound right.  They were teachings about the Mother of God that just sounded bizarre to me.  My friends and I tried to gently correct her, but she continued on with her assertions. 

I want to pass what she said by our Catholic members here, to see if what she said is really Catholic teaching, or if it is perhaps just some weirdness coming out of the Vassula crowd. 

One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


This all sounded weird to me.  I know that the Mother of God had a unique role in our salvation, by bearing Christ.  I also know that she is the source of His humanity.  I also know that the Wedding at Cana demonstrated what an effective intercessor the Mother of God is.  However, the above things said by this woman seemed to go too far.

I have trouble believing that this correctly represents the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I get the feeling that this woman's main source of instruction has been from people who are in the Vassula movement.  I therefore just assumed that the weird things she was saying could be attributed to that.

However, I just wanted to be sure.  If and when I get into another conversation like this with that woman, or others like her, I'd like to be able to say that I've communicated with other Catholics who said such beliefs are not really the beliefs of their Church.

Unless, of course, what she said really does represent what you guys believe.   :o


 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shiranui117 on January 31, 2011, 11:44:16 PM
It's certainly not anything that we were taught in RCIA, nor anything I've come across since...

And memory eternal to your friend's mother.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 12:13:15 AM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shlomlokh on February 01, 2011, 12:15:01 AM
It's certainly not anything that we were taught in RCIA, nor anything I've come across since...

And memory eternal to your friend's mother.
Yeah, I never heard that either. Although they did tell me that God was also Mother, too.  :o (I do know that is not RC teaching, however).

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: soufliotiki on February 01, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
Vassula is a problematic character and well known among the Orthodox as teaching extremally heretical concepts mixed in with honey ... avoid her teachings like a plague. As for people who follow her smile and let it go in one ear and out the other.

No theological discussion will go anywhere.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 01, 2011, 01:04:52 AM
No theological discussion will go anywhere.

Apt subtitle for most threads on this forum.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 01, 2011, 01:45:32 AM
I have never heard this before either. What exactly is the Vassula movement? I have never heard of it before.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 01, 2011, 02:13:17 AM
Who is Vassula Ryden?

See Message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5925.msg404054/topicseen.html#msg404054

EXCOMMUNICATED by the Church of Greece.

The reason --- taking Communion in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 01, 2011, 02:16:31 AM
Wyatt,

Click on the Vassula tag below and you'll see past threads.  She claims to receive messages from Christ, through a sort of automatic writing.  Some of the things related in the messages are, to put it nicely, a bit strange.

Ironically, one of the main goals of her movement is bringing Orthodox Christians into unity with Rome, yet Pope Benedict won't have anything to do with Vassula.  He has consistently refused to endorse her and has issued statements criticizing her.  Vassula used to be Greek Orthodox, but, as Fr. Ambrose pointed out, the Greek Church has excommunicated her.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 01, 2011, 02:17:11 AM
Personally I love Vassoula to bits.

During her travels in Russia Jesus revealed to her that the Russian Patriarch will push the Pope off his throne and it will be the Russian Patriarch who will be the leader of a united Catholic and Orthodox Church.   :laugh: ;D :laugh:
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 01, 2011, 02:30:05 AM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on February 01, 2011, 02:34:17 AM
Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?

I thought the same thing years ago when watching some documentary on the Shroud of Turin. Apparently they did some tests on it and the blood on it was a woman's blood, to which Roman Catholics were like "Ah, yes, of course, because his blood was Mary's blood." I thought it was totally bizarre at the time, but I suppose it bothers me less now that I'm not a Protestant.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 01, 2011, 02:35:20 AM
Personally I love Vassoula to bits.

During her travels in Russia Jesus revealed to her that the Russian Patriarch will push the Pope off his throne and it will be the Russian Patriarch who will be the leader of a united Catholic and Orthodox Church.   :laugh: ;D :laugh:

You naughty, naughty Irishman, you!  :-* :-* :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: WetCatechumen on February 01, 2011, 03:40:10 AM
A few weeks ago, on Christmas day in fact, the mother of a friend passed away.  A sweeter Christian woman never lived, and it was really no wonder that she entered into paradise on the day Christ entered the world.  My friend, who called me upset about her mother, said that the only thought that made her feel better was the thought that her mother would be celebrating Christmas in heaven.

Anyway, a few days later my friends and I went to the house of my friend's sister, where the family was sitting in mourning.  We brought lots of things to eat, which is what Armenians do at these times, and we all sat and talked. 

As we were there, another old friend arrived.  I had not seen this woman for a long time, since she had left the Armenian Church.  She is a follower of Vassula Ryden, and her involvement in the Vassula movement caused her to eventually renounce the Armenian Church and convert to the Catholic Church.

Before long, this woman began telling us things that did not sound right.  They were teachings about the Mother of God that just sounded bizarre to me.  My friends and I tried to gently correct her, but she continued on with her assertions. 

I want to pass what she said by our Catholic members here, to see if what she said is really Catholic teaching, or if it is perhaps just some weirdness coming out of the Vassula crowd. 

One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


This all sounded weird to me.  I know that the Mother of God had a unique role in our salvation, by bearing Christ.  I also know that she is the source of His humanity.  I also know that the Wedding at Cana demonstrated what an effective intercessor the Mother of God is.  However, the above things said by this woman seemed to go too far.

I have trouble believing that this correctly represents the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I get the feeling that this woman's main source of instruction has been from people who are in the Vassula movement.  I therefore just assumed that the weird things she was saying could be attributed to that.

However, I just wanted to be sure.  If and when I get into another conversation like this with that woman, or others like her, I'd like to be able to say that I've communicated with other Catholics who said such beliefs are not really the beliefs of their Church.

Unless, of course, what she said really does represent what you guys believe.   :o


 


Well, in response to this, the woman is nuts, and doesn't represent Catholic teaching. Mary is the co-savior of mankind only in that she assisted in the salvation of every man through her bearing of Jesus Christ. Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen. However, it wasn't as if what she did was necessarily salvific - it was only so because of its relation to her son, whom she herself calls her Savior.

Mary did save us by consenting to God's will that she bear Christ. However, the power to consent was given to her by God and the salvific act of the Incarnation was performed by God and the passion, death, and resurrection were performed by God.

He is the sole savior of the universe, but Mary did assist him in the salvation of every single human being.

She is also right about the biological fact that we can say that Mary shared her blood with Christ and that it was Christ's blood and therefore Mary's blood that saved us - but it saved us because it was Christ's blood.

Furthermore, simple because at one point in time Mary's blood was mingled with Christ's blood doesn't make her physically present in communion - we don't teach that. However, because she is united to Christ we are united to her through the Eucharist - but only through Christ, and only inasmuch as we are united to all other Christians.

Long story short: we don't believe that "Mary's blood" is in the chalice, and we don't believe that she is the savior of the world.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 07:24:54 AM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?
There is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the Theotokos, under the title Immaculata, of Maximillian Kolbe, a modern canonized saint of the Vatican.  Some wherehere I and Fr. Ambrose have posted on this, but here is something on it from a Vatican authority
http://www.markmiravalle.com/uncategorized/11/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix/

That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 08:03:31 AM
From the above article:

Quote
The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

Quote
We must seek to view Mary from the perspective of the Father, as the Virgin Daughter Immaculate, his greatest masterpiece. We must view Mary afresh from the perspective of the Son, as perfect Mother in the order of love, and most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 08:15:39 AM
From the above article:

Quote
The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

Quote
We must seek to view Mary from the perspective of the Father, as the Virgin Daughter Immaculate, his greatest masterpiece. We must view Mary afresh from the perspective of the Son, as perfect Mother in the order of love, and most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.
Yes, and Dr. Mark Miravalle is a mainstream authority of the Vatican's teachings.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 01, 2011, 08:28:55 AM
Quote
most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

Presumably Mary continues with her intimate role in redemption with her divine Son and one day she will appear with Him as our Co-Judge and co-Punisher.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 09:47:28 AM
Quote
most intimate partner and co-redeemer in the historic sufferings of Redemption. We must view Mary from the perspective of the Spirit, as his entirely pure and eternally faithful spouse, in a certain sense his “quasi-incarnation,” and the Mediatrix of all of the Sanctifier’s gifts to humanity. Only by seeking to comprehend the Immaculate One with the mind of the Trinity, and striving to love her through the heart of the Trinity, can we hope to do even partial justice to her.

Presumably Mary continues with her intimate role in redemption with her divine Son and one day she will appear with Him as our Co-Judge and co-Punisher.

Actually, if I understand correctly, Jesus and Mary each rule half of the kingdom, He over the kingdom of justice, and her over the kingdom of mercy, so justice and punishment would be all his.

Quote
The Grand Chancellor of Paris, John Gerson, meditating on these words of David: "These two things have I heard, that power belongs to God, and mercy to you, O Lord" (Ps 61:12-13), reasoned this way - since God's kingdom consists of two elements, justice and mercy, God decided to divide his kingdom. Justice he reserved to himself; mercy he transmitted to Mary, ordaining that all mercies which come to human beings should come through Mary's hands, and that these mercies should be distributed according to her choice. Saint Thomas, in the preface to his commentary on the Canonical Epistles holds the same opinion. He says that when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal Word in her womb, she obtained half of his kingdom. Mary became the queen of mercy, he says, while the distribution of justice remained in the hands of her son.

http://www.sanpiodapietrelcina.org/english/glories.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 01, 2011, 11:44:15 AM
No theological discussion will go anywhere.

Apt subtitle for most threads on this forum.


lol
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 01, 2011, 11:47:52 AM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.

Regarding Christ having His mother's blood, as you said it's the kind of thing that initially "makes sense on the surface," but isn't Christ's blood really His own?  I mean, in a sense my blood is that of my mother and father in that it came from them, but it is still uniquely my blood.  Don't children have different blood types from their parents?  Don't children have different DNA from their parents?
There is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the Theotokos, under the title Immaculata, of Maximillian Kolbe, a modern canonized saint of the Vatican.  Some wherehere I and Fr. Ambrose have posted on this, but here is something on it from a Vatican authority
http://www.markmiravalle.com/uncategorized/11/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix/

That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

Not while Benedict is Pope. but you may be right as to the long term as there are many Marian cultists floating around.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 01, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 01, 2011, 12:49:41 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 01, 2011, 01:31:32 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

Yes.  We either believe in God's Providence or we don't.  Can't have it one way, one day, and another the next.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 01, 2011, 01:48:40 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 01:50:44 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 01, 2011, 01:53:10 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2011, 01:59:58 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 02:15:40 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.
I don't disagree. But then again, neither did the Holy Theotokos, hence the success.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 02:19:54 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
yes, you can help nudge the supreme pontiff towards his cathedra to usher in the New Age
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/
Dr. Miravalle can make Vassula look sober.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 01, 2011, 02:21:49 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 01, 2011, 02:46:53 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.



Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 01, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.



Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.

Looking over my last couple of posts, I have more typos and dropped more words than normal. Not feeling well, so I apologize about that.

I've probably heard Fr. Hopko's podcast. I looked up some other material on the subject. I never got the whole "Mary thing" from the RCC perspective among other stuff.

Without getting into the more "speculative" elements in Orthodoxy about Mary (read Bulgakov), being present during the Liturgy, listening to the wonderful hymns weaving all the OT typology pre-figuring Mary, reading (limited mind you) the Church Fathers and listening to more podcasts from Orthodox thinkers on the subject that probably anyone should, it just seems simply "right" that Mary was uniquely the woman who worked with God to be able to give birth and care for and raise Jesus, the Logos incarnate.

All the theology aside, I can say that my very difficult relationship with my mother was transformed in no small way due to my limited appreciation of the role of Mary as a woman and a mother and the incredible synergy of her predecessors and her own with God to allow such an awesome thing to occur.

If I am rambling, I apologize.

Basically, seeing Mary as much as Christ prefigured amid the awful violence, incredible sexual immorality, etc. of the OT and how all that how to be worked out and was able to be worked out by people working with God gradually over time not in spite of these "problems" but within them, allowed me a much more generous and charitable spirit to the incredible difficulties of my own family and my own responsibility for what I inherited.

If my inquiry into Orthodoxy allowed me that grace alone, I would be convinced of its truth.

Never did I think I would have such love and compassion for my family again not in spite of the pain suffering but amid it. I did not do it on my own.

And please anyone feel free to correct me on my next statement, perhaps it is not Orthodox or perhaps improper:

It is through the person of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ that was perhaps the greatest catalyst for that change.

Perhaps that is overly sentimental or less than Christo-centric. If so, I would be glad for the correction.



 




Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Walter on February 01, 2011, 03:43:26 PM
I was raised in a RC environment, and have never heard of Mary being co-Redeemer; co-Redemptrix, yes. This has led many RC's to perceive the Theotokos as sharing equally in our redemption, which she does not. I do not believe this philosophy has infiltrated the Byzantine Catholic circles, but with them being more Latinized, it may have.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 01, 2011, 04:02:21 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.
He could have found another, but, it was Mary that He created for this particular purpose.

I don't disagree.  I'm just a little picky when it comes to language that limits God's salvation based on actions of people.

My priest puts it "God didn't have a Plan B."

God didn't have a plan B because He knows plan A will work.
I don't disagree. But then again, neither did the Holy Theotokos, hence the success.

Yes, thank God and thank the Theotokos for that.

I'm just saying that to say that if the Theotokos didn't accept, we would have never been saved is as if salvation primarily depended on the Theotokos' "yes."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Schultz on February 01, 2011, 04:06:04 PM
I was raised in a RC environment, and have never heard of Mary being co-Redeemer; co-Redemptrix, yes. This has led many RC's to perceive the Theotokos as sharing equally in our redemption, which she does not. I do not believe this philosophy has infiltrated the Byzantine Catholic circles, but with them being more Latinized, it may have.

Redemptrix is just the feminine of Redeemer. 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 01, 2011, 04:08:56 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.

The Theotokos will forever be the unrivaled chosen vessel of our salvation, and she deserves our veneration.  I do not wish to lessen her role.  She became for us a Mother in a true sense, the mother of our salvation.

I'm only arguing against putting too much credit that without her, salvation can never be achieved.  That simply means to me that this puts too much emphasis on equating her with salvation, not merely as the most important and active participant of our salvation.

Quote
I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

Lord have mercy!  I hope you get well soon.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 01, 2011, 04:32:41 PM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.
Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.
As it rightly should. That sounds terribly heretical to me.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 01, 2011, 04:32:41 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 05:09:07 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 01, 2011, 05:18:03 PM
, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way.

Define "special way."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance,

co-conspirator; co-religionist; co-chair; co-chairman; co-Redeemer; co-Mediator; co-anchor ... so is the Virgin Mary an assistant to (or an employee of) Christ when it comes to redeeming and mediating?  The Orthodox believe that the Virgin Mary intercedes to Christ our King and our God on our behalf and not as an equal Mediator, Redeemer, etc.

but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

Mary obeyed God; she did not cooperate with God unlike the Pope and Mussolini who cooperated in having the Lateran Treaty signed.  I don't see Mussolini recognized as a Co-Redeemer and Co-Mediator of the Vatican....   ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 01, 2011, 05:44:39 PM
Without her, salvation would not have happened because that is how God ordained it to happen.

I wouldn't go this far.  First, what happened has happened thank God.  But I believe if not Mary, then God would have found another.

I remember we had a discussion about St. Paul.  Without St. Paul, would Christianity be successful?  The answer was, God would have found another "Paul."

This should therefore elevate the importance and omnipotence of God to a higher level.

I don't know about that statement. There is a reason for the genealogies. God words with persons. Mary was THE person who responding properly and worked with God to make the incarnation possible. She is the flower of the Old Covenant.

Could another appeared. I don't know enough about the theology behind this. But I have heard more than a few lectures about Mary's role in salvation that specifically stated she was necessary.

God not just pick any womb to become incarnate within.

Others here can probably cite the various historical statements supporting this view. I am dying of the flu right now or I would try to provide more citations.

But it is clear that God chose persons throughout history and within history who could to whatever degree they could work with him. Mary was the greatest born who would see the risen Christ while alive. John the Forerunner the greatest who would not.

Mary is necessary to the process of the Salvation of us all. As were all who preceded her. But she was the one uniquely capable of working with God.



Fr. Tom Hopko spoke to this at our Sunday of Orthodoxy in 2009, I think that his talk has been given before and may be on AFR.

However, as to the RCC, I don't think that Benedict is enamored with the " co-redemptrix 'dogma' " as was his predecessor. Should it be promulgated 'ex cathedra'  I suspect it would mark the end of EO/RCC dialogue which would make some here quite happy.

Looking over my last couple of posts, I have more typos and dropped more words than normal. Not feeling well, so I apologize about that.

I've probably heard Fr. Hopko's podcast. I looked up some other material on the subject. I never got the whole "Mary thing" from the RCC perspective among other stuff.

Without getting into the more "speculative" elements in Orthodoxy about Mary (read Bulgakov), being present during the Liturgy, listening to the wonderful hymns weaving all the OT typology pre-figuring Mary, reading (limited mind you) the Church Fathers and listening to more podcasts from Orthodox thinkers on the subject that probably anyone should, it just seems simply "right" that Mary was uniquely the woman who worked with God to be able to give birth and care for and raise Jesus, the Logos incarnate.

All the theology aside, I can say that my very difficult relationship with my mother was transformed in no small way due to my limited appreciation of the role of Mary as a woman and a mother and the incredible synergy of her predecessors and her own with God to allow such an awesome thing to occur.

If I am rambling, I apologize.

Basically, seeing Mary as much as Christ prefigured amid the awful violence, incredible sexual immorality, etc. of the OT and how all that how to be worked out and was able to be worked out by people working with God gradually over time not in spite of these "problems" but within them, allowed me a much more generous and charitable spirit to the incredible difficulties of my own family and my own responsibility for what I inherited.

If my inquiry into Orthodoxy allowed me that grace alone, I would be convinced of its truth.

Never did I think I would have such love and compassion for my family again not in spite of the pain suffering but amid it. I did not do it on my own.

And please anyone feel free to correct me on my next statement, perhaps it is not Orthodox or perhaps improper:

It is through the person of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ that was perhaps the greatest catalyst for that change.

Perhaps that is overly sentimental or less than Christo-centric. If so, I would be glad for the correction.



 






It seems to me that you have indeed a correct Orthodox perspective on the Theotokas. Hope you feel better soon!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 01, 2011, 06:36:57 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.
Oh dear.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2011, 07:37:22 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

How does one's "cooperation" result in one being labeled (by man, never mind by anything else): "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediatrix?"  Sounds like a rather huge logical fallacy....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 01, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
It is blasphemy to say we owe our salvation to anybody but Christ Jesus the Messiah.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 01, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.
Oh dear.

Why?  You recalling all those hymns you sing about her being just a plain jane, ordinary kinda gal?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 07:46:02 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood.
That's like saying it is not murder when properly excused.

It is a heresy. Many in the Vatican's following-including your supreme pontiff I am told-condemn it.  But I have no doubt, that like the IC, its partisans are not going to give up, and will push until the Vatican makes it dogma, like the IC.
Quote
The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have.
Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.
Quote
She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate.
Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.
Quote
It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart.
It is blasphemous to put her in God's league. "Behold! the handmaiden of the Lord." Not "the colleague."  As your Saint Bernart said, only one conception was sinless.
Quote
She housed the One who would bring us salvation.
Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.
Quote
That hardly makes her ordinary.
That hardly gives a reason to overreact and exceed proper bounds.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 07:48:18 PM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm
Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.
and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.
It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.
Oh dear.

Why?  You recalling all those hymns you sing about her being just a plain jane, ordinary kinda gal?
maybe all those apparitions you all put so much stock in, which characterize her as a goddess of wrath.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2011, 07:55:15 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 07:57:49 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Yes, it seems they don't say what they mean, and don't mean what they say.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shlomlokh on February 01, 2011, 08:06:48 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Yes, it seems they don't say what they mean, and don't mean what they say.
Heaven forbid if we try to figure out what the actual belief is! We get accused of being ignorant or worse alterior motives and purposefully lying. I don't why it must be so confusing and why Rome can't just give the skinny once and for all.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 09:35:54 PM
Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.
Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics?  That sounds odd to me also.
As it rightly should. That sounds terribly heretical to me.

I'm not so sure Miravalle would agree. What I described sounds suspiciously familiar to the "quasi-incarnation" described above by Isa.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 09:40:32 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."


Well to be fair, we have to come up with our share of similar explanations...

"When we say "most holy Theotokos save us", what we really mean is...
"When we say, "Theotokos, turn not thy servants away with empty hands, for thee alone do we have as our only hope."
what we really mean is...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on February 01, 2011, 09:47:42 PM
In fairness to our RC brethern, we should recognize that they are caught in a logic trap, even though it is a trap of their own making. The trap is a simply one: they cannot admit to being wrong since that would destroy the Papacy (not the Church mind you but the institution of Papacy). So, they are forever twisting in the wind, explaining away instead of repudiating wrong, heretical, undeeded, and undesired dogmas. Ever since Vatican II, they have been glossing over the more obviously wrong aspects of their heresies--just like Ozgeorge pointed out. I think that instead of getting mad at their stance, we should pray that they will be able to transition to a clearer understanding of the error of their ways and resign themselves to the fact that the demise of the Papacy is an absolute requirement for all of us to go forward in the fullness of faith.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 01, 2011, 10:37:00 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 01, 2011, 10:41:56 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

Agreed, this isn't fair. Vassula is a problem both EO and RC has to contend with.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 01, 2011, 10:44:00 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

Who need sticks when we have fire!? Get 'em Orthodox!

(http://orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/angry-mob.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 01, 2011, 10:44:51 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."


I think I could come up with a similar list for the Orthodox, though I don't think you'd agree with my list...  :-*
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 01, 2011, 11:02:47 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

It's not irony.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2011, 11:45:16 PM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."


I think I could come up with a similar list for the Orthodox, though I don't think you'd agree with my list...  :-*
Agreement isn't the issue. consistentsy is.

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 01, 2011, 11:48:53 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 01, 2011, 11:50:50 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  

That's not irony.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 02, 2011, 12:09:25 AM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.   :)

The Vassula promoters I know in the Armenian community will talk nonstop about how the Catholic Church is the true Church, the Catholic Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" (whatever that is supposed to be), etc.  They do everything they can to get their fellow Armenians to start attending Catholic masses and take communion there.  They do what they can to get other Armenians to venerate Catholic saints and say the rosary, instead of prayers from the Armenian Church.

However, Pope Benedict won't endorse Vassula or her movement, and in fact has warned people to stay away from Vassula.  So these people are involved in a movement whose goal is to bring people under a Pope who rejects them.  I just thought that was irony.  But again, I may not understand what irony is.   :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 12:13:35 AM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.

You understand it quite well.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 12:13:53 AM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.

You understand it quite well.

This is irony.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: WetCatechumen on February 02, 2011, 12:14:15 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."


"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"


This can be played all day.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 12:16:49 AM
Agreement isn't the issue. consistentsy is.

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 12:17:50 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."


"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"


This can be played all day.

Sorry but most of these examples look like pure fail even from this ignoramus.

They don't at all track with what OZ was getting at, or whoever started the list of RCC rational mysteries.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 12:30:17 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.

"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 12:33:20 AM
Agreement isn't the issue. consistentsy is.

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.
We would have to have an example then.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 12:55:53 AM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her.  It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.  

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.

You understand it quite well.

This is irony.

It is ALSO sarcasm (a subset of irony) and stupid on my part. Forgive me for my offense if any were taken.

Just wiki irony. A pet peeve of mine that people just use "irony" to mean any number of things.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 02, 2011, 01:05:11 AM
I am absolutely not offended.   :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 01:10:35 AM
We would have to have an example then.

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Cognomen on February 02, 2011, 01:17:30 AM
A pet peeve of mine that people just use "irony" to mean any number of things.

You're as bad as I am about correcting people on the usage of "begs the question."   :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 01:20:52 AM
We would have to have an example then.

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."

There is no example above.

I don't think the point is that aspects of Orthodoxy require some filling out, but rather some very basic dogmas of the RCC while rational and absolutely sensible according the apologists here require an enormous amount of explanation, which evidently only a few experts can sufficiently answer.

To use a word to describe work I did in a former life, some of their basic dogmas are simply inelegant, if not unintelligible. And mind you, the RCC insists these dogmas are in fact intelligible.




Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 01:21:40 AM
A pet peeve of mine that people just use "irony" to mean any number of things.

You're as bad as I am about correcting people on the usage of "begs the question."   :)

That is my outdoor pet peeve.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: WetCatechumen on February 02, 2011, 01:40:02 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.

"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?

You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shiranui117 on February 02, 2011, 01:43:25 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.

"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?

You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.
But it's a much shorter and simpler explanation than the things ozgeorge posited; those five require much more in-depth explanation.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Cognomen on February 02, 2011, 01:43:57 AM
A pet peeve of mine that people just use "irony" to mean any number of things.

You're as bad as I am about correcting people on the usage of "begs the question."   :)

That is my outdoor pet peeve.
Not quite sure how to classify that.  ;)

Okay, back on topic:
Agreement isn't the issue. consistentsy is.

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.
We would have to have an example then.

I still think the Theotokos example you explained is similar. Orthodox are forced to explain why two identical words are used to represent two different understandings of the same word.  Without explanations, such as the one you gave, it could imply a false teaching.

That said, I think OzGeorge's examples and observation of a trend seems quite accurate.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 01:46:47 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.

"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?

You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.
But it's a much shorter and simpler explanation than the things ozgeorge posited; those five require much more in-depth explanation.

Too bad you replied sensibly. He was about to get the Jesus Facepalm.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shiranui117 on February 02, 2011, 01:48:08 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.

"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?

You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.
But it's a much shorter and simpler explanation than the things ozgeorge posited; those five require much more in-depth explanation.

Too bad you replied sensibly. He was about to get the Jesus Facepalm.
Oh, fine, you can go ahead and do it anyway.  :angel:
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Cognomen on February 02, 2011, 01:49:13 AM
You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.

I don't think the explanations were required though. The explanations given just showed how explainable they were, unlike the examples Ozgeorge gave.  
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 01:51:22 AM
Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:
"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "infallible", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."
"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......"
the Mother of God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)
"When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......"
the Patriach of the Ecumene, i.e. the Roman Empire.  The term Ecumenical was used by the Imperial Chancerllary for "Imperial."
"When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......"
We don't say "worship icons." Your Protestant siblings say that. You will have to take it up with them what they mean by it.
"When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......"
God is One: "We believe in One God..."
"When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......"
AFAIR, we don't say "God is Three." Can you quote us on that?
"When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......"
Our All-Holy, most blessed and glorified Lady Theotokos.
(http://www.dormitionskete.org/ImageFiles/ds/cathedral/10SanctuaryApse.jpg)
"When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......"
Consubstantial or One in Essence. Take your pick: all three mean the same.
"When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......"
First bishop, the one who comes first in the diptychs or heads the Holy Synod.
"When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"
Pray to saints. As God told Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him, told Job's companions to have him pray for them.

This can be played all day.
Indeed it can. Can you score at it though?
You had to explain all of them. My point is proven.
I had only to repeat them. So it is proven you had no point.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 01:55:10 AM
We would have to have an example then.

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."
No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says.  We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 02:18:04 AM
No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says.  We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Well if that was his point, then I disagree with him even more than I realised  :D  I don't think they are engaged in double-talk, I think they are admirably trying to struggle with things that are difficult to conceive of, let alone put into words.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 02:28:29 AM
No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says.  We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Well if that was his point, then I disagree with him even more than I realised  :D  I don't think they are engaged in double-talk, I think they are admirably trying to struggle with things that are difficult to conceive of, let alone put into words.
LOL. It doesn't help that they are incorrect, things that never happened, offices that do not exist, charims that are not given, mysteries not revealed....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 02, 2011, 02:41:50 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
LOL. It doesn't help that they are incorrect, things that never happened, offices that do not exist, charims that are not given, mysteries not revealed....

Well now, that's what is at issue ;) I can't dismiss things quite so quickly... but then I haven't been at this as long as some, so maybe that will change over time...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 03:06:50 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Now you're catching on!  :P
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 03:07:32 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Spawn? I see it more as a "co"-operative effort. Not quite equal to Satan, but having a special role in the fall of all that is good. Now you might ask what that "special" role is, well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ad infinitum.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 02, 2011, 03:20:10 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Spawn? I see it more as a "co"-operative effort. Not quite equal to Satan, but having a special role in the fall of all that is good. Now you might ask what that "special" role is, well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ad infinitum.

Yes, this is true. There is no such thing as a "spawn of satan". That was a heresy invented by the RCC during the dark ages...and ironically enough, used to apply towards the EOC ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 06:38:22 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Another way of looking at it is that Vassoula Ryden is simply picking up on popularist movements in the Roman Catholic Church (the "Fifth Marian Dogma" movement which will lead to the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart" etc.) The existence of these popularist movements are not new and similar popularist movements lead to two Popes "Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia#Consecration_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 02, 2011, 08:07:33 AM
Let us pray the Holy words of the Apostle St. Thaddeus whom Christ instructed to resolve this issue of incorrect teachings on the Virgin Mary :

For the  memorial of the blessed St. Mary, the holy Virgin, the mother of Christ our  Savior and Life-giver, let us pray . . . - That the Holy  Spirit who dwelt in her may sanctify us in his loving-kindness, perfect in us  his will, and seal in us his truth all the days of our life
-Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari (oldest conitinuing Liturgy in existence)

God willing we can find the perfect balance to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary without compromising our faith...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: bogdan on February 02, 2011, 10:41:57 AM
There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:
http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

"Advocate: As Advocate our petitions flow back to the Trinity through Mary. She is our human connection to the Trinity."

I thought Christ's human nature was our human connection to the Trinity?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 02, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Another way of looking at it is that Vassoula Ryden is simply picking up on popularist movements in the Roman Catholic Church (the "Fifth Marian Dogma" movement which will lead to the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart" etc.) The existence of these popularist movements are not new and similar popularist movements lead to two Popes "Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia#Consecration_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church).

I would call them popular cults, rather than movements but that may just be semantics. Just as within our own house, certain well-intentioned, but ultimately incorrect beliefs may be popularized and even seem from the outside to be overwhelming, but I suspect that in the end, such practices don't really amount to much.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Iconodule on February 02, 2011, 10:51:46 AM
God willing we can find the perfect balance to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary without compromising our faith...

That balance was achieved by St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 02, 2011, 11:18:36 AM
God willing we can find the perfect balance to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary without compromising our faith...

That balance was achieved by St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus.

Can you refresh me what the outcome of that was?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 01:00:22 PM
This thread, in summary:

"Vassula Ryden, a would-be prophetess, has been rejected by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan."

:)

Another way of looking at it is that Vassoula Ryden is simply picking up on popularist movements in the Roman Catholic Church (the "Fifth Marian Dogma" movement which will lead to the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart" etc.) The existence of these popularist movements are not new and similar popularist movements lead to two Popes "Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia#Consecration_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church).

I would call them popular cults, rather than movements but that may just be semantics. Just as within our own house, certain well-intentioned, but ultimately incorrect beliefs may be popularized and even seem from the outside to be overwhelming, but I suspect that in the end, such practices don't really amount to much.
Cults they may well be, however the Fatima "cult" managed to cause the leader of the RC Church to act in accordance with it's wishes (by "consecrating" Russia to the "Immaculate Heart"). This constitutes a movement.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 02, 2011, 03:53:35 PM
I've never really understood why asking the Theotokos to especially bless a nation about to undergo a violent revolution is so objectionable, but that's probably just me.

(Question: would you have any problem consecrating Egypt to the protection of the Theotokos? Or would that be offensive because some Egyptians are Orthodox?)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 04:09:35 PM
I've never really understood why asking the Theotokos to especially bless a nation about to undergo a violent revolution is so objectionable, but that's probably just me.

(Question: would you have any problem consecrating Egypt to the protection of the Theotokos? Or would that be offensive because some Egyptians are Orthodox?)
Russia wasn't the Vatican's to consecrate to anything, let alone the "Immaculate Heart," a cult which strikes the Orthodox as bizarre itself, let alone being mixed with the heresy of the IC.

Then there is the stated goal:
Quote
"I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart...If people attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace."...In response to Sister Lucy's question why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father consecrating that nation to His Mother's Immaculate Heart, Our Lord replied "Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later and put the devotion of the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."
Russia was converted over a thousand years ago.  It doesn't need to apostacize to the cult of the Immaculate Heart and all that that entails.

As for Egypt, the Lord has already claimed her "Blessed be Egypt My people"
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 02, 2011, 04:20:35 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 02, 2011, 04:27:57 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.

Orthodox prayer is complex. For instance, even prayer books printed more than a decade after the fall of communism still have prayers for the "suffering Russian people". I guess God can retroactively apply the prayers or something. It's best to just not ask, IMO  ;D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 02, 2011, 05:25:21 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

You can't really reach a contrary conclusion if you read this http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp. From that you can see why Orthodox are offended at least.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 02, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.
That's funny, considering that almost all Catholics I know thought that Fatima was about overcoming the evils of communism.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: vianney on February 02, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
I want to deal with some strange information regarding Vassula. First of all I am a Catholic priest (for 35 years). There are NO unorthodox (as far as Catholics are concerned) teachings about the Virgin Mary in Vassula's writings. I have known Vassula for 10 years and I have read her writings. The Notification issued by the Vatican (which has the status of a warning and nothing else) makes NO MENTION of any such "teachings". The Catholic who posted those strange things about Our Lady is badly mistaken and seemingly very badly instructed. Co-Redemptorix DOES NOT MEAN Our Lady is on the same level as Christ - how could it? Nor do we teach (either the RC Church or Vassula) that we are saved by Mary's blood. That is sheer heresy. There was a heresy like this at one time - I think it came from France and it involved the Eucharist. It was condemned. It is, in any case, incorrect - medically or scientifically speaking - to simply identify the blood of a child with his or her parents, except perhaps by rare blood type. Anyone who knows anything at all about the human body will know this. We can say that Jesus received His blood through Mary - or even from her, since she is the only human agent involved in His birth, but this is NOT THE SAME THING as saying it is the same blood! Whoever teaches this nonsense, it is not Vassula nor anyone I know.

I am fed up with all the nonsense I see about Vassula - most of it completely wrong if not misrepresentation. For example she has not excommunicated herself. She belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa to whom she has submitted her pofession of faith. She is not "banned" by the Catholic Church. The Notification was answered in dialogue with the Congregation for the Faith and she met Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope - and he knew about her answers and approved of them. Please stop all this nonsense and get your facts straight.

Fr. John Abberton (blog: yorkshireshepherd.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shanghaiski on February 02, 2011, 06:42:57 PM
It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

Not to beat Roman Catholics, but that church received her. Now, it may be difficult to depose crazy Roman Catholic bishops once they're in power, but one has to wonder about receiving weirdos. Not that we don't, but one has to wonder what some people were thinking. I do all the time when I read of crazy so-called "Orthodox" people.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
I want to deal with some strange information regarding Vassula. First of all I am a Catholic priest (for 35 years). There are NO unorthodox (as far as Catholics are concerned) teachings about the Virgin Mary in Vassula's writings. I have known Vassula for 10 years and I have read her writings. The Notification issued by the Vatican (which has the status of a warning and nothing else) makes NO MENTION of any such "teachings". The Catholic who posted those strange things about Our Lady is badly mistaken and seemingly very badly instructed. Co-Redemptorix DOES NOT MEAN Our Lady is on the same level as Christ - how could it? Nor do we teach (either the RC Church or Vassula) that we are saved by Mary's blood. That is sheer heresy. There was a heresy like this at one time - I think it came from France and it involved the Eucharist. It was condemned. It is, in any case, incorrect - medically or scientifically speaking - to simply identify the blood of a child with his or her parents, except perhaps by rare blood type. Anyone who knows anything at all about the human body will know this. We can say that Jesus received His blood through Mary - or even from her, since she is the only human agent involved in His birth, but this is NOT THE SAME THING as saying it is the same blood! Whoever teaches this nonsense, it is not Vassula nor anyone I know.

I am fed up with all the nonsense I see about Vassula - most of it completely wrong if not misrepresentation. For example she has not excommunicated herself. She belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa to whom she has submitted her pofession of faith. She is not "banned" by the Catholic Church. The Notification was answered in dialogue with the Congregation for the Faith and she met Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope - and he knew about her answers and approved of them. Please stop all this nonsense and get your facts straight.

Fr. John Abberton (blog: yorkshireshepherd.blogspot.com)

If she belongs to the Pope of Alexandria, why is she submitting her answers for approval to the Pope in the Vatican?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: vianney on February 02, 2011, 06:59:18 PM
Vassula has many Catholics reading her writings. She has been attacked by some Catholics as she has been attacked by some Orthodox. Why? She is not saying anything wrong. However, because of this she has tried to answer objections from both Catholic and Orthodox. Since her writings are especially about Unity it makes sense to try to dialogue with Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Some of your questions will be answered by simply reading her writings.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 07:14:59 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

You can't really reach a contrary conclusion if you read this http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp. From that you can see why Orthodox are offended at least.
You can even sign an online petition to Pope Benedict via secure website that he does the job "right" this time and "consecrate" Russia to the Immaculate Circulatory System Organ so that Russia really converts....from Communism is it theistgirl/Papist?
https://secure.fatima.org/forms/petition.asp
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 07:16:08 PM
Vassula has many Catholics reading her writings. She has been attacked by some Catholics as she has been attacked by some Orthodox. Why? She is not saying anything wrong. However, because of this she has tried to answer objections from both Catholic and Orthodox. Since her writings are especially about Unity it makes sense to try to dialogue with Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Some of your questions will be answered by simply reading her writings.
Quote
Orthodox! Catholics! Protestants! You all belong to Me! You are all One in My Eyes! I do not make any distinction...

My Vassula draw three iron bars with a head on the top
 

these represent the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Protestants, I want them to bend and unite but these iron bars are still very stiff and cannot bend on their own, so I shall have to come to them with My Fire and with the power of My Flame upon them they shall turn soft to bend and mould into one solid iron bar, and My Glory will fill the whole earth  

Message of October 27, 1987
http://www.tlig.org/en/churchunity/
She has her nails, we have our pillars
(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)
who do not bend, despite the hellfire of whoever is speaking to Vassula, because it can't distinguish between the Body of Christ and Double Headed, dismembered body of ultramontanism and Protestantism, it can't be the Lord's  voice she is harkening to.

Quote
Moreover, by habitually sharing in the sacraments of the Catholic Church even though she is Greek Orthodox, Mrs. Ryden is causing considerable surprise in various circles of the Catholic Church. She appears to be putting herself above all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and every canonical norm, and in effect, is creating an ecumenical disorder that irritates many authorities, ministers and faithful of her own Church, as she puts herself outside the ecclesiastical discipline of the latter.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrydn1.htm
She communes with you, she is all yours.
Quote
"The Committee, having examined the evidence, has reached the conclusion that Vassula Ryden has expelled herself
  • from the Orthodox Church, although she still presents herself as a member.


In addition it should be known that the Church periodical "Dialogos" in its issues number 14 and 17 (...) has printed extensive reports regarding Vassula Ryden's organization.

Vassula asked the Greek Minister of Justice to bring to trial for slander and libel both the Secretary of the Greek Orthodox Synodal Commission on Heresies, Fr. Kyriakos Tsouros, and the Church publication. The trial was scheduled for 30 June 2000; however Ryden withdrew the charge two days before the hearing." (Dialogos, issue number 25, page 32, 2001.)

  • The Greek text uses the word ekpései, which is of difficult translation. In fact, some websites have translated it as "excommunicated". According to the Orthodox source we consulted, the literal translation of the text would be: "she threw herself out of the Orthodox Church". Another source suggested: "Vassula Ryden is cut off from the Orthodox Church". The Committee is therefore stating that Mrs Ryden excommunicated herself from her Church. From what we have been able to gather, the main reason is that she does not act as an Orthodox faithful since she does not respect canonical discipline, for instance by regularly receiving Catholic Sacraments, which is considered a form of resigning from the Orthodox Church (see also: "May Vassula Ryden receive Holy Communion when participating in Catholic Masses?"). [/size]
http://www.infovassula.ch/tliggreekorthodox.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 02, 2011, 07:43:12 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

You can't really reach a contrary conclusion if you read this http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp. From that you can see why Orthodox are offended at least.

This is a private site about a private vision.  If you want to be offended...go right on.  Personally I'd ignore it rather than taking offense at it.  But even at that there's no indication that it is meant to be contra-Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 08:00:53 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

You can't really reach a contrary conclusion if you read this http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp. From that you can see why Orthodox are offended at least.

This is a private site about a private vision.
Yeah, try to deny Fatima at any gathering of Vatican supporters, and see how far you get.  Ditto Lourdes, which forms part of the basis for Maximillian Kolbe's heretical Mariolatry.

Quote
Personally I'd ignore it rather than taking offense at it.
But then it's not your ox being gored now, is it?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 08:15:10 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

You can't really reach a contrary conclusion if you read this http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecra.asp. From that you can see why Orthodox are offended at least.

This is a private site about a private vision.  If you want to be offended...go right on.  Personally I'd ignore it rather than taking offense at it.  But even at that there's no indication that it is meant to be contra-Orthodoxy.

1) If it was only a "private revelation", why did two Popes obey it's commands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia#Consecration_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church) and "consecrate Russia to the "Immaculate Heart". Should Popes be making public acts based on private revelation as though they were a kind of Delphic Oracle?

2) If it's not "contra-Orthodoxy" then why do the followers of the Fatima cult still want to "Convert Russia" (https://secure.fatima.org/forms/petition.asp)? convert it from what?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 08:20:21 PM
All I know about "Fatima" is that it was not an infrequent subject on "Coast to Coast".

That sums it up for me.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 02, 2011, 08:33:29 PM
Welcome to the forum, vianney.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.

Do you pray now that is be saved from the evils of capitalism?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 02, 2011, 09:11:21 PM
Now that I'm starting my own small business (just filed my DBA today yay! :) ), I'm not too worried about the evils of capitalism. :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 02, 2011, 09:27:16 PM
The Notification was answered in dialogue with the Congregation for the Faith and she met Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope - and he knew about her answers and approved of them.

Welcome Father.   :)

I know that Vassula and her followers said that the Vatican changed its position due to the dialogue, but it is my understanding that it did not change its position:


Quote
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

January 25, 2007

Prot. N.: 54/92 – 24945

 

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continues to receive requests for clarification in relation to the writings and activities of Mrs Vassula Rydén. These requests address in particular the import of the Notification of 6 October 1995, and the criteria to be considered by the local Church in judging whether the writings of Mrs Vassula Ryden may appropriately be disseminated.

In this regard, the Congregation wishes to state de following:

1)      The Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment of the writings examined (see Enclosure 1).

2)      Mrs Vassula Rydén, however, after dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has offered clarifications on some problematic points in her writings and on the nature of her messages which are presented not as divine revelations, but rather as her personal meditations (see Enclosure 2: Letter of 4 April 2002, published in True Life in God, vol. 10). From a normative point of view therefore, following the aforementioned clarifications, a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings in the light of the said clarifications.

3)      Finally, it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Rydén. Concerning the question of ecumenical meetings, the faithful are to follow the norms of the Ecumenical Directory, of the Code of Canon Law (canons: 215; 223 §2 and 383 §3) and of Diocesan Ordinaries.

Thanking you for your attention and with sentiments of esteem, I am

Yours sincerely in Christ,

                                                             

                                                                                                                 
Cardinal William LEVADA

                                                                                                                           Prefect

(2 Enclosures)

To the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops Presidents of the Bishops Conferences



http://www.infovassula.ch/tligchurchposition.htm


Also, from the above site:

Quote
In May 2007 Mrs Ryden wrote to the CDF questioning this letter. She received an answer from Msgr Angelo Amato, the number 2 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which he confirmed that Card. Levada's letter "was expressly written with the purpose of informing all the Catholic Bishops of the dialogue" that had taken place in 2002-2004 between Vassula Ryden and the CDF (reported by Mrs. Ryden in an open letter dated August 2007: see Related Topic: Vassula Ryden's Response to Cardinal Levada ). Archbishop Amato was the Secretary of the CDF from December 2002 until July 2008, which includes the period of time during which the dialogue with Mrs. Ryden took place and its outcome. He has recently been appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 02, 2011, 09:37:37 PM
Now that I'm starting my own small business (just filed my DBA today yay! :) ), I'm not too worried about the evils of capitalism. :)

(http://images5.cpcache.com/product_zoom/235864595v8_400x400_Front_Color-Red.jpg)



Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 02, 2011, 10:08:45 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 10:20:43 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Someone needs to tell  Father Nicholas Gruner and his followers that: http://www.fatimapriest.com/faq03.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 02, 2011, 10:33:26 PM
He has been told several times.  His priestly faculties have been suspened and he in no way speaks for the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 11:12:05 PM
Worldwide Cardinal-Bishop Petition for the Proclamation of a Marian Dogma

"Five cardinals have invited every cardinal and bishop in the world to join them in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to solemnly proclaim the Mother of Jesus as the "Spiritual Mother of humanity” as an ecumenical service of clarification to other religious traditions and to proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary..........This definition of Mary as spiritual mother would include her three maternal roles as the human “Co-redemptrix” (which literally means “a woman with the Redeemer” but never on a level of equality with her divine son), “Mediatrix” or distributor of the graces of the redemption, and “Advocate” or principal intercessor to her Jesus Christ. "......more (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=224)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 11:21:18 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Then there wouldn't be any further need of the "consecration of Russia" and prayers for her "conversion," now, would there?
Consistency at Fatima, as elsewhere in these matters, is severely lacking. For further analysis on the conversion to what
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 11:22:29 PM
Worldwide Cardinal-Bishop Petition for the Proclamation of a Marian Dogma

"Five cardinals have invited every cardinal and bishop in the world to join them in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to solemnly proclaim the Mother of Jesus as the "Spiritual Mother of humanity” as an ecumenical service of clarification to other religious traditions and to proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary..........This definition of Mary as spiritual mother would include her three maternal roles as the human “Co-redemptrix” (which literally means “a woman with the Redeemer” but never on a level of equality with her divine son), “Mediatrix” or distributor of the graces of the redemption, and “Advocate” or principal intercessor to her Jesus Christ. "......more (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=224)
more? That's more than enough.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 02, 2011, 11:40:11 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Then there wouldn't be any further need of the "consecration of Russia" and prayers for her "conversion," now, would there?
Consistency at Fatima, as elsewhere in these matters, is severely lacking. For further analysis on the conversion to what
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

What are you talking about?  As long as athiestic Communism was in control there was.  And as recently related on another thread Russia is still recovering as less then 10% attend Church on a regular basis.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 11:51:29 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Then there wouldn't be any further need of the "consecration of Russia" and prayers for her "conversion," now, would there?
Consistency at Fatima, as elsewhere in these matters, is severely lacking. For further analysis on the conversion to what
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

What are you talking about?  As long as athiestic Communism was in control there was.  And as recently related on another thread Russia is still recovering as less then 10% attend Church on a regular basis.
So the "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart" has been a failure?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 02, 2011, 11:53:33 PM
It's still ongoing - just as is the conversion of the whole world to Christ. :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 11:55:45 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Then there wouldn't be any further need of the "consecration of Russia" and prayers for her "conversion," now, would there?
Consistency at Fatima, as elsewhere in these matters, is severely lacking. For further analysis on the conversion to what
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

What are you talking about?  As long as athiestic Communism was in control there was.  And as recently related on another thread Russia is still recovering as less then 10% attend Church on a regular basis.
Is Rome doing so much better?

So, the conversion of Russia is still awaited, although as Sister Lucia stated, Russia is free?  Converted to what then?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2011, 11:57:13 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)


Then there wouldn't be any further need of the "consecration of Russia" and prayers for her "conversion," now, would there?
Consistency at Fatima, as elsewhere in these matters, is severely lacking. For further analysis on the conversion to what
http://www.orthodox.org/Fatima.pdf

What are you talking about?  As long as athiestic Communism was in control there was.  And as recently related on another thread Russia is still recovering as less then 10% attend Church on a regular basis.
So the "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart" has been a failure?
Well, I guess we'll never know unless the supreme pontiff consecrates it properly as instructed.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 02, 2011, 11:57:43 PM
It's still ongoing - just as is the conversion of the whole world to Christ. :)
I see. Well I guess some other act is required to ensure the "triumph of the Immaculate Heart"- like the proclamation of the "Fifth Marian Dogma". :D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 12:02:10 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9sScfAI8Y6E/ShEKACaYFDI/AAAAAAAAANw/pfs1pVKowdI/s400/Fatimskaia.jpg)Most Holy Mother of God save us.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 12:02:33 AM
No, what's needed is what is always needed: for man to exercise his free will and turn towards God.  He always gives us that choice.

(and by the way, I understand that EOs don't like the term or the teaching, but every time one of you uses the term "Immaculate Heart" disparagingly like that, to us it is the same as if one of is sneered at your use of "Theotokos".  It is simply another way to describe the same person: Mary, the mother of God.

I would hope you would want the prayers of the Theotokos to prevail. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 12:17:40 AM
Is Rome doing so much better?
Depends, France is quite as bad as Russia, Poland and Western Ukraine much better.

So, the conversion of Russia is still awaited, although as Sister Lucia stated, Russia is free?  Converted to what then?
It has started and conversion is ongoing.  Russia is certainly better now than under Communism.  You were the one implying Russia was just fine being nominally Orthodox under athiestic rule.

Well, I guess we'll never know unless the supreme pontiff consecrates it properly as instructed
Blessed John Paul did so in 1984 and Sr. Lucia confirmed it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 12:26:47 AM
Worldwide Cardinal-Bishop Petition for the Proclamation of a Marian Dogma

"Five cardinals have invited every cardinal and bishop in the world to join them in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to solemnly proclaim the Mother of Jesus as the "Spiritual Mother of humanity” as an ecumenical service of clarification to other religious traditions and to proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary..........This definition of Mary as spiritual mother would include her three maternal roles as the human “Co-redemptrix” (which literally means “a woman with the Redeemer” but never on a level of equality with her divine son), “Mediatrix” or distributor of the graces of the redemption, and “Advocate” or principal intercessor to her Jesus Christ. "......more (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=224)
more? That's more than enough.
The origins of the movement for this "Dogma" are traceable to (you guessed it) another "apparition" of the "Virgin Mary" in Amsterdam:
http://www.de-vrouwe.info/en/the-dogma
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 03, 2011, 01:39:34 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9sScfAI8Y6E/ShEKACaYFDI/AAAAAAAAANw/pfs1pVKowdI/s400/Fatimskaia.jpg)Most Holy Mother of God save us.

That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 01:47:18 AM
Worldwide Cardinal-Bishop Petition for the Proclamation of a Marian Dogma

"Five cardinals have invited every cardinal and bishop in the world to join them in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to solemnly proclaim the Mother of Jesus as the "Spiritual Mother of humanity” as an ecumenical service of clarification to other religious traditions and to proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary..........This definition of Mary as spiritual mother would include her three maternal roles as the human “Co-redemptrix” (which literally means “a woman with the Redeemer” but never on a level of equality with her divine son), “Mediatrix” or distributor of the graces of the redemption, and “Advocate” or principal intercessor to her Jesus Christ. "......more (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=224)
more? That's more than enough.
The origins of the movement for this "Dogma" are traceable to (you guessed it) another "apparition" of the "Virgin Mary" in Amsterdam:
http://www.de-vrouwe.info/en/the-dogma
(http://www.devrouwevanallevolkeren.nl/devrouwe/nederlands/images/gb-fav.jpg)
Yeah, that's not too disturbing. (De Vrouwe van alle Volkeren is "The Lady of All Nations").
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 03, 2011, 01:48:24 AM
Truly, Fatima and Lourdes are much too big of a cash cow to be ignored by the Vatican.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 01:49:13 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9sScfAI8Y6E/ShEKACaYFDI/AAAAAAAAANw/pfs1pVKowdI/s400/Fatimskaia.jpg)Most Holy Mother of God save us.
The Orthodox will notice the absence of Christ in that image.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 03, 2011, 01:53:00 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9sScfAI8Y6E/ShEKACaYFDI/AAAAAAAAANw/pfs1pVKowdI/s400/Fatimskaia.jpg)Most Holy Mother of God save us.
The Orthodox will notice the absence of Christ in that image.

... and the absence of the three stars of perpetual virginity, and the pointing of the Virgin to her own "immaculate heart" rather than to Christ. Fail, fail, fail.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 01:59:03 AM
Is Rome doing so much better?
Depends, France is quite as bad as Russia, Poland and Western Ukraine much better.
And Romania, Macedonia and Georgia even better.

So, the conversion of Russia is still awaited, although as Sister Lucia stated, Russia is free?  Converted to what then?
It has started and conversion is ongoing.  Russia is certainly better now than under Communism.  You were the one implying Russia was just fine being nominally Orthodox under athiestic rule.
No, I was the one who was repeating what adherents of Fatima implied, that communism wasn't the only thing "Russia" (the Soviet Union was atheist, Russia never was) needed to be converted from.

Well, I guess we'll never know unless the supreme pontiff consecrates it properly as instructed
Blessed John Paul did so in 1984 and Sr. Lucia confirmed it.
Did she do so ex cathedra?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 02:03:17 AM
No, what's needed is what is always needed: for man to exercise his free will and turn towards God.  He always gives us that choice.

(and by the way, I understand that EOs don't like the term or the teaching, but every time one of you uses the term "Immaculate Heart" disparagingly like that, to us it is the same as if one of is sneered at your use of "Theotokos".  It is simply another way to describe the same person: Mary, the mother of God.
Uh, no.  It dissects her and then labels her with a heresy.
I would hope you would want the prayers of the Theotokos to prevail. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
We want her prayers to prevail, but not the delusions of something masquerading as her.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 03, 2011, 02:19:27 AM
i believe everyone's heart is sacred and should be treated accordingly.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 02:50:53 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 07:29:09 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 03, 2011, 09:39:59 AM
He has been told several times.  His priestly faculties have been suspened and he in no way speaks for the Catholic Church.

That's good to know, but there are many pious Catholics around the world who are not making that distinction.

Frankly, we all should be working for the strengthening of our own faith and the re-Chistianization of our own nations in the light of various non-Apostolic heresies which multiply across our secular world and the force of Islamic growth.  It is no wonder that the Theotokas weeps for both the faithful of the west and the east.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 11:44:08 AM
No, I'm not going on.  I'm fed up with both Churches, frankly.  The Amish are startimg to look better and better.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shanghaiski on February 03, 2011, 11:53:38 AM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.
There is no evidence that Fatima was about the evils of communism, but the "evils" of Orthodoxy.

Except the words of Sister Lucia in an interview:

Carlos Evaristo: "But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?"

Sister Lucia:"Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man (Gorbachev) in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion..." (from Two Hours with Sister Lucia by Carlos Evaristo)



Except that the visions occurred from May to October 1917 on the New Calendar, before the November communist revolution. The February revolution was not done by Bolsheviks. And communism did not become entrenched in power until after the civil war in the 1920s. The Tsar was not even executed until 1918, though he abdicated in early 1917.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 11:59:21 AM
Yes.

It was a prophecy.  And its accurate fulfillment is one of the primary reasons it was approved.

If you ever get a chance to see the old Hollywood movie version of the Miracle at Fatima (starring the great Gilbert Roland in a totally fictitious role), the opening scenes and the ENTIRE movie see Fatima as God's condemnation of Communism.  This from Hollywood, at the time a hotbed of Communism itself!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 03, 2011, 12:05:01 PM
The only way to not upset Orthodox regarding Fatima is to view it as theistgal posits. Since such visions are typically not found within the Orthodox experience, it is tough for many of us to get a handle on them from the western mindset. What bothers me, and I am sure most of the Orthodox, is the cult-like obsession a minority of Catholics have regarding such things. Those types do tend to view as damned heretics. They remind me of the many Evangelicals who 'predict' the future and pending doom through their personal interpretations of scripture and particularly that of Revelation.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 12:28:33 PM
Yes.

It was a prophecy.  And its accurate fulfillment is one of the primary reasons it was approved.
Except that Sister Lucia did not reveal this "prophecy" until August 1941, after WWII had already begun.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 12:40:54 PM
Really?

A few posts above someone insisted that since the prophecies were made in 1917, they couldn't have had anything to do with the Bolshevik revolution in 1918.

Now you say the prophecies weren't revealed till 1941.

Consistency, anyone?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 12:43:55 PM
Really?

A few posts above someone insisted that since the prophecies were made in 1917, they couldn't have had anything to do with the Bolshevik revolution in 1918.

Now you say the prophecies weren't revealed till 1941.

Consistency, anyone?
Before people decide to believe in "prophecies" they should do a little homework:
http://www.portugal.com/fatima/officialsecrets
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shanghaiski on February 03, 2011, 12:46:28 PM
Really?

A few posts above someone insisted that since the prophecies were made in 1917, they couldn't have had anything to do with the Bolshevik revolution in 1918.

Now you say the prophecies weren't revealed till 1941.

Consistency, anyone?

I based it off of Wiki--the appearances occurred from May to October 1917. I didn't say anything about prophecies.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 04:53:18 PM
The prophecies were made while the children were still having the visions.  In 1917.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 03, 2011, 05:04:50 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 05:09:57 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)
Bring that up with the Patriarchates of Moscow and Antioch.
I'm under the Oecumenical Patriarchate.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 03, 2011, 05:11:54 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)
Bring that up with the Patriarchates of Moscow and Antioch.
I'm under the Oecumenical Patriarchate.
You brought it up. Maybe you should take it up with them since you are in communion with them? I am just asking.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 05:12:43 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)
Bring that up with the Patriarchates of Moscow and Antioch.
I'm under the Oecumenical Patriarchate.
You brought it up. Maybe you should take it up with them since you are in communion with them? I am just asking.
I have.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 03, 2011, 05:16:53 PM
No, I'm not going on.  I'm fed up with both Churches, frankly.  The Amish are startimg to look better and better.

Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 05:21:27 PM
The prophecies were made while the children were still having the visions.  In 1917.

So what?  There is no evidence that these "prophecies" then are what Sr. Lucia claimed they were in August 1941.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 05:29:44 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)
The picture contradicts the explanation.

Like the use of imagination in saying the Rosary, IMHO this is something the WRO shouldn't hold on to. Btw, of all the WRO I've come across, none has the "sacred heart" devotion.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 03, 2011, 05:32:11 PM
No, I'm not going on.  I'm fed up with both Churches, frankly.  The Amish are startimg to look better and better.
Whatever you do, I hope you don't base your decision on anything said here that you may consider uncharitable.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 05:39:59 PM
No, I'm not going on.  I'm fed up with both Churches, frankly.  The Amish are startimg to look better and better.
Whatever you do, I hope you don't base your decision on anything said here that you may consider uncharitable.
Hear, Hear! The only determining factor should be the avoidance of heresy.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shanghaiski on February 03, 2011, 05:41:07 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)

The Western Orthodox version of that and everything else has been edited. It is not identical to the Roman Catholic version. Also, it is not universal practice, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, even in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 06:24:50 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?

From the Saint Ambrose Prayerbook for Western Rite Orthodox:

                                                  Devotions to the Sacred Heart

The Western Orthodox use of this devotion — although the devotion didn’t develop until the 17th century, long after the schism between the East and West – is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, “my heart within me is troubled,” but to Our Lord’s compassionate love for us. The heart is long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God’s love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts. (p. 370)

                                                   Prayer to the Sacred Heart

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen. (pp. 370-71)

The Western Orthodox version of that and everything else has been edited. It is not identical to the Roman Catholic version. Also, it is not universal practice, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, even in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
Universal or not, "Sacred Heart" devotion is heresy, and attempts to "re-interpret" it (for instance, as a devotion to the "Love of God") don't make it any less of a heresy. And if heretics insist on venerating created body parts of Christ as the seat of "Divine Love", then they should actually be venerating His bowels, because that is the "seat" of His Compassion according to the New Testament. Mark 6:34 literally translates as:
"And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and His bowels wrenched within Him [εσπλαγχνισθη]  toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 06:28:34 PM
That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.

You'll have to take that up with the Russian Orthodox iconographer who painted it.  
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 03, 2011, 06:36:12 PM
ozgeorge: who were the "created body parts" (!) of Christ created by?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 06:38:34 PM
ozgeorge: who were the "created body parts" (!) of Christ created by?
By the same Person who created you. :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 06:44:37 PM
The Orthodox will notice the absence of Christ in that image.
Like this:
(http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/May/0521tendernessicon.jpg)

and others

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/August/0813sevenarrowsicon.jpg

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/September/0902kalugatheotokosicon.jpg

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/October/1015multiplierofwheaticon.jpg
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 06:48:38 PM
That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.

You'll have to take that up with the Russian Orthodox iconographer who painted it.  
If he is painting (rather than writing) an image (rather than icon) of Fatima, he can't be all that Orthodox.  I'll let the Russians discuss how Russian he can be.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 06:51:48 PM
The Orthodox will notice the absence of Christ in that image.
Like this:
(http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/May/0521tendernessicon.jpg)

and others

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/August/0813sevenarrowsicon.jpg

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/September/0902kalugatheotokosicon.jpg

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/October/1015multiplierofwheaticon.jpg
Yes, like that. (the last one IIRC we have a thread on). Like this
(http://www.scamconsult.com/Trinity.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shanghaiski on February 03, 2011, 06:54:07 PM
That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.

You'll have to take that up with the Russian Orthodox iconographer who painted it.  

My guess is the image would not be welcomed in an Orthodox church, of course there are always exceptions for crazy heresies. There are Russian "Orthodox" icons of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible, too. Insanity  is everywhere.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 03, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.

You'll have to take that up with the Russian Orthodox iconographer who painted it.  

As I have said in other threads, being Orthodox in itself does not guarantee canonicity of an image, nor does it confer canonicity on an image which is suspect or heretical. History is full of bearded God the Fathers and winged Angels of Holy Silence (to name but a couple) painted by well-meaning, but misguided Orthodox people. The person who painted this image should have his mistake pointed out. Even if this image was commissioned by a Roman Catholic patron, this is still most problematic for an Orthodox iconographer.

Icons are painted with prayer and fasting. An Orthodox iconographer invoking the immaculate heart of Mary (or praying to a saint or invoking a feast not of the Orthodox Church) is a matter of grave and utmost concern. Icons are not artistic playthings or vehicles of self-expression - they are nothing less than the pictorial proclamation of what Orthodoxy believes and proclaims.

Taking liberties with iconographic portrayals is no less a serious matter than being "innovative" with church hymnography. Remember the justified controversy and seriousness of a Catholic priest who thought it a good idea to baptise in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer? He didn't do it out of malice or insubordination, but was quite rightly brought to book, and these aberrant baptisms now have to be regularised.

I stand by my earlier comments.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 06:56:21 PM
ozgeorge: who were the "created body parts" (!) of Christ created by?
By the same Person who created you. :)
Theistgal, why did you put the words "created body parts" in inverted commas and follow it with an exclamation mark? Don't you realize that Christ's Body is a creation and did not exist prior to the Incarnation?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 03, 2011, 06:58:12 PM

My guess is the image would not be welcomed in an Orthodox church, of course there are always exceptions for crazy heresies. There are Russian "Orthodox" icons of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible, too. Insanity  is everywhere.

Ah, the posterboys of the ultranationalists. Rest assured, Shanghaiski, that the chances of these "icons" crossing the threshold of an Orthodox church are zero. These paintings are exercises in futility.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 07:10:34 PM
If he is painting (rather than writing)

LBK can correct you on this bit of nonsense.  Icons are indeed painted. 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 07:29:30 PM
As I have said in other threads, being Orthodox in itself does not guarantee canonicity of an image, nor does it confer canonicity on an image which is suspect or heretical. History is full of bearded God the Fathers and winged Angels of Holy Silence (to name but a couple) painted by well-meaning, but misguided Orthodox people.

And yet God continues to work miracles through icons like these so who is right God or the canonists?  Perhaps Go cares more about intention than canon.  There is a difference between a heretical image like some of those by Robert Lentz and a portrayal of the Mother of God in a Latin style.  There are Orthodox icons of the Theotokos without Christ. 

As to the Mother of God of Fatima icon it was commissioned for a Latin Catholic Church in St. Petersburg, Russia.  The replacement of the heart with the word heart was a concession to Orthodox iconographic rules.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 07:54:30 PM
If he is painting (rather than writing)

LBK can correct you on this bit of nonsense.  Icons are indeed painted. 
What you posted cannot be said to be written, only painted.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 03, 2011, 08:06:06 PM
If he is painting (rather than writing)

LBK can correct you on this bit of nonsense.  Icons are indeed painted. 
What you posted cannot be said to be written, only painted.

The point you are making is obviously lost on them.

Since you are a polyglot,

In the languages you know which ones can one use the same verb for "writing" and "painting" or if different very closely related to a single root?

My strength is in Germanic languages and I am at a loss.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
As I have said in other threads, being Orthodox in itself does not guarantee canonicity of an image, nor does it confer canonicity on an image which is suspect or heretical. History is full of bearded God the Fathers and winged Angels of Holy Silence (to name but a couple) painted by well-meaning, but misguided Orthodox people.

And yet God continues to work miracles through icons like these

What would "these icons" be? What miracles are you talking about?

Perhaps we have a different approach to these matters, given that we heed the warnings of the Fathers on the imagination: when the Theotokos icon in Cicero here began to weep, the first thing the bishop did when he came to investigate was to perform an exorcism on the icon.

"But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel, which you have not received: you might well bear with him....And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light."

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

Quote
The principal characteristic is that it is an image full of light. The Virgin in Fátima was full of light, of a light, which, as Francisco said, " is God ". The full of grace is the full of God, and in Fátima it is the full of light: a Lady more brilliant than the Sun. It brings Fátima closer to the theology of the icon.
http://sanctuschristopher.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-top-five-favorite-icons-of-blessed.html

They should be more careful identifying that light with the Light.


so who is right God or the canonists?
 

Both. Satan is ever in error.

Perhaps Go cares more about intention than canon.
That's true, but you haven't established that He is behind these "miracles."

There is a difference between a heretical image like some of those by Robert Lentz and a portrayal of the Mother of God in a Latin style.  There are Orthodox icons of the Theotokos without Christ.

Yes, the exceptions that make the rule.
(http://www.orthodoxgifts.com/images/Holy-Protection.jpg)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/Swb3s2fmBXI/AAAAAAAACjc/Yi847nFT-A8/s1600/21_nov_entry_of_the_mother_of_god2.jpg)(http://stgeorgegreenville.org/OurFaith/Feasts%20for%20Theotokos/icon_nativity_of_theotokos.jpg)

As to the Mother of God of Fatima icon it was commissioned for a Latin Catholic Church in St. Petersburg, Russia.  The replacement of the heart with the word heart was a concession to Orthodox iconographic rules.
Is that what that is? I thought it was a communion waifer.

"concession." That should set off bells.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 03, 2011, 08:20:10 PM
If he is painting (rather than writing)

LBK can correct you on this bit of nonsense.  Icons are indeed painted. 
What you posted cannot be said to be written, only painted.

The point you are making is obviously lost on them.

Since you are a polyglot,

In the languages you know which ones can one use the same verb for "writing" and "painting" or if different very closely related to a single root?

My strength is in Germanic languages and I am at a loss.
The Romance "to paint" and Slavonic "to write" have crossed paths:
Quote
From Indo-European *peik ("spot, color") > Ancient Greek ποικίλος (poikílos, “spotted, embroidered”), Proto-Slavic püstrý (pestrý in Czech). Pokorny also links to the root: πικρός (pikros, “sharp, keen”), Proto-Slavic *püsati ("write") (see Czech psát, Russian писать, etc.), Germanic *faihoz (“spotted”), hence Old English fah, Scottish faw, English fag.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pingo#Latin
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2011, 08:55:35 PM
What would "these icons" be? What miracles are you talking about?

You are unaware of the many wonderworking and weeping icons?  Some have been icons that don't meet the canonical standards.  When icons wept in Chicago and at Camp Nazareth it was approached with caution but both were declared miraculous.  In 1988 I was blessed to be given an icon from Camp Nazareth blessed with myrrh from the original that itself then wept.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Iconodule on February 03, 2011, 09:02:08 PM
The Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God of Sitka has God the Father at the top:

(http://horologion.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sitkamotherofgod.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 09:11:00 PM
.....and so another thread is successfully diverted..... :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 03, 2011, 09:15:38 PM
.....and so another thread is successfully diverted..... :)
You made notice of this just now?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 09:19:50 PM
.....and so another thread is successfully diverted..... :)
You made notice of this just now?
Yep. As soon as we got off the topic of the bizarre teachings about the Mother of God I kind of lost interest....You know, "Immaculate Hearts" and so forth....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 03, 2011, 09:31:16 PM
.....and so another thread is successfully diverted..... :)

It's some law of physics.

No thread on the internet with merit remains on topic.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 03, 2011, 09:43:26 PM
First law of forumdynamics: opinions can be neither modified nor completely changed during a discussion

Second law of forumdynamics: threads naturally tend to go from order (on topic) to disorder (off topic)

Third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase

Fourth law of forumdynamics: when cornered in an argument, a person will invariably say that their opponent simply doesn't understand, and then they will vow to leave the discussion
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 03, 2011, 09:47:45 PM
First law of forumdynamics: opinions can be neither modified nor completely changed during a discussion

Second law of forumdynamics: threads naturally tend to go from order (on topic) to disorder (off topic)

Third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase

Fourth law of forumdynamics: when cornered in an argument, a person will invariably say that their opponent simply doesn't understand, and then they will vow to leave the discussion


Is that your own formulation? If so, bravo!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 03, 2011, 09:56:14 PM
Yeah, though I did have to do a Google search when I tried to model the third one on the third law of thermodynamics (I couldn't really figure out how to make it work). Ah well. :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 03, 2011, 10:12:34 PM
Brilliant! I love it!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 03, 2011, 11:13:01 PM
First law of forumdynamics: opinions can be neither modified nor completely changed during a discussion

Second law of forumdynamics: threads naturally tend to go from order (on topic) to disorder (off topic)

Third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase

Fourth law of forumdynamics: when cornered in an argument, a person will invariably say that their opponent simply doesn't understand, and then they will vow to leave the discussion


Nazis!


Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 03, 2011, 11:37:39 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?


No they do not at all depend on those revelations.  The idea of the Immaculate Heart is not Jesuit-spawn.  It's easy to find things, outside of St. Margaret Mary, on the Internet.

In fact the pope who approved the devotion and made the Immaculate Heart a part of the liturgical cycle outlines the history and specifically notes that the teaching is not dependent upon the visions.   

On the other hand the visions were never discerned as demonic...

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 03, 2011, 11:37:39 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 04, 2011, 02:23:43 AM
Don't bother, Jake - it's Chinatown. ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 02:28:09 AM
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.

The ancient Greeks considered bile as one of the basic four "humors" present in the human body; however, the Orthodox do not have devotions to Sacred/Immaculate Gallbladders....   ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 02:32:44 AM
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.

The ancient Greeks considered bile as one of the basic four "humors" present in the human body; however, the Orthodox do not have devotions to Sacred/Immaculate Gallbladders....   ::)

No, but some Orthodox do speak rather literally of the soul/being/spirit/etc. being in the heart, and have thoughts about the heart that some others might find strange (e.g. at this page (http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/heart_trans.aspx))
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 04, 2011, 02:35:02 AM
I bettcha i could come up with a cultus or devotion that Catholics would go for in one day. Just dare me.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 02:35:25 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person.  It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her.
Could you give me an example from "Classical Thought" that says "the heart is the essence of the person"?

I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
The evidence doesn't bear that out since I stated on this same thread that the same devotion to the "Sacred Heart" by some Western Rite Orthodox is also heresy. No prize for martyrdom this time I'm afraid. ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 02:40:52 AM
I bettcha i could come up with a cultus or devotion that Catholics would go for in one day. Just dare me.

You'd have to convert to Catholicism first. You up for it?  ;D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2011, 02:42:31 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?


No they do not at all depend on those revelations.  The idea of the Immaculate Heart is not Jesuit-spawn.  It's easy to find things, outside of St. Margaret Mary, on the Internet.

In fact the pope who approved the devotion and made the Immaculate Heart a part of the liturgical cycle outlines the history and specifically notes that the teaching is not dependent upon the visions.   

On the other hand the visions were never discerned as demonic...
....showing a lack of discernment.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2011, 02:57:32 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1780/imagekxo.jpg)
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
(http://www.batuhijauschool.org/Asmat/studentpages/shaza/Social%20studies/Aztec%20pictures/aztecs40.gif)
The Hindus worship the phallus of Shiva
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Aikya_Linga_in_Varanasi.jpg)
and the genetalia of Kali
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Cattien_stone_yoni.png)
the last making me shudder at the thought of development of doctrine like the immaculate heart ever latching onto the virginity of the Holy Theotokos.

btw, Kali is not a virgin
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Linga-Yoni.jpg)
they have a big festival in June celebrating the earth (Kali is a Earth mother goddess)'s menstruation.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 03:03:05 AM
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.

The ancient Greeks considered bile as one of the basic four "humors" present in the human body; however, the Orthodox do not have devotions to Sacred/Immaculate Gallbladders....   ::)

No, but some Orthodox do speak rather literally of the soul/being/spirit/etc. being in the heart, and have thoughts about the heart that some others might find strange (e.g. at this page (http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/heart_trans.aspx))

The passage, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 50:12 - Orthodox Study Bible) would be applicable to one who has undergone a heart transplant.  Organ transplantation has been accepted by most Orthodox.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 03:18:10 AM
Now I understand why so many people like Dan Brown movies....

source (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html)

Quote
....Then the revelations increased. Sister Marie spent whole nights in "amorous colloquies with her beloved Jesus." One day, He permitted her to lean her head on His breast and asked for her heart. She consented. He removed her heart from her chest, placed it upon His own, then returned it to her chest. From that time she felt a continuous pain in that side, where her heart had been extracted and replaced. Jesus told her to bleed herself when the pain became too great.

Marie Alacoque gave her heart to Jesus by a physical document, a deed, which she signed in her own blood. In return, Jesus gave her a deed, which designated her as the heiress to His heart for time and eternity. "Do not be stingy with It," He said to her, "I permit you to dispose of It as you wish, and you will be a plaything for My good pleasure." Upon hearing these words, sister Marie took a pocket knife and carved the name of Jesus into the flesh of her breast "in large and deep letters."

Bishop Languet's Life dwells upon the "promise of marriage" which took place between Jesus and sister Marie, on their "betrothals and espousals." (Actually, the terms he uses are too graphic to be printed in an article intended to be read by Christians.) Languet also relates that the first Friday of every month the pains in sister Marie's side were so sharp she had herself bled. Since this occurred from 1674 to 1690, she would have been bled 192 times in honour of the Sacred Heart, believing she was obeying Christ's express injunctions.

Worshipping the Sacred Heart of Jesus (or Mary) = Self-Mutiliation and the ultimate reward....

Quote
In the end, these qualms and counter-defenses in Catholic circles were rendered effectively obsolete by a single action from the Vatican. Pope Pius IX canonised Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Orual on February 04, 2011, 03:37:54 AM
First law of forumdynamics: opinions can be neither modified nor completely changed during a discussion

Second law of forumdynamics: threads naturally tend to go from order (on topic) to disorder (off topic)

Third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase

Fourth law of forumdynamics: when cornered in an argument, a person will invariably say that their opponent simply doesn't understand, and then they will vow to leave the discussion


 :D  This is brilliant.  Well done.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 04, 2011, 10:41:16 AM
I bettcha i could come up with a cultus or devotion that Catholics would go for in one day. Just dare me.
Someone just dare me...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 04, 2011, 11:03:01 AM
What would "these icons" be? What miracles are you talking about?

You are unaware of the many wonderworking and weeping icons?  Some have been icons that don't meet the canonical standards.  When icons wept in Chicago and at Camp Nazareth it was approached with caution but both were declared miraculous.  In 1988 I was blessed to be given an icon from Camp Nazareth blessed with myrrh from the original that itself then wept.

This is true and the Iveron Icon has also wept. I witnessed the same this past November at my own parish.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 04, 2011, 11:07:28 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
The Hindus worship the phallus of Shiva
and the genetalia of Kali
the last making me shudder at the thought of development of doctrine like the immaculate heart ever latching onto the virginity of the Holy Theotokos.

btw, Kali is not a virgin
they have a big festival in June celebrating the earth (Kali is a Earth mother goddess)'s menstruation.

I find Sacred Heart devotions to be foreign and I don't really understand them. However, other than being quite inflammatory, I fail to see how posting pictures of Mayan or Hindu pagan rites can make debate points on these issues that would do anything to cause one to rethink one's position. The Puritans made the same type of arguments about celebrating Christmas and its origins.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 04, 2011, 11:45:28 AM
I bettcha i could come up with a cultus or devotion that Catholics would go for in one day. Just dare me.
Someone just dare me...
Someone said you'd first have to convert. Then I'd say go to the wailing wall start a devotion of praying the Rosary there. We'll be right behind you.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 04, 2011, 11:51:27 AM
I bettcha i could come up with a cultus or devotion that Catholics would go for in one day. Just dare me.
Someone just dare me...
Someone said you'd first have to convert. Then I'd say go to the wailing wall start a devotion of praying the Rosary there. We'll be right behind you.
:laugh:
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 04, 2011, 03:11:54 PM
Could you give me an example from "Classical Thought" that says "the heart is the essence of the person"?
How about expressions such as "bless his/her heart," or when one refers to someone being "pure of heart"? Do you take that to mean that their heart needs a blessing because they have poor cardiovascular health, or in the second example that their heart is not dirty?

The evidence doesn't bear that out since I stated on this same thread that the same devotion to the "Sacred Heart" by some Western Rite Orthodox is also heresy. No prize for martyrdom this time I'm afraid. ;)
You cannot cite "Western Rite Orthodoxy" as proof of anything. It is still part of the Eastern Orthodox Church which is still opposed to many Catholic devotions (due, obviously, to not understanding them).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 04, 2011, 03:11:54 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
The Hindus worship the phallus of Shiva
and the genetalia of Kali
the last making me shudder at the thought of development of doctrine like the immaculate heart ever latching onto the virginity of the Holy Theotokos.

btw, Kali is not a virgin
they have a big festival in June celebrating the earth (Kali is a Earth mother goddess)'s menstruation.

I find Sacred Heart devotions to be foreign and I don't really understand them. However, other than being quite inflammatory, I fail to see how posting pictures of Mayan or Hindu pagan rites can make debate points on these issues that would do anything to cause one to rethink one's position. The Puritans made the same type of arguments about celebrating Christmas and its origins.

How about assuring us that a saint's visions are demonic?  How is that for civil?

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 04, 2011, 03:19:42 PM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
The Hindus worship the phallus of Shiva
and the genetalia of Kali
the last making me shudder at the thought of development of doctrine like the immaculate heart ever latching onto the virginity of the Holy Theotokos.

btw, Kali is not a virgin
they have a big festival in June celebrating the earth (Kali is a Earth mother goddess)'s menstruation.

I find Sacred Heart devotions to be foreign and I don't really understand them. However, other than being quite inflammatory, I fail to see how posting pictures of Mayan or Hindu pagan rites can make debate points on these issues that would do anything to cause one to rethink one's position. The Puritans made the same type of arguments about celebrating Christmas and its origins.

How about assuring us that a saint's visions are demonic?  How is that for civil?



Saints themselves have attributed some of their "visions" to being demonic.

It would seem to me that a temptation of a Saint would involve such things.

For people like me, a demon just has to tell me I could use a little extra sleep on Sunday morning.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 04, 2011, 05:14:32 PM
So do individual members of the Eastern Orthodox Church get to decide that other Orthodox (Western, Oriental, etc.) are heretics, just on their own without all their Patriarchs in agreement? Cool! I want to be my own Pope too! :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 04, 2011, 05:25:08 PM
So do individual members of the Eastern Orthodox Church get to decide that other Orthodox (Western, Oriental, etc.) are heretics, just on their own without all their Patriarchs in agreement? Cool! I want to be my own Pope too! :)

Not in my world, perhaps some believe that.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 04, 2011, 06:04:05 PM
You cannot cite "Western Rite Orthodoxy" as proof of anything. It is still part of the Eastern Orthodox Church which is still opposed to many Catholic devotions (due, obviously, to not understanding them).

The use of Western Rites in a few of the Orthodox Churches is a very new phenomenon and only a few decades old.

It is in its experimental stages.  But it is so miniscule that some doubt if it will survive.

I agree that under the circumstances it is not of much value to cite Western Rite Orthodox usages as proof of anything.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 04, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
So do individual members of the Eastern Orthodox Church get to decide that other Orthodox (Western, Oriental, etc.) are heretics, just on their own without all their Patriarchs in agreement? Cool! I want to be my own Pope too! :)


I suppose some things are so obvious that nobody has to wait for a synodal decision from the bishops - the Mother of God is worshipped as the Fourth Person of the Trinity... a layperson may consecrate the Bread and Wined.... a nun may give sacramental absolution...

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Iconodule on February 04, 2011, 07:54:01 PM
I think the sacred heart devotion is suspect, but calling Orthodox who practice it "heretics" is at best shrill hyperbole.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
I wonder how many Catholic women (and men?) carve the names of Jesus and Mary onto their bodies seeing that the most famous of these self-mutilators is a Saint ... oh wait, why should I waste mental energy on what they do.   ::)

Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: stashko on February 04, 2011, 08:18:20 PM
Question.......

Don't Catholic Venerate / worship the forskin of our Lord as well, and don't they claim to have it somewhere in a reliquary ,So what  Else is New.... ;D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 04, 2011, 08:18:52 PM
Self-mutilation?  Really?

If that's really what you think the Roman Catholic Church teaches its adherents to do, I don't know that it's worth it to even try to discuss this topic with you.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 08:19:03 PM
The passage, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 50:12 - Orthodox Study Bible) would be applicable to one who has undergone a heart transplant.  Organ transplantation has been accepted by most Orthodox.

My point wasn't about organ transplant itself, I'm more interested in the ideas that underlying ideas that some Orthodox hold to. For example:

"The heart is the center, the mid-point of man's existence. And not only in the spiritual sense, where heart is the term for the center of one's spiritual person, one's "I"; in physical life, too, the physical heart is the chief organ and central point of the organism, being mysteriously and indissolubly connected with the experiences of one's soul. It is well known to all how a man's purely psychical and nervous experiences joy, anger, fright, etc.,—are reflected immediately in the action of the heart, and conversely how an unhealthy condition of the heart acts oppressively on the psyche and consciousness... Yes, here the bond is indissoluble—and if, instead of the continuation of a man's personal spiritual-bodily life, concentrated in his own heart, there is imposed on him a strange heart and some kind of strange life, until then totally unknown to him—then what is this if not a counterfeit of his departing life; what is this if not the annihilation of his spiritual-bodily life, his individuality, his personal "I"? And how and as whom will such a man present himself at the general resurrection?"

I was trying to show that some Orthodox would seem to agree with the original idea that the heart was considered to be very important to a person, part of what made him, part of his essence, etc.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 08:21:02 PM
So do individual members of the Eastern Orthodox Church get to decide that other Orthodox (Western, Oriental, etc.) are heretics, just on their own without all their Patriarchs in agreement? Cool! I want to be my own Pope too! :)


I suppose some things are so obvious that nobody has to wait for a synodal decision from the bishops - the Mother of God is worshipped as the Fourth Person of the Trinity... a layperson may consecrate the Bread and Wined.... a nun may give sacramental absolution...

Father Bless.

I wonder what Papal Encyclical or Vatican II document permitted female lay distribution of the Eucharist?   ???
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2011, 08:21:53 PM
Could you give me an example from "Classical Thought" that says "the heart is the essence of the person"?
How about expressions such as "bless his/her heart," or when one refers to someone being "pure of heart"? Do you take that to mean that their heart needs a blessing because they have poor cardiovascular health, or in the second example that their heart is not dirty?

Does anyone imagine reaching in and pullling the heart out so as to receive the blessing?

The evidence doesn't bear that out since I stated on this same thread that the same devotion to the "Sacred Heart" by some Western Rite Orthodox is also heresy. No prize for martyrdom this time I'm afraid. ;)
You cannot cite "Western Rite Orthodoxy" as proof of anything. It is still part of the Eastern Orthodox Church which is still opposed to many Catholic devotions (due, obviously, to not understanding them).
No, due mostly, as in this case, to understanding them all too well.

It never dawns on the Vatican's masses that for a millenium and a half no one imaged dismembering the Lord or His mother and devoting a cult to the body parts.  And not from a lack of examples:such cults were and are popular amongst the heathen, the examples above being only a sample.

But someone claims that they have a vision of the Lord or especially His mother ordering these bizarre things, and not only does the Vatican and its followers not think that such things do not strike a note out of note with the hymns of the Apostles and Saints, but thirst for even more "visionaries" with such cults.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2011, 08:23:58 PM
I wonder how many Catholic women (and men?) carve the names of Jesus and Mary onto their bodies seeing that the most famous of these self-mutilators is a Saint ... oh wait, why should I waste mental energy on what they do.   ::)

Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...
I guess it doesn't violate natural law. LOL.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 08:28:58 PM
Self-mutilation?  Really?

Really.

If that's really what you think the Roman Catholic Church teaches its adherents to do, I don't know that it's worth it to even try to discuss this topic with you.

If Sainthood is the ultimate reward for self-mutilation, then no wonder Rome has had such luminaries as Padre Pio, stigmata, and the Dan Brown books and movies.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
I wonder how many Catholic women (and men?) carve the names of Jesus and Mary onto their bodies seeing that the most famous of these self-mutilators is a Saint ... oh wait, why should I waste mental energy on what they do.   ::)

Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...
I guess it doesn't violate natural law. LOL.

Now I understand why men and women who cut themselves are treated gingerly (or like Lindsay Lohan with repeated second chances).

Quote
But people who cut may not have developed ways to cope. Or their coping skills may be overpowered by emotions that are too intense. When emotions don't get expressed in a healthy way, tension can build up — sometimes to a point where it seems almost unbearable. Cutting may be an attempt to relieve that extreme tension. For some, it seems like a way of feeling in control.

The urge to cut might be triggered by strong feelings the person can't express — such as anger, hurt, shame, frustration, or alienation. People who cut sometimes say they feel they don't fit in or that no one understands them. A person might cut because of losing someone close or to escape a sense of emptiness. Cutting might seem like the only way to find relief or express personal pain over relationships or rejection.
(emphasis mine)

Source (page 2) (http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/mental_health/cutting.html#)

Saint Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque was an ordinary 17th Century teenager no different from the teenagers of today.  Her personal issues, maybe growing up in a strict Catholic household, resulted in the events which led to her self-mutilation and subsequent canonization.  May the Lord have Mercy on her soul....  Amen!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 08:38:40 PM
Could you give me an example from "Classical Thought" that says "the heart is the essence of the person"?
How about expressions such as "bless his/her heart," or when one refers to someone being "pure of heart"? Do you take that to mean that their heart needs a blessing because they have poor cardiovascular health, or in the second example that their heart is not dirty?
Well I certainly don't take those common sayings to mean "the heart is the essence of the person." What exactly do you mean by "the heart is the essence of the person"? Does this mean that somehow Personhood has an "essence" at the "centre" of the Person and the rest of them is extraneous to the Person? If a Person's Body and soul are separated, where is their "Essence"? Is it their soul? Is it their body? When I die, and my body is in the grave and my soul in hell, where will "I" be? Where will my "essence" be? And in the case of the God-Man, what do you mean by His "Essence" which you represent by "His heart"? Is there a "centre" to the God-Man which is "essential" to Him and the rest of Him extraneous?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 04, 2011, 08:45:16 PM
Wow, this thread deteriorated into insult-flinging so fast my head is still spinning - and my stomach  is churning from all the acid and bile :(

(you know, when I say that, that I haven't cut myself up into separate body parts - right? good grief!!!)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 08:45:37 PM
Well I certainly don't take those common sayings to mean "the heart is the essence of the person." What exactly do you mean by "the heart is the essence of the person"? Does this mean that somehow Personhood has an "essence" at the "centre" of the Person and the rest of them is extraneous to the Person? If a Person's Body and soul are separated, where is their "Essence"? Is it their soul? Is it their body? When I die, and my body is in the grave and my soul in hell, where will "I" be? Where will my "essence" be? And in the case of the God-Man, what do you mean by His "Essence" which you represent by "His heart"? Is there a "centre" to the God-Man which is "essential" to Him and the rest of Him extraneous?

Met. Philaret (ROCOR) seemed to consider it very important--perhaps even essential, as partially shown in the quote I gave above.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 04, 2011, 08:47:49 PM
Too long to get into the Platonism run amok, but synecdoche much?

Classically the "seat" of personhood has been associated with numerous bodily organs, sometimes literally, but most often in a figurative sense as mentioned above.

Today, we are our brains.

Prior to today:

Heart, liver, "bowels" (kidneys probably), etc.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 08:50:44 PM
Wow, this thread deteriorated into insult-flinging so fast my head is still spinning - and my stomach  is churning from all the acid and bile :(

(you know, when I say that, that I haven't cut myself up into separate body parts - right? good grief!!!)

Insults?  I don't see any insults?  I'm thinking of ozgeorge's question on where will one's Essence be when one is in hell as Roman Catholics teach.  Saint Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque is in Heaven, still mutilating herself on every 19th day after Pentecost before the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Christ and the Virgin Mary.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 08:51:59 PM
Too long to get into the Platonism run amok, but synecdoche much?

Classically the "seat" of personhood has been associated with numerous bodily organs, sometimes literally, but most often in a figurative sense as mentioned above.

Today, we are our brains.

Prior to today:

Heart, liver, "bowels" (kidneys probably), etc.

The reality is though, that there is no "seat" of Personhood at all- which is why, as Christians, we venerate relics of Saints and look forward to the Resurrection of the dead.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: theistgal on February 04, 2011, 08:52:23 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 08:52:40 PM
Too long to get into the Platonism run amok, but synecdoche much?

Classically the "seat" of personhood has been associated with numerous bodily organs, sometimes literally, but most often in a figurative sense as mentioned above.

Today, we are our brains.

Prior to today:

Heart, liver, "bowels" (kidneys probably), etc.

The reality is though, that there is no "seat" of Personhood at all- which is why, as Christians, we venerate relics of Saints and look forward to the Resurrection of the dead.

A bodily resurrection?  :P
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2011, 08:55:54 PM
Too long to get into the Platonism run amok, but synecdoche much?

Classically the "seat" of personhood has been associated with numerous bodily organs, sometimes literally, but most often in a figurative sense as mentioned above.

Today, we are our brains.

Prior to today:

Heart, liver, "bowels" (kidneys probably), etc.

The reality is though, that there is no "seat" of Personhood at all- which is why, as Christians, we venerate relics of Saints and look forward to the Resurrection of the dead.

A bodily resurrection?  :P
Yes, the whole thing.  Not part by part.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 08:58:25 PM
Met. Philaret (ROCOR) seemed to consider it very important--perhaps even essential, as partially shown in the quote I gave above.
He's wrong. :)
He is committing the common fallacy of the homunculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 04, 2011, 08:59:22 PM
Too long to get into the Platonism run amok, but synecdoche much?

Classically the "seat" of personhood has been associated with numerous bodily organs, sometimes literally, but most often in a figurative sense as mentioned above.

Today, we are our brains.

Prior to today:

Heart, liver, "bowels" (kidneys probably), etc.

The reality is though, that there is no "seat" of Personhood at all- which is why, as Christians, we venerate relics of Saints and look forward to the Resurrection of the dead.

"Seat" was a metaphor, the scare quotes even to signify that. Sorry, but the entire Bible speaks of persons metaphorically.

Even "spirit" is figure of speech lent from the body.

Another thread to get around this "disembodied" soul stuff, another time.





Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
Yes, the whole thing.  Not part by part.

My point is that the body is part of who we are. We aren't simply soul/spirits, but our bodies--whether our current ones or our resurrection ones--are important as well.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 04, 2011, 09:01:10 PM
Deleted due to reading error.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 09:01:21 PM
Met. Philaret (ROCOR) seemed to consider it very important--perhaps even essential, as partially shown in the quote I gave above.
He's wrong. :)
He is committing the common fallacy of the homunculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument).


For the record, I don't agree with him, I'm just pointing out that Catholics aren't alone in thinking such things as was mentioned.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 09:03:58 PM
Met. Philaret (ROCOR) seemed to consider it very important--perhaps even essential, as partially shown in the quote I gave above.
He's wrong. :)
He is committing the common fallacy of the homunculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument).


Believe it or not the homunculus is still used as an illustrative way to understanding certain aspects of medicine today as a model. Was talking with a MD PhD about it, was quite surprised.
Yes, I know. But the reality is that it doesn't exists.  "I" am not a homunculus who "owns" "my" body and "my" soul.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: orthonorm on February 04, 2011, 09:06:25 PM
Yes, the whole thing.  Not part by part.

My point is that the body is part of who we are. We aren't simply soul/spirits, but our bodies--whether our current ones or our resurrection ones--are important as well.

To even divide them is metaphor.

Against the differences among body, soul, and spirit would be a fun thread since it is something am I surprised I hear Orthodox often fall fully into Platonism over.




Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 04, 2011, 10:27:06 PM
I wonder how many Catholic women (and men?) carve the names of Jesus and Mary onto their bodies seeing that the most famous of these self-mutilators is a Saint ... oh wait, why should I waste mental energy on what they do.   ::)

Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...

That's rather snarky. If we go down this path, I am sure that our Catholic friends will find some bizarre practices that may have occurred during the 2,000 year old history of the Orthodox Church. This whole discussion is non-productive.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 11:10:44 PM
I wonder how many Catholic women (and men?) carve the names of Jesus and Mary onto their bodies seeing that the most famous of these self-mutilators is a Saint ... oh wait, why should I waste mental energy on what they do.   ::)

Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...

That's rather snarky.

Why so?  Catholics cannot practice birth control under severe and permanent penalties and can be canonized by performing self-mutilation in the names of Jesus and Mary?   ???

If we go down this path, I am sure that our Catholic friends will find some bizarre practices that may have occurred during the 2,000 year old history of the Orthodox Church.

This forum has been around for 8 years?  If such evidence is unearthed by our Catholic friends, we can deal with it when the time comes.

This whole discussion is non-productive.

Blame Vassula.   ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 04, 2011, 11:15:35 PM
Yikes.  All I wanted when I started this thread was to find out if the weird things I heard from that woman represented the Catholic Church's teachings.   :P
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 04, 2011, 11:17:43 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

Historical accounts are being cited; how are those an "insult?"

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(

I'm sorry you feel that way.   :(  I'm sorry that learning the truth about your own faith has been painful and that is your personal choice.  As I told elijahmaria, the gap between Orthodox and Catholics is very wide regardless of the statements generated at Orthodox-Catholic Consultations.  Any attempts at "unity" are really attempts by the Vatican to shove a millennium worth of Papal Bulls, Papal Encyclicals and other legalistic directives down the throats of the Orthodox....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 11:20:54 PM
Yikes.  All I wanted when I started this thread was to find out if the weird things I heard from that woman represented the Catholic Church's teachings.   :P
And now you know- they are.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 04, 2011, 11:35:18 PM
Are they?  I got confused. 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 11:37:44 PM
Are they?  I got confused. 

No, they aren't.  :) There were some practices brought up that Orthodox didn't particularly like, but I don't think any of the things mentioned in the OP were shown to be a Catholic Church teaching.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 04, 2011, 11:41:46 PM
This is what I asked about:

Quote
One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


It seems we've gotten sidetracked into other tangents, such as the sacred heart, or immaculate heart, as well as some rather shocking things I wish I never learned about Hindu deities, and other things.  It's all very interesting,  but like you said, it may not relate to what I asked about.  
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 04, 2011, 11:48:34 PM
Are they?  I got confused. 
Yep. Its all in this thread:

One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

The Co-Redeemer doctrine:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527341.html#msg527341

Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435

Pushed for by Catholic Heirarchy:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg528028.html#msg528028

Its origins as a "private revelation"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg528073.html#msg528073
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 04, 2011, 11:59:05 PM
First, you aren't even dealing with the specific claims (e.g. the Adam and Eve thing), you're just speaking generally. Second, you seem to still be misunderstanding what they're saying. So far as I understand, it is not Roman Catholic teaching that the Mother of God saves us--at least not any more than Orthodox speak of her as saving us. That is, it is not a salvation in the same way as Christ saves. Both ways of speaking about her saving us is easily misunderstood, it seems. That you can find a couple Catholics who push things beyond what their Church actually teaches doesn't prove anything, any more than finding some Orthodox claiming something crazy makes all of Orthodoxy wrong (e.g. remember that Greek priest in Florida who was heavily into the charismatic movement?)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 12:17:09 AM
First, you aren't even dealing with the specific claims (e.g. the Adam and Eve thing), you're just speaking generally.
Actually, I gave you the sources in my posts which deal with this, but if you want me do do your homework for you, I will.
If you go to the website I give here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg528073.html#msg528073
you will find this:
"In the heavenly messages to Sister Agnes Sassagawa in Akita Japan, also approved by the Church, the fourth message (on 28th September 1981) refers to Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix."
This "heavenly message" includes the following:
"There is a meaning to the figure 101 (the number of times the statue wept). This signifies that sin came into the world by a woman and it is also by a woman that salvation came into the world. The zero between the two signifies the Eternal God who is from all eternity until eternity. The first one represents Eve, and the last, the Virgin Mary."

Second, you seem to still be misunderstanding what they're saying. So far as I understand, it is not Roman Catholic teaching that the Mother of God saves us--at least not any more than Orthodox speak of her as saving us. That is, it is not a salvation in the same way as Christ saves.
If you go to the website I quoted here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg528073.html#msg528073
You will find this:
(http://www.d-fav.de/joomla/images/stories/bilder/gt09_padre_fav_mittlerin.jpg)
"Her hands have radiant Wounds. Thereby Mary describes in an image the suffering of body and soul which she bore in union with her divine Son for the redemption of mankind."

So you see, Asteriktos, it is not her role as Theotokos which apparently saves us, but her "suffering of body and soul which she bore in union with her divine Son for the redemption of mankind."

Satisfied?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 12:24:20 AM
I went to the website and I don't see where it uses the word "approved" on the page linked to. However, I did see on another page that something along the lines of belief or veneration was allowed by a local bishop. So... ? What does that mean to you? That the Bishop of podunk can declare what the teachings of the entire Catholic Church are? I must be missing something, because I just don't get where you're coming from here...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Iconodule on February 05, 2011, 12:25:40 AM
Some people get their kicks by thinking up new heresies to accuse others of...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 12:26:57 AM
Some people get their kicks by thinking up new heresies to accuse others of...
What did we say about reading threads before we comment?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg528028.html#msg528028
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 12:29:08 AM
This is what I asked about:

Quote
One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


It seems we've gotten sidetracked into other tangents, such as the sacred heart, or immaculate heart, as well as some rather shocking things I wish I never learned about Hindu deities, and other things.  It's all very interesting,  but like you said, it may not relate to what I asked about.  

Vassula and her followers are savvy enough to realize that most Orthodox and Catholics are ignorant of their own religious faith; There appear to be thousands of female Catholic Saints who were canonized due to believing in the Precious Blood of Christ and/or the Sacred/Immaculate Heart of Mary and/or Christ.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 12:42:02 AM
I went to the website and I don't see where it uses the word "approved" on the page linked to. However, I did see on another page that something along the lines of belief or veneration was allowed by a local bishop.
Surely EWTN wouldn't lie:
"June 1988- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief." http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/akita.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 12:53:15 AM
That the Bishop of podunk can declare what the teachings of the entire Catholic Church are? I must be missing something, because I just don't get where you're coming from here...
Well, if he can't then how come a Catholic Parish in England can be named after an "apparition" in Amsterdam?
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 12:53:39 AM
I went to the website and I don't see where it uses the word "approved" on the page linked to. However, I did see on another page that something along the lines of belief or veneration was allowed by a local bishop.
Surely EWTN wouldn't lie:
"June 1988- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief." http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/akita.htm

Well that moves us one step closer, and I saw some interesting (ie. difficult) things in your new link, but what I didn't see is what you quoted earlier, or mention of a fourth message... ?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 12:54:39 AM
That the Bishop of podunk can declare what the teachings of the entire Catholic Church are? I must be missing something, because I just don't get where you're coming from here...
Well, if he can't then how come a Catholic Parish in England can be named after an "apparition" in Amsterdam?
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html

I have no clue :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 12:57:20 AM
I went to the website and I don't see where it uses the word "approved" on the page linked to. However, I did see on another page that something along the lines of belief or veneration was allowed by a local bishop.
Surely EWTN wouldn't lie:
"June 1988- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief." http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/akita.htm

Well that moves us one step closer, and I saw some interesting (ie. difficult) things in your new link, but what I didn't see is what you quoted earlier, or mention of a fourth message... ?
Try this: http://www.101foundation.com/akitadesc.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 01:01:05 AM
I went to the website and I don't see where it uses the word "approved" on the page linked to. However, I did see on another page that something along the lines of belief or veneration was allowed by a local bishop.
Surely EWTN wouldn't lie:
"June 1988- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief." http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/akita.htm

Well that moves us one step closer, and I saw some interesting (ie. difficult) things in your new link, but what I didn't see is what you quoted earlier, or mention of a fourth message... ?
Try this: http://www.101foundation.com/akitadesc.html

But what did Cardinal Ratzinger approve? Even your new website confuses the issue, talking of the 1981 event and then not mentioning it below. When this 1981 thing occured they were already investigating, so did they add it to the investigation and approve it, or no? From the past two links you've given I can't tell for sure, but would guess no...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 05, 2011, 03:03:20 AM
This is what I asked about:

Quote

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.



I think some of the quotes from these links support this view. Certainly not doctrine, but it appears to be at least worthy theologoumena.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc142.htm

http://www.fatima.org/joel/jo-pg106.asp

One particular quote stands out, "the flesh of Jesus is the maternal flesh of Mary, the Blood of Jesus is the maternal blood of Mary." ~St. Thomas Aquinas
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on February 05, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
^ The stuff written in the above sites does sound an awful lot like what I heard. 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 03:23:16 AM
Yeah, disheartening...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 05, 2011, 03:24:58 AM
And substantiated by the greatest theologian of the Church, no less.

Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrines to be her own."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 08:30:47 AM
The expression "Immaculate Heart" isn't a "disection", it's just -

oh, what's the point.
Do go on. When you say "Immaculate Heart", what you really mean is....
And aren't these doctrines of the "Immaculate Heart" and the "Sacred Heart" based on yet more "private revelation" which supposedly Roman Catholics are not "obliged" to believe?
Oh for Pete's sake, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary because, in classical thought, the heart was the essence of the person. It would be a bit like saying we love the Blessed Mother's soul. We would not literally mean we love her soul to the exclusion of the rest of her. I think if anyone but the Catholic Church had such a devotion people would not pick over it as they do.
The Hindus worship the phallus of Shiva
and the genetalia of Kali
the last making me shudder at the thought of development of doctrine like the immaculate heart ever latching onto the virginity of the Holy Theotokos.

btw, Kali is not a virgin
they have a big festival in June celebrating the earth (Kali is a Earth mother goddess)'s menstruation.

I find Sacred Heart devotions to be foreign and I don't really understand them. However, other than being quite inflammatory, I fail to see how posting pictures of Mayan or Hindu pagan rites can make debate points on these issues that would do anything to cause one to rethink one's position. The Puritans made the same type of arguments about celebrating Christmas and its origins.

How about assuring us that a saint's visions are demonic?  How is that for civil?



Where is the post that I sent along with this one reminding everyone that nowhere in the Roman rite and ritual do they ask the Mother of God to save them. 

So it is not at all clear that the Roman rite and ritual are any more "dangerous" than Orthodox rites and rituals.

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 08:30:47 AM
The Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God of Sitka has God the Father at the top:

(http://horologion.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sitkamotherofgod.jpg)

Is it orthodox to show the Heavenly Father (A spirit) on an icon? To depict him who none but the Son have direct knowledge of?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 08:30:49 AM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

Historical accounts are being cited; how are those an "insult?"

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(

I'm sorry you feel that way.   :(  I'm sorry that learning the truth about your own faith has been painful and that is your personal choice.  As I told elijahmaria, the gap between Orthodox and Catholics is very wide regardless of the statements generated at Orthodox-Catholic Consultations.  Any attempts at "unity" are really attempts by the Vatican to shove a millennium worth of Papal Bulls, Papal Encyclicals and other legalistic directives down the throats of the Orthodox....

There's far more truth about the Orthodox on display here than any kind of truth about the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 08:30:49 AM
Why so?  Catholics cannot practice birth control under severe and permanent penalties and can be canonized by performing self-mutilation in the names of Jesus and Mary?   ???
Permanent? Ever heard of the Sacrament of Confession?

This forum has been around for 8 years?  If such evidence is unearthed by our Catholic friends, we can deal with it when the time comes.
I don't feel the need to dig up dirt on your Church because I am charitable.

Blame Vassula.   ;)
Who does not speak for the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, so your point?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 08:43:29 AM
Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...
Sheesh...troll much?

You really have some anger issues when it comes to Humanae Vitae, which is funny because you constantly prove that you haven't the slightest idea what it is actually saying.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 08:43:29 AM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(
Behold...the fruits of the sin of schism running rampant in this forum and they are all too blind to even see it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 08:43:29 AM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: mike on February 05, 2011, 08:44:45 AM
Is it orthodox to show the Heavenly Father (A spirit) on an icon? To depict him who none but the Son have direct knowledge of?

No.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 05, 2011, 08:57:21 AM
Is it orthodox to show the Heavenly Father (A spirit) on an icon? To depict him who none but the Son have direct knowledge of?

No.

Definitely not as a rule of thumb, but that icon is definitely special.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 05, 2011, 09:06:23 AM
Is it orthodox to show the Heavenly Father (A spirit) on an icon? To depict him who none but the Son have direct knowledge of?

Yes.  The Orthoodx have been painting such icons, in all Orthoodx countries and for many many centuries.

Some people wrote against it but the Church at large accepts it.

A seach of the forum using  Ancient of Days will turn up earlier threads on this.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 05, 2011, 09:14:58 AM
Such depictions of God the Father have the approval of the holy Mother of God and that is good enough for me!

When Russia collapsed in 1917 the Mother of God gave to the Russian people an icon of  "The Reigning Mother of ofGod."  She wanted to comfort and strengthen believers in the ferocious persecution which was about to be launched against them, something she knew but they did not.

Please read the story of this miraculous icon and the way it appeared in Russia in 1917

  http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/03/enthroned-or-reigning-icon-of-mother-of.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 09:41:17 AM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 05, 2011, 10:10:54 AM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.

/\ Absolutely what ozgeorge said, even down to the very queasy feeling about depicting her with the wounds of Christ.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 10:38:55 AM
This is what I asked about:

Quote
One of the things she said was that it was not just Christ who saved us, but the Mother of God who saved us as well.  She made it sound as if the Mother of God was as much our savior as Christ.

Among other things, she said that it was "Mary's blood" that saved us, because Christ got His blood from her.  She made it sound like it was actually St. Mary's blood that was in Christ veins, and that therefore it can be said that "Mary's blood" saved us.

She brought up the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and said that when God created Adam, He used a plural pronoun for Adam.  She said the meaning behind this was that God was creating both men and women, and that therefore both a male and female saviour would be needed to save all of humanity.  In other words, one male saviour would not have been enough; we also needed a female saviour, who was the Virgin Mary.

She also brought up the Wedding of Cana, and used that to say that the Mother of God could change her Son's will.


It seems we've gotten sidetracked into other tangents, such as the sacred heart, or immaculate heart, as well as some rather shocking things I wish I never learned about Hindu deities, and other things.  It's all very interesting,  but like you said, it may not relate to what I asked about.  

Vassula and her followers are savvy enough to realize that most Orthodox and Catholics are ignorant of their own religious faith; There appear to be thousands of female Catholic Saints who were canonized due to believing in the Precious Blood of Christ and/or the Sacred/Immaculate Heart of Mary and/or Christ.

This is nonsense.  Complete nonsense.  Saints are recognized by the Church first and foremost by their exercise of heroic virtue.  If that is not there then it doesn't matter what else they said or did in life.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.

There is nothing in the idea of the Virgin being co-redeemer that indicates that she was not redeemed.  In fact in the very course of her redemption, she, unlike the rest of us, brought forth the New Adam, Jesus, Redeemer, King.

It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...and it is NO different from the Orthodox asking her to save them.

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 10:52:59 AM
It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...
Her suffering did not redeem us...no matter how many times you say it.

and it is NO different from the Orthodox asking her to save them.
We don't believe the suffering of the Theotokos saved us. Christ's Incarnation Life and Death saved us and her. She saves us the same way all the Saints save us- by praying for us and guiding us to Christ. That is why the in the Hodegetria Icon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodegetria) she points to her Son. We even ask our Guardian Angel to save us every night at Compline ("take me by my wretched and outstretched hand and lead me in the way of Salvation"). THAT'S how the Theotokos saves us- not through her suffering as you heretically believe.

No one in Creation is more Holy than the Theotokos, yet when our Priests offer the Holy Gifts in the Liturgy, he prays:
"Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith, especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary."    You see? In Orthodoxy, even she who is "more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim", the most Holy Theotokos, must have the Sacrifice of the Eucharist offered for her. Even she must be washed in the Blood of Christ. It's therefore not only heretical, but a blasphemy both against her and her Son to say that her suffering redeemed us.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 11:28:24 AM
^ The stuff written in the above sites does sound an awful lot like what I heard. 

None of what you are looking at can be approved as Catholic UNLESS one understands that all that is said about the Mother of God points to Jesus, Lord, Redeemer, King.

Most of what you look at anywhere is the same thing you find in patristics with the New Adam and the New Eve.  That is the reference point through which all of this is understood.

If salvation comes into the world through the Mother of God, you don't say "Oh oh oh!! The Mother of God is our Redeemer!!"....You say "Yes!  The Son of God came into the world through the Virgin and took her flesh and is fully God and fully human!!"

The rest of what is being said here by the Orthodox detractors is crap....

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 11:28:46 AM
It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...
Her suffering did not redeem us...no matter how many times you say it.

and it is NO different from the Orthodox asking her to save them.
We don't believe the suffering of the Theotokos saved us. Christ's Incarnation Life and Death saved us and her. She saves us the same way all the Saints save us- by praying for us and guiding us to Christ. That is why the in the Hodegetria Icon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodegetria) she points to her Son. We even ask our Guardian Angel to save us every night at Compline ("take me by my wretched and outstretched hand and lead me in the way of Salvation"). THAT'S how the Theotokos saves us- not through her suffering as you heretically believe.


Catholics do not believe that the suffering of the Mother of God saved us at all. 

We do believe that ALL of us, by our cooperation in the divine life...by theosis...participate in some way in the redeeming act of the Savior.  IN that way we are all co-redeemers, and the Mother of God is more so than any of the rest of us because her fiat was perfect and we are works in progress.

These things are not incompatible with Orthodoxy.  And this is ALL that is meant by the Church IF they ever truly speak of any of us cooperating in the redemptive acts of Christ.

You can crow all you like but it won't make your assessment truthful.  You are wrong and egregiously so.  God help you.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 11:34:35 AM
Catholics do not believe that the suffering of the Mother of God saved us at all. 

It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...

Make your mind up.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 11:55:46 AM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.

There is nothing in the idea of the Virgin being co-redeemer that indicates that she was not redeemed.  In fact in the very course of her redemption, she, unlike the rest of us, brought forth the New Adam, Jesus, Redeemer, King.

It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...and it is NO different from the Orthodox asking her to save them.
Bravo! In a few lines you manage to misrepresent both Orthodoxy and the Vatican.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 12:00:41 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.

/\ Absolutely what ozgeorge said, even down to the very queasy feeling about depicting her with the wounds of Christ.
LOL.  For where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.  And Father, OG and myself seem in complete agreement on this (which doesn't happen often enough  ;D)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 12:02:51 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
LOL. Rather your "explainers" want to deny in words what their actions say.

And btw, may I officially state that the Orthodox have never believed in the "Co-Redemptrix."  Just so when the Vatican makes it a dogma (and its coming, your defense of that shows it), there's a record to point to when it claims (like with the IC) that we believed it until the supreme pontiff proclaimed it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 05, 2011, 12:08:07 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
LOL. Rather your "explainers" want to deny in words what their actions say.

And btw, may I officially state that the Orthodox have never believed in the "Co-Redemptrix."  Just so when the Vatican makes it a dogma (and its coming, your defense of that shows it), there's a record to point to when it claims (like with the IC) that we believed it until the supreme pontiff proclaimed it.

The dogmatic proclamation may indeed come, but I still do not see Pope Benedict doing so.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 12:08:37 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(
Behold...the fruits of the sin of schism running rampant in this forum and they are all too blind to even see it.
(http://www.devrouwevanallevolkeren.nl/devrouwe/nederlands/images/gb-fav.jpg)
Yeah, that's not too disturbing. (De Vrouwe van alle Volkeren is "The Lady of All Nations").
(http://www.d-fav.de/joomla/images/stories/bilder/gt09_padre_fav_mittlerin.jpg)
"Her hands have radiant Wounds. Thereby Mary describes in an image the suffering of body and soul which she bore in union with her divine Son for the redemption of mankind."
Who can't see?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 12:11:09 PM
The Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God of Sitka has God the Father at the top:

(http://horologion.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sitkamotherofgod.jpg)

I can't believe I missed this.  You should post this in the thread about God the Father icons.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 12:17:35 PM
Such depictions of God the Father have the approval of the holy Mother of God and that is good enough for me!

When Russia collapsed in 1917 the Mother of God gave to the Russian people an icon of  "The Reigning Mother of ofGod."  She wanted to comfort and strengthen believers in the ferocious persecution which was about to be launched against them, something she knew but they did not.

Please read the story of this miraculous icon and the way it appeared in Russia in 1917

  http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/03/enthroned-or-reigning-icon-of-mother-of.html

Again, you should discuss this in the appropriate thread....and when I find it, I'll post the link here.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 12:19:53 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
LOL. Rather your "explainers" want to deny in words what their actions say.

And btw, may I officially state that the Orthodox have never believed in the "Co-Redemptrix."  Just so when the Vatican makes it a dogma (and its coming, your defense of that shows it), there's a record to point to when it claims (like with the IC) that we believed it until the supreme pontiff proclaimed it.

They've never used the words but Orthodoxy has taught over time that we all share in the saving actions of Christ.  That our suffering is a part of the saving act.

It is in this sense that the Catholic Church also understands the teaching of co-redeemer.

All your assertions are wrong.  Simply and purposefully wrong.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 12:19:53 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
Do you even know what the word "cooperate" means. It does not mean she is on an equal footing with Christ. We all cooperate with God whenever we do his will. The new title for the Theotokos indicates that, as the Mother of God, she cooperated with God in a special way. So you can flail around and whine and take my words out of context and say that I am attacking people, but you are only giving a bad witness to "Orthodoxy" as well as proving everything I have ever said is wrong with this forum to be true.

As far as that image. Yeah, I agree that is going a bit far. However, A. It does not accurately represent the teaching of co-redemptrix, and B. I am not going to abandon my Catholic faith just because someone who claims to be Catholic makes an image that I do not like.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 12:19:53 PM
Catholics do not believe that the suffering of the Mother of God saved us at all. 

It is in that way and ONLY that way, by her faith and her cooperation and her suffering, that she is said to be co-redeemer...

Make your mind up.


They are not mutually exclusive.  The Church east and west has always indicated that by our fiat we cooperate in the redeeming acts of Christ.  It is in this way that the Mother of God is seen to be co-operating.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 12:20:00 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
But I don't believe Mary suffered and died on the cross. Now you are misrepresenting what I said. Also, when did I do an ad hominem?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

Historical accounts are being cited; how are those an "insult?"

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(

I'm sorry you feel that way.   :(  I'm sorry that learning the truth about your own faith has been painful and that is your personal choice.  As I told elijahmaria, the gap between Orthodox and Catholics is very wide regardless of the statements generated at Orthodox-Catholic Consultations.  Any attempts at "unity" are really attempts by the Vatican to shove a millennium worth of Papal Bulls, Papal Encyclicals and other legalistic directives down the throats of the Orthodox....

There's far more truth about the Orthodox on display here than any kind of truth about the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church just repelling the evil of the generation which seeks signs and visions.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 12:23:08 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
Do you even know what the word "cooperate" means. It does not mean she is on an equal footing with Christ. We all cooperate with God whenever we do his will. The new title for the Theotokos indicates that, as the Mother of God, she cooperated with God in a special way. So you can flail around and whine and take my words out of context and say that I am attacking people, but you are only giving a bad witness to "Orthodoxy" as well as proving everything I have ever said is wrong with this forum to be true.

As far as that image. Yeah, I agree that is going a bit far. However, A. It does not accurately represent the teaching of co-redemptrix, and B. I am not going to abandon my Catholic faith just because someone who claims to be Catholic makes an image that I do not like.
What happens when the Vatican blesses it?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 12:27:00 PM
Found two (didn't even recognize there was another one):

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10122.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17227.0.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 12:34:28 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

Historical accounts are being cited; how are those an "insult?"

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(

I'm sorry you feel that way.   :(  I'm sorry that learning the truth about your own faith has been painful and that is your personal choice.  As I told elijahmaria, the gap between Orthodox and Catholics is very wide regardless of the statements generated at Orthodox-Catholic Consultations.  Any attempts at "unity" are really attempts by the Vatican to shove a millennium worth of Papal Bulls, Papal Encyclicals and other legalistic directives down the throats of the Orthodox....

There's far more truth about the Orthodox on display here than any kind of truth about the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church just repelling the evil of the generation which seeks signs and visions.

Here chick chick chick!!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 12:44:37 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
Do you even know what the word "cooperate" means. It does not mean she is on an equal footing with Christ. We all cooperate with God whenever we do his will. The new title for the Theotokos indicates that, as the Mother of God, she cooperated with God in a special way. So you can flail around and whine and take my words out of context and say that I am attacking people, but you are only giving a bad witness to "Orthodoxy" as well as proving everything I have ever said is wrong with this forum to be true.

As far as that image. Yeah, I agree that is going a bit far. However, A. It does not accurately represent the teaching of co-redemptrix, and B. I am not going to abandon my Catholic faith just because someone who claims to be Catholic makes an image that I do not like.
What happens when the Vatican blesses it?
I don't think it will, but if it does it is important to note that A. it does not depict Mary hanging on the cross; B. those indentations in her hands indicate she was wounded too by experiencing the pain of seeing her Son crucified; C. if it is approved, it would simply mean it is approved as a private devotion and, thus, I have no obligation as a Catholic to participate in it since it is simply another devotion which we may utilize; and D. it is a metaphor. It does not literally mean Mary was crucified for our salvation (see B).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 12:44:37 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
Wow...someone actually using some logic. Thank you.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 12:45:10 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.

That holy card or whatever it is that is being displayed here is unusual. 

The only other kind of image that shows wounds on the body of the Mother of God is the one that displays the swords in her chest.

I think you may have the same image.

Personally I dislike that one and am not moved by it in any form, east or west.

But the card that the Professor displays here is not a usual or frequently found image.  I have never seen anything like it before.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 01:10:46 PM
Such depictions of God the Father have the approval of the holy Mother of God and that is good enough for me!

When Russia collapsed in 1917 the Mother of God gave to the Russian people an icon of  "The Reigning Mother of ofGod."  She wanted to comfort and strengthen believers in the ferocious persecution which was about to be launched against them, something she knew but they did not.

Please read the story of this miraculous icon and the way it appeared in Russia in 1917

  http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/03/enthroned-or-reigning-icon-of-mother-of.html

No offense but why is the Virgin Mary "entrhoned" instead of her Son ? Why does she occupy most of the icon and why is she not point towards her son? Why does she hold a scepter when that is her son's property? You also know that in the Assyrian Church which had three of her relatives serving as Patriarchs there is no belief in an "ascension" (before or after death) and this icon aparently came from an ascension monastery before being found. Besides the obvious point of depicting the Father which is prohibited by the nomocanons if I am correct...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 01:14:27 PM
The dogmatic proclamation may indeed come, but I still do not see Pope Benedict doing so.
Well, there's a curious fact concerning that. The original "apparitions" of the "Lady of All Nations" who "asked" for the dogma to be promulgated "revealed" the following prayer and asked that it be said by all people:
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father,
send now Your Spirit over the earth.
Let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations
that they may be preserved from degeneration, disaster and war.
May The Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary, be our advocate. Amen."
Source: http://www.ladyofallnations.org/p-p.htm
Note the bolded words.

In 2002, the local Bishop of Haalem Josef Mariana Punt, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (whose Prefect at the time was one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) issued a statement regarding the apparitions saying:
"no theological or psychological impediments for a declaration of supernatural authenticity can be found therein."
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/PUNTOLAN.HTM

In 2005 however, on May 20th, less than 2 weeks after Cardinal Ratzinger, was elected Pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued a statement banning the words "who once was Mary" from the prayer.
Source: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2446

As a result, the words of the prayer were changed on the official website of the apparitions to say:
"......MAY THE LADY OF ALL NATIONS, THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, BE OUR ADVOCATE. AMEN."
Source: http://www.de-vrouwe.info/en/

So, apparently, a "private revelation" approved after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith was later "amended" by the same CDF to meet its requirements a fortnight after the Prefect of the CDF was elected Pope. Strange that rather than condemning the "apparitions" as containing erroneous "revelations", the CDF was satisfied with merely changing the content of the revelations.



Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
But the card that the Professor displays here is not a usual or frequently found image.  I have never seen anything like it before.
Oh you'll be seeing more of them. Your Church has started placing parishes under the patronage of the "Lady of All Nations":
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html
http://www.ladyofallnations-bali.com/en.default.asp
And your clergy are venerating it:
(http://echochrystusakrola.net/assets/images/starsze/maria3.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 01:45:55 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.  I did before mention elsewhere the prefix "Co" is a problem to many here, as if it's an equal.  We do say the Son is "co-essential" with the Father for instance.

Nevertheless, I'm not one who argues with semantics, but at least one should probably ask the Pope of Rome for his next major sermon or writing to clarify what the Theotokos is not rather than what she is to destroy or quell any uncertainties in debates like this.

And to put things in perspective, we have a very popular hymn, chanted in our Midnight praises.  It's the 8th Theotokia in our liturgical writings, and some of the phrases and titles given to the Theotokos, if not properly understood, can be quite scandalous to some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfuD-keEvc
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 02:01:51 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.

Amen. What a blasphemy which compromises the souls of people to say that the Virgin cooperated with salvation. Almost as bad as saying the Church was built on Peter instead of Christ and that there is a so called vicar of Christ on earth.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 02:01:52 PM
the icon you put is worst than I though Father Ambrose...it has Christ pointing towards his mother!!!!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 02:01:52 PM
We have Our Lady of Victory parishes too. 

But the card that the Professor displays here is not a usual or frequently found image.  I have never seen anything like it before.
Oh you'll be seeing more of them. Your Church has started placing parishes under the patronage of the "Lady of All Nations":
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html
http://www.ladyofallnations-bali.com/en.default.asp
And your clergy are venerating it:
(http://echochrystusakrola.net/assets/images/starsze/maria3.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 05, 2011, 02:03:28 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 02:06:25 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

That's a legitimate fear that needs to be addressed.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 05, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.  I did before mention elsewhere the prefix "Co" is a problem to many here, as if it's an equal.  We do say the Son is "co-essential" with the Father for instance.

Nevertheless, I'm not one who argues with semantics, but at least one should probably ask the Pope of Rome for his next major sermon or writing to clarify what the Theotokos is not rather than what she is to destroy or quell any uncertainties in debates like this.

And to put things in perspective, we have a very popular hymn, chanted in our Midnight praises.  It's the 8th Theotokia in our liturgical writings, and some of the phrases and titles given to the Theotokos, if not properly understood, can be quite scandalous to some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfuD-keEvc

Wow, i've never heard chanting like that! Very complex harmonies! Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Father Ambrose, that icon you gave...the more I examine it the more I am questioning it's ultimate source. Forgive this poor "Nestorian" for questioning that icon's theology but :

1) Why do the hands point downwards (Hell...?) instead of towards Christ ?

2) Why are they on a globe like the questioned  "lady of all nations" image of Roman Catholics? They both have the Virgin with her hands or feet (authority) on a globe. If Mary is the lord of this world that is a blasphemy for we know who is the lord of this world. If Mary is the Lord of the World to come that is an even greater blasphemy for that is equating her with God.

3) Again why does she have the scepter which belongs to her son (Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) ?

4) Why does Christ point towards her and not her to Christ ?

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?

6) She has a Crown to signal her Queenship yet Christ has no sign or symbol of his authority whatsoever except a halo (and hers is bigger obviously).

7) The scepter looks highly breakable....like a reed scepter used to mock false kings!

8) Notice the darkness surrounding the image. What does that tell you?


in short, this does not look of God. If it was found before a tremendous judgement came on the Church more to question it. The "miracle" was an old woman saying to look for icons in a church basement after a dream appeared to her three times. Here is what scripture says concerning such dreams :

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Last, you said in another thread the red traditional colour was the true Virgin Mary and other colours (specifically Blue and White) could not be possible. Behold the false teachings in this red coloured garment icon!
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 05, 2011, 03:38:01 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.



My thoughts, exactly. Why over define those things upon which the foundation of the Faith was determined in the days of the ancient Fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church? I don't get it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 05, 2011, 03:47:02 PM
Father Ambrose, that icon you gave...the more I examine it the more I am questioning it's ultimate source. Forgive this poor "Nestorian" for questioning that icon's theology but :

1) Why do the hands point downwards (Hell...?) instead of towards Christ ?

2) Why are they on a globe like the questioned  "lady of all nations" image of Roman Catholics? They both have the Virgin with her hands or feet (authority) on a globe. If Mary is the lord of this world that is a blasphemy for we know who is the lord of this world. If Mary is the Lord of the World to come that is an even greater blasphemy for that is equating her with God.

3) Again why does she have the scepter which belongs to her son (Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) ?

4) Why does Christ point towards her and not her to Christ ?

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?

6) She has a Crown to signal her Queenship yet Christ has no sign or symbol of his authority whatsoever except a halo (and hers is bigger obviously).

7) The scepter looks highly breakable....like a reed scepter used to mock false kings!

8) Notice the darkness surrounding the image. What does that tell you?


in short, this does not look of God. If it was found before a tremendous judgement came on the Church more to question it. The "miracle" was an old woman saying to look for icons in a church basement after a dream appeared to her three times. Here is what scripture says concerning such dreams :

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Last, you said in another thread the red traditional colour was the true Virgin Mary and other colours (specifically Blue and White) could not be possible. Behold the false teachings in this red coloured garment icon!

The sum of your objections appears to me that the Mother of God could not have given this icon to the Russian faithful.  Instead it must be a revelation..... from hell !!?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 05, 2011, 03:51:13 PM

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?


Please see messages 186 and 187 on the approval of the depiction of God the Father

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10122.msg515769.html#msg515769
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 04:02:41 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 04:06:07 PM
Father Ambrose, that icon you gave...the more I examine it the more I am questioning it's ultimate source. Forgive this poor "Nestorian" for questioning that icon's theology but :

1) Why do the hands point downwards (Hell...?) instead of towards Christ ?

2) Why are they on a globe like the questioned  "lady of all nations" image of Roman Catholics? They both have the Virgin with her hands or feet (authority) on a globe. If Mary is the lord of this world that is a blasphemy for we know who is the lord of this world. If Mary is the Lord of the World to come that is an even greater blasphemy for that is equating her with God.

3) Again why does she have the scepter which belongs to her son (Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) ?

4) Why does Christ point towards her and not her to Christ ?

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?

6) She has a Crown to signal her Queenship yet Christ has no sign or symbol of his authority whatsoever except a halo (and hers is bigger obviously).

7) The scepter looks highly breakable....like a reed scepter used to mock false kings!

8) Notice the darkness surrounding the image. What does that tell you?


in short, this does not look of God. If it was found before a tremendous judgement came on the Church more to question it. The "miracle" was an old woman saying to look for icons in a church basement after a dream appeared to her three times. Here is what scripture says concerning such dreams :

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Last, you said in another thread the red traditional colour was the true Virgin Mary and other colours (specifically Blue and White) could not be possible. Behold the false teachings in this red coloured garment icon!

The sum of your objections appears to me that the Mother of God could not have given this icon to the Russian faithful.  Instead it must be a revelation..... from hell !!?

Father, I don't think I'm surprised.  Many anti-OO's (EO's no less...Patrick Barnes among them) have described our Lady of Zeitoun as a demonic apparition to discredit the Coptic Church.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:08:28 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

Historical accounts are being cited; how are those an "insult?"

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(

I'm sorry you feel that way.   :(  I'm sorry that learning the truth about your own faith has been painful and that is your personal choice.  As I told elijahmaria, the gap between Orthodox and Catholics is very wide regardless of the statements generated at Orthodox-Catholic Consultations.  Any attempts at "unity" are really attempts by the Vatican to shove a millennium worth of Papal Bulls, Papal Encyclicals and other legalistic directives down the throats of the Orthodox....

There's far more truth about the Orthodox on display here than any kind of truth about the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church just repelling the evil of the generation which seeks signs and visions.

Here chick chick chick!!
Is that St. Peter's rooster crowing?  or just the cackle of his self-proclaimed vicar?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:14:50 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
Do you even know what the word "cooperate" means. It does not mean she is on an equal footing with Christ. We all cooperate with God whenever we do his will. The new title for the Theotokos indicates that, as the Mother of God, she cooperated with God in a special way. So you can flail around and whine and take my words out of context and say that I am attacking people, but you are only giving a bad witness to "Orthodoxy" as well as proving everything I have ever said is wrong with this forum to be true.

As far as that image. Yeah, I agree that is going a bit far. However, A. It does not accurately represent the teaching of co-redemptrix, and B. I am not going to abandon my Catholic faith just because someone who claims to be Catholic makes an image that I do not like.
What happens when the Vatican blesses it?
I don't think it will, but if it does it is important to note that A. it does not depict Mary hanging on the cross; B. those indentations in her hands indicate she was wounded too by experiencing the pain of seeing her Son crucified; C. if it is approved, it would simply mean it is approved as a private devotion and, thus, I have no obligation as a Catholic to participate in it since it is simply another devotion which we may utilize; and D. it is a metaphor. It does not literally mean Mary was crucified for our salvation (see B).
As distinctions-if they even make a distinction-without a difference. Try to say you don't believe Fatima is true, and find out how much obligation is lacking.  Read what Maxmillian Kolbe did with the Lourdes, promoted now by the major theologian of a major university/seminary of the Vatican's, and you see how little any of you "distinctions" stop the snow ball from rolling.

As for Mary hanging on the Cross, you have to save something for the next batch of "revelations" from the new generation of "seers" and "visionaries." ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:17:44 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.
When I see the Coptic Orthodox Church start to teach bizarre dogmas and promote strange cults centered on the Theotokos, I'll see the similiarity.

What will those who defend the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church against the misrepresentations by the Vatican's "visionaries" receive?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:18:52 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
But I don't believe Mary suffered and died on the cross. Now you are misrepresenting what I said.
Really?
B. those indentations in her hands indicate she was wounded too by experiencing the pain of seeing her Son crucified;
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
I was just reminded of this thread
On another forum  :police: ::) :police: on a thread brought to my attention from a poster, someone is trying to prove purgatory from the visions of Fatima, with the taunt "was Our Lady wrong?"
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4725146#post4725146
To answer his question: the Bible says that the rich man was in hell, explicitely (how he misses that I can't see), so if the vision of Fatima says that the rich man was in purgatory, then the vision is wrong, in which case it wasn't our Lady.
Btw, this is precisely what told me Medjugorje can't be true.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 04:37:34 PM
Why so?  Catholics cannot practice birth control under severe and permanent penalties and can be canonized by performing self-mutilation in the names of Jesus and Mary?   ???
Permanent? Ever heard of the Sacrament of Confession?

I have in the Orthodox Church.  I don't know (or particularly care about) what Confession means in the Catholic Church?  I see huge billboards and on buses calling Catholics to Confession during Lent and other times of the year, which is a good thing even if one committed sins with permanent consequences.

This forum has been around for 8 years?  If such evidence is unearthed by our Catholic friends, we can deal with it when the time comes.
I don't feel the need to dig up dirt on your Church because I am charitable.

When others and I report historical facts about Roman Catholic Saints, that makes us uncharitable?

Blame Vassula.   ;)
Who does not speak for the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, so your point?

Officially, Vassula does not speak for the Catholic Church ... what goes on inside these increasing Marian "cults" is a different story.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 04:51:37 PM
Humanae Vitae doesn't condemn one to eternal damnation for self-mutilation ...
Sheesh...troll much?

That's the best you can do to counter the canonization of a cutter while women are condemned for taking birth control pills?   ???

You really have some anger issues when it comes to Humanae Vitae, which is funny because you constantly prove that you haven't the slightest idea what it is actually saying.

I am an Orthodox Christian; Humanae Vitae and ALL Papal Encyclicals mean zero to me.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
As for Mary hanging on the Cross, you have to save something for the next batch of "revelations" from the new generation of "seers" and "visionaries." ::)

I might have missed the picture of this...where is Mary hanging on the Cross?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 04:53:04 PM
You don't see the insults because you're one of those who has been flinging them.

I am so done with Orthodoxy now - this place has really poisoned it for me. :(  :(  :(
Behold...the fruits of the sin of schism running rampant in this forum and they are all too blind to even see it.

Show me where self-cutting and self-mutilation aren't sins in the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 04:54:32 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 04:56:16 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.

You are assuming that the Orthodox will unite with Rome ... Who will perform the purging of Orthodox who refuse to recognize the thousand years of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls, Papally adopted visions and other Papal infallible teachings?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 05:12:04 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

When I go to the Coptic Church, and we pray for the Catholic Church, we aren't praying for the Vatican.

I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Just checking.  Since the Copts have the Tradition of Kiyahk, the visions of Zeitoun etc. and yet have produced nothing like the traditions of the Vatican we are discussing here, I don't see any similiarity.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 05:19:18 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

When I go to the Coptic Church, and we pray for the Catholic Church, we aren't praying for the Vatican.

Okay...I meant the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. 

Quote
I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Just checking.  Since the Copts have the Tradition of Kiyahk, the visions of Zeitoun etc. and yet have produced nothing like the traditions of the Vatican we are discussing here, I don't see any similiarity.

So you're not the least bit worried about people misinterpreting "the salvation of our father Adam" or "the redemption of Isaiah" or "the grace of Elijah" as Coptic titles of the Theotokos?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 06:15:16 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

When I go to the Coptic Church, and we pray for the Catholic Church, we aren't praying for the Vatican.

Okay...I meant the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. 

Quote
I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Just checking.  Since the Copts have the Tradition of Kiyahk, the visions of Zeitoun etc. and yet have produced nothing like the traditions of the Vatican we are discussing here, I don't see any similiarity.

So you're not the least bit worried about people misinterpreting "the salvation of our father Adam" or "the redemption of Isaiah" or "the grace of Elijah" as Coptic titles of the Theotokos?
How long have they been singing that in Egypt, and no bizarre dogmas on the Holy Thetokos have sprouted? No, not the least bit worried.  If they started taking such titles out of the context of the poetry of the hymns, then I might reconsider.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 05, 2011, 06:16:21 PM
OK, then I apologize for all the times I prayed that the Russian people would be saved from the evils of Communism. Obviously I had no right whatsoever to do that.  Only the Orthodox may pray for the countries in which they reside. I get it now.

Orthodox prayer is complex. For instance, even prayer books printed more than a decade after the fall of communism still have prayers for the "suffering Russian people". I guess God can retroactively apply the prayers or something. It's best to just not ask, IMO  ;D

Just wanted to make a note on the above. I have seen prayer books from the 2000's that have the above words in them. However, today I received a 2010 edition/printing, and (if I'm looking in the right place) it now has been changed to: "Save, O Lord, and have mercy on the Russian Land and her Orthodox people both in the homeland and in the diaspora, this land and it's authorities".
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 05, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.

You are assuming that the Orthodox will unite with Rome ... Who will perform the purging of Orthodox who refuse to recognize the thousand years of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls, Papally adopted visions and other Papal infallible teachings?

I hate to say 'duh', but any ultimate unity that might ever, ever come to pass will be through the work of the Holy Spirit and the 'thousand years of .......bull...' (couldn't help myself there with the editing... ;) ) obviously would not be part of the package of dogma binding on all. All of that has to be parsed out and either be explained away or be rejected.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.



My thoughts, exactly. Why over define those things upon which the foundation of the Faith was determined in the days of the ancient Fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church? I don't get it.

I've come to realize over the years that the definition of doctrine or dogmatizing a teaching means something much different and much more legalistic to the Orthodox than it does to Catholics.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
As distinctions-if they even make a distinction-without a difference. Try to say you don't believe Fatima is true, and find out how much obligation is lacking. 

More of your Chick Schtick...

The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

If you are going to destroy Catholic teaching as you have now said twice that you intend to do so where ever and whenever you can, and I mean the teaching of my Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, then you most likely should be able to identify that teaching or you'd be wasting good powder blowing up phantoms.

Also, Professor, you might want to remember that others far more qualified than you are have failed.

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
Father Ambrose, that icon you gave...the more I examine it the more I am questioning it's ultimate source. Forgive this poor "Nestorian" for questioning that icon's theology but :

1) Why do the hands point downwards (Hell...?) instead of towards Christ ?

2) Why are they on a globe like the questioned  "lady of all nations" image of Roman Catholics? They both have the Virgin with her hands or feet (authority) on a globe. If Mary is the lord of this world that is a blasphemy for we know who is the lord of this world. If Mary is the Lord of the World to come that is an even greater blasphemy for that is equating her with God.

3) Again why does she have the scepter which belongs to her son (Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) ?

4) Why does Christ point towards her and not her to Christ ?

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?

6) She has a Crown to signal her Queenship yet Christ has no sign or symbol of his authority whatsoever except a halo (and hers is bigger obviously).

7) The scepter looks highly breakable....like a reed scepter used to mock false kings!

8) Notice the darkness surrounding the image. What does that tell you?


in short, this does not look of God. If it was found before a tremendous judgement came on the Church more to question it. The "miracle" was an old woman saying to look for icons in a church basement after a dream appeared to her three times. Here is what scripture says concerning such dreams :

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Last, you said in another thread the red traditional colour was the true Virgin Mary and other colours (specifically Blue and White) could not be possible. Behold the false teachings in this red coloured garment icon!

The sum of your objections appears to me that the Mother of God could not have given this icon to the Russian faithful.  Instead it must be a revelation..... from hell !!?

Father, I don't think I'm surprised.  Many anti-OO's (EO's no less...Patrick Barnes among them) have described our Lady of Zeitoun as a demonic apparition to discredit the Coptic Church.

What were the objections if I may ask? Describe the apparition to me and the objections. By the way, orbs I have seen in so called "UFOs" and other such questionable phenomena.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 06:46:31 PM
I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.

The light of Christ shining through his mother who loved him with the intensity of any mother who loves her son and who died with him as he died on the Cross...

I die with my son with each hard stroke that life gives him as if it were me who were taking the blows.  I know it is not the same as actually taking them, but my pain is nearly inconceivable save to some other mother who agonizes the same way.

So I see that light, not as her pain, but as his light, his grace, his love shining through her to us.

How blasphemous, I know...such heresy...I realize.  But I do believe she is the Mother of All Grace.  And as a mother, I have no difficulty understanding her humanity, however exalted she may be.

 :)

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 07:17:44 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.



My thoughts, exactly. Why over define those things upon which the foundation of the Faith was determined in the days of the ancient Fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church? I don't get it.

I've come to realize over the years that the definition of doctrine or dogmatizing a teaching means something much different and much more legalistic to the Orthodox than it does to Catholics.
The Orthodox are the Catholics.

As for the Vatican, it is the one who engages in all this hair splitting, micro categorizing etc.  And like the law, in the end it doesn't clarify anything at all, just muddle them some more.  Like trying to pin you all down on ex cathedra and magisterial statements, such on these bizarre visions and the strange cults they inspire.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 07:28:25 PM
As distinctions-if they even make a distinction-without a difference. Try to say you don't believe Fatima is true, and find out how much obligation is lacking. 

More of your Chick Schtick...

The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.

Your collective lips say no, but your collective acts say yes.

If you are going to destroy Catholic teaching as you have now said twice that you intend to do so where ever and whenever you can, and I mean the teaching of my Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church,
your "church" adulterated the Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, from whose teachings the Vatican has departed, in this embrace of "visionaries" as a basis of the Faith we believe in, as elsewhere.

then you most likely should be able to identify that teaching or you'd be wasting good powder blowing up phantoms.
LOL. All I've had to do is say I don't believe in the phantoms of Fatima and Lourdes (Guadalupe is different), to see the reaction among devotees of the Vatican that I had correctly identified its teachings and struck a nerve.

Also, Professor, you might want to remember that others far more qualified than you are have failed.
(http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)
They kept the pure Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church pure and Orthodox.  That hared headed ultramontanists persisted in their heresy doesn't mean the former failed.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 07:45:04 PM
As distinctions-if they even make a distinction-without a difference. Try to say you don't believe Fatima is true, and find out how much obligation is lacking. 

More of your Chick Schtick...

The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

If you are going to destroy Catholic teaching as you have now said twice that you intend to do so where ever and whenever you can, and I mean the teaching of my Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, then you most likely should be able to identify that teaching or you'd be wasting good powder blowing up phantoms.

Does that mean I'm doing a better job than Isa in destroying Catholic teaching.  I never saw Isa nor any other Orthodox poster claim that the Catholic Church has a Patron Saint for women who cut themselves.   ::)  Whether thousands of young impressionable girls cut themselves or thousands of soldiers kill in the name of Rome, those sins can't be hidden under a bushel.   :'(

Also, Professor, you might want to remember that others far more qualified than you are have failed.

I only heard of one person with the nickname of Professor ... Professional Poker Player Howard Lederer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lederer)

Quote
Lederer is known as "the Poker Professor" because of his demeanor, analytical style and long history of wins.

Isa is analytical with a long history of wins and he's a Teacher, not a Professor.   ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 08:45:25 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.
Oh that's interesting. As far as I know, your Pope hasn't actually promulgated the dogma of the "Co-Redeemer", yet you are telling us that believing it is an obligation and failing to do so will cause us to "receive God's judgment [sic]".  So you believe this un-promulgated dogma out of fear of hell do you? Did some scary "vision" tell you what to believe?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 08:54:03 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

When I go to the Coptic Church, and we pray for the Catholic Church, we aren't praying for the Vatican.

Okay...I meant the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. 

Quote
I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Just checking.  Since the Copts have the Tradition of Kiyahk, the visions of Zeitoun etc. and yet have produced nothing like the traditions of the Vatican we are discussing here, I don't see any similiarity.

So you're not the least bit worried about people misinterpreting "the salvation of our father Adam" or "the redemption of Isaiah" or "the grace of Elijah" as Coptic titles of the Theotokos?
How long have they been singing that in Egypt, and no bizarre dogmas on the Holy Thetokos have sprouted? No, not the least bit worried.  If they started taking such titles out of the context of the poetry of the hymns, then I might reconsider.

Of course, we are very vehement in teaching what the Theotokos is not in addition to what she is.  I just feel that our language can be equally misconstrued by the simple minded people.  Roman Catholics outnumber us by a vast number.  It's no surprise you might easily find some fringe elements that might give way to heresies like the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit" or Vassula's alleged beliefs.

I think we just need to be a bit more charitable in our discussions with Roman Catholics.  If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits.  That's all.

Of course, I don't have nearly as much knowledge as you do when it comes to Roman Catholic history.  So I may be wrong in the end concerning giving Roman Catholics the benefit of the doubt.  But at least, so far, we have not yet had a Catholic who believed in bizarre Vassula Ryden beliefs posting here.

As for depictions of the Theotokos on the Crucifix, where do you find this?  And maybe I missed it here, but I'm sure the Roman Catholics posting here won't approve of it.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
It is important to reinforce the following fact, regardless of what others might say about it.


The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
As distinctions-if they even make a distinction-without a difference. Try to say you don't believe Fatima is true, and find out how much obligation is lacking. 

More of your Chick Schtick...

The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

If you are going to destroy Catholic teaching as you have now said twice that you intend to do so where ever and whenever you can, and I mean the teaching of my Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, then you most likely should be able to identify that teaching or you'd be wasting good powder blowing up phantoms.

Does that mean I'm doing a better job than Isa in destroying Catholic teaching. 

 :)  I suppose its safe to say that I don't think you have quite the same genius as The Professor.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
Defended by Catholic laity:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33383.msg527435/#msg527435
The explanation I gave shows that it is not at all heretical. "Co-" in this case does not mean "equal to," it means "with" as in cooperated. That you want to consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching indicates that perhaps you are not that secure in your own faith.
::)
I know you think The Theotokos "co-operated" with Christ in your redemption. You now even depict her with a cross and wounds on her hands to show it. Its garbage and heresy. Christ alone redeemed both us and His Mother. The Theotokos is subject both to the conditions of the fall, and the redemption of Christ. She is not a "Co-redeemer". She has been redeemed. And all your squealing and ad hominems won't change that.
But I don't believe Mary suffered and died on the cross. Now you are misrepresenting what I said.
Really?
B. those indentations in her hands indicate she was wounded too by experiencing the pain of seeing her Son crucified;
Dishonesty again. You did not provide my entire quote but only a snippet taken out of context. If you would have read this in the context of my entire post you would have realized that in point "D" I mentioned the image can be taken as a metaphor. It is either a metaphor or an indication that the Mother of God may have received stigmata as someone else in this thread hypothesized. I think you, Fr. Ambrose, and ozgeorge know what our Church actually teaches and knows that we do not actually teach that Mary was crucified. You would just rather perpetuate falsehoods because you hate our Church.

I have explained time and again (as have others) that "Co-Redemptrix" does not mean that Mary is on equal footing to Christ, but explained that she cooperated with God just as we all cooperate with God when we do His will. It is not that hard of a concept and I have a very difficult time believing that my explanation is truly going over all of your heads. It is just easier to hate sometimes, isn't it?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
I just want to add that I personally don't find the "Co-Redeemer" beliefs an issue at all as long as it is "properly" interpreted.
Exactly, and all those in this thread and elsewhere who purposely misrepresent the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church will receive God's judgment at the end of their life.
Oh that's interesting. As far as I know, your Pope hasn't actually promulgated the dogma of the "Co-Redeemer", yet you are telling us that believing it is an obligation and failing to do so will cause us to "receive God's judgment [sic]".  So you believe this un-promulgated dogma out of fear of hell do you? Did some scary "vision" tell you what to believe?
It is remarkable how you manage to misunderstand every single post I make. Methinks if you were less angry and reactionary and actually READ what I said you would have less difficulty. I am not talking about people who don't believe in the wording "co-redeemer" being damned. I really couldn't care less whether you believe it or not, nor do I care whether any Catholics do or not since it is not a dogma. The discussion of whether or not it will ever be a dogma is just speculation. The part I was talking about that is damning is people like you trying to peddle a false image of the Catholic Church by claiming it teaches something it does not teach. The Catholic Church never has nor will it ever teach that Mary died on the cross for our sins. That is heretical to us and you know it is so stop being dishonest. One picture that shows Mary with stigmata wounds has absolutely no bearing on what the Catholic Church teaches and you know it. You just enjoy trolling.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 09:06:36 PM
Father Ambrose, please confirm to me if that is indeed a scepter in the Virgin's hand (an untruth since only her Son bears the scepter as scripture repeatedly says) and if it is indeed a globe as in the roman catholic vision (another untruth since Mary is not the Lord of this world or of the next in any way). An icon of God cannot teach untruths.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 05, 2011, 09:07:01 PM
Father Ambrose, that icon you gave...the more I examine it the more I am questioning it's ultimate source. Forgive this poor "Nestorian" for questioning that icon's theology but :

1) Why do the hands point downwards (Hell...?) instead of towards Christ ?

2) Why are they on a globe like the questioned  "lady of all nations" image of Roman Catholics? They both have the Virgin with her hands or feet (authority) on a globe. If Mary is the lord of this world that is a blasphemy for we know who is the lord of this world. If Mary is the Lord of the World to come that is an even greater blasphemy for that is equating her with God.

3) Again why does she have the scepter which belongs to her son (Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) ?

4) Why does Christ point towards her and not her to Christ ?

5) Why does it depict the Father breaking the canons of the Church and scriptures which say he is unknowable except by the Son?

6) She has a Crown to signal her Queenship yet Christ has no sign or symbol of his authority whatsoever except a halo (and hers is bigger obviously).

7) The scepter looks highly breakable....like a reed scepter used to mock false kings!

8) Notice the darkness surrounding the image. What does that tell you?


in short, this does not look of God. If it was found before a tremendous judgement came on the Church more to question it. The "miracle" was an old woman saying to look for icons in a church basement after a dream appeared to her three times. Here is what scripture says concerning such dreams :

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 13:1-4

Last, you said in another thread the red traditional colour was the true Virgin Mary and other colours (specifically Blue and White) could not be possible. Behold the false teachings in this red coloured garment icon!

The sum of your objections appears to me that the Mother of God could not have given this icon to the Russian faithful.  Instead it must be a revelation..... from hell !!?

The untruth of the scepter being in the hand of the Virgin instead of her son is enough for me, but God is merciful and allowed us the hints like the globe, the enveloping darkness, and the direction of her right hand as pointers as to the ultimate source. A good trial, but did not catch me, my faith is in fact stengthened, the gates of Hell did not triumph.

By the way, on the subject of icons in which the Virgin is the focus or even the sole person depicted. Why is it that the Holiest icon in existence, the first one, the one made without hands only shows Christ ?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Turin_plasch.jpg)

(The Sinai Pantocrator said to mirror the Mandilo):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg/220px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg)

Now the Sinai icon above (the icon placed in Saint Anthony of the Desert's cave by the way) shows Christ as the sole source of Power and Authority on Earth...NOT his Mother. He holds in his hand the authority, NOT his Mother. By the way...the Sinai Pantocrator icon which is said to be based on the shroud/mandilo emphasizes the two natures of Christ and their seperateness.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits. 

Will this do?

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church" "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 05, 2011, 09:15:15 PM

Of course, I don't have nearly as much knowledge as you do when it comes to Roman Catholic history.  So I may be wrong in the end concerning giving Roman Catholics the benefit of the doubt.  But at least, so far, we have not yet had a Catholic who believed in bizarre Vassula Ryden beliefs posting here.


This has to be said in all fairness to those who truly do know Catholic history and Catholic teaching...my Church's history and teaching.  

The knowledge that you refer to here can only be successfully displayed here.  If we put that knowledge to the test in a fair setting, with the truly knowledgeable respondents,  where one cannot simply cut, paste and point, where analysis counted as much as chronology, then there would be nothing but failure.  

The knowledge that you refer to cannot stand up in any venue but this one, for very obvious reasons.  And that is why you only find it on display here and not out challenging those with real knowledge, insight and, in some cases, real sanctity.  It is easy to play to an audience already convinced.

Mary
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 05, 2011, 09:26:39 PM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
Just a note on the "suffering marks" of the Theotokos in Catholic depictions, we do understand there is a tradition of miracles people suffered through called the stigmata.  For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this is a symbolic "stigmata" that many other faithful can experience.
A Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox, or a tradition of the Vatican?

There is no tradition of stigmata in the Coptic Church.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating a Coptic tradition when I said "Catholic depictions."

When I go to the Coptic Church, and we pray for the Catholic Church, we aren't praying for the Vatican.

Okay...I meant the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. 

Quote
I'm simply trying to understand what Catholics think, especially with the picture where there's light radiating from a certain point in the palm of her hand.  That's all.
Just checking.  Since the Copts have the Tradition of Kiyahk, the visions of Zeitoun etc. and yet have produced nothing like the traditions of the Vatican we are discussing here, I don't see any similiarity.

So you're not the least bit worried about people misinterpreting "the salvation of our father Adam" or "the redemption of Isaiah" or "the grace of Elijah" as Coptic titles of the Theotokos?
How long have they been singing that in Egypt, and no bizarre dogmas on the Holy Thetokos have sprouted? No, not the least bit worried.  If they started taking such titles out of the context of the poetry of the hymns, then I might reconsider.

Of course, we are very vehement in teaching what the Theotokos is not in addition to what she is.  I just feel that our language can be equally misconstrued by the simple minded people.
Dr. Miravelle, Maxmillian Kolbe, and several of their supreme pontiffs do not count as "the simple minded people."  I expect no more of them than to display the same intelligence shown by dirt poor, uneducated, illiterate Coptic peasants.

Roman Catholics outnumber us by a vast number.  It's no surprise you might easily find some fringe elements that might give way to heresies like the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit" or Vassula's alleged beliefs.

I think we just need to be a bit more charitable in our discussions with Roman Catholics.  If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits.  That's all.

And yet they put these "misinterpretations," brought to them in visions, front and center. In other words, no, they don't make it clear they don't approve.  Quite the contrary, as Ozgeorge's quote from their supreme pontiff Pius XII shows.

Of course, I don't have nearly as much knowledge as you do when it comes to Roman Catholic history.  So I may be wrong in the end concerning giving Roman Catholics the benefit of the doubt.  But at least, so far, we have not yet had a Catholic who believed in bizarre Vassula Ryden beliefs posting here.
We had one of their priests post that he found nothing objectionable in her.

As for depictions of the Theotokos on the Crucifix, where do you find this?  And maybe I missed it here, but I'm sure the Roman Catholics posting here won't approve of it.
Look at their reaction and defense of the "Lady of All Nations."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 09:35:49 PM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
I think Ozgeorge already linked to it, and I've referenced it and its source, Dr. Miravelle. Physician heal thyself.  Pure snake oil, from the Serpent himself.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 09:37:25 PM
It is important to reinforce the following fact, regardless of what others might say about it.


The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

That fine print gets finer all the time.

Talk about legalism.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 09:39:30 PM
Dr. Miravelle, Maxmillian Kolbe, and several of their supreme pontiffs do not count as "the simple minded people."  I expect no more of them than to display the same intelligence shown by dirt poor, uneducated, illiterate Coptic peasants.

....

And yet they put these "misinterpretations," brought to them in visions, front and center. In other words, no, they don't make it clear they don't approve.  Quite the contrary, as Ozgeorge's quote from their supreme pontiff Pius XII shows.

I'll get to that in a minute.

But I do agree there needs to be an official papal bull or decree or something ecumenical from the Roman Catholic side to quell any misinterpretations of who the Theotokos is and make very clear who she is not.

Quote
We had one of their priests post that he found nothing objectionable in her.

In all fairness, we have yet to find the true nature of this priest, if even the Catholics here find him acceptable or not.

Quote
Look at their reaction and defense of the "Lady of All Nations."

I admit I've been skimming through the past posts here.  But here's my first take at this phrase without reading the defenses here.  I find this phrase not really all that bad.  In fact, it sounds like something Egyptians would say to their own mothers.  "Ya sit el qol" (oh lady of all) or "ya sit el habayib" (oh lady of the beloved) is quite a common phrase of flattery for our elders.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2011, 09:42:25 PM

Of course, I don't have nearly as much knowledge as you do when it comes to Roman Catholic history.  So I may be wrong in the end concerning giving Roman Catholics the benefit of the doubt.  But at least, so far, we have not yet had a Catholic who believed in bizarre Vassula Ryden beliefs posting here.


This has to be said in all fairness to those who truly do know Catholic history and Catholic teaching...my Church's history and teaching.  

The knowledge that you refer to here can only be successfully displayed here.  If we put that knowledge to the test in a fair setting, with the truly knowledgeable respondents,  where one cannot simply cut, paste and point, where analysis counted as much as chronology, then there would be nothing but failure.  

The knowledge that you refer to cannot stand up in any venue but this one, for very obvious reasons.  And that is why you only find it on display here and not out challenging those with real knowledge, insight and, in some cases, real sanctity.  It is easy to play to an audience already convinced.

Mary
Can you restate this, with coherence, so it actually says something?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 05, 2011, 09:59:30 PM
If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits. 

Will this do?

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII

Okay, let's take a look at this encyclical:

Quote
It was she, the second Eve,

I don't disagree.  She is the second Eve indeed.

Quote
who, free from all sin, original or personal,

I would disagree with this one.


Quote
and always more intimately united with her Son,

I suppose there's a special relationship between Christ and her, since she is His chosen mother.

Quote
offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust.

I have to say this needs more clarification.  She was the altar of our God incarnate, Who came and offered Himself on Golgotha for the salvation of mankind.  If that's all they mean by this, that the "offering" was simply because He took flesh from her, and she took care of Him as a mother, then no need to discuss further.

As for the mother's rights and love included in suffering, that I admit needs more clarification.  I will say that she did suffer for seeing Christ suffer, as a "sword pierced her own soul."  She rejoiced and felt sad at the same time looking upon her Son and her God.  As long as this is a sign of veneration to her, not a sign of necessity for our salvation, as I've argued elsewhere before.

Quote
Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members.

She is the Mother of God, and we also call her the mother of the faithful.  She became our mother in a venerating sense.  Because Christ honored her, we honor her too.

Quote
She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost;

This one I'm not sure about.  She is a powerful intercessor, but that the Holy Spirit be bestowed on the Church was already a divine plan, I think.  She may have prayed for salvation, but if it was specifically her idea that the Holy Spirit is to come, then I would certainly disagree, unless she like the rest of the disciples with her were fasting and praying after Christ's ascension for the coming the Holy Spirit that Christ already promised them.

Quote
and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation,

I think she was indeed courageous and confident, although suffering to see Christ suffer.

Quote
she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church"

Perhaps all the martyrs consider her their queen.  I don't know what the title exactly means.  But the verse where she was the best one to "fill up those things wanting of the sufferings of Christ," we do say she is the most perfect, glorified more than the Cherubim, honored more than the Seraphim.  Doesn't sound far off.

So so far, 2 statements in there I agree that make me cringe and some that might need clarification, but also some of the statements you bolded I didn't think were that too crazy, unless I'm reading it incorrectly.

So in the end, no, this clarification is not enough.  There needs to be a more straightforward clarification.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 10:04:08 PM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Uh huh. Is that supposed to prove that the Co-Redemptix doctrine isn't heresy and we've just "misunderstood"? Lets look at a few statements the apologist for this doctrine makes:
Quote
The New Testament prophecy of Simeon in the temple also reveals the suffering, co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption: "Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary, his mother, 'Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and will be a sign of contradiction, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul, too" (Lk. 2:34-35). But the climax of Mary's role as Co-redemptrix under her divine son takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the total suffering of the mother's heart is obediently united to the suffering of the Son's heart in fulfillment of the Father's plan of redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4). As the fruit of this redemptive suffering, Mary is given by the crucified Savior as the spiritual mother of all peoples,: "Woman, behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'behold, your mother!" (Jn. 19:27). As described by Pope John Paul II, Mary was "spiritually crucified with her crucified son" at Calvary, and "her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." [2] Even after the accomplishment of the acquisition of the graces of redemption at Calvary, Mary's co-redemptive role continues in the distribution of those saving graces to the hearts of humanity.
The mistake is obvious, and is based on the RC belief in "Merit", that is, that it was the pain and suffering of Christ (and His Mother) which was the "sacrifice" accepted by the Father to atone for sin. In her suffering, the RCs claim, the Theotokos not only "co-merited" our Salvation, but also "merited" her role as our Mother. The problem with this is that firstly, to believe it, you would have to accept the "atonement theory". Secondly, you would have to believe that we can somehow "merit" Graces.
The other problem is that this doctrine states that the Theotokos is given the role of "Mediatrix", that is, that all Grace (which, if you are Orthodox, is actually the Uncreated Divine Energies of the Trinity) are distributed by her, that is, the RC's are claiming that the Divine Energies emanate from the Trinity and must pass through the Theotokos before they can be given to us. Yet another another "double procession", "Virgoque"  if you will.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 10:18:08 PM
The real question I have about these Marian definitions, mediatrix/co-redemptrix and others, is why are they necessary? In Orthodox theology, we define that Mary is ever-virgin and Theotokos. Both of these doctrine refer back to Christ and His nature and were necessary to combat rampant heresies. But how do these marian definitions point back to Christ and help us to understand Him better? To me, all they seem to accomplish is to elevate her status, role, and activity in the Christian life, and marginalize those of the Holy Spirit and Christ.



My thoughts, exactly. Why over define those things upon which the foundation of the Faith was determined in the days of the ancient Fathers and the Councils of the undivided Church? I don't get it.
Well said both of you.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 10:18:49 PM
The Catholic Church never has nor will it ever teach that Mary died on the cross for our sins.

The Catholic Church used to teach that self-mutilation was a sin ... well, until Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque was canonized by the same Pope who pronounced Papal Infallibility at Vatican I.  The Internet has accelerated acceptance of such teachings from Centuries (about 190 in Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque's case) to slightly more than 6 years (the Beatification of Pope John Paul II).  So, if devotees of Mary being crucified on the cross have their way ... a future Pope will issue an infallible encyclical stating Mary's crucifixion as fact and we're back to 1984 where history can be rewritten to suit those in power and influence (e.g. future heads of state of Vatican City).

That is heretical to us and you know it is so stop being dishonest.

You said that schism has "blinded us (e.g. Eastern Orthodox)" so who are you to tell us what is Truth and what isn't or what is heresy (even by your standards) and what isn't?   ???

One picture that shows Mary with stigmata wounds has absolutely no bearing on what the Catholic Church teaches and you know it. You just enjoy trolling.

What about those Catholic Clergy and Hierarchy who venerate that image?  One of them may be the Pope who makes that teaching, yup, INFALLIBLE.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 10:28:26 PM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I see why you didn't cite Part 2 or Part 3.  The following snippets from Part 2 (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part2.php) is enough for the Orthodox:

Quote
Vatican II repeatedly teaches Mary's unique participation in the redemption of Jesus Christ:

or Part 3 (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part3.php):

Quote
In his homily on the Feast of Immaculate Conception in the cathedral in Krakow, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (the present pontiff) well summarized this Marian truth: "In order to be the Co­redemptrix, she was first the Immaculate Conception."
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 10:35:59 PM
And that is why you only find it on display here and not out challenging those with real knowledge, insight and, in some cases, real sanctity.  It is easy to play to an audience already convinced.

You are asking Orthodox why they do not personally challenge the beliefs of Roman/Eastern Catholic Church with Roman/Eastern Catholic laity, Clergy and Hierarchy in public places besides an Internet Forum?

If a homeless person spouted incorrect things about the Immaculate Conception or prayed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque to protect Lindsay Lohan, would you take the time to correct him/her, continue on your normal business or judge that individual as crazy?   ???
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 05, 2011, 10:54:43 PM
If a homeless person spouted incorrect things about the Immaculate Conception or prayed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque to protect Lindsay Lohan, would you take the time to correct him/her, continue on your normal business or judge that individual as crazy?   ???
I couldn't care less what Catholics choose to believe; they are free to believe whatever they want to believe. However when they start claiming that the Eastern Orthodox believe the same thing or that their heretical doctrines are somehow no different to Eastern Orthodoxy, and that we reject them simply because we "misunderstand them", I take issue.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 05, 2011, 11:03:01 PM
If a homeless person spouted incorrect things about the Immaculate Conception or prayed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque to protect Lindsay Lohan, would you take the time to correct him/her, continue on your normal business or judge that individual as crazy?   ???
I couldn't care less what Catholics choose to believe; they are free to believe whatever they want to believe.

The Catholics have exercised that freedom to choose quite well.   :)

However when they start claiming that the Eastern Orthodox believe the same thing or that their heretical doctrines are somehow no different to Eastern Orthodoxy, and that we reject them simply because we "misunderstand them", I take issue.

Agreed.   :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 06, 2011, 12:12:58 AM
I couldn't care less what Catholics choose to believe; they are free to believe whatever they want to believe. However when they start claiming that the Eastern Orthodox believe the same thing or that their heretical doctrines are somehow no different to Eastern Orthodoxy, and that we reject them simply because we "misunderstand them", I take issue.

/\  Kissing your feet. :laugh:  These are the very issues on which I and others have battled Elijahmaria again and again.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 06, 2011, 12:15:14 AM
Dr. Miravelle, Maxmillian Kolbe, and several of their supreme pontiffs do not count as "the simple minded people."  I expect no more of them than to display the same intelligence shown by dirt poor, uneducated, illiterate Coptic peasants.

....

And yet they put these "misinterpretations," brought to them in visions, front and center. In other words, no, they don't make it clear they don't approve.  Quite the contrary, as Ozgeorge's quote from their supreme pontiff Pius XII shows.

I'll get to that in a minute.

But I do agree there needs to be an official papal bull or decree or something ecumenical from the Roman Catholic side to quell any misinterpretations of who the Theotokos is and make very clear who she is not.

Should be, but there won't be, as that is not how the Vatican operates.

Look at their reaction and defense of the "Lady of All Nations."

I admit I've been skimming through the past posts here.  But here's my first take at this phrase without reading the defenses here.  I find this phrase not really all that bad.  In fact, it sounds like something Egyptians would say to their own mothers.  "Ya sit el qol" (oh lady of all) or "ya sit el habayib" (oh lady of the beloved) is quite a common phrase of flattery for our elders.
Like this
But the card that the Professor displays here is not a usual or frequently found image.  I have never seen anything like it before.
Oh you'll be seeing more of them. Your Church has started placing parishes under the patronage of the "Lady of All Nations":
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html
http://www.ladyofallnations-bali.com/en.default.asp
And your clergy are venerating it:
(http://echochrystusakrola.net/assets/images/starsze/maria3.jpg)
Compare
(http://www.eskimo.com/~jwalley/Christus-Victor.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 06, 2011, 12:16:11 AM
I'm getting tired just watching you guys argue!  :P
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 06, 2011, 12:21:44 AM

...will cause us to "receive God's judgment [sic]". 


He's allowed to spell it that way, George.  Americans drop the e out of judgement.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on February 06, 2011, 12:28:45 AM
Father Ambrose, please confirm to me if that is indeed a scepter in the Virgin's hand


Yes, it is a sceptre.    It was a comforting thought for believers that at the Revolution when the demonic powers took control of Orthodox Russia that the heavenly realm still overshadowed Russia even though the Tsar anointed by God had been removed.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: FormerReformer on February 06, 2011, 12:32:40 AM

...will cause us to "receive God's judgment [sic]".


He's allowed to spell it that way, George.  Americans drop the e out of judgement.

Aha!  I knew I wasn't misspelling it!  Take that little red squiggly lines!

Sorry, off topic, but me and my spelling correction software don't always see eye to eye.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 06, 2011, 12:40:27 AM

...will cause us to "receive God's judgment [sic]". 


He's allowed to spell it that way, George.  Americans drop the e out of judgement.
I see. Literally poor judgement! ;D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 06, 2011, 01:01:46 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
I think Ozgeorge already linked to it, and I've referenced it and its source, Dr. Miravelle. Physician heal thyself.  Pure snake oil, from the Serpent himself.
And probably twisted some snippets to say what he wanted them to say so he can "prove" how heretical we are.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 06, 2011, 01:01:46 AM
It is important to reinforce the following fact, regardless of what others might say about it.


The Church teaches that none are required to believe any of the apparitions or mystical experiences of any person, regardless of their rank in the Church.  

That fine print gets finer all the time.

Talk about legalism.
Too bad we can't leave everything undefined and as a grey area like the Eastern Orthodox. Darned the luck! LOL.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 06, 2011, 01:01:46 AM
If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits. 

Will this do?

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church" "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html


You'll have to do more than point and grunt if you actually want a response from the Catholics here.

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 06, 2011, 01:01:48 AM
Father Ambrose, please confirm to me if that is indeed a scepter in the Virgin's hand


Yes, it is a sceptre.    It was a comforting thought for believers that at the Revolution when the demonic powers took control of Orthodox Russia that the heavenly realm still overshadowed Russia even though the Tsar anointed by God had been removed.

But no offense...the icon is confirming the communist takeover and does not comfort me since the Virgin does not bear the Scep ter,the Throne, is not Lord of the World to come, etc. the Messiah is all these, and these symbols are placed on her in this icon.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 06, 2011, 01:15:45 AM
If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits. 

Will this do?

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church" "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html


You'll have to do more than point and grunt if you actually want a response from the Catholics here.
The Catholics have responded.

As for you Vatican folk, you just need to submit to these words of your supreme pontiff.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 06, 2011, 01:16:59 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
I think Ozgeorge already linked to it, and I've referenced it and its source, Dr. Miravelle. Physician heal thyself.  Pure snake oil, from the Serpent himself.
And probably twisted some snippets to say what he wanted them to say so he can "prove" how heretical we are.
Ozgeorge doesn't have to twist a thing. The "Co-redemtrix" nonsense is all twisted enough already.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 06, 2011, 01:35:44 AM
If they make it clear from their teachings something they don't approve, or how to properly interpret certain phrases, then we should argue based on those merits.  

Will this do?

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church" "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html


You'll have to do more than point and grunt if you actually want a response from the Catholics here.

M.
It speaks for itself. No Orthodox Christian has to say anything to show that it is heresy. It's self evident.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 06, 2011, 01:38:12 AM
Double post.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 06, 2011, 02:07:42 AM
Should be, but there won't be, as that is not how the Vatican operates.

Let us pray one day it will then.

Quote
Like this
But the card that the Professor displays here is not a usual or frequently found image.  I have never seen anything like it before.
Oh you'll be seeing more of them. Your Church has started placing parishes under the patronage of the "Lady of All Nations":
http://www.camborne-redruth-parish.org/Our_Parish_Patron.html
http://www.ladyofallnations-bali.com/en.default.asp
And your clergy are venerating it:
(http://echochrystusakrola.net/assets/images/starsze/maria3.jpg)
Compare
(http://www.eskimo.com/~jwalley/Christus-Victor.jpg)

Oh that....the way it was worded I thought some people actually drew an icon of her crucified or something...

...Well, I can see how where we come from with our iconographic tradition this could be blasphemy.  For one thing, we always draw a halo with a cross around Christ to represent Him as quite unique from all the rest, as God incarnate literally.  If we use this motif on this icon, certainly the implications are disastrous.

Secondly, I agree, we never had an icon with a saint presented in front of a cross to begin with.  They would carry crosses, but not be in front of them.  So from that vantage point, it's actually odd.

So, ya, I understand where you're coming from with this icon.  I will say there is a problem with it from an Eastern perspective.  What does the West think it means?  That's the question now we need to ask them.

As for her representation standing over the world, well, that can be symbolic for them.  Once again, to us the motif sounds like she rules the world as God does, but to the West, it might mean something else.

Then again, after all this rambling, it could be a bunch of vagante priests.  I just want to share with you about a comment you made earlier about Coptic peasants.  Sometimes their ideas can carry on also to certain Coptic priests that are thankfully disciplined by our bishops.  But we can have some faulty priests, no doubt about that.

So is the Vatican slow to respond?  Perhaps.  I don't know.  It seems the Vatican has other issues to deal with apparently.  But maybe some resident Catholics who fear this issue should bring it up to their bishops or cardinals.  And if that doesn't work, then certainly they should have a strong case against at least their local Roman Catholic parishes.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 06, 2011, 02:19:44 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
It seems like they are having a hay day answering amongst themselves. The fire (RC bashing) will eventually burn itself out.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 06, 2011, 02:21:35 AM
So is the Vatican slow to respond?  Perhaps.  I don't know.  It seems the Vatican has other issues to deal with apparently.  But maybe some resident Catholics who fear this issue should bring it up to their bishops or cardinals.  And if that doesn't work, then certainly they should have a strong case against at least their local Roman Catholic parishes.

And risk excommunication by their Hierarchy and permanent damnation from the Pope's infallible teachings by challenging these man-made teachings ... might as well say a few more Ave Marias....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 06, 2011, 02:25:56 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Seems like they are having fun answering themselves. The fire will eventually burn itself out.

Orthodox Christians won't be excommunicated by their Hierarchs (those who haven't absconded for Rome)  for disputing what we see as heresy; however, I can't speak for what your Hierarchy will do to you when challenged with the Truth....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 06, 2011, 02:26:37 AM
So is the Vatican slow to respond?  Perhaps.  I don't know.  It seems the Vatican has other issues to deal with apparently.  But maybe some resident Catholics who fear this issue should bring it up to their bishops or cardinals.  And if that doesn't work, then certainly they should have a strong case against at least their local Roman Catholic parishes.

And risk excommunication by their Hierarchy and permanent damnation from the Pope's infallible teachings by challenging these man-made teachings ... might as well say a few more Ave Marias....
I say Ave Maria every night..Ave Maria gratia plena...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 06, 2011, 02:31:08 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Seems like they are having fun answering themselves. The fire will eventually burn itself out.

Orthodox Christians won't be excommunicated by their Hierarchs (those who haven't absconded for Rome)  for disputing what we see as heresy; however, I can't speak for what your Hierarchy will do to you when challenged with the Truth....
What you see as truth is irrelevant in my opinion. You say you have the fullness of truth, I disagree. But don't worry about me being excommunicated. Worry about your own salvation.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: SolEX01 on February 06, 2011, 02:43:01 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Seems like they are having fun answering themselves. The fire will eventually burn itself out.

Orthodox Christians won't be excommunicated by their Hierarchs (those who haven't absconded for Rome)  for disputing what we see as heresy; however, I can't speak for what your Hierarchy will do to you when challenged with the Truth....
What you see as truth is irrelevant in my opinion. You say you have the fullness of truth, I disagree. But don't worry about me being excommunicated. Worry about your own salvation.

I don't care if any Roman/Eastern Catholic is excommunicated for challenging their Hierarchy on the Marian beliefs mentioned in this thread ...

The Orthodox have fullness of truth; Since the 12th Century, Catholicism is just an extension of the Scientific Method:

Hypothesis: a young female teenager cuts herself because no one understands her.
Proof: She tells people Jesus removed her heart, placed it on His heart, reinstalled it and gives her a binding legal document saying that her heart belongs to Him.
Immediate Outcome: She cuts herself 192 times in 16 years due to monthly pains.
Final Outcome: Sainthood and eternal veneration and purging of the Hypothesis....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ChristusDominus on February 06, 2011, 02:55:57 AM
If anyone gets tired of all the Catholic bashing and wants an actual understanding of what we mean when we use the term "co-redemptrix," this site is quite informative: http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php (http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php)

I pulled up that site by doing a simple Google search. I am surprised no one else has ran across it. Of course, that is not nearly as much fun as taking snippets of a quote out of context and other forms of dishonesty so really I do not know why I am surprised.
Seems like they are having fun answering themselves. The fire will eventually burn itself out.

Orthodox Christians won't be excommunicated by their Hierarchs (those who haven't absconded for Rome)  for disputing what we see as heresy; however, I can't speak for what your Hierarchy will do to you when challenged with the Truth....
What you see as truth is irrelevant in my opinion. You say you have the fullness of truth, I disagree. But don't worry about me being excommunicated. Worry about your own salvation.

I don't care if any Roman/Eastern Catholic is excommunicated for challenging their Hierarchy on the Marian beliefs mentioned in this thread ...

The Orthodox have fullness of truth; Since the 12th Century, Catholicism is just an extension of the Scientific Method:

Hypothesis: a young female teenager cuts herself because no one understands her.
Proof: She tells people Jesus removed her heart, placed it on His heart, reinstalled it and gives her a binding legal document saying that her heart belongs to Him.
Immediate Outcome: She cuts herself 192 times in 16 years due to monthly pains.
Final Outcome: Sainthood and eternal veneration and purging of the Hypothesis....

Wonderful.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: stashko on February 06, 2011, 03:20:17 AM
I can't stress it enough ,Catholics Worship a Different jesus and venerate/worship a different mary, definitely not the same as Ours Scriptural Orthodox Holy Isus Hristos and Blessed Theotokos...

Roman Catholic Church Vatican and it's faithful  are Chasing after Spooks , shades , spectres, evil spirits, demons that go bump in the night ,that masqurade as jesus and mary, and leading them astry by giving them false doctrine, that they accept hook line and sinker.....

How Is Holy Orthodoxy going to reunite with all this Garbage, that's infected the Roman Catholic Church ,since they started accepting what these
apparitions have been preaching to them, then, now, and God only Knows what's coming tomorrow.......Rome has lost is way.....It's not the Church of the Holy Apostles and The holy Fathers faith once delivered unto salvation ,,But the Church of New Revelations and strange doctrines,unknown to the Holy fathers Faith Once Delivered....... ???

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 06, 2011, 08:29:58 AM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 06, 2011, 12:19:18 PM
As if open heart surgery Christ and the Theotokos wasn't enough, we get a vision to through in the God the Father and the triangle halo:
(http://www.movingheartfoundation.com/images/SacredHeartOfGodTheFather_5x7.jpg)
I'm not buying the explanation of how He got a heart
Quote
I hold out My heart to give it to humanity, to all My children in a last and desperate attempt to save their souls and restore life to My children.  I desire that people venerate the image of My Fatherly Sacred Heart.  I desire that people place this picture alongside the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary painting and pictures.  I desire to be venerated in the homes.  Every family should honor the heart of the Father, for it is out of the heart of the Father that I sent you My only begotten Son to save and redeem humanity.  Today, I give My heart as a symbol of My love and to draw them back to My Spirit which I give freely through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Come back to My heart, live in My kingdom, and receive My true peace.  For this to happen, people must venerate and acknowledge My Fatherly Sacred Heart.  Oh, how so often it is spoken of in Holy Scriptures, yet no one pays any attention to it.

My heart is real!  It truly beats and longs for all My children to be in My kingdom and free from sin and Satan.  My heart yearned to send the Savior, My Son, into the world, and through that I send also, through My heart, your only mother, your Most Holy Mother, and she loves you so much and desires you to return back to the Kingdom of Heaven also.  I desire that through this painting, great conversions will be given, and that the family that venerates Me and My Fatherly Sacred Heart will receive grace in abundance...

....Let Me explain, My dear beloved children.  My Will always existed, but yet no one has knowledge of what I desire of them.  They do not know where to go or where to turn in their life.  I am there!  I am here!  Ask Me, "What is Your Will, Oh Heavenly Father?" and I will reveal to you what My Will is for you.  I will open doors to the poor.  I will open doors to the lonely, for all those who venerate My Fatherly Sacred Heart.  And to promulgate this devotion, I desire that people, when they receive an image of this painting, that they go before it, pray, first from your heart, whatever comes to your heart, and pray an "Our Father" and mean it!  You cannot error if you pray the "Our Father", for the "Our Father" is the most perfect Will (prayer?) to Me, perfect in prayer and perfect in unity to My Will.  (And there's a big light.  It's engulfing the Father.  It's a big, big light.  It's landing on the painting!  The painting is coming to life.  He's alive!  He's right there where the painting is!)

My heart I give to humanity.  Take up My heart by living the gospels of My Son and by living every word of Sacred Scripture.  Receive My heart, My dear ones, by loving Me and accepting Me as your Father.  All graces come to you through Me first.  I am the Father.  I am God.  Every grace I give, I give to you.  I also give through Jesus, My Son who is the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, and through Our Lady, your Most Holy Mother.  I give you My heart.  Do not blaspheme My heart.  Do not mock Me.  Never tempt Me, for My eyes see all.  For those who love Me, I shall bless.  For those who hate Me, I shall curse.  I desire to give you My heart, but you must receive it in a state of grace.  You must be willing to love unconditionally.

I shall bless you, My dear little ones, with the blessing of My heart.  (He's taking a flame from His heart!  Yes, there's a flame in His hand!)  Just one single speck of this flame can purify you and give you all the graces that you will need.  Come to Me every day so that each day I may give to you new flames of graces and purification.  This is My blessing for you.  (He threw it! He says,)

The flame that you have received is going into you. (He's making the Sign of the Cross, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.)
and then "He" drags us into this mess
Quote
Now I shall depart, but before I shall depart, I desire to tell you that I mourn over the separation of churches, especially the Orthodox and Catholic churches.  Everyone should realize that they are one Church united through My Son and dwell within My heart.  The separation of the churches is of your own doing.  I desire to save humanity, but it is humanity's choice whether they will receive My heart or reject it.  If they reject it, the greatest chastisement that I will send upon humanity will be to forsake you.  I will leave you to your own doing.  This is the worst punishment ever because I have always dwelt with My people throughout all times.  But when My people did not listen, even in the Old Testament, I departed from them.  So do not be concerned about worldly goods, but be concerned about the love you have for Me, My Son, the Holy Spirit, and your Blessed Mother.

Now I shall bless you again and depart, (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
http://www.movingheartfoundation.com/SacredHeartOfGodTheFatherStoryOfThePainting.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: stashko on February 06, 2011, 03:59:48 PM
Isa : I Have a Catholic Publication Titled ,The Father Speaks to His Children...Pater Publications C.P.135,Via Veretti 1-67100 L'Aquila - Italy...
Iprimatur:+ Petrus Caisius van Lierde,Vie Generalis e Vic. Civitatas Vaticanae, Roma die 13  Martii 1989


In the booklet From reading Parts of it ,The Father is Envious , sort of jealous Of the Son, because the son has more churches named after him, and He the Father hardly has if any at all.....It just Doesn't sound right to me... ???

In the contents it says...

Preface.......3
Short Biography of Mother Eugenia .....
Bishop Calliots Testimony.......

The Fathers Message.....


In the back of the booklet it says....


We feel it is our duty to publish a message , given to the world by God the Father through one of his creatures who loves Him so much ,Sister Eugenia Elisababetta Ravasio and recognized as valid by the Church....
We are sure that this message will help people the deep tenderness the Father has for each one of us , and we hope that it will recieve the widest possable circulation......
                    (Fr. Andrea D' Ascanio, OFM Cap)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 06, 2011, 05:42:24 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: WUnland on February 06, 2011, 07:49:14 PM
I have read this thread with some interest.  As a Latin Rite Catholic I find much of what has been discussed quite disturbing, and I am speaking about the "over the top" Marian devotions and not the increasingly volatile disagreement between the Orthodox here and the Latins.

I do NOT believe in the co-redeemer, crucified Mary, Mary equal to Jesus, etc,. etc., etc., being profferred by some in my Church.  I agree with those who feel that such Marian devotion is far from the original apostolic teachings of the Church, and it makes me nervous.  Contrary to the beliefs of some here, not all of those of us brought up in the Latin tradition consider Mary anything other than what she is, the mother of Jesus, and an intermediary between us and her son who we can ask to pray for us.  For me that's it.  The icon of Mary on a cross is VERY disturbing to me, as it clearly is to many of you here.

The first time I heard the Co-Redeemer comment I was shocked.  I was catechized back in the early 60's by very traditional Carmelite nuns, known for their Marian devotion, and I never heard anything like this.  I believe that this is a post VatII idea, much advanced by John-Paul.  For myself it is NOT dogma in the Church.  If, as some say, some future Church were to present it as such, I could not accept it, and unfortunately perhaps excommunicate myself in so doing.

I am here because there are many things happening in my new "liberal" Church which I cannot reconcile.  I am NOT here to "bad mouth" my Church, as I try my best to keep communion with her, but I am also not blind to the changes taking place.

Mary is certainly a part of the Christian "story", but I believe the feminist/liberal mindset of today is what is driving this new manner of "glorifying" her.  We need a "goddess" to satisfy our "inclusive" political correctness I'm afraid. She has always been part of the Catholic devotions, but methinks the whole thing is being taken into areas that detract from our devotion to and dependence on God, and are therefore wrong.  None of this is Church dogma.  Because a Pope believes it does not make it so, nor does it make it a dogma of the Church.

I am not trying to ingratiate myself with anyone here.  I am only concerned with my own spiritual journey.  I just felt the need to say that some of us on the Latin side of the fence find this all as troubling as many of you do.

Regards,
William Unland
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 06, 2011, 08:12:41 PM
I have read this thread with some interest.  As a Latin Rite Catholic I find much of what has been discussed quite disturbing, and I am speaking about the "over the top" Marian devotions and not the increasingly volatile disagreement between the Orthodox here and the Latins.

I do NOT believe in the co-redeemer, crucified Mary, Mary equal to Jesus, etc,. etc., etc., being profferred by some in my Church.  I agree with those who feel that such Marian devotion is far from the original apostolic teachings of the Church, and it makes me nervous.  Contrary to the beliefs of some here, not all of those of us brought up in the Latin tradition consider Mary anything other than what she is, the mother of Jesus, and an intermediary between us and her son who we can ask to pray for us.  For me that's it.  The icon of Mary on a cross is VERY disturbing to me, as it clearly is to many of you here.

The first time I heard the Co-Redeemer comment I was shocked.  I was catechized back in the early 60's by very traditional Carmelite nuns, known for their Marian devotion, and I never heard anything like this.  I believe that this is a post VatII idea, much advanced by John-Paul.  For myself it is NOT dogma in the Church.  If, as some say, some future Church were to present it as such, I could not accept it, and unfortunately perhaps excommunicate myself in so doing.

I am here because there are many things happening in my new "liberal" Church which I cannot reconcile.  I am NOT here to "bad mouth" my Church, as I try my best to keep communion with her, but I am also not blind to the changes taking place.

Mary is certainly a part of the Christian "story", but I believe the feminist/liberal mindset of today is what is driving this new manner of "glorifying" her.  We need a "goddess" to satisfy our "inclusive" political correctness I'm afraid. She has always been part of the Catholic devotions, but methinks the whole thing is being taken into areas that detract from our devotion to and dependence on God, and are therefore wrong.  None of this is Church dogma.  Because a Pope believes it does not make it so, nor does it make it a dogma of the Church.

I am not trying to ingratiate myself with anyone here.  I am only concerned with my own spiritual journey.  I just felt the need to say that some of us on the Latin side of the fence find this all as troubling as many of you do.

Regards,
William Unland
I have to say, every time this topic came up that I saw on CAF (and it came up a lot) every poll had a majority against the "Co-redemptrix" dogma, and many spoke out against it. However, there was at the same time a sizable minority that was VERY persistent that it must be proclaimed, and who were not taking no for an answer. Dr. Mark Miravelle gives me the willies every time he speaks on this.  I have to ask, if he did worship the Theotokos, what would he do differently.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 07, 2011, 05:05:11 AM
I have read this thread with some interest.  As a Latin Rite Catholic I find much of what has been discussed quite disturbing, and I am speaking about the "over the top" Marian devotions and not the increasingly volatile disagreement between the Orthodox here and the Latins.

I do NOT believe in the co-redeemer, crucified Mary, Mary equal to Jesus, etc,. etc., etc., being profferred by some in my Church.  I agree with those who feel that such Marian devotion is far from the original apostolic teachings of the Church, and it makes me nervous.  Contrary to the beliefs of some here, not all of those of us brought up in the Latin tradition consider Mary anything other than what she is, the mother of Jesus, and an intermediary between us and her son who we can ask to pray for us.  For me that's it.  The icon of Mary on a cross is VERY disturbing to me, as it clearly is to many of you here.

The first time I heard the Co-Redeemer comment I was shocked.  I was catechized back in the early 60's by very traditional Carmelite nuns, known for their Marian devotion, and I never heard anything like this.  I believe that this is a post VatII idea, much advanced by John-Paul.  For myself it is NOT dogma in the Church.  If, as some say, some future Church were to present it as such, I could not accept it, and unfortunately perhaps excommunicate myself in so doing.

I am here because there are many things happening in my new "liberal" Church which I cannot reconcile.  I am NOT here to "bad mouth" my Church, as I try my best to keep communion with her, but I am also not blind to the changes taking place.

Mary is certainly a part of the Christian "story", but I believe the feminist/liberal mindset of today is what is driving this new manner of "glorifying" her.  We need a "goddess" to satisfy our "inclusive" political correctness I'm afraid. She has always been part of the Catholic devotions, but methinks the whole thing is being taken into areas that detract from our devotion to and dependence on God, and are therefore wrong.  None of this is Church dogma.  Because a Pope believes it does not make it so, nor does it make it a dogma of the Church.

I am not trying to ingratiate myself with anyone here.  I am only concerned with my own spiritual journey.  I just felt the need to say that some of us on the Latin side of the fence find this all as troubling as many of you do.

Regards,
William Unland

I saw your other thread- you should try a ROCOR parish, they are very nice.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 07, 2011, 11:46:39 AM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 07, 2011, 02:54:46 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.

Two things: 

First: In the teaching on the Immaculate Conception the Church explicitly says in its document that the Mother of God requires a redeemer and that the Church's understanding of the Immaculate Conception does not negate the fact that she was redeemed.  This is an explicit part of the teaching, so it really ought to be dealt with on those terms.

Second: In the teaching on the Assumption of the Mother of God the Church explicitly says in its document that the Mother of God ends her life time on this earth "in the normal way" which is death.  Against this is an explicit part of the teaching, easy to find, so it really ought to be dealt with on those terms.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 08, 2011, 09:08:06 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.

Two things: 

First: In the teaching on the Immaculate Conception the Church explicitly says in its document that the Mother of God requires a redeemer and that the Church's understanding of the Immaculate Conception does not negate the fact that she was redeemed.  This is an explicit part of the teaching, so it really ought to be dealt with on those terms.

So the document is inconsistent.

Second: In the teaching on the Assumption of the Mother of God the Church explicitly says in its document that the Mother of God ends her life time on this earth "in the normal way"

Not in the copies I've seen it doesn't.

which is death.  Against this is an explicit part of the teaching, easy to find, so it really ought to be dealt with on those terms.
Tell your Immortalists.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 08, 2011, 10:28:30 PM
14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 09, 2011, 01:44:48 AM
And of course there is the Basilica of the Dormition on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem which has the place of the Theotokos' dormition in the crypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dormition_P8050064.JPG
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 09, 2011, 01:49:05 AM
As if open heart surgery Christ and the Theotokos wasn't enough, we get a vision to through in the God the Father and the triangle halo:
http://www.movingheartfoundation.com/SacredHeartOfGodTheFatherStoryOfThePainting.htm

Please note even they admit their bishop has not given them any approval to spread this wackiness and he has ignored all their requests.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 01:58:04 AM
14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
14. Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. ....

Sufficiently vague-as always-that the Immortalists can, and do, slip in.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 02:07:07 AM
As if open heart surgery Christ and the Theotokos wasn't enough, we get a vision to through in the God the Father and the triangle halo:
http://www.movingheartfoundation.com/SacredHeartOfGodTheFatherStoryOfThePainting.htm

Please note even they admit their bishop has not given them any approval to spread this wackiness and he has ignored all their requests.
Ah, but doesn't that prove it? Didn't Lourdes and Fatima face initial opposition from the clergy?  The Immaculate Conception had fierce opposition from the like of Bernard of Clairveaux, Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas, dogma still it became.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 09, 2011, 02:20:35 AM
14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

The only thing which never saw corruption is the Holy One which is Christ, another very serious mistake, error in this false dogma...

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on February 09, 2011, 02:20:35 AM
Thank you Deacon Lance.  Perhaps Isa had some other document in mind where he did not read this.

14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 03:47:44 AM
You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.

What?  ???
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 04:03:35 AM
Mary is certainly a part of the Christian "story", but I believe the feminist/liberal mindset of today is what is driving this new manner of "glorifying" her.
I don't think so. Feminism would hardly offer a Virgin Mother as an ideal for women to aspire to. ALL of the Catholics I know personally who are pushing for these new dogmas (and there are, unfortunately, many in Australia) actually identify themselves as "Conservative" and "Traditional" Catholics. I think what we are seeing is actually "doctrinal development of errors" which can be traced back to the first error: the "Immaculate Conception".  The "Immaculate Conception" dogma dissociated the Theotokos from humanity in the (probably subconscious) minds of Latin Rite Catholics. What we are seeing now with the push for these new "Marian Dogmas" of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is the collective consciousness resulting from this initial error.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 09, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
 The "Immaculate Conception" dogma dissociated the Theotokos from humanity in the (probably subconscious) minds of Latin Rite Catholics. What we are seeing now with the push for these new "Marian Dogmas" of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is the collective consciousness resulting from this initial error.
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 09, 2011, 01:37:08 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 09, 2011, 01:38:12 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)
You know that they are gonna ignore you and keep falsely attributing a doctrine of the "ascension of Mary" to us.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 09, 2011, 01:43:48 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 06:02:50 PM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 06:16:10 PM
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Are you speaking to Rafa, Papist, Wyatt, Mina, or all of them?  :police:
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Papist on February 09, 2011, 06:28:20 PM
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)
At least as incontrovertible as your assertion to the contrary.  :D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 09, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?
Straight from the mouth of Satan. Satan hates Our Lady and will do anything to make people mock and discredit her, even by using fellow Christians. I saw this quite often as a Protestant.

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)
You know that they are gonna ignore you and keep falsely attributing a doctrine of the "ascension of Mary" to us.
Yeah, they won't take anything I say seriously unless I say that Mary is a Goddess and we worship her.  ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 06:40:18 PM
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Are you speaking to Rafa, Papist, Wyatt, Mina, or all of them?  :police:
I'm speaking of heresy generally. Now, it may be (in fact, it's invariably the case) that absolutely no one believes that the doctrines they adhere to are heresy. That is why I don't believe there is any point in trying to convince anyone that their dogmas are erroneous. No heretic ever converted because they were argued into the Church. What I was saying is that once one erroneous belief (delusion if you will) is admitted into the articles of one's beliefs, it invariably spawns others. If I become fixated on one false belief, then I must create a structure of other false beliefs in order to support the original one, and each part of the supporting structure needs it's own supporting structure and so on. This is very similar to delusional disorders where a whole series of delusional beliefs are created to support an initial delusional belief.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 06:57:04 PM
^ Well now, that's an interesting thought about webs of delusion. Regarding being argued into the Church... not so sure about that one  :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Cognomen on February 09, 2011, 07:19:26 PM
 The "Immaculate Conception" dogma dissociated the Theotokos from humanity in the (probably subconscious) minds of Latin Rite Catholics. What we are seeing now with the push for these new "Marian Dogmas" of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is the collective consciousness resulting from this initial error.
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.

Ozgeorge's theory makes sense to me. 

Obviously the RC position wouldn't agree that the IC dogma led to this dissociation, but are you arguing that there is no connection between the two, or simply that there is no significant push for new "Marian Dogmas"?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 09, 2011, 07:42:08 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Where got the "immortal virgin Mary that ascended to heaven without sins and thus never needed a saviour" false doctrine? A Catholic priest I spoke to who was young and who told me he refused absolution to all who denied this so called "dogma" of his church (immaculate conception specifically). That's heavy that he denied sacraments to Roman Catholics who did not believe this. And yes, I believe they will continue to ignore because they too believe in the "assumption" as well unfortunately, even though her actual physical relatives who knew the truth never spoke such a thing while serving in the ACOE as the Patriarchs of the Church...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 09, 2011, 07:42:09 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.

Where Did I ever say such a thing ? Papist will continue to speak with me since we have the same Christology according to H.H. John Paul II. By the way Minas, I have a feeling St. Anthony the Great of Egypt would agree more in Christology with me than you. How do I know? Because his cave has an image of an Edessene icon which teaches my Christology (and which is based on an ACOE relic now in Turin):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/galleries/copticchristians/#

Look behind. Why did your own people place an icon which teaches the two natures of Christ and which emphasizes them being completely seperate:

(http://www.factsplusfacts.com/resources/Pictures/Pantocrator01.jpg)

May the eyes and Hands of Christ Judge the Truth on this in the Last Day !
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 09, 2011, 07:42:09 PM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Oz, I never said such a thing. It is gross miscomprehension to say that because I don't accept that God is a "person" and that thus we can't talk of birth, dying, eating, sleeping (he who does not sleep), etc. to the Godhead that I don't accept the Godhood of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe all these things were done by his humanity. I believe in what Saint Thaddeus himself wrote in the Liturgy, that the Holy Virgin accepted the Holy Spirit in her precious womb to give Christ birth...and nothing else. I repeat what the Apostle of Christ wrote and will not add or remove anything.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 09, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't Perfect Man and Perfect God, but instead has 1 nature not distinguishing between the two and disrespecting this sacred mystery.


That's a bizarre teaching.

Behold:

Coptic Christ (look at hand):

(http://www.oocities.com/efaziz/images/03_-_Christ_the_Pantocrator_B.jpg)

The REAL Jesus Christ expressing who he is with his Hand :

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/846419629_7dc672e1af_z.jpg)


From the Church of Hagia Sophia we shall see in Supremest Wisdom which Christ the Eastern Orthodox Church chose despite all the arguments and councils :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg)


Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 08:10:17 PM
Oz, I never said such a thing. It is gross miscomprehension to say that because I don't accept that God is a "person" and that thus we can't talk of birth, dying, eating, sleeping (he who does not sleep), etc. to the Godhead that I don't accept the Godhood of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe all these things were done by his humanity. I believe in what Saint Thaddeus himself wrote in the Liturgy, that the Holy Virgin accepted the Holy Spirit in her precious womb to give Christ birth...and nothing else. I repeat what the Apostle of Christ wrote and will not add or remove anything.
Which simply goes to prove what I said. One erroneous doctrine (in this case, Nestorianism) invariably gives birth to a viper brood of other heresies.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 09, 2011, 09:51:02 PM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't Perfect Man and Perfect God, but instead has 1 nature not distinguishing between the two and disrespecting this sacred mystery.


That's a bizarre teaching.

Behold:

Coptic Christ (look at hand):

(http://www.oocities.com/efaziz/images/03_-_Christ_the_Pantocrator_B.jpg)

The REAL Jesus Christ expressing who he is with his Hand :

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/846419629_7dc672e1af_z.jpg)


From the Church of Hagia Sophia we shall see in Supremest Wisdom which Christ the Eastern Orthodox Church chose despite all the arguments and councils :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg)

I've always said Perfect Man and Perfect God.  You on the other hand deny that the One who the Theotokos bore and raised was God.  You have trouble saying it because you separate the natures completely.

The hand gestures a unity.  We believe in a unity without confusion.  "One Lord, One Christ, One is the adoration and worship," I do not worship two, God who dwells in Jesus, I worship One, God Incarnate, and I honor and venerate God Incarnate's Mother, the Virgin St. Mary.

May God forgive you for destroying the unity in Christ.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 10:04:23 PM
You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.

So who is going to kill Enoch and Elijah "when their time comes"? Or will they just die from something "natural" like a spiritual-heart-attack or something? Where will they die? In heaven? Or will they be sent back to earth so as not to sully heaven? And do they know that they're going to die? That must cause them a lot of anxiety! Or maybe God is keeping it from them, since there is supposed to be no anxiety in heaven? This is quite an fertile ground for planting innovative ideas you've happened upon!  ;D
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 10:11:55 PM
So who is going to kill Enoch and Elijah "when their time comes"? Or will they just die from something "natural" like a spiritual-heart-attack or something? Where will they die? In heaven? Or will they be sent back to earth so as not to sully heaven? And do they know that they're going to die? That must cause them a lot of anxiety! Or maybe God is keeping it from them, since there is supposed to be no anxiety in heaven? This is quite an fertile ground for planting innovative ideas you've happened upon!  ;D
There is a belief among some that Enoch and Elijah (some say Moses and Elijah) are the "Two Witnesses" mentioned in the Apocalypse (Revelation 11:3-12).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 10:16:08 PM
There is a belief among some that Enoch and Elijah (some say Moses and Elijah) are the "Two Witnesses" mentioned in the Apocalypse (Revelation 11:3-12).

Interesting... does it count if they get resurrected on earth and then ascend before dying again? For comparison, if Lazarus for some reason ascended to heaven after he'd been brought back to life but before he'd died again, would his first death have counted as him dying?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 10:41:03 PM
There is a belief among some that Enoch and Elijah (some say Moses and Elijah) are the "Two Witnesses" mentioned in the Apocalypse (Revelation 11:3-12).
Interesting... does it count if they get resurrected on earth and then ascend before dying again? For comparison, if Lazarus for some reason ascended to heaven after he'd been brought back to life but before he'd died again, would his first death have counted as him dying?
The raising of Lazarus was a "resuscitation", that is, life was restored to his corpse, but his body was not Glorified by his raising in the way that our bodies will be Glorified at the General Resurrection. The Apostle says that at the General Resurrection, the dead will be raised in Glorified bodies and the bodies of the living will change to be Glorified (I Corinthians 15:52). So Lazarus indeed has "died twice", but his body will still only be glorified once. The same is the case with the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers).
Enoch and Elijah (and some say Moses) didn't die. Elijah was carried to Heaven in a fiery chariot and Enoch was translated to Heaven ("μετατίθημι" LXX) by God, so if they are the "Two Witnesses", then they will only die once and their bodies will be Glorified once.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/MHS_Eliasz_i_Enoch_XVII_w_p.jpg/444px-MHS_Eliasz_i_Enoch_XVII_w_p.jpg)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 10:49:41 PM
Ok, you had me in everything except the Moses thing. Moses clearly wrote about his death and what happened after it ( :P ) in Deut. 34...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 10:55:38 PM
Ok, you had me in everything except the Moses thing. Moses clearly wrote about his death and what happened after it ( :P ) in Deut. 34...
It seems that Moses was resurrected at some point (Jude 1:9). At the Transfiguration, it was Moses and Elijah who appeared, hence the alternate belief that they will be the "Two Witnesses" (rather than Enoch and Elijah).
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 11:08:47 PM
What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?
Straight from the mouth of Satan.

You are saying that Satan is papist?

Satan hates Our Lady and will do anything to make people mock and discredit her, even by using fellow Christians. I saw this quite often as a Protestant.
Hmmm. Ever given much thought to that warning of St. Paul about angels of light?

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:

Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)
You know that they are gonna ignore you and keep falsely attributing a doctrine of the "ascension of Mary" to us.
Yeah, they won't take anything I say seriously unless I say that Mary is a Goddess and we worship her.  ::)
How serious do you take what Dr. Mark Miravelle and his Vox Populi say about her?  How serious do you take what Maximillian Kolbe said about the "Immaculata"?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Asteriktos on February 09, 2011, 11:10:52 PM
Ok, you had me in everything except the Moses thing. Moses clearly wrote about his death and what happened after it ( :P ) in Deut. 34...
It seems that Moses was resurrected at some point (Jude 1:9). At the Transfiguration, it was Moses and Elijah who appeared, hence the alternate belief that they will be the "Two Witnesses" (rather than Enoch and Elijah).

Huh, well I don't see Jude 9 as supporting that, but I don't claim to have any special understanding, so... ok, thanks :)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 11:15:40 PM
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)
At least as incontrovertible as your assertion to the contrary.  :D
Ozgeorge presented incontrovertable facts,e.g. maintstream theologians of the Vatican are pushing for it to proclaim yet more Marian Dogma.

You are the one who has made assertions and disclaimers.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 11:20:25 PM
 The "Immaculate Conception" dogma dissociated the Theotokos from humanity in the (probably subconscious) minds of Latin Rite Catholics. What we are seeing now with the push for these new "Marian Dogmas" of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is the collective consciousness resulting from this initial error.
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Au contraire, a home run.

Btw, Ozgeorge, do you get the baseball imagery?  I don't think you have it down under.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 11:23:33 PM
Mary is certainly a part of the Christian "story", but I believe the feminist/liberal mindset of today is what is driving this new manner of "glorifying" her.
I don't think so. Feminism would hardly offer a Virgin Mother as an ideal for women to aspire to.
Not like feminism is consistent: I used to love to watch them promote the cult of the great mother goddess while asserting abortion rights and denigrating motherhood.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 09, 2011, 11:26:16 PM
Thank you Deacon Lance.  Perhaps Isa had some other document in mind where he did not read this.

14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
I don't have any document in mind: your Immortalists have read it, and hold their beliefs, and those beliefs are held as acceptible (according to the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs I've seen). not by me.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 12:55:35 AM
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Are you speaking to Rafa, Papist, Wyatt, Mina, or all of them?  :police:
I'm speaking of heresy generally. Now, it may be (in fact, it's invariably the case) that absolutely no one believes that the doctrines they adhere to are heresy. That is why I don't believe there is any point in trying to convince anyone that their dogmas are erroneous. No heretic ever converted because they were argued into the Church. What I was saying is that once one erroneous belief (delusion if you will) is admitted into the articles of one's beliefs, it invariably spawns others. If I become fixated on one false belief, then I must create a structure of other false beliefs in order to support the original one, and each part of the supporting structure needs it's own supporting structure and so on. This is very similar to delusional disorders where a whole series of delusional beliefs are created to support an initial delusional belief.

Fortunately I know I have no delusional disorder concerning who the Virgin Mary is since I have the words of the Apostle Thaddeus himself telling me who she is in a Jewish prayer at the beginning of the Liturgy he wrote large portions of (and of course the Disciples did not disciple people differently meaning somebody is introducing a new teaching on the matter than the one he gave...) Thank the Lord Jesus that I know who his mother is and who she isn't !

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 12:55:37 AM
Anyways, I will not speak about the tradition handed down to me on who the Virgin Mary really was since this is polemic and bizarre to many here and I don't want run ins, I will watch this thread carefully since it interests me...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 12:55:37 AM
I will be retiring from OC.net. I have enjoyed many conversations with you all, but I think the topics are better discussed one on one so that misunderstandings don't occur and I become a burden to others.

Farewell Brothers...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 12:55:38 AM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't Perfect Man and Perfect God, but instead has 1 nature not distinguishing between the two and disrespecting this sacred mystery.


That's a bizarre teaching.

Behold:

Coptic Christ (look at hand):

(http://www.oocities.com/efaziz/images/03_-_Christ_the_Pantocrator_B.jpg)

The REAL Jesus Christ expressing who he is with his Hand :

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/846419629_7dc672e1af_z.jpg)


From the Church of Hagia Sophia we shall see in Supremest Wisdom which Christ the Eastern Orthodox Church chose despite all the arguments and councils :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg)

I've always said Perfect Man and Perfect God.  You on the other hand deny that the One who the Theotokos bore and raised was God.  You have trouble saying it because you separate the natures completely.

The hand gestures a unity.  We believe in a unity without confusion.  "One Lord, One Christ, One is the adoration and worship," I do not worship two, God who dwells in Jesus, I worship One, God Incarnate, and I honor and venerate God Incarnate's Mother, the Virgin St. Mary.

May God forgive you for destroying the unity in Christ.

You wish me to attribute to the Divinity what the humanity did, and to the humanity what the Divinity did thus destroying the union of Christ :

Quote
But once peace was restored and Christian kings had taken over the reins of government of the Romans, then vice and scandal entered the Church, and synods and sects multiplied, because every year someone invented a new creed. Security and peace led to many evils. The lovers of glory stirred up troubles unceasingly, using gold to obtain the consent of kings, so they could play about with them like little children. All this happened among the Romans.

As for the Church of Persia, as it was under the domination of the Magians, it was had nothing else to oppose.  Although some scandals arose, these scandals, however, were not allowed to grow, because from the first the Lord repressed them.  So while these things were going thus from apostolic times to the reign of the last Khosro , our Saviour, to whom everything is clear even before it happens, saw how much we had lost during this long peace and to what evils we were led by the interference of Christian kings who wanted us to say that this nature above to all suffering suffered  -- something even the demons have not dared to put forward .


-Mar John bar Penkaye, Rish Mele (History of World, Book 15 )

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on February 10, 2011, 12:55:39 AM
A nestorian explaining to us how we're all heretics.  ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 12:55:39 AM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't Perfect Man and Perfect God, but instead has 1 nature not distinguishing between the two and disrespecting this sacred mystery.


That's a bizarre teaching.

Behold:

Coptic Christ (look at hand):

(http://www.oocities.com/efaziz/images/03_-_Christ_the_Pantocrator_B.jpg)

The REAL Jesus Christ expressing who he is with his Hand :

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/846419629_7dc672e1af_z.jpg)


From the Church of Hagia Sophia we shall see in Supremest Wisdom which Christ the Eastern Orthodox Church chose despite all the arguments and councils :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg)

I've always said Perfect Man and Perfect God.  You on the other hand deny that the One who the Theotokos bore and raised was God.  You have trouble saying it because you separate the natures completely.

The hand gestures a unity.  We believe in a unity without confusion.  "One Lord, One Christ, One is the adoration and worship," I do not worship two, God who dwells in Jesus, I worship One, God Incarnate, and I honor and venerate God Incarnate's Mother, the Virgin St. Mary.

May God forgive you for destroying the unity in Christ.

If the hand gestures a unity are you calling everybody in the Eastern Orthodox Church and RCC destroyers of the unity of Christ and that this icon in the Church of Holy wisdom is lying ?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 10, 2011, 01:23:29 AM
Again Farewell... :'(
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: minasoliman on February 10, 2011, 08:22:09 AM
And..... False. Swing and a miss Georgy.
Well, how could one possibly argue with such incontrovertible evidence as you present. :)

What say all of the wrong idea peddled by some that the Virgin Mary never died but just ascended like Christ to the heavens? It is a key connection to the co-redemptrix business since it allows some to say that a person other than Christ did not need a saviour.
She did not ascend nor do we teach that she did. She was assumed. There is a difference:


Ascension = going bodily to heaven by one's own power (what Christ did since He is God the Son)

Assumption = taken bodily to heaven by God (what happened to Elijah, Enoch, and the Theotokos)

You teach the heresy that she did not need a saviour and that she never died because she was sinless. Whether the Virgin Mary was sinless or not is of little concern- but she needed a saviour and she fell asleep after her time was done. Enoch and Elijah will also die when their time comes.
Not even true buddy. We teach that she did, in fact, need a savior, and that she did die. Where are you coming up with the nonsense you are spouting?

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't God.

That's a bizarre teaching.
Indeed. One erroneous doctrine invariably gives birth to a viper brood of them.

Before anything, you should think about who you're replying to, as someone who doesn't even believe that the One who the Virgin St. Mary gave birth to and mothered isn't Perfect Man and Perfect God, but instead has 1 nature not distinguishing between the two and disrespecting this sacred mystery.


That's a bizarre teaching.

Behold:

Coptic Christ (look at hand):

(http://www.oocities.com/efaziz/images/03_-_Christ_the_Pantocrator_B.jpg)

The REAL Jesus Christ expressing who he is with his Hand :

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/846419629_7dc672e1af_z.jpg)


From the Church of Hagia Sophia we shall see in Supremest Wisdom which Christ the Eastern Orthodox Church chose despite all the arguments and councils :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg)

I've always said Perfect Man and Perfect God.  You on the other hand deny that the One who the Theotokos bore and raised was God.  You have trouble saying it because you separate the natures completely.

The hand gestures a unity.  We believe in a unity without confusion.  "One Lord, One Christ, One is the adoration and worship," I do not worship two, God who dwells in Jesus, I worship One, God Incarnate, and I honor and venerate God Incarnate's Mother, the Virgin St. Mary.

May God forgive you for destroying the unity in Christ.

If the hand gestures a unity are you calling everybody in the Eastern Orthodox Church and RCC destroyers of the unity of Christ and that this icon in the Church of Holy wisdom is lying ?

No, I'm not saying that the EO's and RC's are wrong.  I'm saying that the one finger hand gesture is a valid gesture when understood correctly.  For no OO confesses confusion, and no OO attributes to the divine nature human actions or the human nature divine actions, but the properties were shared because of the unity, and that the actions done were not by natures, but by an individual, Christ, the Incarnate God the Word.  You cannot as a Nestorian confess sharing of properties, neither do you understand the idea that when you're looking at Christ, He is One.  Since everything is two with you, you are essentially putting a chasm between man and His salvation, and essentially you're unable to confess the Virgin as Theotokos.

God knows, your accusations against me are clearly refuted by my tradition.  Your tradition on the other hand produced unnecessary confused minds and idiocies.  You're unable to keep together Christ's unity, and describe Christ in terms no different than any other man who has God dwelling in him.  It is blasphemy to the utter extreme.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 10, 2011, 12:38:02 PM
Thank you Deacon Lance.  Perhaps Isa had some other document in mind where he did not read this.

14. ...In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

44.  ...we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
I don't have any document in mind: your Immortalists have read it, and hold their beliefs, and those beliefs are held as acceptible (according to the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs I've seen). not by me.

Quote
Death of the Virgin One final question: Did the Blessed Virgin die?  In the climactic paragraph of definition, the pope chose to say, "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" (MD 44).  The crucial pharse expleto terrestris vitae cursu offers support neither to those who argue that Mary died (the "mortalists") nor to those who say that she did not die (the "immortalists").  While most of the faithful and most of the writers on the subject accept without debate the fact of the death of Mary, it is a subject of controversy among the theologians....Scholastic theologians such as St. Bonaventure were to accept these  explanations for Mary's death and add: (1) the pertinence of virginity, i.e. until Mary's body, which had maintained its integrity even in childbirth, and which was always in harmony with reason and grace, would have merited assumption after death (e.g. St. Bernardine of Siena); (2) the advantage of Mary's meriting herself, by her own death, the resurrection and glorification, as Christ had done (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus).  Most theologians of our day are mortalissts and find that the Holy Father, while not taking an ex officio position on the question of the death of Mary, repeatedly used texts from tradition that refer to or imply Mary's death; but a few writers (Bali, Carol, Coyle, Filograssi) have expressed the opinion tha that the Pope's not favoring either side has left the question in the same state as it was before the definition.
J. W. Langlinais, "Assumption of Mary," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed.. Gale, 2003. vol. 1, pp. 800-1.

I'm not sure the Immortalist position is less bizarre than the Mortalists' position here expressed.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 11, 2011, 02:42:39 PM
I am going, but before I really wanted to post an interesting verse on this subject...

open up to Luke 1:46-55 and read what Mary herself proclaims...

46 And Mary said : "My soul exalts the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave ; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 "AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM. 51 "He has done mighty deeds with His arm ; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. 52 "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble. 53 "HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS ; And sent away the rich empty-handed. 54 "He has given help to Israel His servant, In remembrance of His mercy, 55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever."

emphasis:

a) "and Mary said" - she confesses;
b) "my Saviour" - Mary like all sons of men, needs the perfect sacrifice; ie: Christ. She too has faults, she too, carries the mark of sin;
c) "bondslave" - referring to her sinful nature, to her fallen nature & her insignificance compared to the Lord.

So, where the RCC stands, why hasn't Mary herself used the expressions:

a) "my part-Saviour" and/or
b) "im not a bondslave" ?

?


No I do indeed go my Brothers, I donot want to be a hindrance. Farewell...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 11, 2011, 09:40:25 PM
Mubarak Resigns on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes

Mubarak Out; Another Historic Marian Feastday! UPDATED
February 11, 2011 by Elizabeth Scalia

It occurs to me that the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and the potentially world-changing events that are occurring today in Egypt have happened on a Marian feastday: today is the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes.

Recalling that Nelson Mandela was freed on this very day, in 1990, I started looking up other dates and events. My friend Paul helped me out, and here is a partial list of recent historical events that have occurred on days set aside to honor the Theotokos, the God-bearer, who delivered unto the world, a savior:

02 February 1943 – Feast of the Presentation – Battle of Stalingrad ends
15 August 1945 – VJ Day – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
13 May 1981 – Pope John Paul II shot – Our Lady of Fatima
08 December 1987 – Reagan signs treaty with Gorbachev – Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception
11 Feb 1990 – Nelson Mandela Freed – Our Lady of Lourdes
22 August 1991 – Failure of Russian Coup – Queenship of Mary
21 November 1995 – Initialing of the Dayton Peace Accord in Bosnia – Presentation of Mary
12 December 2000 – Supreme Court finally ends election recounts in America – Our Lady of Guadalupe
11 February 2011 – Egyptians drive out Mubarak – Our Lady of Lourdes

For those who argue that an event in the Arab world cannot have a Marian component, recall that the Muslim people do honor Mary.

Recall too that on October 8, 2000 there was what was regarded as a “holy light” and apparition of Mary at St. Mark’s (Coptic Orthodox) Church in Assiut, Egypt — seen by huge crowds — that occurred simultaneously with Pope John Paul II’s imploring Mary to pray for the entire world in the third millennium.....

And remember that Jesus was delivered to us “for all the people.” His mother, it follows, is for all of us as well. It cannot be otherwise.

And there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies…and as my friend Paul points out, it was to Egypt that the Holy Family fled, to safety (Deacon Greg has thoughts on that).

As I discover more of these historic feastdays, I’ll add them. Check back!

UPDATE I:
Via Instapundit – it turns out the Shah of Iran was also ousted on this day!

UPDATE II: A few more interesting (and some are less recent) intersections:

16 July 1918 – Our Lady of Mr. Carmel – Czar Nicholas II and his family are executed by the Bolsheviks
05 August1858 – Dedication of Basilica of Maria Maggiore – First telegraph line across Atlantic is completed
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/02/11/mubarak-out-another-historic-marian-feastday/#


Odd. Very odd. When you have some Marian feast or other everyday of the year, it's pretty easy to make such claims.

I'm not even sure there is a single parish dedicaatd to the apparition of Lourdes in Egypt.

On the New Advent website, where the top headline above screams, on the side below is this:
Medjugorje is generating what the Devil loves most: disobedience...
Francis Phillips
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on February 12, 2011, 03:55:30 AM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 12, 2011, 04:09:02 AM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Orual on February 12, 2011, 04:11:47 AM
UPDATE II: A few more interesting (and some are less recent) intersections:

16 July 1918 – Our Lady of Mr. Carmel – Czar Nicholas II and his family are executed by the Bolsheviks

Wow.  It's so nice that this family was murdered on a convenient day for her, so she could use it to help prove the supremacy of her religion.  

(Anyway, she has the date wrong, the Tsar and his family were killed on the night of July 17/18.)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ozgeorge on February 12, 2011, 04:19:51 AM
(Anyway, she has the date wrong, the Tsar and his family were killed on the night of July 17/18.)
So was that the Feast of Our Lady of Campitelli or the Feast of Our Lady of Victory at Toledo?
http://www.catholicdoors.com/news/marian.htm
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 12, 2011, 10:12:03 AM
Mubarak Resigns on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes

Mubarak Out; Another Historic Marian Feastday! UPDATED
February 11, 2011 by Elizabeth Scalia

It occurs to me that the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and the potentially world-changing events that are occurring today in Egypt have happened on a Marian feastday: today is the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes.

Recalling that Nelson Mandela was freed on this very day, in 1990, I started looking up other dates and events. My friend Paul helped me out, and here is a partial list of recent historical events that have occurred on days set aside to honor the Theotokos, the God-bearer, who delivered unto the world, a savior:

02 February 1943 – Feast of the Presentation – Battle of Stalingrad ends
15 August 1945 – VJ Day – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
13 May 1981 – Pope John Paul II shot – Our Lady of Fatima
08 December 1987 – Reagan signs treaty with Gorbachev – Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception
11 Feb 1990 – Nelson Mandela Freed – Our Lady of Lourdes
22 August 1991 – Failure of Russian Coup – Queenship of Mary
21 November 1995 – Initialing of the Dayton Peace Accord in Bosnia – Presentation of Mary
12 December 2000 – Supreme Court finally ends election recounts in America – Our Lady of Guadalupe
11 February 2011 – Egyptians drive out Mubarak – Our Lady of Lourdes

For those who argue that an event in the Arab world cannot have a Marian component, recall that the Muslim people do honor Mary.

Recall too that on October 8, 2000 there was what was regarded as a “holy light” and apparition of Mary at St. Mark’s (Coptic Orthodox) Church in Assiut, Egypt — seen by huge crowds — that occurred simultaneously with Pope John Paul II’s imploring Mary to pray for the entire world in the third millennium.....

And remember that Jesus was delivered to us “for all the people.” His mother, it follows, is for all of us as well. It cannot be otherwise.

And there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies…and as my friend Paul points out, it was to Egypt that the Holy Family fled, to safety (Deacon Greg has thoughts on that).

As I discover more of these historic feastdays, I’ll add them. Check back!

UPDATE I:
Via Instapundit – it turns out the Shah of Iran was also ousted on this day!

UPDATE II: A few more interesting (and some are less recent) intersections:

16 July 1918 – Our Lady of Mr. Carmel – Czar Nicholas II and his family are executed by the Bolsheviks
05 August1858 – Dedication of Basilica of Maria Maggiore – First telegraph line across Atlantic is completed
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/02/11/mubarak-out-another-historic-marian-feastday/#


Odd. Very odd. When you have some Marian feast or other everyday of the year, it's pretty easy to make such claims.

I'm not even sure there is a single parish dedicaatd to the apparition of Lourdes in Egypt.

On the New Advent website, where the top headline above screams, on the side below is this:
Medjugorje is generating what the Devil loves most: disobedience...
Francis Phillips

MSNBC reported yesterday was also the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the 20th anniversary of the release of Nelson Mandela from his imprisonment. It also was the day after my nephew's 31st birthday. I'll have to check the back of the dollar bill to see what all of these numerical signs mean. It's neater than splitting open an animal and reading its entrails. Maybe the History Channel has some material for a new earth shattering 'special'.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 12, 2011, 12:04:20 PM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Yeah, disturbing.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 12, 2011, 12:04:58 PM

Quote
(1) the pertinence of virginity, i.e. until Mary's body, which had maintained its integrity even in childbirth, and which was always in harmony with reason and grace, would have merited assumption after death (e.g. St. Bernardine of Siena); (2) the advantage of Mary's meriting herself, by her own death, the resurrection and glorification, as Christ had done (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus). 

I'm not sure the Immortalist position is less bizarre than the Mortalists' position here expressed.

I really don't know what to make of the bolded passages here...  ???
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 12, 2011, 12:06:07 PM

Quote
(1) the pertinence of virginity, i.e. until Mary's body, which had maintained its integrity even in childbirth, and which was always in harmony with reason and grace, would have merited assumption after death (e.g. St. Bernardine of Siena); (2) the advantage of Mary's meriting herself, by her own death, the resurrection and glorification, as Christ had done (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus). 

I'm not sure the Immortalist position is less bizarre than the Mortalists' position here expressed.

I really don't know what to make of the bolded passages here...  ???
Yeah, disturbing.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shlomlokh on February 12, 2011, 01:16:04 PM
I think the good news--and maybe I'm being too optimistic here--is that a majority of RCs do not believe in these whacky post-schism beliefs. However, I think the bad news is that a lot of them have not been condemned (at least from what I have seen). Hearing about Medjugorje from friends and professors turned my stomach. Whenever I would mention that the local bishop condemned, it everyone unequivocally said it didn't matter what the bishop said because the pope had universal jurisdiction .  :o

When I was down at Tom Monaghan's Ave Maria University, there was more than one professor pushing these things in the Theology department, one of them a Charismatic Benedictine nun who also promoted very whacky apparitions and seers. Of course it can be (and was) all justified with "Development of Doctrine." I wish I would have handed her a copy of "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future." Although this is an opinion of one former RC, I believe then and I believe now that they need to condemn and censure all this hooplah.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: stashko on February 12, 2011, 02:06:51 PM
Very Disturbing.....Indeed.. ;D

Out with the old tried and true....
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 13, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Yeah, disturbing.
what's disturbing about 3 days of peace and music?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on February 13, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Yeah, disturbing.
what's disturbing about 3 days of peace and music?
Nothing. They have lots of it in North Korea.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2930289707_252f91006e.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 13, 2011, 09:34:50 PM
^ cool party.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 13, 2011, 10:01:05 PM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Yeah, disturbing.
what's disturbing about 3 days of peace and music?
Nothing. They have lots of it in North Korea.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2930289707_252f91006e.jpg?v=0)

but is the music as good? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Ps_C1O1Ts)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: podkarpatska on February 14, 2011, 11:04:44 AM
Quote
15 August 1961 – Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – East German authorities begin building Berlin Wall

The building of the Wall was hardly a cause for celebration and joy, nor was it in any way symbolic of rebirth, justice and liberation.  >:(

Then how's this: August 15, 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) :)

(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/character00265.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/)
Yeah, disturbing.
what's disturbing about 3 days of peace and music?
Nothing. They have lots of it in North Korea.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2930289707_252f91006e.jpg?v=0)

but is the music as good? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Ps_C1O1Ts)

no, but the special effects are better.....  lol ;)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Tallitot on February 14, 2011, 11:58:44 AM
no, but the special effects are better.....  lol ;)

not if you bring your own
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on February 14, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
no, but the special effects are better.....  lol ;)

not if you bring your own

e.g. hallucinogens?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on February 22, 2011, 02:08:14 AM
Farewell...hope you all remain well. I needed to post that I was actually only an inquirer into the ACOE even though I take sacraments at it and it was told me that there is only one baptism and in a way I already am part of it. I might not be the most qualified defender of the ACOE theology.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: jordanz on March 19, 2011, 07:41:13 AM
That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

The day Rome adopts the "coredemptrix" heresy is the day I go over to your side.  That is clearly elevating Mary to a goddess. 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on March 19, 2011, 12:00:24 PM
That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

The day Rome adopts the "coredemptrix" heresy is the day I go over to your side.  That is clearly elevating Mary to a goddess. 

If the Catholic Church isn't doing it for you, I'd say take the next train out of that station!!...Never stay in a place that endangers your soul!

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on March 20, 2011, 01:02:28 PM
That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

The day Rome adopts the "coredemptrix" heresy is the day I go over to your side.  That is clearly elevating Mary to a goddess. 

If the Catholic Church isn't doing it for you, I'd say take the next train out of that station!!...Never stay in a place that endangers your soul!

M.
The Church founded by Christ endangers no one's soul.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on March 20, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

The day Rome adopts the "coredemptrix" heresy is the day I go over to your side.  That is clearly elevating Mary to a goddess. 

If the Catholic Church isn't doing it for you, I'd say take the next train out of that station!!...Never stay in a place that endangers your soul!

M.
The Church founded by Christ endangers no one's soul.

That is true, save for the fact that we live in the world as weaklings.  In this case where we are addressing Orthodox and Catholic, from my vantage point, if the Catholic Church becomes a temptation to sin or lapse, then it is better to find a home with Orthodoxy IF there the temptation is not so great or not at all.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Shiny on March 20, 2011, 04:31:41 PM
Wait let me understand this correctly, you Catholics, meaning Mary and Wyatt, are willing to jump ship and head to Orthodoxy if certain heresies become adopted in the Catholic Church? Why not just be Orthodox then and not worry about it? Where is your loyalty?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 21, 2011, 02:52:40 AM
I didn't get that impression by their posts...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 21, 2011, 03:03:46 AM
That co-redemptrix thing is the source of the other bizarre beliefs you mention.  I fullly expect that like the IC (which was condemned by the Vatican's doctors when it first appeared) it will be adopted in time, and then be proclaimed to have always been held.

The day Rome adopts the "coredemptrix" heresy is the day I go over to your side.  That is clearly elevating Mary to a goddess. 

If the Catholic Church isn't doing it for you, I'd say take the next train out of that station!!...Never stay in a place that endangers your soul!

M.
The Church founded by Christ endangers no one's soul.

That is true, save for the fact that we live in the world as weaklings.  In this case where we are addressing Orthodox and Catholic, from my vantage point, if the Catholic Church becomes a temptation to sin or lapse, then it is better to find a home with Orthodoxy IF there the temptation is not so great or not at all.


Oh my!

_________________________________
Today (21 March) is the commemoration of St. Enda of Arran, Father of Irish monasticism
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: dzheremi on March 21, 2011, 06:03:01 AM
Ahhh...Roman Mariology...I am with Andrew on all this (hi, Andrew) -- I don't know a lot of Catholics who actually believe in all this junk, even among the Latino Catholics I grew up with (their devotion to Mary was also disturbing in many ways, but their understanding of Marian devotion was not the heavily intellectualized "let's-argue-for-this-because-we-can" approach of many RC higher-ups). It is, of course, the height of insanity to suggest the kinds of things that the Co-Redemptrix crowd suggest. I too used to say, like Elijahmaria and Wyatt, that the day that the Pope declares this "Co-Redemptrix" business is the day that I swim the Bosphorus (or as it seems to be going now, the Nile). Then, with no amount of pushing by the advocates of hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper dulia, it became obvious that Isa's position was far more sensible and realistic: Even if the current Pope hates it, eventually it will get there. Heck, it took many hundreds of years for the dreaded filioque clause to go from a local addition at Toledo to something that was always and everywhere to be believed, didn't it? So the Co-Mediatrix pushers will bide their time, collect more signatures on their dumb petitions, and (sadly) have every reason in the world to believe that it WILL happen. It is just a matter of having the right man in the chair.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Wyatt on March 21, 2011, 01:04:34 PM
Wait let me understand this correctly, you Catholics, meaning Mary and Wyatt, are willing to jump ship and head to Orthodoxy if certain heresies become adopted in the Catholic Church? Why not just be Orthodox then and not worry about it? Where is your loyalty?
I can only speak for myself, but where did you get the impression that I believe that based on my posts?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on March 21, 2011, 01:24:02 PM
Wait let me understand this correctly, you Catholics, meaning Mary and Wyatt, are willing to jump ship and head to Orthodoxy if certain heresies become adopted in the Catholic Church? Why not just be Orthodox then and not worry about it? Where is your loyalty?

No dear.  I am not saying that any Catholic should "jump ship"...What I do recognize is the fact that my Church recognizes Apostolic Succession and graced sacraments in Orthodoxy.  That's a fact and has been made publicly so for several generations now.   Both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church recognize the powerful import of the phrase "for the salvation of souls"...When that appeal is made for good reason, I have never known the Catholic Church to refuse to hear the request and to accede to the request.  Some individual priests and bishops might but if you pursue that request there will be eventually someone who will listen.

So if a Catholic finds that their participation in the Catholic Church, for sound reason, is a threat to the salvation of their soul, and chooses to leave the Church, it is, as night follows day, logical that they should leave for a Church which is recognized to have Apostolic Succession and graced sacraments.

So it is not a matter of loyalty or belief for me to speak of such things.  It is a matter of recognizing that some souls have not fared well in the Catholic Church and are now in Orthodoxy. 

I don't try to judge them by any other kind of criteria...but when they say "I was loosing my faith, and I turned to Orthodoxy"....I am not going to argue with them and I will be content in trusting they are in a safe and graced place, in their spiritual lives and in their Church.

There are other kinds of reasons for leaving and moving to Orthodoxy that are not ones that I think very highly of, but I tend to leave those alone...absolutely.  They are not mine to judge publicly.

Understand?

M.

 
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on March 21, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Ahhh...Roman Mariology...I am with Andrew on all this (hi, Andrew) -- I don't know a lot of Catholics who actually believe in all this junk, even among the Latino Catholics I grew up with (their devotion to Mary was also disturbing in many ways, but their understanding of Marian devotion was not the heavily intellectualized "let's-argue-for-this-because-we-can" approach of many RC higher-ups). It is, of course, the height of insanity to suggest the kinds of things that the Co-Redemptrix crowd suggest. I too used to say, like Elijahmaria and Wyatt, that the day that the Pope declares this "Co-Redemptrix" business is the day that I swim the Bosphorus (or as it seems to be going now, the Nile). Then, with no amount of pushing by the advocates of hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper dulia, it became obvious that Isa's position was far more sensible and realistic: Even if the current Pope hates it, eventually it will get there. Heck, it took many hundreds of years for the dreaded filioque clause to go from a local addition at Toledo to something that was always and everywhere to be believed, didn't it? So the Co-Mediatrix pushers will bide their time, collect more signatures on their dumb petitions, and (sadly) have every reason in the world to believe that it WILL happen. It is just a matter of having the right man in the chair.

Before you brand me or adopt me, take a look at the following:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34557.0.html
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: dzheremi on March 21, 2011, 03:12:21 PM
Um...okay. So some Orthodox here have problems with your understanding of the "mercy seat". Thank you?  ???

(I'm sorry, but I'm not quite grasping what you intend to show me with that link.)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Peter J on March 22, 2011, 09:15:49 PM
Hi all. I'm a new-comer to this thread.

Question: is Vassula Ryden Catholic (in communion with Rome, I mean)? From the opening post of this thread I got the impression that she is (or was that just a case of me "assuming" something?) but other things I've found on the internet make it sound like she isn't.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: dzheremi on March 22, 2011, 11:44:00 PM
No, she isn't.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Salpy on March 23, 2011, 12:16:23 AM
From what I understand, she regularly communes at Catholic churches, but she herself has never formally been Catholic.  She was Greek Orthodox until she was excommunicated.



Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Rafa999 on July 27, 2011, 09:54:50 PM
I would like to give my apologies here to the frankly unkind crazed interpretation I made of Father Ambrose's icon. It may not be my favourite but a "Revelation from Hell" it is not.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
Quote
I tire of the complaints of western converts to the Orthodoxy about the Catholic Church-especially the bit about definitions, dogma, and doctrine. Definitions of dogma happen rarely and they ALWAYS happen by necessity. We need to be told that at mass a real change takes place, what appears to be bread and wine is no longer that. We need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, because the whole things does not work without that dogma. And God ratified the promulgation of that dogma by sending us Bernadette and the on-going miracle of Lourdes. We need to be told that contraception is intrinsically evil (oh wouldn’t it be easy if we could just hide from that one like the Orthodox do). We need to know that life begins at conception. We need some clarity. thank God for the Pope. thank God for his ability to speak a clarifying word–which he does very, very seldomly!
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2011, 05:46:49 PM
Quote
I tire of the complaints of western converts to the Orthodoxy about the Catholic Church-especially the bit about definitions, dogma, and doctrine. Definitions of dogma happen rarely and they ALWAYS happen by necessity. We need to be told that at mass a real change takes place, what appears to be bread and wine is no longer that. We need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, because the whole things does not work without that dogma. And God ratified the promulgation of that dogma by sending us Bernadette and the on-going miracle of Lourdes. We need to be told that contraception is intrinsically evil (oh wouldn’t it be easy if we could just hide from that one like the Orthodox do). We need to know that life begins at conception. We need some clarity. thank God for the Pope. thank God for his ability to speak a clarifying word–which he does very, very seldomly!
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759

 :D :D :D

And you think this is the good new?... :D

I especially like No.1 that says that Orthodoxy is attractive because it has all the exotic eastern allure of Buddhism and Hinduism but ya get ta keep Jesus... 8)...yeah!!

And then there's No.4: " It’s a bit less strict morally"

"Orthodoxy allows the use of contraception, as well as divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions). There seems to be an ongoing debate on these subjects within Orthodoxy, but from what I have read and heard, the current consensus allows these practices that the Catholic Church rejects as immoral.

These stances understandably appeal to many Protestants, whose denominations allow contraception without question as well as divorce and remarriage (usually for any reason whatsoever, no questions asked).
"

Now THERE is a real good selling point for a religion...

 :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Quote
I tire of the complaints of western converts to the Orthodoxy about the Catholic Church-especially the bit about definitions, dogma, and doctrine. Definitions of dogma happen rarely and they ALWAYS happen by necessity. We need to be told that at mass a real change takes place, what appears to be bread and wine is no longer that. We need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, because the whole things does not work without that dogma. And God ratified the promulgation of that dogma by sending us Bernadette and the on-going miracle of Lourdes. We need to be told that contraception is intrinsically evil (oh wouldn’t it be easy if we could just hide from that one like the Orthodox do). We need to know that life begins at conception. We need some clarity. thank God for the Pope. thank God for his ability to speak a clarifying word–which he does very, very seldomly!
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759

 :D :D :D

And you think this is the good new?... :D

I especially like No.1 that says that Orthodoxy is attractive because it has all the exotic eastern allure of Buddhism and Hinduism but ya get ta keep Jesus... 8)...yeah!!

And then there's No.4: " It’s a bit less strict morally"

"Orthodoxy allows the use of contraception, as well as divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions). There seems to be an ongoing debate on these subjects within Orthodoxy, but from what I have read and heard, the current consensus allows these practices that the Catholic Church rejects as immoral.

These stances understandably appeal to many Protestants, whose denominations allow contraception without question as well as divorce and remarriage (usually for any reason whatsoever, no questions asked).
"

Now THERE is a real good selling point for a religion...

 :P :P :P :P
Yeah, you can make a marriage of 20 years go *poof!* and your children illegitimate.  Sorry, we're on a corban free diet.

No, its all bad news, brought by an "angel of light" as what I bold faced says.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2011, 06:23:57 PM
Quote
I tire of the complaints of western converts to the Orthodoxy about the Catholic Church-especially the bit about definitions, dogma, and doctrine. Definitions of dogma happen rarely and they ALWAYS happen by necessity. We need to be told that at mass a real change takes place, what appears to be bread and wine is no longer that. We need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, because the whole things does not work without that dogma. And God ratified the promulgation of that dogma by sending us Bernadette and the on-going miracle of Lourdes. We need to be told that contraception is intrinsically evil (oh wouldn’t it be easy if we could just hide from that one like the Orthodox do). We need to know that life begins at conception. We need some clarity. thank God for the Pope. thank God for his ability to speak a clarifying word–which he does very, very seldomly!
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759

 :D :D :D

And you think this is the good new?... :D

I especially like No.1 that says that Orthodoxy is attractive because it has all the exotic eastern allure of Buddhism and Hinduism but ya get ta keep Jesus... 8)...yeah!!

And then there's No.4: " It’s a bit less strict morally"

"Orthodoxy allows the use of contraception, as well as divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions). There seems to be an ongoing debate on these subjects within Orthodoxy, but from what I have read and heard, the current consensus allows these practices that the Catholic Church rejects as immoral.

These stances understandably appeal to many Protestants, whose denominations allow contraception without question as well as divorce and remarriage (usually for any reason whatsoever, no questions asked).
"

Now THERE is a real good selling point for a religion...

 :P :P :P :P
Yeah, you can make a marriage of 20 years go *poof!* and your children illegitimate.  Sorry, we're on a corban free diet.

This is too personal for you to have much of a healthy perspective.
 
I try to stay out of this underground garage too.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 06:25:32 PM
Yeah, you can make a marriage of 20 years go *poof!* and your children illegitimate.  Sorry, we're on a corban free diet.

An anullment does not make children illegitimate.  And you  misuse of the word corban is tiring.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 06:32:38 PM
Quote
I tire of the complaints of western converts to the Orthodoxy about the Catholic Church-especially the bit about definitions, dogma, and doctrine. Definitions of dogma happen rarely and they ALWAYS happen by necessity. We need to be told that at mass a real change takes place, what appears to be bread and wine is no longer that. We need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, because the whole things does not work without that dogma. And God ratified the promulgation of that dogma by sending us Bernadette and the on-going miracle of Lourdes. We need to be told that contraception is intrinsically evil (oh wouldn’t it be easy if we could just hide from that one like the Orthodox do). We need to know that life begins at conception. We need some clarity. thank God for the Pope. thank God for his ability to speak a clarifying word–which he does very, very seldomly!
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759

 :D :D :D

And you think this is the good new?... :D

I especially like No.1 that says that Orthodoxy is attractive because it has all the exotic eastern allure of Buddhism and Hinduism but ya get ta keep Jesus... 8)...yeah!!

And then there's No.4: " It’s a bit less strict morally"

"Orthodoxy allows the use of contraception, as well as divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions). There seems to be an ongoing debate on these subjects within Orthodoxy, but from what I have read and heard, the current consensus allows these practices that the Catholic Church rejects as immoral.

These stances understandably appeal to many Protestants, whose denominations allow contraception without question as well as divorce and remarriage (usually for any reason whatsoever, no questions asked).
"

Now THERE is a real good selling point for a religion...

 :P :P :P :P
Yeah, you can make a marriage of 20 years go *poof!* and your children illegitimate.  Sorry, we're on a corban free diet.

This is too personal for you to have much of a healthy perspective.
We went through that before: your fishing for something other than my plain words, some "deep" reason other than truth, came up empty and you guessed wrong.  I have no personal connection/invovlement with the corban factories a/k/a the marriage tribunals.
 
I try to stay out of this underground garage too.
you've been caught more than once rumaging around there, trying to find something in someone's basement to ignore what they put in their front window.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Yeah, you can make a marriage of 20 years go *poof!* and your children illegitimate.  Sorry, we're on a corban free diet.

An anullment does not make children illegitimate.  And you  misuse of the word corban is tiring.
The correct labeling is what is discomforting.

I'm aware of the magic of the corban factories, that it can go back in the way back machine (the same one the magisterium uses evidently to apply Calvary to the Virgin's conception) and make marriages non-existent while not spoiling the fruit of that marriage (not to mention, not make the parties guilty of fornication all that time  :o), but such slight of hand does take the full light of day, when the smoke is waved away and a look in the mirror is taken.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 06:54:03 PM
The correct labeling is what is discomforting.

I'm aware of the magic of the corban factories, that it can go back in the way back machine (the same one the magisterium uses evidently to apply Calvary to the Virgin's conception) and make marriages non-existent while not spoiling the fruit of that marriage (not to mention, not make the parties guilty of fornication all that time  :o), but such slight of hand does take the full light of day, when the smoke is waved away and a look in the mirror is taken.

How do you conncet Christ disapproving of a child excusing their financial responsibility to care for their parents by declaring their money "corban/offering" to an anullment?

An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: LBK on November 15, 2011, 07:04:38 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 15, 2011, 07:12:08 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)

it kind of reminds me of the Once saved always saved philosophy, if you fall away from Jesus you were never saved to begin with...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2011, 07:14:38 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)

it kind of reminds me of the Once saved always saved philosophy, if you fall away from Jesus you were never saved to begin with...

I think it is a superior solution to a wholesale re-write of the law of God.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 07:20:09 PM
The correct labeling is what is discomforting.

I'm aware of the magic of the corban factories, that it can go back in the way back machine (the same one the magisterium uses evidently to apply Calvary to the Virgin's conception) and make marriages non-existent while not spoiling the fruit of that marriage (not to mention, not make the parties guilty of fornication all that time  :o), but such slight of hand does take the full light of day, when the smoke is waved away and a look in the mirror is taken.

How do you conncet Christ disapproving of a child excusing their financial responsibility to care for their parents by declaring their money "corban/offering" to an anullment?

An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.
 
You just answered your question.

St. Paul compares speaks of being joined by prostitution (I Cor. 6:16), but for the corban factories matrimony does not have such joining power.

Just as I was typing this, there was something on a famous recent convert to the Vatican, and the question of his marriage. Did it end because it never happened, or because of his infidelity, now his second wife?

It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place
The Church, nor the Vatican, recognizes civil marriage.

or that the couple did not live together in good faith.
Did Christ deny that the Samaritan woman lived together in good faith?

So they lived in fornication in good faith.  What of it?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 07:20:57 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)

it kind of reminds me of the Once saved always saved philosophy, if you fall away from Jesus you were never saved to begin with...

I think it is a superior solution to a wholesale re-write of the law of God.
LOL. You have more of that too.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2011, 07:29:40 PM

We went through that before: your fishing for something other than my plain words, some "deep" reason other than truth, came up empty and you guessed wrong.  I have no personal connection/invovlement with the corban factories a/k/a the marriage tribunals.
 

I was simply remarking that you speak with such authority about things you admittedly know nothing about.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 07:33:15 PM

We went through that before: your fishing for something other than my plain words, some "deep" reason other than truth, came up empty and you guessed wrong.  I have no personal connection/invovlement with the corban factories a/k/a the marriage tribunals.
 

I was simply remarking that you speak with such authority about things you admittedly know nothing about.
Wrong again.  Just because I myself personally do not have any personal experience doesn't mean I don't know those who do, or know nothing about the topic.  I know that shooting up with heroin is bad for you the same way that I know the marriage tribunals are corban factories.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 07:38:27 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)

No sophistry about it.  For a sacrament to take place certain prerequisites must be in place or it can't take place.   For example a woman may disguise herself as a man and undergo the rite of ordination but it will not make her a priest.  A person may undergo the rite of mariage but if there is an impediment no sacramental marriage takes place.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 07:42:23 PM
The correct labeling is what is discomforting.

I'm aware of the magic of the corban factories, that it can go back in the way back machine (the same one the magisterium uses evidently to apply Calvary to the Virgin's conception) and make marriages non-existent while not spoiling the fruit of that marriage (not to mention, not make the parties guilty of fornication all that time  :o), but such slight of hand does take the full light of day, when the smoke is waved away and a look in the mirror is taken.

How do you conncet Christ disapproving of a child excusing their financial responsibility to care for their parents by declaring their money "corban/offering" to an anullment?

An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.
 
You just answered your question.

Well then call it a declaration factory, as calling it a corban/offering factory makes no sense.

Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 07:46:39 PM
Quote
An anullment declares that a sacrament did not take place.  It does not declare that a civil marriage did not take place or that the couple did not live together in good faith.

Sophistry at its finest.  ::)

No sophistry about it.  For a sacrament to take place certain prerequisites must be in place or it can't take place.   For example a woman may disguise herself as a man and undergo the rite of ordination but it will not make her a priest.  A person may undergo the rite of mariage but if there is an impediment no sacramental marriage takes place.
no matter how much being fruitful and multiplying of facts that a marriage took place occur.

Interesting how the supreme pontiff has the power to remove impediments (that is how he got Hefele to capitulate to Pastor Aeternus, as I posted elsewhere) but has no power to recognize the consumation of marriage, where St. Paul sees a union even in prostitution.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 07:47:48 PM
The Church, nor the Vatican, recognizes civil marriage.

The Church, Catholic and Orthodox, (depending on the law of the country) require a marraige license to perform a wedding and also require a civil divorce before an anullment or ecclesial divorce will be considered.  And the Catholic Church does indeed recognize the validity of civil marraiges for non-Christian and the sacramentality of the marriage of Prostestants whether in a church or city hall.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 07:52:14 PM
no matter how much being fruitful and multiplying of facts that a marriage took place occur.

Interesting how the supreme pontiff has the power to remove impediments (that is how he got Hefele to capitulate to Pastor Aeternus, as I posted elsewhere) but has no power to recognize the consumation of marriage, where St. Paul sees a union even in prostitution.

Anybody can have kids that alone is not proof a sacrament.  Also the Pope cannot dispense from imepdiments of divine law, i.e.  he cannot dispense a brother to marry his sister, no matter how much incest has occured.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2011, 07:54:17 PM
The Church, nor the Vatican, recognizes civil marriage.

The Church, Catholic and Orthodox, (depending on the law of the country) require a marraige license to perform a wedding and also require a civil divorce before an anullment or ecclesial divorce will be considered.  And the Catholic Church does indeed recognize the validity of civil marraiges for non-Christian and the sacramentality of the marriage of Prostestants whether in a church or city hall.
How many Protestants and non-Christians seek annullments from the Vatican's corban factory?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 15, 2011, 08:00:53 PM
The Church, nor the Vatican, recognizes civil marriage.

The Church, Catholic and Orthodox, (depending on the law of the country) require a marraige license to perform a wedding and also require a civil divorce before an anullment or ecclesial divorce will be considered.  And the Catholic Church does indeed recognize the validity of civil marraiges for non-Christian and the sacramentality of the marriage of Prostestants whether in a church or city hall.
How many Protestants and non-Christians seek annullments from the Vatican's corban factory?

For Protestants, the ones that get divorced and then become Catholics and want to remarry.  The non-Chrisitans can seek a dispensation under the Petrine Privilege.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2011, 08:08:23 PM
Let's not lose track of the fact that Al Misry proudly posted the following site that listed these, among other, very attractive things about Orthodoxy:

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759
 (http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/17/the-six-attractions-of-eastern-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-132759)

I especially like No.1 that says that Orthodoxy is attractive because it has all the exotic eastern allure of Buddhism and Hinduism but ya get ta keep Jesus... Cool...yeah!!

And then there's No.4: " It’s a bit less strict morally"

"Orthodoxy allows the use of contraception, as well as divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions). There seems to be an ongoing debate on these subjects within Orthodoxy, but from what I have read and heard, the current consensus allows these practices that the Catholic Church rejects as immoral.

These stances understandably appeal to many Protestants, whose denominations allow contraception without question as well as divorce and remarriage (usually for any reason whatsoever, no questions asked)."

Now THERE is a real good selling point for a religion...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
no matter how much being fruitful and multiplying of facts that a marriage took place occur.

Interesting how the supreme pontiff has the power to remove impediments (that is how he got Hefele to capitulate to Pastor Aeternus, as I posted elsewhere) but has no power to recognize the consumation of marriage, where St. Paul sees a union even in prostitution.

Anybody can have kids that alone is not proof a sacrament.
Indeed! And they can grow up to be supreme pontiff!
Quote
He was born in Florence one month after his father's death. His father, Giuliano de' Medici, had been assassinated. Although his parents had not had a formal marriage, a canon law loophole allowing for the parents to have been betrothed per sponsalia de presenti meant that Giulio was considered legitimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_VII
The loophole was needed, as illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination 1118-1983
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22canon+law+between+1118+and+1983%22
Amazing!  The Vatican can marry the dead but cannot recognize the marriage of the living.

Of course, all very convenient that one of the only two witnesses, Giuliano, was dead, and the identity of the other is unknown, except for the fact that she was low born of the lower guilds, i.e. no one a Medici would marry, just use.  One candidate is Andrea di Michele del Cittandino, who would be 14 at Clement VII's conception, below the age of consent.  Whoever she was, she was out of the picture-by death or being put a way-within a year.

Clement could have gotten a dispensation-his cousin Giovanni was reigning as Pope Leo X when Giulio was ordained cardinal deacon, and of course had all those petrine powers at his disposal ("Since God has given us the Papacy, let us enjoy it.")-but he did not, instead depending on the ruse that his dead father and his unknown (even to him) mother were really married, a fact known to be false.  This of course raises the question of a pope without "an episcopal character" exercising those petrine powers in legitimizing himself, or denying Henry VIII "the shameless sentence from Rome" that Henry's aunt Margaret got.
Also the Pope cannot dispense from imepdiments of divine law, i.e.  he cannot dispense a brother to marry his sister, no matter how much incest has occured.
au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  And I do recall a German noble around the time of the reformation who did get a dispensation to marry his sister.

Btw, none of this addresses the point that even in prostitution, there is a joining that must be recognized, and so the corban factories will not afford to wives the recognition that St. Paul gives to prostitutes.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 12:18:18 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: primuspilus on November 16, 2011, 12:28:01 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 12:35:07 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?

There is no hard and fast evidence at all that the young woman was his niece.  In fact the evidence is greater that the woman was his first cousin.  That was their legal relationship and the impediment which Rome would have dispensed.   

Your historical perspicacity may be, I don't know, a bit more honest than the man you defend.  Perhaps you are one of the ones that he finds so easy to fool.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2011, 12:43:29 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?

There is no hard and fast evidence at all that the young woman was his niece.
She was convinced she was, and called him "Onkel."  Do dispensations come with DNA testing?

In fact the evidence is greater that the woman was his first cousin.  That was their legal relationship and the impediment which Rome would have dispensed.

you cough up the dispensation document that says so, and I'll buy your argument.

Your historical perspicacity may be, I don't know, a bit more honest than the man you defend.  Perhaps you are one of the ones that he finds so easy to fool.
Sic Maria dixit +November 16, 2011
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2011, 12:45:06 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?
Propoganda of the faith in the Vatican, as always.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: primuspilus on November 16, 2011, 12:49:12 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?

There is no hard and fast evidence at all that the young woman was his niece.  In fact the evidence is greater that the woman was his first cousin.  That was their legal relationship and the impediment which Rome would have dispensed.  

Your historical perspicacity may be, I don't know, a bit more honest than the man you defend.  Perhaps you are one of the ones that he finds so easy to fool.
Firstly, Isa. I dont believe is trying to fool anyone. No more so than I think you, Maria, are trying to fool anyone. He gives his opinions, and you have yours. I would be very hesitant to openly accuse anyone of trying to deceive others. You might have a helping of humble pie if you do.

Secondly, I dont need anyone to tell me anything about history. If I know something, I know it. If I dont, I admit I dont, and educate myself. Just because I agree with Isa on alot of points does not mean all points.

Now, to the matter at hand. Whether Alois' wife was his first cousin or his niece, both are frowned upon by Rome (as well they should be). I believe Mayor Rudy got his first marriage annulled because his then-wife was his second cousin (I think thats right, but I could be wrong). Either way, Hitler's mother was a devout Catholic and it would have been highly improbable for a well documented devout Catholic to simply ignore the Church concerning this out of convenience.

Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2011, 01:12:35 PM

au contraire, a survey of the dispensations would prove you wrong Fr. deacon-Hitler's father, for instance, got a dispensation to marry his niece, Hitler's mother.  

More of your historical chicanery...

When it comes to slamming your fist into the Catholic Church there are no holds barred.

You play on the ignorance of others for your credibility.

I dont get what you're arguing..Alois did marry his niece and he had to get a dispensation to do so.....there's no ignorance, it did happen. So what are you arguing here?

There is no hard and fast evidence at all that the young woman was his niece.  In fact the evidence is greater that the woman was his first cousin.  That was their legal relationship and the impediment which Rome would have dispensed.  

Your historical perspicacity may be, I don't know, a bit more honest than the man you defend.  Perhaps you are one of the ones that he finds so easy to fool.
Firstly, Isa. I dont believe is trying to fool anyone. No more so than I think you, Maria, are trying to fool anyone. He gives his opinions, and you have yours. I would be very hesitant to openly accuse anyone of trying to deceive others. You might have a helping of humble pie if you do.

Secondly, I dont need anyone to tell me anything about history. If I know something, I know it. If I dont, I admit I dont, and educate myself. Just because I agree with Isa on alot of points does not mean all points.

Now, to the matter at hand. Whether Alois' wife was his first cousin or his niece, both are frowned upon by Rome (as well they should be). I believe Mayor Rudy got his first marriage annulled because his then-wife was his second cousin (I think thats right, but I could be wrong). Either way, Hitler's mother was a devout Catholic and it would have been highly improbable for a well documented devout Catholic to simply ignore the Church concerning this out of convenience.

Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP
btw, the petition submitted to the Vatican (via Linz) is translated here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vV0BpSKYJ6QC&pg=PA48&dq=Rome+dispensation+hitler's&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Rome%20dispensation%20hitler's&f=false
Johann Neopulk Hiedler (Hitler's maternal great-grandfather) was either the father, uncle, or step-uncle to Hitler's father.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 01:19:00 PM


Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP

Then you really know nothing of the Catholic Church as well as being in the dark about this particular bit of history.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: biro on November 16, 2011, 01:35:04 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 01:41:50 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are a kind fellow with a good heart but passing off historical speculation as historical fact, which happens all the time here with Al Misry, should not be constantly passed over as though nothing is wrong. 

If that is too personal...so be it.   When a person chooses to play on the general ignorance of his audience then his or her behaviors, personally, should be brought to light.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on November 16, 2011, 01:54:12 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are a kind fellow with a good heart but passing off historical speculation as historical fact, which happens all the time here with Al Misry, should not be constantly passed over as though nothing is wrong. 

If that is too personal...so be it.   When a person chooses to play on the general ignorance of his audience then his or her behaviors, personally, should be brought to light.

Why are you picking on him, when he hasn't posted anything to warrant such a comment? Perhaps you assumed the post was written by another poster on this board?

The post wasn't directed at you in particular; you just chose to make it personal.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 02:04:24 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are a kind fellow with a good heart but passing off historical speculation as historical fact, which happens all the time here with Al Misry, should not be constantly passed over as though nothing is wrong. 

If that is too personal...so be it.   When a person chooses to play on the general ignorance of his audience then his or her behaviors, personally, should be brought to light.

Why are you picking on him, when he hasn't posted anything to warrant such a comment? Perhaps you assumed the post was written by another poster on this board?

The post wasn't directed at you in particular; you just chose to make it personal.


 ???  Did you actually read the last few posts in this thread?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on November 16, 2011, 02:18:43 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are a kind fellow with a good heart but passing off historical speculation as historical fact, which happens all the time here with Al Misry, should not be constantly passed over as though nothing is wrong. 

If that is too personal...so be it.   When a person chooses to play on the general ignorance of his audience then his or her behaviors, personally, should be brought to light.

Why are you picking on him, when he hasn't posted anything to warrant such a comment? Perhaps you assumed the post was written by another poster on this board?

The post wasn't directed at you in particular; you just chose to make it personal.


 ???  Did you actually read the last few posts in this thread?

Yes; did you see who the authors of those posts were?
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 02:23:12 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are a kind fellow with a good heart but passing off historical speculation as historical fact, which happens all the time here with Al Misry, should not be constantly passed over as though nothing is wrong. 

If that is too personal...so be it.   When a person chooses to play on the general ignorance of his audience then his or her behaviors, personally, should be brought to light.

Why are you picking on him, when he hasn't posted anything to warrant such a comment? Perhaps you assumed the post was written by another poster on this board?

The post wasn't directed at you in particular; you just chose to make it personal.


 ???  Did you actually read the last few posts in this thread?

Yes; did you see who the authors of those posts were?

I'm sorry.  I don't get your point at all. 

Al Misry presented speculation as fact.  I took exception to it.

Period.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on November 16, 2011, 02:33:03 PM
For Protestants, the ones that get divorced and then become Catholics and want to remarry.  The non-Chrisitans can seek a dispensation under the Petrine Privilege.

See, if you guys were baptizing your Protestant converts then *poof!* the sin of the first divorce is washed away.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 16, 2011, 02:47:45 PM
This thread is not only off topic now, it is personally antagonistic. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

i've seen worse, unfortunately :(
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: primuspilus on November 16, 2011, 03:43:12 PM


Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP

Then you really know nothing of the Catholic Church as well as being in the dark about this particular bit of history.
Because you are the arbiter of all things historical. Especially since you have yet to provide 1 shred of evidence refuting it. Now I know where you can take yourself and the horse you rode in on.


PP
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 04:09:35 PM


Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP

Then you really know nothing of the Catholic Church as well as being in the dark about this particular bit of history.
Because you are the arbiter of all things historical. Especially since you have yet to provide 1 shred of evidence refuting it. Now I know where you can take yourself and the horse you rode in on.


PP

Ya know, some things are pretty common knowledge and when you don't know precisely what is common, in this day, and in this age, a great deal of information is just a "Google" search away.

M.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: primuspilus on November 16, 2011, 04:16:41 PM


Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP

Then you really know nothing of the Catholic Church as well as being in the dark about this particular bit of history.
Because you are the arbiter of all things historical. Especially since you have yet to provide 1 shred of evidence refuting it. Now I know where you can take yourself and the horse you rode in on.


PP

Ya know, some things are pretty common knowledge and when you don't know precisely what is common, in this day, and in this age, a great deal of information is just a "Google" search away.

M.
Then here's one for you.:

Klara Hitler. Just click on any 'ole link and you'll read all about her and her uncle or first cousin and her devoutness to the Roman Church.
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2011, 04:24:07 PM


Either way, the Church would have had to issue something allowing the marriage. Whether she was Mr. hitler's cousin or niece, Isa's statement holds true.

PP

Then you really know nothing of the Catholic Church as well as being in the dark about this particular bit of history.
Because you are the arbiter of all things historical. Especially since you have yet to provide 1 shred of evidence refuting it. Now I know where you can take yourself and the horse you rode in on.


PP

Ya know, some things are pretty common knowledge and when you don't know precisely what is common, in this day, and in this age, a great deal of information is just a "Google" search away.

M.
Then here's one for you.:

Klara Hitler. Just click on any 'ole link and you'll read all about her and her uncle or first cousin and her devoutness to the Roman Church.

Yes.  The MOST LIKELY relationships is first cousin.  The Catholic Church will dispense the prohibition against first cousins in marriage.

Al Misry said that she was his NIECE...as though it were FACT, when it is weak speculation at best.

The Catholic Church would NOT dispense the relationship of niece and uncle.

That was Father Deacon's point and this was the junk history that Al Misry put forward to counter it.

Apparently you didn't get it either.

Ahhhwell...
Title: Re: bizarre teachings about the Mother of God
Post by: primuspilus on November 16, 2011, 04:49:04 PM