Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 227736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #945 on: June 10, 2009, 07:39:57 AM »
I think we need to take a real look at perspective here.  When referring to Mary in the past tense we may refer to her as All-holy even if there was a time when she was not, just as Paul was not a saint when he persecuted the church and consented to Stephen's murder.  Furthermore, to be born in sin and to sin are two entirely different things, just as one can be tempted by the acts of another but not allow that temptation to become manifest as a sin within oneself, eg, Christ's 40 days in the desert where He was tempted by Satan but did not Himself commit a sinful act of being tempted in that He desired that which He was being tempted with.  Mary could have inherited corruption and still conducted herself her entire life without committing sin and be free from the stain of sin.

Papist, I like the quotes which you provided, they give us much reference to the venerability of our mother, but without the modern interpretations I don't see how they conclusively result in immaculate conception.
Of course I am going to have to disgree but we will start with agreeing. First, I agree that Paul, once a sinner, was made holy later. The same is true of Sts. Peter, Gregory, Seraphim, etc. ect. ect. But none of them is all Holy. What is the difference between them and our All Holy Mother? As, st. Ephraim says, that was not even a stain of any sin in her. Thus not even original sin could have touched her. Otherwise she be just another Holy one like the rest of the saints. Instead, she is the "All Holy", "All Immaculate", "All Pure". I think the IC is implicit in these titles and in what the Fathers have said, as I explained above.
Of course I do not begrudge those who disagree with me.

And this is why some EO believe that Mary never personally sinned. This is the pivotal difference.
Personally, I don't think these titles themselves are proof-positive of the IC.  I would rather look to Fathers (such as St. Ephraim) who compared the holiness of Mary to the holiness of Jesus or statements that say that there was NEVER any stain or spot of sin on her (like St. Jakub of Sarug), or those who EXPLICITLY state that Mary was created or formed without stain (such as St. Germanus of Constantinople).

Blessings

You would be talking about this?
St. Jacob of Sarug actually sits on the fence.  In one place, he states that Mary was free from the sentence of Adam and Eve at the annunciation, yet in another place, he states, “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier…if ANY STAIN had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”  Of course, for St. Jacob to state that God selected her based on her soul not having any stain means that Mary must have been “stainless” even BEFORE the Annunciation.  To me, the only legitimate interpretation possible is that St. Jacob believed that she received Graces to have a stainless soul BEFORE the Annunciation, while believing that the Grace she received at the Annunciation was a different kind of Grace.  For surely the Grace for Mary to be OVERSHADOWED by the FULL divinity must be of an entirely different order than the Graces received at Baptism by which creatures are cleansed of the stain of all sin.  In any case, St. Jacob certainly cannot be used to make any sort of DEFINITE statement against the teaching of the IC.
It would seem that if St. Jacob believed as you claimed, that the IC was NOT "a singular grace and privilege granted," as your Pope Pius claimed, but a right earned by her.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #946 on: June 10, 2009, 07:46:12 AM »
Dear brother deusveritasest,


Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.

I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings

Oh?
Quote
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #947 on: June 10, 2009, 07:49:05 AM »

I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.

I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic

"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.
All of whom fell asleep before Chalcedon, and didn't, and do not, commune with heretics.

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #948 on: June 10, 2009, 07:53:06 AM »
Dear brother deusveritasest,


Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.

I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings

Funny you should claim yet again this imagined affinity between the Vatican and the Oriental Orthodox as against the latter and the rest of the Orthodox.
On a more important agreement:
Quote
Does a Catholic or a Protestant (Lutheran) have to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church to be able to marry in the Orthodox Church?

A Catholic or a Protestant of any denomination (not just Lutheran) has to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox faith. The Coptic Church has recognized the holy Mystery of Baptism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara). In addition, we have recently made an agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept each other's Baptism. One is baptized according to the faith of the Church he/she is joining. Since the Protestant do not believe in the same doctrines we believe in, (Infant baptism, Holy Sacraments, the position of St. Mary and her perpetual virginity, icons, candles, etc.) their baptism is not recognized in our Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1109&catid=45

Quote
Does the Coptic Orthodox Church consider Chaldean Catholic Baptism valid?

The Chaldean Catholic Church is affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church accepting the dogmas of the Catholic faith and the Pope of Rome as the supreme head of the church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic such as the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the purgatory, the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, etc. When one is baptized in a certain denomination he/she is baptized according to the faith of that particular Church, vowing to accept and embrace all her dogmas. Consequently, a person baptized in the Chaldean Catholic Church does not hold the same faith as one baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore, his/her baptism is invalid in the Coptic Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1108&catid=45

As for the Orientals, you know, the ones in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Pope, we have several agreements.
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php.
So have these commissions been accepted by the Synods of any of the Churches?  The Christological Agreements with the Catholic Church have.

In the past, you have taken glee in pointing out that the many Agreements that the Catholic Church have had with the Orthodox on other matters on the Theological Commission level have not been accepted by the Synods of the different Churches.  Why should not your link to this website not be regarded in the same manner?  They are certainly advancing the way to unity between the OO and EO, but the same can be said with the OO and CC and EO and CC.

Quote
On a more important agreement:...
Ummm... these are not formal Agreements.  Besides, the rejection of Catholic Baptism is only a recent development in the COC (20th century - after all, the COC approached [i.e., made the initial advances] the CC for formal reunion 3 times in the past).  I have hope this situation will change, as well as the situation among all the Churches.

Blessings

One Faith, One Lord, One baptism.  May not be a formal Agreement, but it is ratified in Heaven.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 07:57:08 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #949 on: June 10, 2009, 07:55:44 AM »
Oh?
Quote
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm
[/quote]
So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.

Sigh!  I would simply avoid your pointless arguments if only that there might be a possibility you might actually mislead someone by them.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #950 on: June 10, 2009, 08:33:13 AM »
[So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.


HUH?!   Earlier you told us that concupiscence IS a stain...

Marduk:  "Since it was at the moment of her conception, it also means that the Grace (that we normally receive at Baptism) was preventive, instead of ameliorative.  This means she had no spiritual stain, including the stain of concupiscence. However, all the physical consequences still remained (death, infirmity, sickness, sorrow, etc) - just like us when we receive baptism."

And Papist agrees with you that concupiscense is a stain...

"Original sin or concupiscence/the privation of Grace, is the stain left in us by the fall of man. Yet Mary is free even from this because she is free of every stain of sin."

Amazing the rapidity with which Catholic theology is evolving - last week it was a stain, this week it isn't!   ;D


Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #951 on: June 10, 2009, 08:55:42 AM »
[So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.


HUH?!   Earlier you told us that concupiscence IS a stain...

Marduk:  "Since it was at the moment of her conception, it also means that the Grace (that we normally receive at Baptism) was preventive, instead of ameliorative.  This means she had no spiritual stain, including the stain of concupiscence. However, all the physical consequences still remained (death, infirmity, sickness, sorrow, etc) - just like us when we receive baptism."
Oh, sorry about that.  I go back and forth between here and CAF, and I did so when I wrote that.  At CAF, I wrote that since the effects of concupiscence are spiritual (i.e., sinning), and the "stain" refers to the spiritual effects of Original Sin, concupiscence can conceivably be included in the definition of the "stain of Original Sin."  As you can see, I was not intending to absolutely define concupiscence per se as "stain," but only in view of its effects (not in view of concupiscence itself).  I think I jumped back here to this Forum when I had written that at CAF, and miscommunicated.  Sorry. I take full responsibility for my error.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #952 on: June 10, 2009, 09:01:11 AM »
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.

Correct.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #953 on: June 10, 2009, 09:09:49 AM »
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.

Correct.

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #954 on: June 10, 2009, 09:21:02 AM »
Oh?
Quote
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm
So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.

Sigh!  I would simply avoid your pointless arguments if only that there might be a possibility you might actually mislead someone by them.

since Father has already responded, I'll just add:

My great grandparents were baptized by the Vatican.  Since they were washed clean of Original Sin at their baptism, like the Theotokos, then how did they transmit it when they conceived my grandmother?  Why did she have to be baptized? (she was baptized by the Vatican too)  How did she transmit it to my aunt (also baptized by the Vatican:she apostacized but came back)? In that case perhaps we can blame my Lutheran grandfather.

If the IC is so important to explain how the Lord has not captive to original sin, why didn't it work on my ancestors?

And that is the problem with the IC: so much complication that solves nothing, explains nothing, enlightens nothing, preserves nothing.  Instead it promotes the heresies of Maximillian Kolbe, Dr. Mark Miravalle and the rest of the Vox populi crowd.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 09:23:54 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #955 on: June 10, 2009, 09:33:30 AM »
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.
A council does not DEFINE a deposition.  ??? ??? ???

Quote
And what did the Fourth Council say about Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas that was contradicted by the Fifth?  Except that, for instance, Theodoret paid lip service to the Third Council at the Fourth, and was exposed at the Fifth.
Yes, the Fifth Council adjudged that the fourth Council was deceived, but the fact that a Council can be deceived on what a person believes demonstrates without a doubt that judgments of PERSONS (as opposed to judgments on DOCTRINE) are not guided by the Holy Spirit and are not "matters of Faith."

Quote
Decree of the Council Against Nestorius.

(Found in all the Concilia in Greek with Latin Versions.)

As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς, κ.τ.λ.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.

Quote
The words for which I have given the original Greek, are not mentioned by Canon Bright in his Article on St. Cyril in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography; nor by Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of Ephesus in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.  They do not appear in Canon Robertson’s History of the Church.  219And strangest of all, Dean Milman cites the sentence in English in the text and in Greek in a note but in each case omits all mention of the letter of the Pope, marking however in the Greek that there is an omission.  (Lat. Chr., Bk. II., Chap. III.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html

Btw, the Fathers were "compelled" because since Nestorius didn't show up, they had to accept Pope Celestine's accusations as admitted by Nestorius, besides their own examination of his works and the condemnation by Pope St. Cyril.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 09:40:04 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #956 on: June 10, 2009, 09:48:37 AM »

I accept that the Council of Chalcedon does not contradict the FAITH of the OO regarding the Natures of Christ (which every OO Patriarch has asserted in the many Common Christological Statements made by the various individual OO Churches with the Catholic Church).

Where have any of the OO representatives expressed that the Council of Chalcedon in no way contradicted the OO faith?


I am a miaphysite Catholic, and nothing in Catholicism contradicts my Faith as a miaphysite (though indeed there may be merely differences in terminologies and theological expressions, which OO hierarchs admit).

My main concern is not the numbering of the natures. This may be the first topic that most people look to when glancing over this topic, but it winds up not being the most substantial. I know that Miaphysitism is potentially compatible with RCism and EOy. Have you read the 6 Anathemas of Pope Dioscorus against the Council of Chalcedon, though? There are much more substantial criticisms. How can an OO accept the ratification of Ibas of Edessa's letter to Maris the Persian?

Quote
The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret’s writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.  They examined whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon.  So much was admitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius, had been received by the holy Council.  Some contended that his person only was spared; others that his letter also was approved.  Thus inquiry was made at the fifth Council how the writings on the Faith were wont to be approved in former Councils.  The Acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth.  Then the holy Council declared:  “It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them.  For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.”  But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved.  So, then, it is certain from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it, that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils not simply, nor without inquiry.  The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas’s letter.  They compare the letter with the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon.  Which done, the holy Council declared—“The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right Faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.”  All the Bishops cried out, “We all say this; the letter is heretical.”  Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council, that our holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, and that on matter of Faith, to be orthodox or heretical, according to the same procedure, after legitimate cognizance, the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html?highlight=ibas#highlight

Quote
How can an OO accept the Tome of Leo which appears to apply agency to the two natures?
By realizing that it doesn't apply agency to the two natures.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #957 on: June 10, 2009, 09:49:01 AM »
Saint Joseph, the Immaculatus, Never Sinned.  

He, like his spouse, was cleansed of original sin not at his physical conception but at his spiritual conception.

In private revelations to Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil, the Virgin Mary appeared under the title of Our Lady of America, the Immaculate Virgin. On some occasions, Saint Joseph also appeared, and he spoke to her, saying:

“It is true my daughter, that immediately after my conception, I was, through the future merits of Jesus and because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father, cleansed from the stain of original sin.”

http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/joseph-never-sinned.htm

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #958 on: June 10, 2009, 09:57:10 AM »

A little too dualistic.  Death, illness, sorrow are the effects of original sin.  It is rather odd that she would be preserved from the stain of original sin but suffer its effects.  Is that what you are claiming?

What would be wrong with such a claim? The same is the case with the Word.

Was the Theotokos assuming human nature?  Was she by nature/essence sinless? Did she suffer for our sake, and not her own?

I don't see the relevance of these questions. Do you recognize that the Word was preserved from the ancestral curse and sin entirely but was likewise subject to passion?
I think brother deusveritasest is pointing out that the origin of Mary is quite different from that of Jesus (i.e. her nature was not different from ours, and she was sinless by GRACE, not by Nature - unlike Christ), which would refute the idea that Mary's IC somehow takes anything away from the UTTERLY UNIQUE conception of Jesus.

Blessings

Mmmmm, that's not quite what I was getting at. "Ialmisry" was trying to suggest that it is ridiculous to consider that Mary was preserved from original sin given that she suffered its effects or consequences. My point was that it can't be as ridiculous as he is making it sound if the Word likewise is considered to have not inherited original sin and yet inherited its consequences (death, disease, passion, etc.).

II Corinthians 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #959 on: June 10, 2009, 10:07:52 AM »

Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.

I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings

To me, and seemingly to other EO, the language of "stain" and "blemish" implies an actual moral and spiritual mark on the soul resulting from sin. Most EO confess to not believe that the ancestral curse has any such "stain" or "blemish" attached to it. That's why referring to our inheritance as "sin" is slightly misleading, and referring to the "ancestral curse" is more common in the Eastern Church Fathers. We do recognize it as a breach of communion with God, a loss of sanctifying grace, a loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a loss of total holiness, and a "spiritual death". A "stain" or "blemish" only develops when the person commits a personal sin. Further, I don't know that most EO would agree with the idea of "loss of justice" as you put it.

It comes up with the issue of guilt that the West has been focused on for quite some time.

Quote
It would seem that an infant has committed no evil in the sight of God, and that thus there is no reason he/she should be regarded as lacking in justice. Guilt only comes when sin has actually been committed. Thus Baptism does reverse the ancestral curse by infusing the infant with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, restoring them to holiness and grace. But there is not yet any actual sin, guilt, stain, or blemish that need be washed away.

What makes you think that the OO teach otherwise?

It fits his agenda.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 10:10:21 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #960 on: June 10, 2009, 10:19:18 AM »
Saint Joseph, the Immaculatus, Never Sinned.  

He, like his spouse, was cleansed of original sin not at his physical conception but at his spiritual conception.

In private revelations to Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil, the Virgin Mary appeared under the title of Our Lady of America, the Immaculate Virgin. On some occasions, Saint Joseph also appeared, and he spoke to her, saying:

“It is true my daughter, that immediately after my conception, I was, through the future merits of Jesus and because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father, cleansed from the stain of original sin.”

http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/joseph-never-sinned.htm


Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,077
  • don't even go there!
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #961 on: June 10, 2009, 12:39:07 PM »
Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.

??  I never heard that even speculated about as a dogma, and I've been RC all my life.  I've always been told that Sts. Joachim and Anna conceived Mary in "the normal fashion" (as we used to say back in the pre-sexual revolution days  ;) ).
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #962 on: June 10, 2009, 12:42:25 PM »
Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.

??  I never heard that even speculated about as a dogma, and I've been RC all my life.  I've always been told that Sts. Joachim and Anna conceived Mary in "the normal fashion" (as we used to say back in the pre-sexual revolution days  ;) ).

It's been around a while: the reason why icons of the birth of the Theotokos show her parents embracing, to refute the idea.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #963 on: June 10, 2009, 05:18:49 PM »

Since EO (I can't be sure if this is a general EO teaching or the opinions of a segment of the EOC) don't believe that there is no "stain"/"blemish," naturally they don't believe anything is being washed away (as brother Alex has explicitly asserted).

I would be willingly to say that the "ancestral curse" is being washed away.


AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.

But what do they mean by that? Do they think that infants are guilty and thus that their guilt is being washed away? Do they believe that infants have a moral/spiritual "stain", "blemish", or "mark" on the soul (which is the result of guilt even if the guilt is for some reason not present) that is being washed away? Or do they, like us, understand that the ancestral curse is a lack of holiness, a breach of communion with God, and a loss of grace and full goodness and that this is what is being washed away? I would be inclined to think the latter, seeing as how the former notions are understood to be of Western origin and that the OO generally agree with the EO on matters where the EO differ from the RC.


You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.

Is it? Or is it rather a substantial negative mark on the soul? "Stains" are not just a lack of something. If you really mean what the EO mean by the ancestral curse then you're using really poor language to describe it.


Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division?

Or perhaps you are using Latin terminologies without actually believing the original meanings behind them and rather sticking to the substance of your previous OO beliefs. That would be my guess...


I am also aware that the "loss of Justice" is not something many of the EO here would agree to.  That doesn't bother me.  I would rather remain faithful to my Coptic heritage on the matter.

Well, it's not the matter of the concept in general. Of course those who have committed personal sin are no longer justified. It is the matter of the nature of the ancestral curse, and thus the status of infants that is debated. Are you confident that the Copts believe that guilt is inherent to the ancestral curse and that thus infants are born guilty?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #964 on: June 10, 2009, 05:20:12 PM »

I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.

I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic

"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.

Mardukm is one of those who fancies himself "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

That's fine so long as one means that Roman Catholicism is the real orthodoxy, in contrast to Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Otherwise such a notion is rubbish.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #965 on: June 10, 2009, 05:21:14 PM »
I I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

I am not sure why your translation was necessary.

You could have remained Coptic Orthodox and Rome would still have quite happily given you communion in Catholic churches, thereby allowing you to be in communion with Rome and the Pope.

What was the reason for translating?  It placed you in the sad position of unnecessarily cutting off your communion with the Coptic Orthodox.

Would he have been permitted by the COC to take communion in RC churches?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #966 on: June 10, 2009, 05:23:06 PM »

I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.

I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic

"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.

Blessings

That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #967 on: June 10, 2009, 07:15:54 PM »
Dear brother deusveritasest,

First of all, I want to thank you for your questions.  They are very refreshingly honest and relevant, unlike the senseless nitpickiness of some others.

Since EO (I can't be sure if this is a general EO teaching or the opinions of a segment of the EOC) don't believe that there is no "stain"/"blemish," naturally they don't believe anything is being washed away (as brother Alex has explicitly asserted).

I would be willingly to say that the "ancestral curse" is being washed away.
We are in agreement on this point then.

Quote
AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.

But what do they mean by that? Do they think that infants are guilty and thus that their guilt is being washed away? Do they believe that infants have a moral/spiritual "stain", "blemish", or "mark" on the soul (which is the result of guilt even if the guilt is for some reason not present) that is being washed away? Or do they, like us, understand that the ancestral curse is a lack of holiness, a breach of communion with God, and a loss of grace and full goodness and that this is what is being washed away? I would be inclined to think the latter, seeing as how the former notions are understood to be of Western origin and that the OO generally agree with the EO on matters where the EO differ from the RC.
It depends on what one thinks "guilt" represents in the Catholic understanding as far as Original Sin is concerned.  If one thinks it is the guilt of Adam himself, that would be a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding (and that is the usual misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching non-Catholic polemicists like to promote - not saying you yourself are a polemicist for I sense a genuine query in your statement instead of an accusatory tone). One can acquire this though an open-minded reading of the Catholic Church's dogmatic statements on Original Sin. First. consider the usual understanding/definition of "guilt."  Guilt is a moral obligation to make up for something that is lacking in view of God's justice.  Second, consider that each human being inherits from Adam a lack of holiness/perfection that is the blemish on our nature and short of the holiness/perfection that God requires.  Third, and this is the most important - THOUGH AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS MENTION THE GUILT OF ORIGINAL SIN, THERE ARE NONE THAT CLAIM THAT GUILT IS INHERITED.  It is the imaginative divisive mind of anti-Catholics that have created a caricature of the Catholic teaching by claiming that the CC teaches that guilt is inherited (thereby wrongly assuming that we inherit Adam's OWN guilt).  What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that we inherit "sin" from Adam.  This "sin" is specifically defined by the Catholic Church as spiritual death (i.e., the state of separation from God).  We are each responsible for the recovery of this lost holiness - i.e., the moral obligation to make up for something lacking in view of God's justice - i.e., guilt. That is where the concept of guilt comes in.  It is NOT an "inherited" guilt.  The "guilt" comes from the reality of my OWN inherent lack of holiness, which I am responsible for -- NOT for the sin that Adam himself committed (which is the lie that anti-Catholics like to perpetuate).  To repeat, there is no such thing as "INHERITED guilt" in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In the minds of some, this will probably lead to a discussion on limbo.  Let me just say right now that limbo is merely a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, and I am not obligated as a Catholic to accept it, and in fact do not accept it.

Quote

You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.

Is it? Or is it rather a substantial negative mark on the soul? "Stains" are not just a lack of something. If you really mean what the EO mean by the ancestral curse then you're using really poor language to describe it.
I don't know how EO define it.  But that is the way I understand "stain" as a Catholic.  Imagine the soul of Adam before the Fall, a soul shining with holiness through Grace.   After Adam sinned, he lost the Grace, and there is no longer any shine on the soul.  From the perspective of a person on the outside looking at Adam's soul, it can be seen as something covering the "light" (a blemish or stain on the soul), but it is really just that the light (i.e., the Grace) was lost.  I can't conceive of a difference between your "substantive negative mark on the soul" and my understanding that it is the loss of Original holiness and justice.  Baptism brings that "light" back to the soul, or (from the perspective of another) removes the blemish.  Whichever language you use, the reality is the same thing.  Despite different theological expressions, the FAITH remains the same.  I really don't see a difference between "stain" and "loss of..."  I am not about arguing over words, so you'll forgive me if I don't see your point here.

Quote

Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division?

Or perhaps you are using Latin terminologies without actually believing the original meanings behind them and rather sticking to the substance of your previous OO beliefs. That would be my guess...
That's very possible too.  As a Catholic, my Oriental viewpoint on the matter is completely valid, so I don't see any reason for changing it.  Do you?

Quote

I am also aware that the "loss of Justice" is not something many of the EO here would agree to.  That doesn't bother me.  I would rather remain faithful to my Coptic heritage on the matter.

Well, it's not the matter of the concept in general. Of course those who have committed personal sin are no longer justified. It is the matter of the nature of the ancestral curse, and thus the status of infants that is debated. Are you confident that the Copts believe that guilt is inherent to the ancestral curse and that thus infants are born guilty?
As stated, there is no such thing as "INHERITED guilt" in Catholicism.  That concept is a NON-Catholic invention to try to disparage the Catholic teaching.  We don't inherit guilt from Adam.  What we inherit are loss of Original Holiness and Justice, physical death and corruption, and concupiscence.  Our guilt comes not from inheritance, but from the reality of these circumstances in each new, individual person, a reality which falls short of the holiness/perfection that God requires.

As far as the "guilt of infants," it's a mystery to me what happens to unbaptized infants.  I don't believe in limbo, and the Catholic Church teaches that if they are saved, they are saved in some way known only to God.  At the very least, I know the Catholic Church does not teach that these children are damned.

Thank you for the questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #968 on: June 10, 2009, 07:31:44 PM »

I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.

I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic

"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.

Blessings

That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?
Are they not claimed by OO to be faithful to the OO Tradition?  Yet they were in communion with Rome.  Besides I never claim to be OO PERIOD.  I always clarify it with "in communion with Rome."  In the same way, EO sometimes use the word "Catholic" in their title.  Does this mean they are in communion with Rome, since that is what the word "Catholic" means TODAY?  No.  Obviously, EO who use the nomenclature do so to hearken back to the reality extant in the first millenium.  Likewise, Eastern and Oriental Catholics who use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are hearkening minds back to the reality of the first millenium.  That is all.

Blessings

Offline Jimmy

  • Maronite
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #969 on: June 10, 2009, 07:46:43 PM »
The idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is not meant to bring us back to the first millenium.  It is simply an expression of the faith as Archbishop Zhogby and the Melkite synod saw it.  They said they believe the same as the Orthodox but they are in communion with Rome.  That is all it means.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #970 on: June 10, 2009, 08:12:35 PM »
Dear brother jimmy,

The idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is not meant to bring us back to the first millenium.  It is simply an expression of the faith as Archbishop Zhogby and the Melkite synod saw it.  They said they believe the same as the Orthodox but they are in communion with Rome.  That is all it means.
You have been Catholic far longer than I have, so I will defer to your understanding (though I'll admit that in the back of my mind, I will always think of it in the ideal terms of the first millenium.  ;D )

Blessings

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #971 on: June 10, 2009, 08:46:07 PM »

I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).

Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.

I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic

"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.

Blessings

That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?
Are they not claimed by OO to be faithful to the OO Tradition?  Yet they were in communion with Rome.  Besides I never claim to be OO PERIOD. 
Just claim to speak for them, in particular this affinity between the Vatican and the Orientals as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox that you allege.

Quote
I always clarify it with "in communion with Rome." 

No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

Quote
In the same way, EO sometimes use the word "Catholic" in their title. 

We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.

Quote
Does this mean they are in communion with Rome,

We are in communion with Popes SS Leo, Gregory and the rest of the Orthodox successors in St. Peter's younger see.


Quote
since that is what the word "Catholic" means TODAY? 

Only in the West.  In Egypt, for instance, "kaathuuliikii" is the word you are talking about, "jaami'i" is what we say in the Creed (the original and Ecumenical Creed of the "One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church"), and what we are.  Similar in Romanian "catolica" versus "saborneasca" etc.  Unfortunately, since Latin took the Greek term, Greek doesn't have a distinction (except to prefix franko-)


Quote
No.  Obviously, EO who use the nomenclature do so to hearken back to the reality extant in the first millenium. 

No, they continue the reality of the first two milleniums into the third.

Quote
Likewise, Eastern and Oriental Catholics who use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are hearkening minds back to the reality of the first millenium.

I don't recall the communion with the Vatican EVER using Orthodox as a title of their church.


Quote
  That is all.

That's enough.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 08:47:12 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #972 on: June 10, 2009, 09:02:12 PM »

is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.

You should look into this topic more. The EOC and OOC have generated even more promising Christological Agreements than even the OOC and RCC.
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #973 on: June 10, 2009, 09:06:59 PM »
No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.
And the word "orthodox" is in the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to describe the Church according to the Ecumenical Councils.  So based on this, your objection means nothing.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #974 on: June 10, 2009, 09:51:25 PM »
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval. 

For those who like sources...

Agreed Official Statements of the Orientals on Christology with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Agreed_Official_Statements_on_Christology_with_the_Catholic_and_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #975 on: June 10, 2009, 10:55:49 PM »

is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.

You should look into this topic more. The EOC and OOC have generated even more promising Christological Agreements than even the OOC and RCC.
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Blessings

Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #976 on: June 10, 2009, 11:00:44 PM »
No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.
And the word "orthodox" is in the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to describe the Church according to the Ecumenical Councils.  So based on this, your objection means nothing.


Next you will be claiming that the title Pope for the Primate of Alexandria is "the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."  The title that Patriarch bore to ALL the Ecumenical Councils. (Rome didn't get take it until the latter ones).

But wait-the EO Patriarch has the title Pope, the OO Patriarch has the title Pope, but none of the three primates the Vatican has set up for Alexandria are allowed the title Pope, the denial not from the Faithful of Alexandria, but the Vatican.

Never mind.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 11:01:58 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #977 on: June 10, 2009, 11:13:35 PM »
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.

Yes, you make a good point.  No Catholic can marry a Coptic Christian unless he or she is first baptized by the Coptic priest.   This sits uneasily with Marduk's frequent claim of the relationship between these two Churches.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #978 on: June 10, 2009, 11:47:02 PM »
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.

Yes, you make a good point.  No Catholic can marry a Coptic Christian unless he or she is first baptized by the Coptic priest.   This sits uneasily with Marduk's frequent claim of the relationship between these two Churches.
As I said, this is only a recent practice of the COC, and not its Traditional position.  I have hope that it will change. And the Syriac Orthodox officially accepts Catholic Baptism.  And the Armenians unofficially do so (as well, I think, as the EOC baptism) So what's your point?  It shows we are all moving towards unity and understanding.  My main point for evincing the similarity of the OO and the CC is to inspire EO not to be hypocritical with their condemnations of the Catholic Church, for much of what certain EO UNTHINKINGLY criticize about the Catholic Church is also a criticism of OO teaching.  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

Quote from:
And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
That's his personal opinion, not a synodal statement.  ::)

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #979 on: June 10, 2009, 11:54:25 PM »
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

Quote from:
And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.

Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #980 on: June 10, 2009, 11:55:51 PM »
Never mind.
Best thing I've read from you.  ;D

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #981 on: June 10, 2009, 11:58:42 PM »
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

Quote from:
And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.

Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #982 on: June 11, 2009, 12:11:54 AM »
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

Quote from:
And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.

Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.

But they are all in communion with the Pope of Alexandria and you are not.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #983 on: June 11, 2009, 12:12:24 AM »
Never mind.
Best thing I've read from you.  ;D

Blessings

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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #984 on: June 11, 2009, 12:13:48 AM »
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.

The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.

You will remember that it came on the heels of the statement from Pope Shenouda that none but the baptized (Orthodox faith, triple immersion) can go to heaven.

Mar Bishoy, the Patriarch's right-hand man,  qualified that a couple of months later by pointing out that Catholics and Protestants cannot be saved.

There was a bit of a firestorm from the Catholics in Egypt and even demands in newspapers by the Catholic Patriarch that the Coptic Church deny that Catholics go to hell.

There was no reaction at all from Pope Shenouda.   The sermon of Mar Bishoy was sold on tape in all the cathedrals and churches of the Coptic Patriarchate.   Very popular.  Not one bishop was against it.


This has taken us off topic. We ought to drop it.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 12:15:56 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,787
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #985 on: June 11, 2009, 12:28:45 AM »
The ancient Roman Canon has always prayed: "...et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus." (and all orthodox who keep the catholic and apostolic faith.)  So the Catholic Church has never relinquished the title orthodox, just as the Orthodox Church has never relinquished the title catholic.

The title Pope was used by all bishops in the West at first and was gradually restricted to the Bishop of Rome there.  The Bishop of Rome was always first among the patriarchs regardless of the titles or honorifics used by the others.

Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #986 on: June 11, 2009, 12:31:33 AM »
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Just one more comment:

The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.
I've only met one CO who agrees with that statement - he was a convert to CO from the EO, which might be telling. Otherwise, I've never met a Coptic Orthodox who agrees with the statement of HB Bishoy since it was not a synodal statement.  It would be interesting to hear from CO on the matter here.  I know there are CO at CopticHymns (it's a CO website, if you didn't know) who don't agree with the statement at all.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #987 on: June 11, 2009, 12:33:31 AM »
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

Quote from:
And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.

Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.

But they are all in communion with the Pope of Alexandria and you are not.
Ummm.. Mar Bishoy is not the Pope of Alexandria. ;)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #988 on: June 11, 2009, 12:34:59 AM »
The ancient Roman Canon has always prayed: "...et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus." (and all orthodox who keep the catholic and apostolic faith.)  So the Catholic Church has never relinquished the title orthodox, just as the Orthodox Church has never relinquished the title catholic.

I was referring to the autonymic title.


Quote
The title Pope was used by all bishops in the West at first and was gradually restricted to the Bishop of Rome there.  The Bishop of Rome was always first among the patriarchs regardless of the titles or honorifics used by the others.

Fr. Deacon Lance

But it seems the Vatican's church is not big enough for two Popes, let alone (if you count all his primates appointed for Alexandria) four.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #989 on: June 11, 2009, 12:35:57 AM »
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Just one more comment:

The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.
I've only met one CO who agrees with that statement - he was a convert to CO from the EO, which might be telling. Otherwise, I've never met a Coptic Orthodox who agrees with the statement of HB Bishoy since it was not a synodal statement.  It would be interesting to hear from CO on the matter here.  I know there are CO at CopticHymns (it's a CO website, if you didn't know) who don't agree with the statement at all.

Humbly,
Marduk
Then you are not looking hard enough, because I've known plenty of Copts who agree with it.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth