Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 228690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« on: April 07, 2009, 12:19:54 AM »
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin. Rather she concieved and created like Adam and Eve were in the Garden with no defects in their soul. Thus Mary, pre-fallen Adam, and pre-fallen eve all were created alike with God's grace in them. We also know that being created in such a way did stop Adam nor Eve form maintaining a free will. In fact we see that Eve does a free will and uses it to disobdy God. Adam follows in like manner.
The difference between Adam/Eve and Mary is that Mary chose, by the Grace of God, to obey God and remain in his friendship. The opposite of what Adam and Eve chose. We can clearly see that Adam and Eve had free will and used it in one way, and Mary had free will and she chose to use it in another.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,569
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2009, 12:36:13 AM »
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin. Rather she concieved and created like Adam and Eve were in the Garden with no defects in their soul.

Adam & Eve were not conceived but created.  I know you know that but just making sure you distinguish between Mary as a conceived being vs. Adam & Eve as created beings.  As you said, all 3 had Free Will and the differing consequences of decisions made via Free Will.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,582
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2009, 12:41:52 AM »
... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2009, 03:47:19 AM »
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin..

Here is my limited understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology on this matter.

Firstly, you are not correct in saying that the IC means the Mother of God was "not born the fallen state of original sin."  The true teaching is that she was not *conceived* in the fallen state of original sin.   I am surprised that you do not know that.  The very name should give you a clue - it is the Immaculate Conception and not the Immaculate Birth.

The consequence of this conception without original sin is that the Mother of God lacked some of the important aspects of free will.  These are aspects which the rest of humanity "enjoys."

Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.

I humbly implore your pardon for presuming to raise my voice on Roman Catholic theology but when I saw your inaccurate understanding of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born immaculately instead of being conceived immaculately) I knew that I had to make a small contribution. 


« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 03:51:57 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2009, 05:36:26 AM »
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2009, 07:11:52 AM »
Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2009, 07:31:07 AM »
... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.
She was the New Eve, the first woman of the New Creation from whom Christ would be born.  The EO Feast of the Conception of St. Anne states something to the effect that the formation of Jesus began with the conception of the Theotokos in St. Anne's womb.

The whole point of the dogma of the IC has nothing to do with her free will (that's already a given) - that focus was not the intent of the dogma, but was imposed on it by detractors.  The focus of the dogma is the perfection of Christ - it is primarily Christological in its focus, not Mariological.

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2009, 07:31:54 AM »
Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.

As with Papist you have an inaccurate understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology.   The absence of concupiscence (the result of the absence of original sin) in the Mother of God does not mean the elimination of *all* of her free will; I thought I had made that clear.   It means the absence of free will to sin.  Free will to sin can only be driven by concuspiscence and nothing else. She actually had no inner faculty which brought her free will into action with regard to choosing sin.

So the Mother of God had less free will than the ordinary human.


Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2009, 07:34:40 AM »
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
You've expressed a bunch of claims about the dogma of the IC that it does not claim for itself.  Whatever it is you are rejecting, it is certainly not the dogma of the IC.  :)

Blessings,
Marduk

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2009, 07:35:52 AM »


The whole point of the dogma of the IC has nothing to do with her free will (that's already a given)

You still do not understand.  The absence of original sin means the absence of the stain of  concupiscence.  Without concupiscence the free will to sin is absent. 

So the dogma of the IC has quite a lot to do with her free will.  It did not eliminate it entirely but it removed any free will to commit sin.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 07:37:58 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2009, 07:36:53 AM »
So you believe Jesus had less free will than any other human being also?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had less free will than any other human being?  If so, how did they sin?

Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.

As with Papist you have an inaccurate understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology.   The absence of concupiscence (the result of the absence of original sin) in the Mother of God does not mean the elimination of *all* of her free will; I thought I had made that clear.   It means the absence of free will to sin.  Free will to sin can only be driven by concuspiscence and nothing else. She actually had no inner faculty which brought her free will into action with regard to choosing sin.

So the Mother of God had less free will than the ordinary human.



Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2009, 07:40:00 AM »
Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence.  Can you explain how they were able to sin?



The whole point of the dogma of the IC has nothing to do with her free will (that's already a given)

You still do not understand.  The absence of original sin means the absence of the stain of  concupiscence.  Without concupiscence the free will to sin is absent. 

So the dogma of the IC has quite a lot to do with her free will.  It did not eliminate it entirely but it removed any free will to commit sin.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2009, 07:41:06 AM »
So you believe Jesus had less free will than any other human being also?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had less free will than any other human being?  If so, how did they sin?

Because you cannot answer the objections to the Immaculate Conception you are starting to throw red herrings into the discussion.   Please do not take this thread off topic.  Deal with the topic - "Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception."

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2009, 07:46:41 AM »
Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence.  Can you explain how they were able to sin?

I do not want to pursue your red herrings but you seem confused and in need of a little help.   You appear to be equating the spiritual life of Adam and Eve with the spiritual life which Christ brought to earth for humanity.   They are NOT identical.  What Christ has brought to the human race exceeds whatever gifts and spiritual blessings He bestowed upon Adam and Eve.  Do not make the mistake of thinking that life in Christ equates to a return to the Garden.  It doesn't.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2009, 08:06:47 AM »
Of course it had to do with the chose of Mary , for Her to become Theotokos , remmeber when the angels give Her the good news , She said : 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."(luke 1:38)
, and when She met Elizabeth , Elizabeth said : 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" . The entire doctrine of IC is against what the bible says , and Mary herself says .

The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
 39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" 46And Mary said:
   "My soul glorifies the Lord
    47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
 48for he has been mindful
      of the humble state of his servant.
   From now on all generations will call me blessed,
    49for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
      holy is his name.
 50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
      from generation to generation.
 51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
      he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
 52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
      but has lifted up the humble.
 53He has filled the hungry with good things
      but has sent the rich away empty.
 54He has helped his servant Israel,
      remembering to be merciful
 55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
      even as he said to our fathers."

Mary`s role is first as a servant of God , She was an humble woman , an eucharistic woman , she served the Temple since the age of 3 , according to Tradition . If she would have been IC , that she would not inherit the human nature , and therefore , Jesus would not be of human nature . Jesus inherit the human nature from Mary as the Creed says : who incarneted from Holy Spirit and from Virgin Mary . Therefore Jesus would have not been God-Man , but He would have been just a God . If Mary would have been IC , she would have been spotless , she would not needed to be Saved . The Scripture also tells us we all sinned and fallen from God`s grace . Mary never wanted to shine in front of God and Jesus . Mary is no redeemer . Mary needed a Saviour , like all humans . The focuss is Jesus , God`s big love and mercy . Not that Mary wishes us good and loves us , while Jesus and the Father wants to reveal the wrath on us . Remmeber what Jesus told the jews : Moses in wich you confide , he will blame you . It is impossible for someone born from seed of man , born from man and woman to be without sin, without inheriting the Ancestral Sin . Remmeber John 3:15 : 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Mary had the free will , she could of chose not to believe the angel , remmember the words of Elizabeth from above : Blessed is she who believed all this . The papist theory of IC is an atrocity , and subordonation to lies . Is a dogma wich doesn`t have life in itself , wich breaks the row of truth , and the misteries of God . Wich is not in the same line with the understanding of the bible , and therefore not in line with the true and a lie .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2009, 08:07:08 AM »
These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully, or it means that Adam and Eve cannot have sinned.  Otherwise, it means that not having concupisence does not deprive one of the free will NOT to sin. The fact that you cannot respond to these exigent circumstances indicates that your argument is not really valid at all.

I really don't think you understand what concupiscence is.  Concupiscence is NOT the free will to sin (which appears to be your definition since you define NOT having concupisence as the state of NOT having the free will to sin).  It is, rather, desires that are contrary to the real good and order of reason.  One can lack the desire to do something contrary to good reason, but that does not mean one does not have the free will NOT to sin.  One can lack the desire to sin (or lack the desire to do something contrary to good reason), but one can still be deceived to disobedience (as Adam and Eve were).  For instance, Mary would surely have considered that her fiat would have put her in danger of being a social outcast.  At that point, she could have been deceived out of fear to disobey (i.e., deceived into not trusting that God would provide for her).  Instead, she deliberately chose to surrender to God.
So you believe Jesus had less free will than any other human being also?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had less free will than any other human being?  If so, how did they sin?

Because you cannot answer the objections to the Immaculate Conception you are starting to throw red herrings into the discussion.   Please do not take this thread off topic.  Deal with the topic - "Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception."

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2009, 08:10:49 AM »
We're not talking about states of spiritual existence.  We're just talking about the concept of concupiscence.  What was that you said about Red herrings? ;D

Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence.  Can you explain how they were able to sin?

I do not want to pursue your red herrings but you seem confused and in need of a little help.   You appear to be equating the spiritual life of Adam and Eve with the spiritual life which Christ brought to earth for humanity.   They are NOT identical.  What Christ has brought to the human race exceeds whatever gifts and spiritual blessings He bestowed upon Adam and Eve.  Do not make the mistake of thinking that life in Christ equates to a return to the Garden.  It doesn't.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2009, 08:13:41 AM »
Dear Dan-romania,

Nothing you've said refutes the dogma of the IC.  Like I said, I really don't think you understand the dogma.  But you're free to rant and rave against your straw men.

Blessings,
Marduk

Of course it had to do with the chose of Mary , for Her to become Theotokos , remmeber when the angels give Her the good news , She said : 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."(luke 1:38)
, and when She met Elizabeth , Elizabeth said : 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" . The entire doctrine of IC is against what the bible says , and Mary herself says .

The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
 39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" 46And Mary said:
   "My soul glorifies the Lord
    47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
 48for he has been mindful
      of the humble state of his servant.
   From now on all generations will call me blessed,
    49for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
      holy is his name.
 50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
      from generation to generation.
 51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
      he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
 52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
      but has lifted up the humble.
 53He has filled the hungry with good things
      but has sent the rich away empty.
 54He has helped his servant Israel,
      remembering to be merciful
 55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
      even as he said to our fathers."

Mary`s role is first as a servant of God , She was an humble woman , an eucharistic woman , she served the Temple since the age of 3 , according to Tradition . If she would have been IC , that she would not inherit the human nature , and therefore , Jesus would not be of human nature . Jesus inherit the human nature from Mary as the Creed says : who incarneted from Holy Spirit and from Virgin Mary . Therefore Jesus would have not been God-Man , but He would have been just a God . If Mary would have been IC , she would have been spotless , she would not needed to be Saved . The Scripture also tells us we all sinned and fallen from God`s grace . Mary never wanted to shine in front of God and Jesus . Mary is no redeemer . Mary needed a Saviour , like all humans . The focuss is Jesus , God`s big love and mercy . Not that Mary wishes us good and loves us , while Jesus and the Father wants to reveal the wrath on us . Remmeber what Jesus told the jews : Moses in wich you confide , he will blame you . It is impossible for someone born from seed of man , born from man and woman to be without sin, without inheriting the Ancestral Sin . Remmeber John 3:15 : 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Mary had the free will , she could of chose not to believe the angel , remmember the words of Elizabeth from above : Blessed is she who believed all this . The papist theory of IC is an atrocity , and subordonation to lies . Is a dogma wich doesn`t have life in itself , wich breaks the row of truth , and the misteries of God . Wich is not in the same line with the understanding of the bible , and therefore not in line with the true and a lie .

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2009, 08:37:50 AM »
These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully,

You are being quarrelsome and that is causing you to forget basic theology.

Jesus Christ was like us in all things *except* sin.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2009, 08:39:07 AM »
To clarify this a bit more:

The fact that one does not have a desire to sin, does not necessarily mean that one cannot be deceived unto disobedience or experience temptation.

Concupisence is a natural tendency to do something contrary to good reason.  However, that does not mean that, despite the lack of that tendency, someone cannot be tempted by an agent outside of oneself to disobey.  It simply means that the desire to disobey (or do something contrary to good reason) does not originate from oneself.  For example, it was not in Adam and Eve's nature to want to disobey God, or even feel about disobeying God.  But Satan put a new circumstance before them that tempted them.  On their own, such thoughts would not have presented itself in their mind.  They would never have thought on their own "this will make me like God."

Likewise, it would not have ever entered Jesus' mind to want to disobey God by desiring the riches of the world, etc.  But Satan put those things before him.  He must have thought about it at that instant (not that he ever thought of it on his own), but he used his free will, his good reason, to resist that temptation.

In conclusion, the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.  Arguments to the contrary make no sense and makes a heterodox mess of our beliefs about Free will and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2009, 08:43:47 AM »
The ability to be tempted is not sin, and neither does the ability to use of free will to resist temptation mean one has a sinful nature.  Heck, even concupiscence is not sin (not that Jesus or Mary or Adam and Eve [when first created] had concupiscence). I think you're grasping at straws.  Your "lack of free will" argument against the IC really is full of holes.

These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully,

You are being quarrelsome and that is causing you to forget basic theology.

Jesus Christ was like us in all things *except* sin.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2009, 08:48:47 AM »

I really don't think you understand what concupiscence is.  

As anticipated, you resort to the typical Catholic polemical ploy to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with you.  It becomes very wearisome.   :(

Quote
Concupiscence is NOT the free will to sin

Congratulations.  That is corect.

Quote
(which appears to be your definition since you define NOT having concupisence as the state of NOT having the free will to sin).

No cigar.  You got that wrong.  I've noticed that you try and guess what your partners in dialogue are thinking and you are often wrong.    Presumption of this nature is deadly to ecumenical dialogue.

Concupiscence is the disordered attraction to things and acts which are in fact detrimental to us.   Our fallen sinful nature may make them appear attractive at the time but they are in fact destructive of spiritual life and harmful to salvation.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 08:50:54 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2009, 08:54:03 AM »
Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2009, 08:56:53 AM »
the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.

Is that Catholic gobbledygook?  :laugh:

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2009, 09:02:35 AM »

I really don't think you understand what concupiscence is.  

As anticipated, you resort to the typical Catholic polemical ploy to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with you.  It becomes very wearisome.   :(
Apparently you think this gives you license to use the same argument (as you did earlier with Papist). ::)  And I've noticed too that the "red herring" argument is often used when non-Catholic polemicists can't respond.

Quote
Quote
(which appears to be your definition since you define NOT having concupisence as the state of NOT having the free will to sin).

No cigar.  You got that wrong.  I've noticed that you try and guess what your partners in dialogue are thinking and you are often wrong.    Presumption of this nature is deadly to ecumenical dialogue.
That's why I used the word "appears" instead of "is" - because I was not sure and was hoping to get a straight answer from you. What was that you said about presumption?

Quote
Concupiscence is the disordered attraction to things and acts which are in fact detrimental to us.   Our fallen sinful nature may make them appear attractive at the time but they are in fact destructive of spiritual life and harmful to salvation.
Very good.  And as the example of Adam and Eve demonstrates, lack of concupiscence does not equate to not being able to be tempted or deceived into sin.  Despite the lack of concupiscence, one still needs the active use of free will to be able to resist temptation.

Humbly,
Marduk

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2009, 09:14:58 AM »
Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

This basically and simply means that she received what we receive at Baptism, but only at an earlier time, even earlier than St. John the Baptist (who is traditionally believed to have been sanctified when Mary met Elizabeth). Whatever you think we receive at Baptism is the same thing that the Theotokos received, except at the moment of her conception.

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.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers only to her spiritual being, not her physical being.  It is, aside from concupiscence, exactly like what we experience spiritually at Baptism.

Blessings,
Marduk


Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2009, 09:21:26 AM »
the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.

Is that Catholic gobbledygook?  :laugh:
When one uses double and triple negatives - yeah, it can look like that. :laugh:

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2009, 09:37:39 AM »
... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.
The point is that she is the Holy Ark of the Covenant made of the "purest" and "finest" of material just as the true Ark. To a Catholic, the rejection of the Immacaulate Conception just doesn't add up.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2009, 09:39:08 AM »
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2009, 09:40:07 AM »
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin..

Here is my limited understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology on this matter.

Firstly, you are not correct in saying that the IC means the Mother of God was "not born the fallen state of original sin."  The true teaching is that she was not *conceived* in the fallen state of original sin.   I am surprised that you do not know that.  The very name should give you a clue - it is the Immaculate Conception and not the Immaculate Birth.

The consequence of this conception without original sin is that the Mother of God lacked some of the important aspects of free will.  These are aspects which the rest of humanity "enjoys."

Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.

I humbly implore your pardon for presuming to raise my voice on Roman Catholic theology but when I saw your inaccurate understanding of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born immaculately instead of being conceived immaculately) I knew that I had to make a small contribution. 



I meant concieved. I must have typed this out too quickly but I think you know that I know that Mary was preserved whole and entirely from Original Sin from the moment of her Conception.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2009, 09:43:57 AM »
Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.

As with Papist you have an inaccurate understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology.   The absence of concupiscence (the result of the absence of original sin) in the Mother of God does not mean the elimination of *all* of her free will; I thought I had made that clear.   It means the absence of free will to sin.  Free will to sin can only be driven by concuspiscence and nothing else. She actually had no inner faculty which brought her free will into action with regard to choosing sin.

So the Mother of God had less free will than the ordinary human.


Ah, so what we really have going on here is that you don't understand Catholic theolgoy because you believe that the lack of concuspisence takes away Mary's ability to sin. I can provide two examples that prove that this premise is false: Adam and Eve. Neither were created with concupiscence but both freely chose to sin. The lack of concupisence in a person does not take away that person's ability to sin. Rather, it just means that they do not have the same attachment and drive to sin that you and I have. Thus, when Adam and Eve sinned it was so much graver because their wills were much more free than ours.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2009, 09:45:05 AM »
So you believe Jesus had less free will than any other human being also?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had less free will than any other human being?  If so, how did they sin?

Because you cannot answer the objections to the Immaculate Conception you are starting to throw red herrings into the discussion.   Please do not take this thread off topic.  Deal with the topic - "Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception."
He is not getting off topic. He is providing two examples that destroy the foundation of your arguement.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2009, 09:50:28 AM »
These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully,

You are being quarrelsome and that is causing you to forget basic theology.

Jesus Christ was like us in all things *except* sin.
So you think that an intrinsic part of any human person is the desire to sin and the enjoyment of evil actions? WOW. You should become a Manichean because apparently you think that it is intrinsic to the human person to be evil. A Good God would not create such evil in us. So you going to joing the gnostics in general or the Manicheans in particular?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2009, 09:54:16 AM »
the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.

Is that Catholic gobbledygook?  :laugh:
And down the rabbit hole again. We have again arrived at either Fr. Ambrose being dishonest in his presentation of Catholic theology in order to assault it or Fr. Ambrose demonstrating this ignorance or lack of understanding of Catholic Theology. After things have been so clearly presented to him in this thread, and I am sure many times in his life, it is really straining Charity to assume that its ignorance and lack of understanding at this point. Fr. I ask you, please stop trying to misunderstand and misrepresent our Faith. It is extremely disrespectful. No one is expecting you to accept the IC; however, in the name of Christian Charity and sincerity, I ask you to stop creating these staw men.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 09:55:20 AM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2009, 10:01:28 AM »
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.

Exactly what i believed .. anyways maybe you would like to explain us how this occured =)) . Let`s not make Mariolatry here .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2009, 10:03:02 AM »
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.

Exactly what i believed .. anyways maybe you would like to explain us how this occured =)) . Let`s not make Mariolatry here .
First, If that's exactly what you believe then you believe in the Immaculate Conception. Second, how is God granting grace to Mary Mariolatry? What a silly arguement.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2009, 10:09:45 AM »
That is exactly what i taught IC is , and it is an heresy , you can`t prove it elsewhere . It was not a dogma of the Seven Councils , it was added by RCC , and became an dogma of RCC somewere in 19th century afaik . Let`s be serious the RCC has departed from the faith of Peter wich confessed  Jesus Christ and true faith . The rock on wich the Church was build .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2009, 10:10:19 AM »
That is exactly what i taught IC is , and it is an heresy , you can`t prove it elsewhere . It was not a dogma of the Seven Councils , it was added by RCC , and became an dogma of RCC somewere in 19th century afaik . Let`s be serious the RCC has departed from the faith of Peter wich confessed  Jesus Christ and true faith . The rock on wich the Church was build .
Let's be serious. You making a silly arguement.
If she really is the "All holy", "Immaculate", "All pure" then the Immaculate concpetion makes much more sense than its rejection.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 10:11:08 AM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline basilthefool

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2009, 10:44:44 AM »
Wow! This thread really lends itself to the ad hominen, eh? It does seem to the uninformed follower of all this that both sides are missing the mark on the opposition's arguments. I haven't seen so many knees jerking since lightning hit the football bleachers.

I had always thought that the main objection to immaculate conception was that it was proclaimed as a dogma necessary for salvation and that the Orthodox that it wasn't an essential belief and should not have been proclaimed unilaterally.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2009, 11:06:28 AM »
Wow! This thread really lends itself to the ad hominen, eh? It does seem to the uninformed follower of all this that both sides are missing the mark on the opposition's arguments. I haven't seen so many knees jerking since lightning hit the football bleachers.
Haven't missed his point. Its just not a good point.
 
I had always thought that the main objection to immaculate conception was that it was proclaimed as a dogma necessary for salvation and that the Orthodox that it wasn't an essential belief and should not have been proclaimed unilaterally.
This is the best arguement that I ever hear against the IC. However, it doesn't touch on whether or not the IC is true. It only addresses whether or not it was prudent to make it dogma.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2009, 11:34:11 AM »
Ok , I am interested in this dogma , Papist maybe you can help me , sorry for being a little bit acusator upper . I want us to have a civilised exchange of opinions and sure I am interested of this dogma .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2009, 11:49:23 AM »
Ok , I am interested in this dogma , Papist maybe you can help me , sorry for being a little bit acusator upper . I want us to have a civilised exchange of opinions and sure I am interested of this dogma .
As am I. :)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2009, 12:46:26 PM »
Ok , I am interested in this dogma , Papist maybe you can help me , sorry for being a little bit acusator upper . I want us to have a civilised exchange of opinions and sure I am interested of this dogma .
Why thank you for very much for this. Would you like me to give an explanation of what the Immaculate Conception is first or do you have questions that you would like me to try and answer first?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Dan-Romania

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 938
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2009, 12:49:31 PM »
I would like an explanation and if you are still here enter the chat a little .
This user no longer posts here.

Offline Marc Hanna

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 319
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2009, 02:28:51 PM »
Does anyone have any sayings from the fathers on this topic?  Just so we can all agree, let's limit these saying to those pre 5th century.