Author Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception  (Read 232393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #900 on: June 09, 2009, 05:52:56 PM »

With all due respect to HH Patriarch Bartholomew, it is obvious he does not understand the substance of the dogma of the IC.  The dogma of the IC concerns ONLY the spiritual being of the Theotokos, NOT her physical being.  The dogma of the IC does NOT say she was preserved from physical corruption with all its attendant failings (death, illness, sorrow, etc.).  Rather, the dogma of the IC ONLY refers to the preservation of her spiritual purity.

That much should have been obvious to His All Holiness given that the EO recognize the Word as having been conceived without and guilt or stain or even lack of holiness as the RC believe Mary had been, yet the Word likewise inherited the passibility of the human nature.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #901 on: June 09, 2009, 05:55:09 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?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #902 on: June 09, 2009, 05:56:16 PM »

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.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #903 on: June 09, 2009, 06:04:02 PM »

That's a crock.  Her Son was murdered.  Was the Mother of God murdered?

How is the Word being murdered different in nature from His Mother dying of old age?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #904 on: June 09, 2009, 06:06:58 PM »

If Mary would not inherit the Ancestral Sin , she would not known corruption and death , and she would not needed a Saviour.

Did the Word inherit ancestral sin? If not, then how did He know passion and death?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #905 on: June 09, 2009, 06:08:46 PM »

Second, she did not die as you and I do but rather experienced a "dormition".

WTH does that mean?

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #906 on: June 09, 2009, 06:13:58 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.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #907 on: June 09, 2009, 06:15:56 PM »

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?
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: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #908 on: June 09, 2009, 06:17:52 PM »

... 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.

Well, I think it has somewhat to do with the RC/Augustinian conception of original sin, which conceives of at the very least "the stain of original sin" if not even "the inherited guilt of the sin of Adam". Because of this emphasis, I think the RC's figured that the Word could not have been conceived of flesh marred by the stain of original sin without Him somehow inheriting unholiness Himself. Given that such would have been simply impossible, and given somehow being bound to the Augustinian conception of original sin, I think the "logical conclusion" for them was that Mary was conceived exempt from original sin.
Only problem is such "logic" makes gibberish of the Apostle's words "He made Him Who knew no sin becom sin for us."
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 #909 on: June 09, 2009, 06:38:47 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.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #910 on: June 09, 2009, 06:40:16 PM »

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?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #911 on: June 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM »

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?

No, He was not perserved.  Rather, the hypostasis of the Son was immune by His nature and essence from it.  Unless you go with the semi-incarnation of the Theotokos, she was 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 Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #912 on: June 09, 2009, 08:26:06 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?
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).  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).  However, I do not accept many of the canonical anathemas of Chalcedon.  Canonical censures are not infallible (though the teachings on which they are based certainly are), so I can remain a Catholic while rejecting some of the canonical censures of Chalcedon, while being united in the Catholic FAITH of Chalcedon (though not necessarily her theological expressions).

I hope that explains it. Thanks  for the question.

Blessings,
Marduk


Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #913 on: June 09, 2009, 08:26:24 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
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #914 on: June 09, 2009, 08:31:52 PM »

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #915 on: June 09, 2009, 08:32:06 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?
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).  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).  However, I do not accept many of the canonical anathemas of Chalcedon.  Canonical censures are not infallible (though the teachings on which they are based certainly are),

Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?


Quote
so I can remain a Catholic while rejecting some of the canonical censures of Chalcedon, while being united in the Catholic FAITH of Chalcedon (though not necessarily her theological expressions).

I hope that explains it. Thanks  for the question.

Blessings,
Marduk


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 #916 on: June 09, 2009, 08:42:47 PM »
Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?
Aren't you aware of the object of infallibility?  FAITH AND MORALS.  It does not include ecclesiastical censures, or matters of discipline, or matters of pracitce, or sports, or science, etc. ,etc.

If you want to discuss the Christological Agreements between the OOC and the CC, then start another thread.

Blessings


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #917 on: June 09, 2009, 09:05:33 PM »
Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?
Aren't you aware of the object of infallibility?  FAITH AND MORALS.  It does not include ecclesiastical censures, or matters of discipline, or matters of pracitce, or sports, or science, etc. ,etc.

If you want to discuss the Christological Agreements between the OOC and the CC, then start another thread.

Blessings



Hmmm.  In our theology Christological statements and anathemas based on them are matters of Faith.

So Nestorianism is OK, huh?
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 #918 on: June 09, 2009, 09:21:26 PM »
Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?
Aren't you aware of the object of infallibility?  FAITH AND MORALS.  It does not include ecclesiastical censures, or matters of discipline, or matters of pracitce, or sports, or science, etc. ,etc.

If you want to discuss the Christological Agreements between the OOC and the CC, then start another thread.

Blessings

Hmmm.  In our theology Christological statements and anathemas based on them are matters of Faith.
More correctly, Christological statements are matters of Faith.  Anathemas on PERSONS are not matters of faith, but are ecclesiastical censures.  Your own lack of distinction on the matter is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.  This distinction is the reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council was able to contradict the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the matter of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, without damage to the THEOLOGICAL and DOCTRINAL authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Quote
So Nestorianism is OK, huh?
Strict Nestorianism (that does not admit the divine and human hypostasis) is a heresy.  The Church will anathematize a person if she believes that certain person adhered to that teaching.  But if it is later determined that the person does not actually hold to that belief, the anathema on that person is lifted, though the heresy itself will always be a heresy.

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #919 on: June 09, 2009, 09:47:40 PM »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #920 on: June 09, 2009, 10:52:37 PM »
Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?
Aren't you aware of the object of infallibility?  FAITH AND MORALS.  It does not include ecclesiastical censures, or matters of discipline, or matters of pracitce, or sports, or science, etc. ,etc.

If you want to discuss the Christological Agreements between the OOC and the CC, then start another thread.

Blessings

Hmmm.  In our theology Christological statements and anathemas based on them are matters of Faith.
More correctly, Christological statements are matters of Faith.  Anathemas on PERSONS are not matters of faith, but are ecclesiastical censures.  Your own lack of distinction on the matter is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.  This distinction is the reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council was able to contradict the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the matter of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, without damage to the THEOLOGICAL and DOCTRINAL authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Quote
So Nestorianism is OK, huh?
Strict Nestorianism (that does not admit the divine and human hypostasis) is a heresy.  The Church will anathematize a person if she believes that certain person adhered to that teaching.  But if it is later determined that the person does not actually hold to that belief, the anathema on that person is lifted, though the heresy itself will always be a heresy.

Blessings
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.

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.

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

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
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 #921 on: June 09, 2009, 11:20:40 PM »
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

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #922 on: June 09, 2009, 11:50:49 PM »
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
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

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #923 on: June 10, 2009, 01:29:14 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?

No, He was not perserved.  Rather, the hypostasis of the Son was immune by His nature and essence from it.  Unless you go with the semi-incarnation of the Theotokos, she was not.

I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to say here. Was the Son exempt from the inheriting of the ancestral curse because of the power of His divinity or did He actually inherit it?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #924 on: June 10, 2009, 01:31:37 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.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #925 on: June 10, 2009, 01:39:03 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? How can an OO accept the Tome of Leo which appears to apply agency to the two natures?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #926 on: June 10, 2009, 01:43:08 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.).

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #927 on: June 10, 2009, 01:45:32 AM »

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.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #928 on: June 10, 2009, 01:47:21 AM »

This distinction is the reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council was able to contradict the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the matter of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, without damage to the THEOLOGICAL and DOCTRINAL authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

You are aware that it is more than simply the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas that there is dissonance between the Council of Chalcedon and the Second Council of Constantinople, right?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #929 on: June 10, 2009, 01:49:54 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

These are compatible with the perspective that Mary inherited the ancestral curse (which doesn't necessitate a "stain" or "blemish") and was completely without personal sin. You don't have to go so far as the IC to account for these.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #930 on: June 10, 2009, 01:52:45 AM »

The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.

The First Council of Ephesus had no new definition. It ratified the Second and Third Epistles of Cyril to Nestorius, condemned Nestorius' epistles, deposed Nestorius, and established certain canons. The only Definition for Ephesus was the Nicene creed.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 01:53:36 AM by deusveritasest »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #931 on: June 10, 2009, 01:56:53 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?


At least one OO bishop and noted theologian has stated strongly that Chalcedon is heretical.

Let us look at a talk given at the third consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians in Geneva in 1970 by Fr. Paul Verghese and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1971.

This talk is also printed in Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, under the name of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, the name Fr. Verghese took when he was consecrated a metropolitan. The author, a theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India and past President of the WCC, states that:


"Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration.

"The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us ."




Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #932 on: June 10, 2009, 02:05:38 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

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 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?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #933 on: June 10, 2009, 02:11:20 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?


At least one OO bishop and noted theologian has stated strongly that Chalcedon is heretical.

Let us look at a talk given at the third consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians in Geneva in 1970 by Fr. Paul Verghese and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1971.

This talk is also printed in Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, under the name of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, the name Fr. Verghese took when he was consecrated a metropolitan. The author, a theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India and past President of the WCC, states that:


"Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration.

"The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us ."

I'm not at all surprised that there are some OO representatives that have condemned Chalcedon, even though our Coptic friend may not want to hear this. I was wondering if there even was anything contra, i.e. if any OO representatives actually approved Chalcedon as a whole. I don't think this is the case, though Marduk seems to.

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #934 on: June 10, 2009, 02:35:10 AM »
I'm not at all surprised that there are some OO representatives that have condemned Chalcedon, even though our Coptic friend may not want to hear this. I was wondering if there even was anything contra, i.e. if any OO representatives actually approved Chalcedon as a whole. I don't think this is the case, though Marduk seems to.
All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.  Can you please reread my posts to verify?  Thanks.

As regards the quote from Father Ambrose, my response is - "naturally."  Note the date of the quote - 1971.  These differences have been worked out officially since 1971 between each OO Church and the Catholic Church.  Each Church recognizes that the difference in theological language does not necessarily equate to a difference in Faith.  Seriously, though, I don't think we should hijack this thread on this matter.  ;D

I hope to give you a response to the rest of your posts within 2 days.  Thanks for your patience.

Blessings
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 02:41:38 AM by Mardukm »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #935 on: June 10, 2009, 02:47:11 AM »

All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.

What I meant was approve of the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon as a whole. This you appear to do. I was questioning whether there is a single OO bishop that has done so, on the other hand. OO have historically raised objections to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Tome of Leo, and also the Letter of Ibas of Edessa, all approved by the Council. I seriously doubt any OO bishop has accepted all three of these documents, if even one of them.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #936 on: June 10, 2009, 02:56:10 AM »
[
As regards the quote from Father Ambrose, my response is - "naturally."  Note the date of the quote - 1971. 

Note that the date of publication of "Does Chalcedon Divide of Unite?" is 1981 and Mar Gregorios (Paul Verghese) is one of the editors.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1723513

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #937 on: June 10, 2009, 02:57:28 AM »

All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.

What I meant was approve of the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon as a whole. This you appear to do. I was questioning whether there is a single OO bishop that has done so, on the other hand. OO have historically raised objections to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Tome of Leo, and also the Letter of Ibas of Edessa, all approved by the Council. I seriously doubt any OO bishop has accepted all three of these documents, if even one of them.
The letter of Ibas was denounced at the Fifth Ecumenical.  That's all I'll say right now.  If the mod is reading this, perhaps he will split off the past several posts to a new thread entitled "Christological Agreements regarding Chalcedon" because I really don't want to hijack this thread.  I will respond more fully in a new thread if it is started.

Blessings

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #938 on: June 10, 2009, 03:09:51 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

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 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?
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).  AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.  You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.  Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division? 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.

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 #939 on: June 10, 2009, 03:26:14 AM »
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

More than any other Christian Church, the Orthodox have embodied their Faith in their liturgical expression.

I invite you to read through the Service of Baptism and Chrismation to get a grasp of our belief.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/baptism_e.htm

Offline Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #940 on: June 10, 2009, 03:37:57 AM »
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

More than any other Christian Church, the Orthodox have embodied their Faith in their liturgical expression.

I invite you to read through the Service of Baptism and Chrismation to get a grasp of our belief.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/baptism_e.htm
Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Since I mentioned brother Alex, I thought it was clear that when I stated "they don't believe anything is being washed away," I meant in respect to infant baptism.  The OOC's teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism, part of the reason the OO baptize infants.  The EO, apparently (I'm still not sure), don't believe anything is being washed away at the Baptism of infants.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #941 on: June 10, 2009, 06:36:55 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.

Mardukm is one of those who fancies himself "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
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 #942 on: June 10, 2009, 06:48:57 AM »
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.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,542
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #943 on: June 10, 2009, 07:27:16 AM »
And are you not aware that Tradition states that a white dove entered St. Anna when Mary was conceived? 
Is that how St. Anne conceived?  The quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit, the "Uncreated Immaculate Conception?"

Is said dove mentioned in the services of the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne?  I don't recall it. It's not in the Proto-evangelion of James, which forms the source of the texts of the Feast.  Where is 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 Mardukm

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception
« Reply #944 on: June 10, 2009, 07:30:03 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.

Blessings