OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 07:06:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Mary Theotokos and the Immaculate Conception  (Read 19795 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #405 on: December 23, 2010, 01:08:34 AM »

Azurestone,

You did not have to give me all these quotes.  I didn't contradict them at all:

Yes, I am.  No one as a child is perfect.  A child is trained and taught, and as the child grows they carry out the will of God in a better way.  When she matured, she was perfected.  I did not say anything concerning selfishness.  I simply showed she grew in wisdom and strength in accordance to the will of God by the help of her perfected parents and whatever grace she can attain.

I didn't say she did this without the grace of God.  I'm just saying the measure of grace she partook of was not the same as that of baptism until Christ became incarnate.

I am showing you with synergy, she is the most perfect.

How can you have anything but natural synergy...the grace to remain a living breathing being...before Baptism?    That is my question on the issue of synergy with respect to the Theotokos?  How can you have spiritual synergy prior to the possibility of illumination?

I hope to be allowed to ask this question, please.

M.

Why would God administer and ask people to follow the Law if people were "naturally" unable to follow it?  Why would the wrath of God be revealed on people who are unable to do His will?  If God asked something that people were unable to perfectly do, then wouldn't that be unfair and sadistic?

In the OT, God "hardens hearts."  God also inspired people to repentance and righteousness.  How else were people before illumination called "blameless"?

How could prophets speak through the Holy Spirit if they weren't illuminated?  How did Moses' face get enlightened and how did Moses even help lead God's people?  How did Enoch walk with God or Elijah get raised in heaven in fiery chariots before illumination?  How did the Logos save the three youth from the fire or save Daniel from the den of lions?

To single out the Theotokos and say she alone was conceived immaculately is unconvincing to me.  I see nothing but inconsistency in it.  We call her pure and immaculate, but perhaps that's a mystery like all other stories in the OT.  Maybe they all had some form of grace that is not "fully" revealed until Christ.  The only consistent thing is only after Christ's incarnation can anyone really be "immaculate" in an ontological sense.

Through Christ we are no longer spiritually blind.  Before Christ, when people were spiritually blind, if people were able to listen to God's directions where to go, then that grace of obedience and trust in God's laws doesn't sound all that crazy before illumination.  If they weren't able to trust in God, their hearts would be hardened.

So, synergy back then is not the same as synergy today, since we're not blind people who follow God's directing will, but people who see who ask God to carry us with Him into His will.  The Theotokos was the former before the incarnation, the latter after.

This I agree with completely.  The patriarchs did seek God and did as His messengers instructed them to do...sometimes.  Sometimes even the messengers did what they were told!!..."Here I am, Lord."

But there is something missing, something that cannot happen, under normal circumstances, till the Incarnate one comes into the world and leaves by way of the Harrowing of Hell, leaving behind Baptism by water and the Spirit.

There were at least two notables, in the entire history of the Old Testament. who eventually achieved the kind of glory that we speak of that shines forth from the Mother of God...and both of those men shone forth the glory of God by a special act of grace that illumined them before there ever was the laver of Baptism. 

That is precisely my point.  It can happen, and  by an especial grace of God.   But I don't think either Moses or Eli accomplished their life's work on their own merit...do you?

M.

Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #406 on: December 23, 2010, 01:24:14 AM »

Azurestone,

You did not have to give me all these quotes.  I didn't contradict them at all:

Yes, I am.  No one as a child is perfect.  A child is trained and taught, and as the child grows they carry out the will of God in a better way.  When she matured, she was perfected.  I did not say anything concerning selfishness.  I simply showed she grew in wisdom and strength in accordance to the will of God by the help of her perfected parents and whatever grace she can attain.

I didn't say she did this without the grace of God.  I'm just saying the measure of grace she partook of was not the same as that of baptism until Christ became incarnate.

I am showing you with synergy, she is the most perfect.

How can you have anything but natural synergy...the grace to remain a living breathing being...before Baptism?    That is my question on the issue of synergy with respect to the Theotokos?  How can you have spiritual synergy prior to the possibility of illumination?

I hope to be allowed to ask this question, please.

M.

Why would God administer and ask people to follow the Law if people were "naturally" unable to follow it?  Why would the wrath of God be revealed on people who are unable to do His will?  If God asked something that people were unable to perfectly do, then wouldn't that be unfair and sadistic?

In the OT, God "hardens hearts."  God also inspired people to repentance and righteousness.  How else were people before illumination called "blameless"?

How could prophets speak through the Holy Spirit if they weren't illuminated?  How did Moses' face get enlightened and how did Moses even help lead God's people?  How did Enoch walk with God or Elijah get raised in heaven in fiery chariots before illumination?  How did the Logos save the three youth from the fire or save Daniel from the den of lions?

To single out the Theotokos and say she alone was conceived immaculately is unconvincing to me.  I see nothing but inconsistency in it.  We call her pure and immaculate, but perhaps that's a mystery like all other stories in the OT.  Maybe they all had some form of grace that is not "fully" revealed until Christ.  The only consistent thing is only after Christ's incarnation can anyone really be "immaculate" in an ontological sense.

Through Christ we are no longer spiritually blind.  Before Christ, when people were spiritually blind, if people were able to listen to God's directions where to go, then that grace of obedience and trust in God's laws doesn't sound all that crazy before illumination.  If they weren't able to trust in God, their hearts would be hardened.

So, synergy back then is not the same as synergy today, since we're not blind people who follow God's directing will, but people who see who ask God to carry us with Him into His will.  The Theotokos was the former before the incarnation, the latter after.

This I agree with completely.  The patriarchs did seek God and did as His messengers instructed them to do...sometimes.  Sometimes even the messengers did what they were told!!..."Here I am, Lord."

But there is something missing, something that cannot happen, under normal circumstances, till the Incarnate one comes into the world and leaves by way of the Harrowing of Hell, leaving behind Baptism by water and the Spirit.

There were at least two notables, in the entire history of the Old Testament. who eventually achieved the kind of glory that we speak of that shines forth from the Mother of God...and both of those men shone forth the glory of God by a special act of grace that illumined them before there ever was the laver of Baptism. 

That is precisely my point.  It can happen, and  by an especial grace of God.   But I don't think either Moses or Eli accomplished their life's work on their own merit...do you?
They did not (and I think you mean Elijah) achieve what anyone being brought out of the baptismal font by an Orthodox priest acheives.

God would not have put up with man throughout all the OT, only to cheat at the last moment. That grace came with His coming, not a moment before.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #407 on: December 23, 2010, 01:34:48 AM »


There were at least two notables, in the entire history of the Old Testament. who eventually achieved the kind of glory that we speak of that shines forth from the Mother of God...and both of those men shone forth the glory of God by a special act of grace that illumined them before there ever was the laver of Baptism. 


Have you ever examined the Byzantine Ruthenian text for Vespers for the feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist.  You will find there that his conception far surpassed that of the Virgin Mary.  In fact, I can foresee that the teaching of the liturgical text, if brought to the attention of the Vatican as the belief of the Byzantine Catholic people, may require another infallible definition, an immaculate conception far greater than the Virgin's.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #408 on: December 23, 2010, 01:42:30 AM »

Dear Azurestone,

I'm arguing based on the fact that the Theotokos did not need to be "immaculately conceived," and there's no clear tradition that says she was immaculate in an ontological sense.  When the Holy Spirit came upon her, to me that is the purification necessary to bear Christ.  Anyone Christ touched was purified, since the Holy Spirit He possessed was His very own.

Wouldn't being "blameless" and still have "original guilt" or some sort of "ontological blame" proves quite succinctly that being "immaculate" and having "original sin" can also be compatible?

Quote
In this way, if the Minerals/Chemicals wish to become anything more, the Plants must reach down and pull them up saying "You, too, can achieve my greatness in the universe. To grow and move with the wind". And again, if the plants want to roam the world and see with eyes, the animal must "reach down and pull the plants up" saying "You can be a part of this wonder". And still, if animals want to be cognizant of the universe and contemplate the heavens, man must come and bring the animal "to this world". And of course, if Man wants to achieve more, God must come down and reach man up saying "You too can experience true love and fullness of spirit".

I like this teaching.  I understand he says the difference is that man has free will.  I think this is a strong and powerful statement and a testimony to giving of the OT laws.  Sure they had trouble following it.  It can be based on personal struggle, which is still manifest in many of us today, even though we have the full grace of Godliness with us.  It can be based on personal rebellion, curiosity, not wanting to obey as well.  It seemed the Theotokos was reared well by her parents, in my opinion, and seeing she had blameless relatives, her family all over seems to be quite holy.  We assess the holiness of the Theotokos through the holiness of her parents.  It is written in the Coptic Synexarium:
Quote from: Coptic Synexarium
Although we know little about St. Anna, having been chosen to be the mother of the Mother of God in the flesh is an indication of her virtues and righteousness, which distinguished her from other women to have this great grace.

How did the Mother of the Theotokos have "great grace" in her virtues and righteousness to give birth to the Theotokos, who was also filled with virtues and righteousness before illumination?  By this idea, we can say St. Anna was perfect.  St. Gregory Palamas was quoted earlier elsewhere on the constant perfection generation by generation of the Theotokos' ancestry all the way down to her.  It's a testimony of good family upbringing and the grace that they maintained even in their poor state to follow the will of God together.  It's a testimony to the communal and good family that is righteous together, as opposed to the family that falls together (Adam and Eve).  They reared their daughter to be the most blessed among women, not in an ontological sense.  They have accumulated experience and heightened their own senses, so that even though they're blind in a spiritual sense, they can still walk uprightly through the grace of obedience.  To me, it's like trusting someone to catch you when you're about to fall on them.  It's very hard to do, but the Old Testament always tried to teach and remind people, "Trust in the Lord".

I suppose I'm only restating what I believe at this point.  It seems there's no other way to talk about this unless one does more research on the subject of grace before Christ and grace after.  We can study what exactly was the merit that lead the Holy Spirit to lead prophets, kings, and priests in the OT, and how the holy fathers interpret them.  Only then can one I suppose understand ideas about the Theotokos.

What's the most worrisome is that my views can be considered heresy in the Catholic Church, as perhaps borderline semi-Pelagian, like St. John Cassian.  I need to do more reading on this, but generally, I've been told by MardukM (a Coptic Catholic) that in pre-Christ era, some people were moved by "prevenient grace," some through grace of immaculateness, though not since conception, whereas the Theotokos the grace of immaculateness from the moment of her conception.  I thought, well, if some can be moved by prevenient grace, why not all keep it consistent that all can be moved by prevenient grace until the Incarnation of the Logos occurs?
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #409 on: December 23, 2010, 01:57:35 AM »


That is precisely my point.  It can happen, and  by an especial grace of God.   But I don't think either Moses or Eli accomplished their life's work on their own merit...do you?

M.


No, you're right.  I can agree perhaps the grace of God assisted many in ways before baptism was even administered.  I can say that God can still help even when people's spirits were marred.  Even when Adam and Eve were fallen, God made for them tunics of skin to cover them.  I think this can be a form of grace, a grace of a loving father that still tries to rear His children until an opportune time for His only begotten Son to come.  In other words, there was some comfort and some guidance by God in grace, without which people wouldn't direct their marred will to His will.  Just by the vibration of His spiritual voice in the OT, if people can be every so attentive to that, I think that is an acceptance of His grace and a moving towards Him through obedience, or a hardening of heart through disobedience which leads to dire consequences.

Only in the incarnation where the some is no more and can truly become full comfort and full guidance now that we are healed and are given full attention.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:01:28 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #410 on: December 23, 2010, 02:35:03 PM »


That is precisely my point.  It can happen, and  by an especial grace of God.   But I don't think either Moses or Eli accomplished their life's work on their own merit...do you?

M.


No, you're right.  I can agree perhaps the grace of God assisted many in ways before baptism was even administered.  I can say that God can still help even when people's spirits were marred.  Even when Adam and Eve were fallen, God made for them tunics of skin to cover them.  I think this can be a form of grace, a grace of a loving father that still tries to rear His children until an opportune time for His only begotten Son to come.  In other words, there was some comfort and some guidance by God in grace, without which people wouldn't direct their marred will to His will.  Just by the vibration of His spiritual voice in the OT, if people can be every so attentive to that, I think that is an acceptance of His grace and a moving towards Him through obedience, or a hardening of heart through disobedience which leads to dire consequences.

Only in the incarnation where the some is no more and can truly become full comfort and full guidance now that we are healed and are given full attention.

That's right.

And I see nothing in the views that you hold, as you've outlined them here, that would be of any difficulty for you in the Catholic way of thinking.  You might find some who would not understand, but my guess is they would not be among the more broadly and deeply educated in the faith.   I'd say our bishops, in general, but their breadth and depth is not always evenly distributed these days, nor is their fidelity to the formal and universal teachings  Smiley....

M.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #411 on: December 30, 2010, 12:46:42 PM »

One does not need to hold an errant view of original sin to believe the Theotokos was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #412 on: December 30, 2010, 02:06:40 PM »

His Eminence Kallistos (Ware) and Errors about the Immaculate Conception.

If we read the statement of His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople we learn that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is based on an erroneous teaching of Original Sin.

In order to allow the Orthodox faithful to subscribe to the Immaculate Conception His Eminence needs to allow them to hold an erroneous teaching on Original Sin.These are nether of them minor errors and Metropolitan Kallistos is, in my opinion, acting very irresponsibly if he will allow a belief in two erroneous doctrines in the Orthodeox Church.

THe Patriarch's statement  ~ see  message 50at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg308255/topicseen.html#msg308255

This is all rather nonsensical since the core teaching that pertains to the Immaculate Conception and original sin is that the Virgin never experiences the spiritual death that we experience with a darkened intellect and weakened will.  This STAIN of sin causing spiritual death is the same teaching as Orthodox teaching on the subject. 

This reality is becoming more and more clear in Orthodox episcopal circles and the whole attitude toward Catholic teaching is shifting toward a more responsible and truthful path among many Orthodox leaders. 

It is people like yourself who work hard to try to direct the minds of the faithful away from these present realities.

I don't think much of you for these words and acts.

M.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #413 on: December 30, 2010, 02:19:14 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that Mary was without concupiscence?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #414 on: December 30, 2010, 05:16:19 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #415 on: December 30, 2010, 05:29:47 PM »

His Eminence Kallistos (Ware) and Errors about the Immaculate Conception.

If we read the statement of His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople we learn that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is based on an erroneous teaching of Original Sin.

In order to allow the Orthodox faithful to subscribe to the Immaculate Conception His Eminence needs to allow them to hold an erroneous teaching on Original Sin.These are nether of them minor errors and Metropolitan Kallistos is, in my opinion, acting very irresponsibly if he will allow a belief in two erroneous doctrines in the Orthodeox Church.

THe Patriarch's statement  ~ see  message 50at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20612.msg308255/topicseen.html#msg308255

This is all rather nonsensical since the core teaching that pertains to the Immaculate Conception and original sin is that the Virgin never experiences the spiritual death that we experience with a darkened intellect and weakened will.  This STAIN of sin causing spiritual death is the same teaching as Orthodox teaching on the subject.  

This reality is becoming more and more clear in Orthodox episcopal circles and the whole attitude toward Catholic teaching is shifting toward a more responsible and truthful path among many Orthodox leaders.  

It is people like yourself who work hard to try to direct the minds of the faithful away from these present realities.

I don't think much of you for these words and acts.

M.


For orthodox reality please refer to message 278.  We, and I include the exalted episcopal circles in which you move, shall not move from that position.  You, Mary Lanser, were conceived as was the Mother of God.

I, for my part, do not think much of your (not the first) attempt to distort our teaching and pretend to some insider knowledge.  Least of all do I appreciate you saying that our bishops have been acting dishonestly in the past - "Orthodox episcopal circles ...shifting toward a more ..truthful path among many Orthodox leaders."  You have the impertinence of the devil to come on an Orthodox board and spread Roman Catholic accusations about lack of truthfulness in our bishops.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 05:50:45 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #416 on: December 30, 2010, 06:18:10 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.

She bore the stain of Adam? How can say she was without stain then?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #417 on: December 30, 2010, 06:42:17 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.

She bore the stain of Adam? How can say she was without stain then?

Becaus I have never discerned an agreed Roman Catholic understanding on the forum as to what comprises the "stain of Adam"  I cannot attempt a reasonble reply until you offer the definition.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #418 on: December 30, 2010, 07:08:59 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.

She bore the stain of Adam? How can say she was without stain then?
Yes, in the sense that the Theotokos was mortal, but the East has never held that anyone is conceived or born guilty or sinful, which is why the theory of the immaculate conception is really unnecessary in the East.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 07:11:14 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #419 on: December 30, 2010, 07:12:48 PM »

The panentheism of Eastern Christian theology makes the immaculate conception theory superfluous.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #420 on: December 30, 2010, 07:52:27 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.

She bore the stain of Adam? How can say she was without stain then?
Yes, in the sense that the Theotokos was mortal, but the East has never held that anyone is conceived or born guilty or sinful, which is why the theory of the immaculate conception is really unnecessary in the East.

This has been addressed in this very thread.

-The IC doesn't depend on original guilt.

-Not all EOs reject original guilt.

The panentheism of Eastern Christian theology makes the immaculate conception theory superfluous.

Then you reject a "grace of justification".
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 07:54:49 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #421 on: December 31, 2010, 02:14:41 PM »

Does the IC necessitate a belief that the holy Mother of Gold was conceived in a different spiritual state to thee and me?  You see, the Orthodox do not believe that.  We believe that she was conceived in exactly the same state as all of us, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Baghdad and Mrs MacGinnity at the corner shop.

She bore the stain of Adam? How can say she was without stain then?

Becaus I have never discerned an agreed Roman Catholic understanding on the forum as to what comprises the "stain of Adam"  I cannot attempt a reasonble reply until you offer the definition.

The Immaculate Conception means that the spiritual death due to the loss of original justice is never experienced by the Mother of God.  There never is a stain of sin which is the darkening of the intellect and weakening of the will.

You have had this definition a good dozen times from me.  It is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

So far all you have done is mock me for it and suggest that I am lying by telling me that it is a definition of my own making. 

Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #422 on: January 04, 2011, 08:18:03 PM »

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the "Immaculate Conception" because of different views regarding Original Sin (I'd suggest perceived rather than substantial differences), but they do agree that Mary lived her whole life without sin.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#The_Orthodox_Church_and_the_doctrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 11:55:57 AM by Schultz » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #423 on: January 05, 2011, 12:17:54 AM »

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the "Immaculate Conception" because of different views regarding Original Sin (I'd suggest perceived rather than substantial differences), but they do agree that Mary lived her whole life without sin.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#The_Orthodox_Church_and_the_doctrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception

Standard oversimplification. It is not just because we disagree on the exact nature of ancestral sin. We still affirm that Mary inherited the core condition of ancestral sin, whereas you do not.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 11:56:07 AM by Schultz » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #424 on: January 05, 2011, 02:56:15 AM »

Quote
Standard oversimplification. It is not just because we disagree on the exact nature of ancestral sin. We still affirm that Mary inherited the core condition of ancestral sin, whereas you do not.

Define what the "core condition" of ancestral and/or original sin is. As has been pointed out, it is not the biological advent of death, as Christ Himself died.

I would agree with Aquinas that sin refers to a deprivation of man's natural and/or supernatural good, and that in the phrase "Original Sin" (or "Ancestral Sin") the word "Sin" is used analogically, in that man is deprived of his supernatural end, and can only achieve it through the imparting of an outside agency (Grace). Since the Catholic Church teaches that Mary needed to be saved by Christ, Catholics certainly believe that Mary inherited the core condition of Original and/or Ancestral Sin, unless you are using a definition that refers neither to biological death nor to the inability of mankind to fulfill its supernatural end absent divine agency.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #425 on: January 10, 2011, 04:14:45 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #426 on: January 10, 2011, 04:29:42 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #427 on: January 10, 2011, 05:08:59 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #428 on: January 10, 2011, 05:14:28 PM »

Th real question is "was Mary ever separated from God"?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #429 on: January 10, 2011, 05:38:14 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, save us from a wound, but that wound is not essential to human nature. It is accidental. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been created with a fallen nature, which they were not.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 05:38:25 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #430 on: January 10, 2011, 06:01:52 PM »

I would argue the catholic teaching doesn't require a belief that Mary was of the same nature as Adam and Eve. Instead, she was conceived free "from the moment of conception the stain of original sin". The same words of Baptism. She is merely born with the grace to persevere, not free from death, and debatably not free from all concupiscence, despite popular opinion.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #431 on: January 10, 2011, 06:11:32 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew

Agreed. Christ redeemed our fallen nature by assuming our fallen nature, did he not?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #432 on: January 10, 2011, 06:22:17 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, save us from a wound, but that wound is not essential to human nature. It is accidental. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been created with a fallen nature, which they were not.

A wound? I would say that it is more serious than a wound. This 'wound' was the cause of the schism of communion between God and man. A death blow, I would contend. Afterwards, we were like strangers walking amonst the earth, longing for our Creator yet unable to reach Him.

Our fallen nature was not created by God, no, but it is an essential part of humanity as we know it because of the choices that man made. because man chose to assume it, God in his mercy has redeemed us from it by choosing to assume and restore it.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #433 on: January 10, 2011, 06:27:03 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, save us from a wound, but that wound is not essential to human nature. It is accidental. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been created with a fallen nature, which they were not.

A wound? I would say that it is more serious than a wound. This 'wound' was the cause of the schism of communion between God and man. A death blow, I would contend. Afterwards, we were like strangers walking amonst the earth, longing for our Creator yet unable to reach Him.

Our fallen nature was not created by God, no, but it is an essential part of humanity as we know it because of the choices that man made. because man chose to assume it, God in his mercy has redeemed us from it by choosing to assume and restore it.

What of my last post?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #434 on: January 10, 2011, 06:30:29 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, save us from a wound, but that wound is not essential to human nature. It is accidental. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been created with a fallen nature, which they were not.
Wounds are not essential to human nature, on that you are correct. But that human nature was wounded is also a fact, and if the Theotokos was born woundless, Christ did not assume wounded human nature, and God did not make Him, who knew no sin, sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him (II Cor. 5:21). Sort of like two parents without Rh Factor bearing a child with Rh Factor, and then expecting the progeny of the child being able to donate blood to his grandparents' families. Can't be done.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #435 on: January 10, 2011, 06:38:01 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Sort of like two parents without Rh Factor bearing a child with Rh Factor, and then expecting the progeny of the child being able to donate blood to his grandparents' families. Can't be done.


Very practical and illustrative. I like it.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 06:39:04 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #436 on: January 10, 2011, 07:28:36 PM »

If Mary's conception was somehow different from the rest of us, then she is different then the rest of us, and it follows that Christ did not share our nature but only hers.

IC was error built to explain error.
You seem to assume that a fallen nature is essential to humanity, but that is simply not the case.
But is that not what Christ Our God came to save and redeem?

In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, save us from a wound, but that wound is not essential to human nature. It is accidental. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been created with a fallen nature, which they were not.
Wounds are not essential to human nature, on that you are correct. But that human nature was wounded is also a fact, and if the Theotokos was born woundless, Christ did not assume wounded human nature, and God did not make Him, who knew no sin, sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him (II Cor. 5:21). Sort of like two parents without Rh Factor bearing a child with Rh Factor, and then expecting the progeny of the child being able to donate blood to his grandparents' families. Can't be done.
We don't want the wound to be saved. We want it to go away.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #437 on: January 11, 2011, 01:57:03 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #438 on: January 11, 2011, 10:57:06 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #439 on: January 11, 2011, 11:18:42 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #440 on: January 11, 2011, 11:45:26 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 11:46:20 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #441 on: January 11, 2011, 11:52:29 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened.  But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #442 on: January 11, 2011, 11:56:58 AM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened.  But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?
God does at times things that are not strictly "necessary" but because he wants to give gifts of love to his creation. You know, the crucifixion was not strictly "necessary". God could have redeemed us in another way but he redeemed us in such an extreme way to show us how deeply he loves us.
The Immaculate Conception was not strictly "necessary" but was the God the Father's gift to his Son of an Immaculate and stainless mother. It was a gift to humanity as a sign of our future. It was a gift to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God's only Son.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


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


WWW
« Reply #443 on: January 11, 2011, 12:35:03 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened.  But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?
God does at times things that are not strictly "necessary" but because he wants to give gifts of love to his creation. You know, the crucifixion was not strictly "necessary". God could have redeemed us in another way but he redeemed us in such an extreme way to show us how deeply he loves us.
The Immaculate Conception was not strictly "necessary" but was the God the Father's gift to his Son of an Immaculate and stainless mother. It was a gift to humanity as a sign of our future. It was a gift to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God's only Son.

I certainly cannot argue with that.  It's a profound statement that Christ chose the crucifixion, and you make good points.  However, to be crucified and for the Theotokos to be immaculately conceived does not hold the same level of importance (but I agree that that's not a reason one shouldn't believe in the IC, just that to compare it to that is unfair; rather compare it to say Zacharias' dumbness upon questioning Gabriel, or John's care by angels in the wilderness since his youth, or better yet, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos), neither was one as consistently believed in as the other.  If the question is, was she really immaculately conceived, we seem to be getting conflicting answers.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:50:31 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #444 on: January 11, 2011, 01:06:23 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity.  To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders.... Smiley

M.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #445 on: January 11, 2011, 01:37:14 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity.  To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.
II Cor. 5:21 Rom. 3:23.

Read the Doctor's prescription:
Quote
All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these.  As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Quote
That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders.... Smiley
Duns Scotus should have thought about that before he rationalized the IC into acceptance by your ecclesiastical community.

So, your St. Bernard of Clairveaux and St. Bonaventure are outside and foreign to your dogmas?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #446 on: January 11, 2011, 01:44:22 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened.  But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?
God does at times things that are not strictly "necessary" but because he wants to give gifts of love to his creation.

While true, you need substantiation of your claim that He did this, especially in view of the inherent contradictions.

Quote
You know, the crucifixion was not strictly "necessary".
Not quite sure about the correctness of this, beyond that God wasn't bound to do it.

Quote
God could have redeemed us in another way but he redeemed us in such an extreme way to show us how deeply he loves us.

But not enough to remove the stain from everyone, which would have removed the need for the Crucifixion.

Quote
The Immaculate Conception was not strictly "necessary" but was the God the Father's gift to his Son of an Immaculate and stainless mother
Thereby voiding the aim of the Incarnation.

Quote
It was a gift to humanity as a sign of our future.


It makes her the great exception rather than the great example.

Quote
It was a gift to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God's only Son.
Which she wasn't at the time of her conception.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #447 on: January 11, 2011, 01:55:09 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me.  If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.
It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened.  But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?
God does at times things that are not strictly "necessary" but because he wants to give gifts of love to his creation.

While true, you need substantiation of your claim that He did this, especially in view of the inherent contradictions.

Quote
You know, the crucifixion was not strictly "necessary".
Not quite sure about the correctness of this, beyond that God wasn't bound to do it.

Quote
God could have redeemed us in another way but he redeemed us in such an extreme way to show us how deeply he loves us.

But not enough to remove the stain from everyone, which would have removed the need for the Crucifixion.

Quote
The Immaculate Conception was not strictly "necessary" but was the God the Father's gift to his Son of an Immaculate and stainless mother
Thereby voiding the aim of the Incarnation.

Quote
It was a gift to humanity as a sign of our future.


It makes her the great exception rather than the great example.

Quote
It was a gift to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God's only Son.
Which she wasn't at the time of her conception.
It's amazing how oftne Isa here can be wrong on so many points.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #448 on: January 11, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.
You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity.  To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.
II Cor. 5:21 Rom. 3:23.

Read the Doctor's prescription:
Quote
All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these.  As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Quote
That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders.... Smiley
Duns Scotus should have thought about that before he rationalized the IC into acceptance by your ecclesiastical community.

So, your St. Bernard of Clairveaux and St. Bonaventure are outside and foreign to your dogmas?

Quote
2Corinthians 5:21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.

Has been interpreted as Jesus was a "victim of our sin" or a "sin offering". Is this how you are reading it?

Quote
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

Are you saying that Mary sinned?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #449 on: January 11, 2011, 08:44:18 PM »

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church?  This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity.  To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.


How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.
Logged
Tags: Mary Theotokos Immaculate Conception 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 73 queries.