OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 12:40:36 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Father Lev Gillet and the Immaculate Conception  (Read 8393 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« on: November 08, 2010, 11:43:40 PM »

The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.

________________________

I. It is generally agreed, I think, that the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception is one of the questions which make a clear and profound
division between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is this
really the case? We shall try to examine quite objectively what
Orthodox theological history has to teach us on this matter. Leaving
aside the patristic period we shall start on our quest in the time of
the Patriarch Photius.

II. It seems to me that three preliminary observations have to be made.

First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members
of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854.

Secondly, throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an
unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who
have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in the
fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links.
There is even an official document written against the Immaculate
Conception: the letter of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895;
we shall come later to a discussion of its doctrinal value.

Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

The question must be framed in precise theological terms. We do not
want to know if Mary's holiness surpasses all other holiness, or if
Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb. The question is: Was Mary,
in the words of Pius IX, "preserved from all stain of original sin at
the first moment of her conception" (in primo instanti suae
conceptionis)? Is this doctrine foreign to the Orthodox tradition? Is
it contrary to that tradition?

III. I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said
with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception
but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief.

First of all - the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the
Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is
not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that
of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point.
The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the
embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother's
womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as
an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation - therefore -
from the moment of her conception. (1)

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in
a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by "a
sanctifying action", ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me
that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the "in primo instanti" of
Roman theology. (2)

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula "immaculate conception" because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the "primus instans
conceptionis", and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas' solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary's ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem "on the limits between created and uncreated". (4)

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on
the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary's
sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace
"from the moment of her conception" and that as soon as she began to
exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her". We must
note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at
great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part
in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can,
therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine
theology of his time. (5)

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire,
has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation
of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was "all pure from the
first moment of her existence" (gegne theion euthus). (6)

It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the
Immaculate Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most
"Protestantizing" of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris
(+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said
that Mary "was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her
conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was
formed and when her soul was united to her body"; and further on he
writes: "As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she
is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified
in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the
One whom nothing can contain?" (7)

Gerasimo. patriarch of Alexandria (+1636) taught at the same time.
according to the Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the
Theotokos "was not subject to the sin of our first father" (ouk
npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic
theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652)
declared that "the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the
stain of original sin from the first moment of its creation by God and
union with the body." (Cool

I am not unaware that other voices were raised against the Immaculate
Conception. Damascene the Studite, in the sixteenth century,
Mitrophanes Cristopoulos, patriarch of Alexandria and Dosithes,
patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventeenth century, all taught that
Mary was sanctified only in her mother's womb. Nicephorus Gallistus in
the fourteenth century and the Hagiorite in the eighteenth century
taught that Mary was purified from original sin on the day of the
Annunciation. But the opinions that we have heard in favour of the
Immaculate Conception are not less eminent or less well qualified.

It was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, of 8 December,
1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have turned
against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the
Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare:

"We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is
too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation
from Rome". (9)

But it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the
Immaculate Conception among the differences between Rome and the
Orthodox East. This text is the synodal letter written by the
Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in reply to the encyclical
Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of the
Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the
Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal
importance. Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet
it possesses none of the marks of infallibility, nor does
ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in its teachings as a matter
of conscience. and it leaves the ground quite clear for theological
and historical discussions on this point.

IV. Let us now consider more closely the attitude of the Russian
Church towards the question of the Immaculate Conception.

Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan
of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin "theory of the
epiklesis" (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case
of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the
history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from
the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as
a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A
confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk
in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour
the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The
Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The
Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin
from the moment of her conception". (12)

All this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising
influence. We have seen that much was written on the same lines in the
Greek East. When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were
launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
a protest was made by the Old Believers - a sect separated from the
official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient
rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official
declaration that "Mary has had no share in original sin". (13) To all
those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most
ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special
significance. In 1848, the "Dogmatic Theology" of the Archimandrite
Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy Synod as a manual for
seminaries, reproduced Palamas' curious theory of the progressive
purification of the Virgin's ancestors, a theory which has already
been mentioned and which proclaims Mary's exemption from original sin.
Finally, we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not
attacked by the most representative theologians of the time,
Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov.

It was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian
literature in opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It
was written by Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that
the Virgin was completely purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14)
In 1884, the Holy Synod included the question of the Immaculate
Conception in the programme of "polemical", that is to say, anti-Latin
theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has been
unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.

This attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent
confusion of Mary's immaculate conception with the virgin birth of
Christ. This confusion is to be found not only among ignorant people,
but also among many theologians and bishops. In 1898, Bishop
Augustine, author of a "Fundamental Theology", translated "immaculate
conception" by "conception sine semine". More recently still,
Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the
"impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most
Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne." It was a theologian of the
Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about. (15)

Footnotes:
1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis,
Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.
2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the
Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.
3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the
Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.
4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis
Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb', Athens 1861.
5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin
translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.
6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque
Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.
7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy
Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39
of the Metochion, fol. 93.
8. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131.
Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp.
336-342.
9. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of the
Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.
10. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in
the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University
of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.
11. See J. Gagarin, L'Eglise russe et L'immaculee conception, Paris 1876.
12. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890,
t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by
Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp.
164-167.
13. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza
(Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.
14. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l'immaculee conception d'apres
un theologien russe, in Echos d'Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an
analysis of Lebedev's monography.
15. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in
the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10
March 1912, p. 399. Morozov's reply is contained in the same
periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.


Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2010, 11:57:07 PM »

I never knew that Byzantine Emperors gave homilies....
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,319



« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2010, 11:58:41 PM »

Quote
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church...

Interesting...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 11:59:10 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2010, 12:12:42 AM »

Response:

Quote
Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well.

So, why, for sake of argument, would the first child of King David and Bathsheba die (rather than be set aside by God and become an ancestor to Christ), only for the second child to become King Solomon (and an ancestor to Christ)?  

King David was an ancestor of Mary; He was subject to the same conditions of humanity as the parents of the Virgin Mary?  What took 1,821 years to change?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:13:09 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2010, 01:05:15 AM »

I could swear we dealt with this here before. Maybe Fr. Ambrose will remember.

Just to start off
Quote
The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology.

St. Peter Movila's catechism was written in Latin (he was Romanian): translated into Greek with Latinisms edited out, it was adopted by the Council of Iasi (Jassy) and then at the Synod of Jerusalem for all Orthodoxy. I don't recall the IC in the corrected version: if it was in the Latin version (was it?) and removed at the insistence of the Orthodox in council, what would that tell you about Orthodoxy's view of the IC?
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2010, 01:11:17 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2010, 01:33:35 AM »

In addition to Saint Gregory Palamas' theory that Joachim and Anna were themselves sinless and presumably also immaculately conceived by necessary logic,  we have the supporting teaching of Saint Ambrose that the semen of Saint Joachim was immaculate and thereby he was able to create an immaculate daughter.  For this to hold water the egg supplied by Saint Anna would also need to be immaculate and so too her womb also and the blood which was in her veins and supplied to the immaculate foetus of the unborn Mary.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2010, 01:53:43 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

In his own way Scotus has wrought major damage on the Church and contributed enormously to the schism between our two Churches.  If the teaching had remained in the state which we find expressed in Thomas Aquinas, there would not be a major divide today between East and West over this doctrine.

Aquinas' teaching, quite Orthodox, is in message 278 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29748.msg491617.html#msg491617
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 02:05:08 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2010, 09:00:19 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2010, 09:01:02 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2010, 09:18:24 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.


For the Fathers reason was only the means, not the end nor the basis.  The Scholastics, making it an end unto itself (e.g. the number of angels on a pin question), laid the groundwork for dispensing with revelation as happened in the "Enlightenment," and the mess that has all created.
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 #11 on: November 09, 2010, 09:32:18 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.

There is no doubt that his enabling of the proclamation of this false doctrine is a major factor in creating the Catholic dogma which now divides Christendom even more.   It is an enormous pity that his silly reasoning was accepted and the sober teaching of Thomas Aquinas was abandoned.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2010, 09:45:58 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.


For the Fathers reason was only the means, not the end nor the basis.  The Scholastics, making it an end unto itself (e.g. the number of angels on a pin question), laid the groundwork for dispensing with revelation as happened in the "Enlightenment," and the mess that has all created.

Some of the patristic Fathers are every bit the scholastic that later scholars of the west were.  In fact the idea of the western university was brought to Italy from Greece.

These kinds of slap-dash generalizations have no real meaning at all and are the lazy-man's gun to shoot down any real dialogue based upon real people, real events and truly determinative ideas.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2010, 09:50:47 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.

Go back and read Father Lev's article.  Orthodoxy is not of one voice on the issue.


Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2010, 09:56:08 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2010, 10:02:23 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.


Since it is the teaching of the holy Church that the conception of Mary the Mother of God was no different to yours or mine or the Dalai Lama's (this agrees with Aquinas) then Scotus most certainly needed to repent after death of enabling the Pope to proclaim a false teaching to the members of the Church of Rome.  We see the evil fruit of this false teaching in the fact that it has further estranged our two Churches and made unity so much the more difficult.   Scotus cannot be held intentionally responsible for what the IC has done to our Churches but he must carry the guilt of an "involuntary sin."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2010, 10:16:47 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception. 

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.

And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.


Since it is the teaching of the holy Church that the conception of Mary the Mother of God was no different to yours or mine or the Dalai Lama's (this agrees with Aquinas) then Scotus most certainly needed to repent after death of enabling the Pope to proclaim a false teaching to the members of the Church of Rome.  We see the evil fruit of this false teaching in the fact that it has further estranged our two Churches and made unity so much the more difficult.   Scotus cannot be held intentionally responsible for what the IC has done to our Churches but he must carry the guilt of an "involuntary sin."

Go back and read Father Lev's article.  Orthodoxy is not of one voice on the issue of the absolute sinlessness of the Mother of God.

In fact you are participating in another thread on a single Orthodox catechism where you are celebrating the multiple teachings on many issues in Orthodoxy.

There is no heresy in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception...by my standards as a Catholic, or apparently, by your own standards for Orthodoxy which celebrates a diverse array of teachings.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 10:17:59 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?

It needs no apparitions nor divination, dear SynLeszka.  It only needs the use of a modicum of reason.

Thomas Aquinas spoke truth to the Roman Catholic Church - there was NO Immaculate Conception.

Duns Scotus spoke a lie to the Roman Catholic Church - there was an Immaculate Conception.

God wills the repentance of sinners and Scotus was a major sinner in this area since he not only enabled a lie but he also enabled the proclamation of a false dogma which has driven a deep wedge between our Churches.

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2010, 10:26:54 AM »

FrAmbrose has had a mystical vision of Duns Scotus. How else would he know the will of God as it attains to Duns Scotus?
See Orthodox also have apparitions. I wonder why God has not told me where my uncle is in the afterlife? I want to know where he is. Perhaps Fr.Ambrose can teach his method of divination. Can you?

It needs no apparitions nor divination, dear SynLeszka.  It only needs the use of a modicum of reason.

Thomas Aquinas spoke truth to the Roman Catholic Church - there was NO Immaculate Conception.

Duns Scotus spoke a lie to the Roman Catholic Church - there was an Immaculate Conception.

God wills the repentance of sinners and Scotus was a major sinner in this area since he not only enabled a lie but he also enabled the proclamation of a false dogma which has driven a deep wedge between our Churches.

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.

Again hubris.

There are many things that St. Thomas taught, just as there were many things that St. Augustine taught, that the Catholic Church did not accept as part of their doctrinal formulations.  So it is very wrong of you to paint this one issue as "truth" simply because it suits your purposes.

And it is objectively sinful to bear false witness... and to call Duns Scotus a sinner because he lies is  hubris on your part and false witness.   But we will presume the best and just say your objectively sinful acts are sins of ignorance and good intention...

There are many instances in the Fathers and in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church as translated by reputable authors today that indicate that the Mother of God is exceptional in her holiness, with all indications pointing to this holiness being part of her since she became a person.  

So we do not need to know WHEN precisely she became a person but we can say that at the very moment of her becoming she was pure and without sin, and greater in this than any other human being.

Now those assertions are in Orthodox festal liturgical poetry...So I don't worry about what modernist Orthodox say because we have the liturgical witness and the witness of a majority of the Fathers that support her unique holiness and the fact that she is indeed set apart from all other humanity in that unblemished state.

M.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 10:29:14 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2010, 10:27:36 AM »


In fact you are participating in another thread on a single Orthodox catechism where you are celebrating the multiple teachings on many issues in Orthodoxy.


Exaggerative, and I don't see how you cannot know that.

Quote
There is no heresy in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception...by my standards as a Catholic, or apparently, by your own standards for Orthodoxy which celebrates a diverse array of teachings.

Exaggerative, and I do not see how you cannot know that.   You are engaging in polemics to diss your other lung!

Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

As for Fr Lev, I am trying to decide if I have the energy to go back through previous threads on him and recycle messages.   Since you clearly did not pick up much information from those threads it is probabkly a waste of my time.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2010, 10:32:08 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state, so this is nothing more than your own private longings.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2010, 10:36:37 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state, so this is nothing more than your own private longings.

It is the tradition I have received and the tradition I am careful to pass on.

Private longings?  Perhaps more applicable to the people who overturned the solid tradition which Aquinas represented on this matter.  Or was he too overwhelmed by his "private longings"?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2010, 10:39:32 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2010, 10:45:57 AM »

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
I have the aforementioned Compendium (in Polish translation) and chapter CCXXXII is about the effects of suffering on the soul of Christ
Chapters CCXXI and CCXXII deal with the Ever Virgin Mary.
In chapter CCXXI, there is a sentence which states" Therefore we can state, that not only was her soul without the stain of sin, but that her body was far from any sign of human concupiscience." This is my translation of the Polish text but the official English translation does not differ in numeration or subject. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#221
Quote
CHAPTER 221

CHRIST’S BIRTH FROM A VIRGIN

Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods, whereas he is dragged down by carnal attractions. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.

This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men “shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that He was “born of the Virgin Mary.” In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.

 

CHAPTER 222

THE MOTHER OF CHRIST

The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.

Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.


CHAPTER 224

SANCTIFICATION OF CHRIST’S MOTHER

As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God’s Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin-not only of mortal sin but of venial sin. Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But what is said in the Canticle of Canticles 4:7, “You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you,” can well be understood of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God.

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 10:48:19 AM by synLeszka » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2010, 10:52:13 AM »

_______________________
"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she
would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be
redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal
Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ."

Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia, Barcelona, 1985.
I have the aforementioned Compendium (in Polish translation) and chapter CCXXXII is about the effects of suffering on the soul of Christ
Chapters CCXXI and CCXXII deal with the Ever Virgin Mary.
In chapter CCXXI, there is a sentence which states" Therefore we can state, that not only was her soul without the stain of sin, but that her body was far from any sign of human concupiscience." This is my translation of the Polish text but the official English translation does not differ in numeration or subject. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#221
Quote
CHAPTER 221

CHRIST’S BIRTH FROM A VIRGIN

Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods, whereas he is dragged down by carnal attractions. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.

This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men “shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that He was “born of the Virgin Mary.” In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.

 

CHAPTER 222

THE MOTHER OF CHRIST

The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.

Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.


CHAPTER 224

SANCTIFICATION OF CHRIST’S MOTHER

As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God’s Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin-not only of mortal sin but of venial sin. Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But what is said in the Canticle of Canticles 4:7, “You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you,” can well be understood of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God.

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.

If Aquinas has stated two contradictory theological things about the conception of Mary, then the problem of lying is on his soul and not mine.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 11:01:45 AM »


Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

Lying is not against forum rules, or is it?
This forum is full of Jesuitical casuistry and eristical chokeholds. I am sorry but intellectual life is not exempt from morality.


SynLezska,

I am not going to accuse you of lying but I am going to accuse you of not reading or not understanding the Aquinas text you sent.   Look above at his last paragraph.  Aquinas is quite explicit:  NO Immaculate Conception. 

Perhaps you will withdraw your allegation that I am lying about his teaching?
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 11:05:17 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 11:08:45 AM by synLeszka » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2010, 11:16:57 AM »


Heresy in the Immaculate Conception?  Of course.  It explicity denies that Mary the Mother God was conceived in the same state as every other human being.

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state,

And yet we have never come up with the IC. We have gone over this before
Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don't mean what the Vatican claims by them.

Quote
so this is nothing more than your own private longings.

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.
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 #28 on: November 09, 2010, 11:23:35 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2010, 11:33:46 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2010, 11:36:09 AM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.

The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2010, 11:38:25 AM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?

The actual record of what St. Thomas did with this teaching was to say one thing and then say another and THEN he finally said that he would go along with whatever the Church said because it was clear from Tradition that the woman was more holy than any other human being on the face of the earth and had never been blemished by sin...from the earliest times of her becoming a person.

So you loose your reliable witness to his trust in the infallibility of the Church.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 11:39:03 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2010, 11:43:20 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2010, 11:46:26 AM »

Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

I am familiar with no other text.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2010, 11:56:53 AM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK. 

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2010, 12:00:55 PM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.

The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.

Certainly I do not think that we follow Saint Gregory Palamas that her ancestors were progressively purified until Joachim and Anna were themselves immaculate and able to produce an immaculate foetus.  So, you are right, we are not of one mind with Saint Gregory.

Certainly we not not follow Saint Ambrose of Milan that Saint Joachim's semen was immaculate.  So you are right, we are not of one mind with Saint Ambrose.

Nor are we inclined to follow Fr Lev Gillet, a delightful eccentric convert whose own highly idiosyncratic position between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism made the Orthodox question whether he was not a Roman infiltrator.

Do you not realise how odd it is that you are chasing here and there for Eastern support for the IC when your own most respected theologian Thomas Aquinas denied it emphatically !!?

I can see you are going to be as gruesomely insistent on this as your insistence that the Orthodox allow abortion.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2010, 12:08:00 PM »

Your own festal liturgies say that she is far and above all humanity in her unblemished and sinless state


Mary, previous threads on this topic have seen your "private longings" to co-opt our texts reduced to dust by the citations and explanations of our liturgical texts supplied by LBK.  

LOL...No Father...All that was done was to challenge me on the translations that I was using and I was using the Bishop Ware translations.

All that thread taught me was that many are not familiar with Bishops Ware's Festal Menaion

Then why did you not just say this at the get-go?  You created a lot of consternation by your stubborn refusal to answer a simple question.

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.

Oh!!  I remember now what happened and why I said nothing when you all piled on me in your attempt to belittle the messenger:

When I posted the text, I already had the attribution of its source there at the beginning of the text itself.

Also you were challenging me on the fact that I said an Orthodox supporter of my vocation had given me liturgical books for my daily prayer discipline and then would not tell you who or which texts...Instead I sat her quietly and watched you mock me, make fun of me and ultimately punish me with a moderation....Ok so I did protest the treatment, but it was met with scorn.

 Smiley  It was a lot of fun here in the beginning.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:16:58 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2010, 12:13:19 PM »

Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple


At Orthros the Magnificat is replaced by these words:

"Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with
amazement, seeing how the Virgin entered into the Holy of Holies" (p.
190 Menaion )

The kontakion of the feast:

"The All-pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Bridal Chamber and
Virgin, the sacred treasure of the glory of God, is led today into the
house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine
Spirit. Of her God's angels sing in praise: "She is indeed the
heavenly Tabernacle." (P. 195 Menaion)

From Small Vespers:

O ye gates of the sanctuary, into the Holy of Holies receive ye a Virgin,
the spotless Tabernacle of God the Almighty.

Ye virgins, joyfully bearing torches, attend the pure Virgin on her way, as
she enters the Holy of Holies, the Bride of the King of all.

The living Bridal Chamber of God the Word receives bread from the hands of a
divine angel, as she dwells in the Holy of holies.

From Great Vespers:

Led by the Holy Spirit, the holy Maid without spot is taken to dwell in the
Holy of Holies. By an angel is she fed, who is in truth the most holy Temple
of our Holy God. He has sanctified all things by her entry, and has made
godlike the fallen nature of fallen men.

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone to dwell in the
temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou
art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O Virgin all-undefiled,
to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy
Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O Mother of God without stain or blemish,
glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.

Ann, truly blessed by God's grace, led with gladness into the temple of the
Lord the pure and ever-Virgin, who is full of grace, and she called the
young girls to go before her, lamps in hand. `Go, Child,' she said, `to Him
who gave thee unto me; be unto Him an offering and a sweet smelling incense.
Go into the place which none may enter: learn its mysteries and prepare
thyself to become the pleasing and beautiful dwelling-place of Jesus, who
grants the world great mercy.'

From Matins:

From Eve of old the transgression came upon mankind, and now from Eve's
stock has flowered forth our restoration and incorruption, even the
Theotokos, who is brought today into the house of God.

Be glad today, O Joachim, and rejoice exceedingly in spirit, O Ann, who now
present unto the Lord your daughter, as a three-year old victim of
sacrifice, holy and utterly without spot.

The ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish, the tabernacle
that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the
holy temple.

Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious
than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be
praised in song.

Seeing the beauty of thy soul, O undefiled Virgin, Zacharias cried out with
faith: `Thou art our deliverance, thou art the joy of all. Thou art our
restoration, through whom the Incomprehensible appears comprehensible to
me.'

O Virgin all-undefiled, past understanding is thy wonders! Strange is the
manner of thy birth: strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most
marvellous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are
beyond the telling of mortal men.

A child in the flesh but perfect in soul, the holy Ark enters into the house
of God, there to feed upon divine grace.

The ranks of angels rejoiced exceedingly and spirits of the righteous were
glad, when the Mother of God was led into the sanctuary.

Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel
in the temple of the Lord.

Receiving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the
Saviour according to the flesh, increased in wisdom and grace.

O pure Theotokos, thou hast a clean and shining beauty of soul, and art
filled from heaven with the grace of God. Thou dost ever enlighten with
eternal light those who cry aloud in gladness: O pure Virgin, thou art truly
high above all.

Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement,
seeing how she entered marvelously into the Holy of Holies.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.

Angels and men, let us honour the entry of the Virgin, for in glory she has
gone into the Holy of Holies.
       

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2010, 12:14:36 PM »

I did answer it eventually.  But you all were treating me like crap so I tend not to obey orders from people who talk to me the way the members of this Forum talked to me when I first came here, including you.

Can't have been that bad... laugh

Quote

Yes, Father.  I am new to the Forum and I like it already, and I think a good bit of the good feeling I get here has to do with your way of managing high spirited souls   angel

EM
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26768.msg421987.html#msg421987
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2010, 12:16:46 PM »

You may have overlooked the fact that this is not the text for the Feast of the Conception.  It is another Feast entirely.

I believe that it was fully explained to you an an earlier thread anyway.

Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple


At Orthros the Magnificat is replaced by these words:

"Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with
amazement, seeing how the Virgin entered into the Holy of Holies" (p.
190 Menaion )

The kontakion of the feast:

"The All-pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Bridal Chamber and
Virgin, the sacred treasure of the glory of God, is led today into the
house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine
Spirit. Of her God's angels sing in praise: "She is indeed the
heavenly Tabernacle." (P. 195 Menaion)

From Small Vespers:

O ye gates of the sanctuary, into the Holy of Holies receive ye a Virgin,
the spotless Tabernacle of God the Almighty.

Ye virgins, joyfully bearing torches, attend the pure Virgin on her way, as
she enters the Holy of Holies, the Bride of the King of all.

The living Bridal Chamber of God the Word receives bread from the hands of a
divine angel, as she dwells in the Holy of holies.

From Great Vespers:

Led by the Holy Spirit, the holy Maid without spot is taken to dwell in the
Holy of Holies. By an angel is she fed, who is in truth the most holy Temple
of our Holy God. He has sanctified all things by her entry, and has made
godlike the fallen nature of fallen men.

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone to dwell in the
temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou
art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O Virgin all-undefiled,
to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy
Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O Mother of God without stain or blemish,
glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.

Ann, truly blessed by God's grace, led with gladness into the temple of the
Lord the pure and ever-Virgin, who is full of grace, and she called the
young girls to go before her, lamps in hand. `Go, Child,' she said, `to Him
who gave thee unto me; be unto Him an offering and a sweet smelling incense.
Go into the place which none may enter: learn its mysteries and prepare
thyself to become the pleasing and beautiful dwelling-place of Jesus, who
grants the world great mercy.'

From Matins:

From Eve of old the transgression came upon mankind, and now from Eve's
stock has flowered forth our restoration and incorruption, even the
Theotokos, who is brought today into the house of God.

Be glad today, O Joachim, and rejoice exceedingly in spirit, O Ann, who now
present unto the Lord your daughter, as a three-year old victim of
sacrifice, holy and utterly without spot.

The ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish, the tabernacle
that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the
holy temple.

Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious
than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be
praised in song.

Seeing the beauty of thy soul, O undefiled Virgin, Zacharias cried out with
faith: `Thou art our deliverance, thou art the joy of all. Thou art our
restoration, through whom the Incomprehensible appears comprehensible to
me.'

O Virgin all-undefiled, past understanding is thy wonders! Strange is the
manner of thy birth: strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most
marvellous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are
beyond the telling of mortal men.

A child in the flesh but perfect in soul, the holy Ark enters into the house
of God, there to feed upon divine grace.

The ranks of angels rejoiced exceedingly and spirits of the righteous were
glad, when the Mother of God was led into the sanctuary.

Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel
in the temple of the Lord.

Receiving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the
Saviour according to the flesh, increased in wisdom and grace.

O pure Theotokos, thou hast a clean and shining beauty of soul, and art
filled from heaven with the grace of God. Thou dost ever enlighten with
eternal light those who cry aloud in gladness: O pure Virgin, thou art truly
high above all.

Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement,
seeing how she entered marvelously into the Holy of Holies.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.

Angels and men, let us honour the entry of the Virgin, for in glory she has
gone into the Holy of Holies.
      


« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:18:09 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2010, 12:24:44 PM »

Just for the record I did not claim this is the text for the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, or the Feast of St. Anne.  I do know what feast it is. 

See the text below in red that supports an exceptional spotlessness of the soul and perfection of the soul of the Theotokos that is far beyond that of ordinary humans.   And that purity extends beyond her virginity.


Taken from The Festal Menaion translated from the original Greek by
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple


At Orthros the Magnificat is replaced by these words:

"Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with
amazement, seeing how the Virgin entered into the Holy of Holies" (p.
190 Menaion )

The kontakion of the feast:

"The All-pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Bridal Chamber and
Virgin, the sacred treasure of the glory of God, is led today into the
house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine
Spirit. Of her God's angels sing in praise: "She is indeed the
heavenly Tabernacle." (P. 195 Menaion)

From Small Vespers:

O ye gates of the sanctuary, into the Holy of Holies receive ye a Virgin,
the spotless Tabernacle of God the Almighty.

Ye virgins, joyfully bearing torches, attend the pure Virgin on her way, as
she enters the Holy of Holies, the Bride of the King of all.

The living Bridal Chamber of God the Word receives bread from the hands of a
divine angel, as she dwells in the Holy of holies.

From Great Vespers:

Led by the Holy Spirit, the holy Maid without spot is taken to dwell in the
Holy of Holies. By an angel is she fed, who is in truth the most holy Temple
of our Holy God. He has sanctified all things by her entry, and has made
godlike the fallen nature of fallen men.

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone to dwell in the
temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou
art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O Virgin all-undefiled,
to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy
Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O Mother of God without stain or blemish,
glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.


Ann, truly blessed by God's grace, led with gladness into the temple of the
Lord the pure and ever-Virgin, who is full of grace, and she called the
young girls to go before her, lamps in hand. `Go, Child,' she said, `to Him
who gave thee unto me; be unto Him an offering and a sweet smelling incense.
Go into the place which none may enter: learn its mysteries and prepare
thyself to become the pleasing and beautiful dwelling-place of Jesus, who
grants the world great mercy.'

From Matins:

From Eve of old the transgression came upon mankind, and now from Eve's
stock has flowered forth our restoration and incorruption, even the
Theotokos, who is brought today into the house of God.

Be glad today, O Joachim, and rejoice exceedingly in spirit, O Ann, who now
present unto the Lord your daughter, as a three-year old victim of
sacrifice, holy and utterly without spot.


The ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish, the tabernacle
that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the
holy temple.


Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious
than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be
praised in song.

Seeing the beauty of thy soul, O undefiled Virgin, Zacharias cried out with
faith: `Thou art our deliverance, thou art the joy of all. Thou art our
restoration, through whom the Incomprehensible appears comprehensible to
me.'

O Virgin all-undefiled, past understanding is thy wonders! Strange is the
manner of thy birth: strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most
marvellous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are
beyond the telling of mortal men.

A child in the flesh but perfect in soul, the holy Ark enters into the house
of God, there to feed upon divine grace.


The ranks of angels rejoiced exceedingly and spirits of the righteous were
glad, when the Mother of God was led into the sanctuary.

Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel
in the temple of the Lord.

Receiving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the
Saviour according to the flesh, increased in wisdom and grace.

O pure Theotokos, thou hast a clean and shining beauty of soul, and art
filled from heaven with the grace of God. Thou dost ever enlighten with
eternal light those who cry aloud in gladness: O pure Virgin, thou art truly
high above all.


Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement,
seeing how she entered marvelously into the Holy of Holies.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see
something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.
Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high
above all.

Angels and men, let us honour the entry of the Virgin, for in glory she has
gone into the Holy of Holies.

      
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2010, 12:34:18 PM »

...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:41:33 PM by bogdan » Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,021


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2010, 12:35:57 PM »

Pardon me for my lack of academic knowledge of the issue, but isn't the Orthodox position regarding the meaning of the red-highlighted verses based upon the differences between how the Orthodox and Church of Rome understand the concept of ancestral sin?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2010, 12:43:54 PM »

no, Father has posted several statements by the Patriarchs, bishops, etc. on this matter. Public ones, unlike your "more conservative Orthodox priests" in Oz.

Go back and read Orthodox priest Lev Gillet's article AND his citations.
Done so several times on this forum, ever since it was posted a while ago.

Quote
The Orthodox are NOT of one mind on this issue.
The ones in their right mind are.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2010, 12:44:46 PM »

Again, please read the article and citations by Father Lev.  The Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue.


...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2010, 12:48:58 PM »

Again, please read the article and citations by Father Lev.  The Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue.


...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/

The St John quote was in reference to the divine services in red, which as he points out, says nothing about her immaculate conception.

I did read Fr Lev. People are capable of holding the wrong opinion. A handful of people, even saints, does not make something true, or even theologoumenon.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:50:35 PM by bogdan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2010, 12:49:24 PM »

Pardon me for my lack of academic knowledge of the issue, but isn't the Orthodox position regarding the meaning of the red-highlighted verses based upon the differences between how the Orthodox and Church of Rome understand the concept of ancestral sin?

From the time of the Synod of Carthage of 418, which was received by both Ephesus and the Second Council of Nicea, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have understood the STAIN of original sin to be the darkening of the intellect and weakening of the will.

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

These are things that are granted to us in Baptism, and they are what God preserved the Theotokos from at the moment of her becoming a person.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, this used to be something that Orthodox understood as well, even if it was never expressed a dogma.  It is a part of tradition, east and west.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2010, 12:54:53 PM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?

The actual record of what St. Thomas did with this teaching was to say one thing and then say another and THEN he finally said that he would go along with whatever the Church said because it was clear from Tradition that the woman was more holy than any other human being on the face of the earth and had never been blemished by sin...from the earliest times of her becoming a person.

So you loose your reliable witness to his trust in the infallibility of the Church.
What a little lying won't accomplish:
Quote
The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious, consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture; nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary (Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the Church of Rome was celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number of churches of Rome, especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not received in the official calendar.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
That infallible church then went on to disown this, its own "ecumenical" council.

So it took Aquinas 620 years to change his mind.  Then there's that faulty translation of Gen. 3:15 by Jerome: the Vatican now has disowned the translation, but still promulgates the faulty cult based on it.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2010, 01:00:07 PM »

Again, please read the article and citations by Father Lev.  The Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue.


...it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. ...

... This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

-St John of Shanghai and San Francisco

source: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/

The St John quote was in reference to the divine services in red, which as he points out, says nothing about her immaculate conception.

I did read Fr Lev. People are capable of holding the wrong opinion. A handful of people, even saints, does not make something true, or even theologoumenon.
LOL. I think Salpy said it best:

BTW, do you have any documents in the Armenian Church that state that mere belief is ALWAYS an article of Faith?

Exactly when would those documents have been written?  Between the massacres of Abdul Hamid and the Genocide?  Or perhaps between the Genocide (when about 95% of all our clergy was killed,) and the Communist takeover? 

What do you mean by "article of faith," vs. "belief?"

I still remember a lecture by a deacon in my church, where he told us that one of the big differences between us and the Chalcedonians (both EO and Catholic) is that we OO's believe in using as little language as possible to define things.  We don't elaborate.   We don't over-define things.  We don't get into lots of fancy terminology.  We don't have lots of official documents and councils.  Believe me, we haven't gotten into the difference between an "article of faith" and a "belief."  A Church either believes something, or it doesn't. 

If you want to go to CAF, there is a father deacon there named Diak who has had contact with an Armenian priest who personally believes in the IC.  As your Catholicos states, it is not an article of Faith in your Church, but that's all he says about it.

So there's this discussion forum where someone says they know a priest who believes in IC.  That means nothing.  I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant I know who says they know someone who knows a priest who forbids people from reading the Bible. 

Even if this "father deacon" (obviously not an Armenian Orthodox--we don't call our deacons that) really does know a priest who said he believes that, it means nothing.  One priest doesn't represent the Church.  Also, as I said, a lot of Armenians mistake the phrase "Immaculate Conception" to mean something other than what it means in your Church.  Indeed the title of this thread indicates that it is misunderstood by many.  Especially with non-native speakers of English, you get people who think it means the Mother of God was conceived in a miraculous way (as in her parents were very old and infertile,) or they think it means the Virgin Birth of Christ.  I wasn't there for the conversation that took place between this deacon and the priest.  So I can't tell you what he really believes.  All I know is that this is not a teaching of our Church. 

Quote
Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" precludes anyone believing it, albeit as theologoumenon (i.e., not as an article of Faith)?

My problem here is that I don't know what the word "theologoumenon" means.  I've seen the word a few times since I have been here, but I don't know what it is.  I've only seen it used by EO's.

With regard to what individual Armenians believe, there are Armenians out there who believe in just about anything.  There was a guy at my church a few years ago who got involved with some Oneness Pentecostals and then started going around telling people that it is acceptable in the Armenian Church to not believe in the Holy Trinity.  I am also sure that the Armenian Vassula crowd believes in IC, as well as all the other Latin innovations that my Church has rejected over the centuries.  One of those ladies likes to go around telling people that the Pope in Rome is the "vicar of Christ," whatever that means.

Is that what theologoumenon means?  Is it a fancy Greek word for BS?  If that is the case, then yes, it's theologoumenon.  What it is not, however, is a legitimate teaching of my Church.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2010, 01:01:27 PM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?

The actual record of what St. Thomas did with this teaching was to say one thing and then say another and THEN he finally said that he would go along with whatever the Church said because it was clear from Tradition that the woman was more holy than any other human being on the face of the earth and had never been blemished by sin...from the earliest times of her becoming a person.

So you loose your reliable witness to his trust in the infallibility of the Church.
What a little lying won't accomplish:
Quote
The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious, consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture; nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary (Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the Church of Rome was celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number of churches of Rome, especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not received in the official calendar.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
That infallible church then went on to disown this, its own "ecumenical" council.

So it took Aquinas 620 years to change his mind.  

St. Thomas yielded to the Church's will on the Immaculate Conception in his own lifetime.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2010, 01:02:52 PM »

Pardon me for my lack of academic knowledge of the issue, but isn't the Orthodox position regarding the meaning of the red-highlighted verses based upon the differences between how the Orthodox and Church of Rome understand the concept of ancestral sin?

From the time of the Synod of Carthage of 418, which was received by both Ephesus and the Second Council of Nicea, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have understood the STAIN of original sin to be the darkening of the intellect and weakening of the will.

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception says that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

These are things that are granted to us in Baptism, and they are what God preserved the Theotokos from at the moment of her becoming a person.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, this used to be something that Orthodox understood as well, even if it was never expressed a dogma.  It is a part of tradition, east and west.

Mary
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:03:40 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2010, 01:03:35 PM »

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

Was she conceived without concupiscence?  I understand that that is the traditional Catholic teaching of the nature of original sin.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2010, 01:05:47 PM »

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

Was she conceived without concupiscence?  I understand that that is the traditional Catholic teaching of the nature of original sin.

There are so many Orthodox ways of understanding concupiscence that I cannot begin to answer you without knowing more about your use of the term.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:06:37 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2010, 01:12:17 PM »

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

Was she conceived without concupiscence?  I understand that that is the traditional Catholic teaching of the nature of original sin.

There are so many Orthodox ways of understanding concupiscence that I cannot begin to answer you without knowing more about your use of the term.



I would understand it, in an RC context, as Aquinas understands it.  But if you have another understanding, and many people do these days with the New Theology, please disclose it to us.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2010, 01:17:58 PM »

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

Was she conceived without concupiscence?  I understand that that is the traditional Catholic teaching of the nature of original sin.

There are so many Orthodox ways of understanding concupiscence that I cannot begin to answer you without knowing more about your use of the term.



I would understand it, in an RC context, as Aquinas understands it.  But if you have another understanding, and many people do these days with the New Theology, please disclose it to us.

Please bring forward the text from Aquinas then.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2010, 01:18:49 PM »

Chapter 232 has nothing to do with the Mother of God. Not one sentence in 232 mentions the Mother of God.
I do not believe you. Prove yourself.
I copied your quote. Stop playing these games.
Please tell me, why did you yourself translate a Spanish translation of the Compendium of Theology, when there are English and Latin versions available at hand?

You need to look around for Aquinas's "Brevis Summa de Fide."  I don't have it but only bits and pieces.

No comment about your own quote from Aquinas which totally supports what I have given you and destroys your allegation that I am lying?

The actual record of what St. Thomas did with this teaching was to say one thing and then say another and THEN he finally said that he would go along with whatever the Church said because it was clear from Tradition that the woman was more holy than any other human being on the face of the earth and had never been blemished by sin...from the earliest times of her becoming a person.

So you loose your reliable witness to his trust in the infallibility of the Church.
What a little lying won't accomplish:
Quote
The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious, consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture; nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary (Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the Church of Rome was celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number of churches of Rome, especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not received in the official calendar.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
That infallible church then went on to disown this, its own "ecumenical" council.

So it took Aquinas 620 years to change his mind.  

St. Thomas yielded to the Church's will on the Immaculate Conception in his own lifetime.


Evidently not, as Ineffibilus Deus claims the Church's will was the IC, and Aquinas breathed his last denying it.
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 #56 on: November 09, 2010, 01:19:50 PM »


Again, please read the article and citations by Father Lev.  The Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue.


To be brutally honest I would not trust one quote presented by Fr Lev.  In those days he would have been dependent on Roman Catholic sources and we are simply too well aware, from articles and monographs published by Catholic Answers, that Catholics have no shame in altering, truncating and generally mutilating texts to suit their own agenda and bolster their dogma.  So you would need to provide the larger context of what Fr Lev is quoting before we would feel secure in his interpretation.  This is NOT a criticism of Fr Lev, he would have simply been a victim of the polemical machine operated by Rome.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2010, 01:25:13 PM »

More on Concupiscence:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original.html

Quote
Catholic theology, going back to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, has identified Saint Paul's "law of sin" [Greek νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας] or "flesh" [Greek σὰρξ] with the concupiscence or inordinate desire that remains in Christians. Concupiscence is of itself not sinful and it is not a "sin nature" (contrary to the NIV translation of Romans 7). The process of sanctification is the battle against concupiscence.

For the Catholic, Romans 6 is talking about our redemption from sin via baptism (Rom 6:4-6) and Romans 7 is the inward struggle that we still fight on account of concupiscence.

Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected this Catholic understanding because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of original sin as it relates to concupiscence. Consequently, most Reformed Christians have never even heard of doctrine of concupiscence. For the Protestant tradition in general, "original sin = concupiscence" and "concupiscence = original sin". The doctrine of concupiscence is also the reason why Reformed Christians hold to "total depravity" while Catholics reject it. By equating original sin with concupiscence, the magisterial Protestant tradition emptied justification and baptism of their transformative power. Clearly, baptized believing Christians still struggle with inordinate desires. If this desire is identified as original sin per se, then the justified Christian is still inwardly devoid of righteousness - instead he must acquire Luther's imputed alien righteousness. Yet if we take the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence that states that concupiscence is not original sin, then we can have an inward transformation that makes us righteous.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:30:56 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2010, 01:50:35 PM »

More on Concupiscence:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original.html

Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected this Catholic understanding because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of original sin as it relates to concupiscence. Consequently, most Reformed Christians have never even heard of doctrine of concupiscence. For the Protestant tradition in general, "original sin = concupiscence" and "concupiscence = original sin". The doctrine of concupiscence is also the reason why Reformed Christians hold to "total depravity" while Catholics reject it. By equating original sin with concupiscence, the magisterial Protestant tradition emptied justification and baptism of their transformative power. Clearly, baptized believing Christians still struggle with inordinate desires. If this desire is identified as original sin per se, then the justified Christian is still inwardly devoid of righteousness - instead he must acquire Luther's imputed alien righteousness. Yet if we take the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence that states that concupiscence is not original sin, then we can have an inward transformation that makes us righteous.


Goodness gracious!  It seems that modern Catholics have no understanding of their traditional teaching and have simply thrust Aquinas out the back door.

2.1.82.3

"Whether original sin is concupiscence?

"...original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article3
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2010, 02:13:15 PM »

More on Concupiscence:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original.html

Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected this Catholic understanding because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of original sin as it relates to concupiscence. Consequently, most Reformed Christians have never even heard of doctrine of concupiscence. For the Protestant tradition in general, "original sin = concupiscence" and "concupiscence = original sin". The doctrine of concupiscence is also the reason why Reformed Christians hold to "total depravity" while Catholics reject it. By equating original sin with concupiscence, the magisterial Protestant tradition emptied justification and baptism of their transformative power. Clearly, baptized believing Christians still struggle with inordinate desires. If this desire is identified as original sin per se, then the justified Christian is still inwardly devoid of righteousness - instead he must acquire Luther's imputed alien righteousness. Yet if we take the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence that states that concupiscence is not original sin, then we can have an inward transformation that makes us righteous.


Goodness gracious!  It seems that modern Catholics have no understanding of their traditional teaching and have simply thrust Aquinas out the back door.

2.1.82.3

"Whether original sin is concupiscence?

"...original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article3

 laugh  I thought as much Father.  You haven't got a clue what that signifies.

He says that concupiscence is original sin MATERIALLY....but [original sin is] privation of original justice FORMALLY....

Privation of original justice is the darkening of the intellect and weakening of the will...FORMALLY

The MATERIAL [real, practical] consequence of that privation of original justice is a disintegration of body and soul so that our desires are malformed toward evil, rather than toward the good, and that malformation of the bodily appetites will not be fully integrated with the good while in the body, until the time of the final judgment when our souls resume their natural connection to our glorified bodies.

Thus the Church teaches that in Baptism our original justice is redeemed with the illumination of the intellect and the strengthening of the will, so that by grace we can overcome that tendency to do evil.

We do not, of course, always use the graces God gave us, any more than Adam and Eve did when yielding to the temptations and trickery of the serpent in the garden.  In both cases our wills are still free, so that we do choose freely to be obedient or not.

So again the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is that she comes into being, as a person, with her intellect and will fully preserved from the blemish of the ancestral sin, as we are redeemed from it in Baptism.  HOWEVER: she remains in a fully human and disintegrated body with a fully human intellect and will,  and so she will die, and so she will experience the pangs of temptation, and she will need to choose each time to conform her fully human will to the divine will.  But she is by the grace of God never blemished by sin in any form.  I believe I can find words to that effect in some of the Marian homilies of the Fathers.  I'll look later.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 02:20:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2010, 02:18:46 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2010, 02:25:06 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

Would you mind talking about it a bit?  I would understand fully if you'd rather not.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: November 09, 2010, 02:45:20 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

What St. Berhard reacting against "Catholicism?" I know he was a bitter opponent of us. This is history:
I don't think I can post a link to CAF under the rules here, and I can't post there under their "rules"  police Roll Eyes  police but I can post what I posted there before:

Bernard of Clarivaux (12th cent.):

The Mother of the Lord, you say, ought greatly to be honoured. You say well, but the honour of a queen loves justice. The royal Virgin does not need false honour, since she is amply supplied with true titles to honour and badges of her dignity. Honour indeed the purity of her flesh, the sanctity of her life, wonder at her motherhood as a virgin, adore her Divine offspring. Extol the prodigy by which she brought into the world without pain the Son, whom she had conceived without concupiscence. Proclaim her to be reverenced by the angels, to have been desired by the nations, to have been known beforehand by Patriarchs and Prophets, chosen by God out of all women and raised above them all. Magnify her as the medium by whom grace was displayed, the instrument of salvation, the restorer of the ages; and finally extol her as having been exalted above the choirs of angels to the celestial realms. These things the Church sings concerning her, and has taught me to repeat the same things in her praise, and what I have learnt from the Church I both hold securely myself and teach to others; what I have not received from the Church I confess I should with great difficulty admit. I have received then from the Church that day to be reverenced with the highest veneration, when being taken up from this sinful earth, she made entry into the heavens; a festival of most honoured joy. With no less clearness have I learned in the Church to celebrate the birth of the Virgin, and from the Church undoubtedly to hold it to have been holy and joyful; holding most firmly with the Church, that she received in the womb that she should come into the world holy. And indeed I read concerning Jeremiah, that before he came forth from the womb he was sanctified, and I think no otherwise of John the Baptist, who, himself in the womb of his mother, felt the presence of his Lord in the womb (S. Luke i. 41). It is matter for consideration whether the same opinion may not be held of holy David, on account of what he said in addressing God: In Thee I have been strengthened from the womb: Thou art He who took me out of my mother’s bowels (Ps. lxxi. 6); and again: I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly (Ps. xxii. 10). And Jeremiah is thus addressed: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jer. i. 5). How beautifully the Divine oracle has distinguished between conception in the womb and birth from the womb! and showed that if the one was foreseen only, the other was blessed beforehand with the gift of holiness: that no one might think that the glory of Jeremiah consisted only in being the object of the foreknowledge of God, but also of His predestination.

3. Let us, however, grant this in the case of Jeremiah. What shall be said of John the Baptist, of whom an angel announced beforehand that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb? I cannot suppose that this is to be referred to predestination or to foreknowledge. For the words of the angel were without doubt fulfilled in their time, as he foretold; and the man (as cannot be doubted) filled with the Holy Ghost at the time and place appointed, as he predicted. But most certainly the Holy Ghost sanctified the man whom He filled. But how far this sanctification availed against original sin, whether for him, or for that prophet, or for any other who was thus prevented by grace, I would not rashly determine. But of these holy persons whom God has sanctified, and brought forth from the womb with the same sanctification which they have received in the womb, I do not hesitate to say that the taint of original sin which they contracted in conception, could not in any manner take away or fetter by the mere act of birth, the benediction already bestowed. Would any one dare to say that a child filled with the Holy Ghost, would remain notwithstanding a child of wrath; and if he had died in his mother’s womb, where he had received this fulness of the Spirit, would endure the pains of damnation? That opinion is very severe; I, however, do not dare to decide anything respecting the question by my own judgment. However that may be, the Church, which regards and declares, not the nativity, but only the death of other saints as precious, makes a singular exception for him of whom an angel singularly said, and many shall rejoice in his birth (Luke i. 14., 15), and with rejoicing honours his nativity. For why should not the birth be holy, and even glad and joyful, of one who leaped with joy even in the womb of his mother?

4. The gift, therefore, which has certainly been conferred upon some, though few, mortals, cannot for a moment be supposed to have been denied to that so highly favoured Virgin, through whom the whole human race came forth into life. Beyond doubt the mother of the Lord also was holy before birth; nor is holy Church at all in error in accounting the day of her nativity holy, and celebrating it each year with solemn and thankful joy. I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of women. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely befitted the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all. Therefore, her birth was holy, since the abundant sanctity bestowed upon it made it holy even from the womb.

5. What addition can possibly be made to these honours? That her conception, also, they say, which preceded her honourable birth, should be honoured, since if the one had not first taken place, neither would the other, which is honoured. But what if some one else, following a similar train of reasoning, should assert that the honours of a festival ought to be given to each of her parents, then to her grand-parents, and then to their parents, and so on ad infinitum? Thus we should have festivals without number. Such a frequency of joys befits Heaven, not this state of exile. It is the happy lot of those who dwell there, not of strangers and pilgrims. But a writing is brought forward, given, as they say, by revelation from on high, [A writing of this kind is attributed to an English abbot named Elsin in the works of Anselm. Watch out for those angels of light] as if any one would not be able to bring forward another writing in which the Virgin should seem to demand the same honours to her parents also, saying, according to the commandment of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother (Exod. xx. 12). I easily persuade myself not to be influenced by such writings, which are supported neither by reason nor by any certain authority. For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it.

6. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.



7. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

8. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, Cool.

Btw, Bernard is no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks [i.e. Orthodox], who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as "diligent doctor," so he likes him).

One Vatican supporter said "St. Bernard realized his mistake in heaven," I asked "In 1153 or 1854?"

The IC makes nonsense of II Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that
we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  That enough is heresy.



To the claim that in light of the words spoken by the saints making "my" history evident and it "first appearance" was much earlier than that; going all the way back to Genesis 3:15,  I replied "Do you mean the faulty translation thereof (the Masoret says "they": does that indicate that infinite regression implicit in the IC?).


And to the claim that the IC "fulfills" Gen. 3:15 in the new Eve, Our Lady, Mother of Life. And also verified by the Angelic Salutation, the connection between the Our Lady and the Ark, the various Liturgies, and the teachings of the Saints, and now the teaching authority of the Vatican, which prooftexts Gen. 3:15, I say "potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit."

As this thread is started by a Copt who has submitted to Rome, what I wrote about proof of the IC in the East to a Chaldean I think is also relevant:

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn't give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican's jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don't see the Vatican's theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

We still say the same things. We don't mean what the Vatican claims by them.


Btw, Mardukm.  You posted:

Quote
Also, permit me to point out that, since the dogma of the IC refers to her spiritual conception, not her physical conception, it means Mary was just like us. She had a natural, unglorified body that was subject to corruption, aged and died. It is a non-Catholic misunderstanding of the dogma that causes them to claim that the dogma somehow makes Mary different from us

This is not true: the Vatican has the "Immortalist" school who believe she did not die, and that is within Vatican "orthodoxy."  That's quite different from us.

The IC as proclaime by the Vatican is heretical in at least the sense that it is, the Vatican states, to be believed on penalty of damnation and "shipwreck of faith."  No such necessity exists: to claim so is heresy.

So far, no one has given any reasons why the dogma is a heresy to such an extent that it is Church-dividing. I am wondering if any of my Orthodox brethren can add anything new to the topic of that thread.  We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

To address one thing:
IC isn't Church-dividing; we had lots of things that divided us before Old Rome added this to the mix.  Maybe if we cleared up all the other theological, dogmatic, and ecclesiological issues but left this one, then it may remain a Church-dividing issue, or it may not - who knows.  But until we get to that point (5th millennium after Christ?) we can't say that IC is a "Church-dividing" issue.  Heck, the only way that it's a dogmatic issue (and, hence, heresy) is in its fundamental presuppositions regarding humanity, not Mary.  For the Orthodox, nothing about the Panagia ("All-holy") is dogmatic unless it somehow relates to Christ and creation - that's one of our objections to IC as dogma, because it has nothing to do with our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ, so there's no reason to make it a compulsory belief for a Christian.
Thanks for the response!  I'm glad you don't think it is Church-dividing. It's just that those who leave the Catholic Church for EO'xy always invariably cite that as one of the reasons for them leaving.

It's interesting that you think the dogma has nothing to do with Christ.  That's actually the very reason that Catholics believe it IS a dogma - because it IS Christ centered.

And that's why it's Church-dividing.  One church is confused on what Christocentric is.

Quote
Unless anyone else has anything else to add, I guess there really is no good reason for stating that the dogma is heresy. 

There's a shock. Roll Eyes

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
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2010, 02:50:58 PM »

Forgive me Fr.Ambrose.
I can not focus on one topic but I am overwhelmed by too many sensory stimuli.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2010, 03:01:10 PM »

I never knew that Byzantine Emperors gave homilies....
Indeed they did at times.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2010, 03:09:53 PM »




What St. Berhard reacting against "Catholicism?" I know he was a bitter opponent of us. This is history:

Apparently Orthodox faithful can't cope with internal contradictions, or any variety in the teachings of individual saints.

M.
Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2010, 03:16:00 PM »

Perhaps we should ask, keeping in with the Thomistic tune of this thread, I want to ask:
1. what is the reason for this "heretical" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
and
2.what is the Catholics' goal in propagating this "heretical" doctrine?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2010, 03:19:51 PM »




What St. Berhard reacting against "Catholicism?" I know he was a bitter opponent of us. This is history:

Apparently Orthodox faithful can't cope with internal contradictions


Not having the experience, we aren't the experts at cognitive dissonance like the Vatican.

Quote
or any variety in the teachings of individual saints.
Variety yes, heresy no.
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: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2010, 03:33:28 PM »



Not having the experience, we aren't the experts at cognitive dissonance like the Vatican.

Really? Because, according to Fr. Amborse, your Churhc both believes in and rejects the doctrince of consubstantiation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2010, 04:19:49 PM »



Not having the experience, we aren't the experts at cognitive dissonance like the Vatican.

Really? Because, according to Fr. Amborse, your Churhc both believes in and rejects the doctrince of consubstantiation.
No, Fr. Ambrose has posted some Fathers may appear to favor consubstantiation, and others have denounced it explicitely: I know because I had to renounce it explicitely:
Quote
The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Lutheran Confession thus :

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father" : doth not suffice ; and that the addition, of man's invention : " and from the Son " : is required ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread is not transmuted into the Body of Christ, and doth not become the Body of Christ; and that the wine is not transmuted into the Blood of Christ, and doth not become the Blood of Christ; but that the presence of Christ's Body only for a short time doth touch the bread, which remaineth simple bread ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the teachers who do not accept as Sacraments Chrismation, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid and the living of spiritual consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?

Answer. I do.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA456&dq=Hapgood%20Lutheran%20bread&ei=zqvZTL-sBs2TnAfy17TqCQ&ct=result&id=hVIXAAAAYAAJ&output=text

We have a thread on this
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23647.msg374969.html#msg374969
and this
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10540.msg146699/topicseen.html#msg146699
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 04:29:05 PM by ialmisry » 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
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2010, 04:25:46 PM »

Apparently Orthodox faithful can't cope with internal contradictions, or any variety in the teachings of individual saints.

M.


I have to say that's one of the more ironic statements I've heard in a while.  Shocked
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #71 on: November 09, 2010, 05:55:20 PM »

An ecumenical council will solve the problem.
Logged
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #72 on: November 09, 2010, 07:02:46 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

Would you mind talking about it a bit?  I would understand fully if you'd rather not.

M.

I view the Immaculate Conception as a legitimate theological opinion that is consistent with the Church’s understanding of Mary and her role in salvation.  Orthodoxy affirms, among other things, the following:

Mary’s role in salvation was revealed as early as the Fall (“I will put enmity between you and the woman…”)

Mary’s conception was miraculous and is celebrated as a feast day

Mary was dedicated to God by Joachim and Anna in thanksgiving for her birth

Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus who is fully God and man

Mary was “full of grace”, which the Greek word indicates as a continuing state of being as a result of a past action

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who was her caretaker, but did not have sexual relations with him, remaining a virgin throughout her life

Mary was holy, pure, and blameless throughout her entire life

Mary was taken into heaven, body and soul, after her death

Mary is the Queen of Heaven by virtue of being the mother Christ, the King

Mary is our greatest human intercessor, whose prayers have assisted countless people, as revealed to many of the saints of the Church

If all this is true, then how would it be incorrect to extrapolate that Mary’s holiness began at conception?  While Orthodoxy doesn’t define original sin in the same way as the west, we would agree that it includes a corruption of our nature, which includes our reason, ability to make moral choices, and a propensity toward sin.  Mary could not have shared in that corruption if she was to live a life of perfect holiness as we say that she did.  This doesn’t mean that she didn’t struggle against temptation, experience physical suffering, or die, since Christ himself experienced all those things.  While conceived good, she was capable of further growth in holiness just as we all are, even after the end of our earthly lives.  This also doesn’t mean that she lacked free will to choose good over evil, since Adam had this capability before the fall.  It seems ridiculous to me to make a dogmatic stand against this idea when the overwhelming amount of our understanding of Mary is consistent with it.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 07:04:52 PM by dcointin » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #73 on: November 09, 2010, 07:14:39 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

Would you mind talking about it a bit?  I would understand fully if you'd rather not.

M.

I view the Immaculate Conception as a legitimate theological opinion that is consistent with the Church’s understanding of Mary and her role in salvation.  Orthodoxy affirms, among other things, the following:

Mary’s role in salvation was revealed as early as the Fall (“I will put enmity between you and the woman…”)

Mary’s conception was miraculous and is celebrated as a feast day

Mary was dedicated to God by Joachim and Anna in thanksgiving for her birth

Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus who is fully God and man

Mary was “full of grace”, which the Greek word indicates as a continuing state of being as a result of a past action

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who was her caretaker, but did not have sexual relations with him, remaining a virgin throughout her life

Mary was holy, pure, and blameless throughout her entire life

Mary was taken into heaven, body and soul, after her death

Mary is the Queen of Heaven by virtue of being the mother Christ, the King

Mary is our greatest human intercessor, whose prayers have assisted countless people, as revealed to many of the saints of the Church

If all this is true, then how would it be incorrect to extrapolate that Mary’s holiness began at conception?  While Orthodoxy doesn’t define original sin in the same way as the west, we would agree that it includes a corruption of our nature, which includes our reason, ability to make moral choices, and a propensity toward sin.  Mary could not have shared in that corruption if she was to live a life of perfect holiness as we say that she did.  This doesn’t mean that she didn’t struggle against temptation, experience physical suffering, or die, since Christ himself experienced all those things.  While conceived good, she was capable of further growth in holiness just as we all are, even after the end of our earthly lives.  This also doesn’t mean that she lacked free will to choose good over evil, since Adam had this capability before the fall.  It seems ridiculous to me to make a dogmatic stand against this idea when the overwhelming amount of our understanding of Mary is consistent with it.


The problem is IC imputes the holiness upon her. She is not all that great in reality because she was sinless because God says so. Whereas the Orthodox Church says she is sinless because she chose to be sinless, just like any of us could do if we truly loved God (and we don't, not as much as she did).

This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else?

There is no victory without an adversary.

The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that She, being “human with passions like us,” so loved God and gave Herself over to Him, that by Her purity She was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon Her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God’s Providence.

It is not an exaltation and greater glory, but a belittlement of Her, this “gift” which was given Her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glorify the Mother of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glorified by God Himself, so exalted is Her life on earth and Her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to Her honor and glory. That which people themselves invent only obscures Her Face from their eyes.


- St John of Shanghai and San Francisco
http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 07:26:35 PM by bogdan » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #74 on: November 09, 2010, 07:22:13 PM »

An ecumenical council will solve the problem.

there is nothing to solve.  That's the problem with the IC.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2010, 07:40:35 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

Would you mind talking about it a bit?  I would understand fully if you'd rather not.

M.

I view the Immaculate Conception as a legitimate theological opinion that is consistent with the Church’s understanding of Mary and her role in salvation.  Orthodoxy affirms, among other things, the following:

Mary’s role in salvation was revealed as early as the Fall (“I will put enmity between you and the woman…”)

Mary’s conception was miraculous and is celebrated as a feast day

Mary was dedicated to God by Joachim and Anna in thanksgiving for her birth

Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus who is fully God and man

Mary was “full of grace”, which the Greek word indicates as a continuing state of being as a result of a past action

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who was her caretaker, but did not have sexual relations with him, remaining a virgin throughout her life

Mary was holy, pure, and blameless throughout her entire life

Mary was taken into heaven, body and soul, after her death

Mary is the Queen of Heaven by virtue of being the mother Christ, the King

Mary is our greatest human intercessor, whose prayers have assisted countless people, as revealed to many of the saints of the Church

If all this is true, then how would it be incorrect to extrapolate that Mary’s holiness began at conception?

Her holiness isn't any more at issue than that of St. John the Baptis, about whom nearly all of the above also applies, the being taken into heaven being an obvious exception which we'll deal with below.

Quote
While Orthodoxy doesn’t define original sin in the same way as the west, we would agree that it includes a corruption of our nature, which includes our reason, ability to make moral choices, and a propensity toward sin.  Mary could not have shared in that corruption if she was to live a life of perfect holiness as we say that she did.

Why not?

Quote
 This doesn’t mean that she didn’t struggle against temptation, experience physical suffering, or die,

why did she die then?

Quote
since Christ himself experienced all those things.

He do so by choice, emptying Himself. Why did she?

2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Quote
While conceived good, she was capable of further growth in holiness just as we all are, even after the end of our earthly lives.  This also doesn’t mean that she lacked free will to choose good over evil, since Adam had this capability before the fall
she was conceived after the Fall and before the Incarnation.

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

Quote
.  It seems ridiculous to me to make a dogmatic stand against this idea when the overwhelming amount of our understanding of Mary is consistent with it.
Then there was no need of the Incarnation, as it was accomplished at His mother's conception.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 07:44:09 PM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2010, 07:49:44 PM »

I could swear we dealt with this here before. Maybe Fr. Ambrose will remember.

Just to start off
Quote
The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology.

St. Peter Movila's catechism was written in Latin (he was Romanian): translated into Greek with Latinisms edited out, it was adopted by the Council of Iasi (Jassy) and then at the Synod of Jerusalem for all Orthodoxy. I don't recall the IC in the corrected version: if it was in the Latin version (was it?) and removed at the insistence of the Orthodox in council, what would that tell you about Orthodoxy's view of the IC?
any response?

Like I said, we came across Fr. Lev before.
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.

Rather odd that someone who complained that
you will find more cradle Orthodox in sympathy with and comprehending the Immaculate Conception than you will find most Orthodox converts who tend to take their protestant biases with them.
to offer us something from a convert from the Vatican to Orthodoxy as representative of what Orthodox believe.

We've met Fr. Gillet several times before, e.g.:
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

If you trace your way back to the quote I provided you will see that it comes from Fr Lev Gillet.   Fr Lev was a Roman Catholic priest and monk who became Orthodox back in the day.   He remained so devoted to Roman Catholicism, continuing to spend large amounts of time in European Catholic monasteries and lecturing all over Europe in favour of union that there was speculation he had never converted to Orthodoxy at all and he was a Roman implant or double agent sent by the Vatican to undermine Orthodoxy.  So he had no great axe to grind against the Immaculate Conceoption by misrepresenting Gregory Palamas.

Dear brother Isa,
Hello all,
Welcome back.

While you are at it, IIRC you promised some things on other IC threads. Can you pick up where you left off there? e.g.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.msg283679/topicseen.html#msg283679
Thanks. I’ll get to it soon

I quoted a whole list of Eastern Fathers in the old IC thread, and the only response I got was “you are misinterpreting them,” but with no explanations of how I was doing so. Oh well.

on my trip down memory lane, to discover that "whole list of Eastern Fathers in the old IC thread, with the only response “you are misinterpreting them,” but with no explanations of how Mardukm was doing so," I haven't found any yet, but I am coming across interesting things.
You mean this?
Quote
Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death.
How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?
Oh! Sorry! St. Palamas is obviously referring to one who is without sin NATURALLY - i.e., not by Grace.
If it is so obvious, you of course can quote St. Gregory's words to that effect, no?
Yes, he stated that Mary's very nature was unsullied by sin THROUGH GRACE.

"Except for God there is no one who is without sin, except those who are without sin by grace."

No, I missed that in the sermon.

Btw, others also commented on the "quote" of St. Gregory Palamas, which is germaine in the extreme to the OP of this new thread:
No one has yet proven that it is heresy or that it is not a legitimate theologoumenon.
LOL! Does "legitimate theologoumenon" mean "almost doctrine".  laugh
I know what you mean. Other than saying St. Gregory "may" have taught it, which I have yet to see, nothing has been shown. But, apparently, it has been taught since the times of the Apostles....
ialmisry i read some homilies of Palamas about Mary , he is as good as any catholic theologian ; I can see how he could easily believe the IC.I would dare to say that he might exalt Mary even more.While i didn`t read his view on her birth I can`t say clear but I incline to believe he was one of the IC fans.

...in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”. (4)

http://curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html
And I commented on the source, Fr. Lev Gillet.
Quote
reproduce it here once again because I am of the strong opinion that
IF we can resolve this particular issue between us, Catholic and
Orthodox, will find the rest or our differences beginning to melt as
though they were never there in any real way.

Alas, with development of doctrine the Vatican has already gone on to Co-Redemptrix and after that no doubt the Quasi-Incarnation of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception.  Do we want to go down that wide road with them?  It would seem the the Bernard and Bonventure's of the East were more successful.

The idea that is attributed to St. Gregory, that of the constant line of preparation in the line of Mary, is of course Orthodox. And many of the ideas expressed in the link are too.  However, there isn't much distinction being made between general All-Holiness, and the specific question of Ancestral Sin:the former does not necessarily mean the latter.

Some other interesting bits:
Quote
The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many
others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A
confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk
in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour
the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The
Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The
Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin
from the moment of her conception".

St. Peter and the Academy, as is well, know were censured for their Latin views: the catechism was approved only after the Council of Iasi revised it, over St. Peter's protests.

Polotsk, isn't that the headquarters of our friend Joasaphat Kuntsevych?

As for the Old Ritualists, somewhere here we had something on the claim that they believed in the IC.
Quote
More recently still,
Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the
"impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most
Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne." It was a theologian of the
Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about
As I posted above, there are those among the Vatican's followers promoting the conception of the Virgin without the intercourse of her parents.  Perhaps the Metropolitan DOES know what he is talking about.
We had been warned about Fr. Lev:
Good news!  I found St. Palamas' sermon relating to the IC.

http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

A few things I found interesting:

1) His understanding of how the IC came about is nothing like the comment given by Father Ambrose earlier.  Palamas did not claim that there were generations that grew to holiness of which Mary was the pinnacle.  He simply says that one can trace the lineage of this holiness down through the ages.  So St. Palamas' understanding is not really that drastic, but I suppose it is contingent upon opponents of the IC to make Palamas' understanding as unpalatable as possible.

If you trace your way back to the quote I provided you will see that it comes from Fr Lev Gillet.   Fr Lev was a Roman Catholic priest and monk who became Orthodox back in the day.   He remained so devoted to Roman Catholicism, continuing to spend large amounts of time in European Catholic monasteries and lecturing all over Europe in favour of union that there was speculation he had never converted to Orthodoxy at all and he was a Roman implant or double agent sent by the Vatican to undermine Orthodoxy.  So he had no great axe to grind against the Immaculate Conceoption by misrepresenting Gregory Palamas.
This seems to have been one of the seeds which blossomed into this present thread:
Your interpretation obviously contradicts the constant teaching of the Church on the sinlessness of Mary, St. Jeremiah,
Sinless of Jeremiah?  Another novelty? I've never heard that one.
Oh! I guess that is only a Tradition in the Oriental Church.  That's from St. Athanasius.
You won't mind if I get that from someone in the Oriental Tradition, like Mina or Ekhristosanesti?

Btw, when do we celebrate the IC of St. Jeremiah?


and St. John the Forerunner.
Don't recall that one either, though the Gospel tells us that his parents were "blameless" and "rigthteous before God."
Same with this one.  The Oriental Tradition is from St. Athanasius.  Both are contained in his writing against the Arians (I think it's Book 3).

Mind providing the quote, or at least a sure reference?

Btw, I've looked a little into Pope St. Athanasius' writings and haven't come up with the sinlessness of  SS Jeremiah or St. John. Or the IC.

Of course, now you have a problem as the definition (i.e. the part that supposed is without question is "infallible) of Ineffibilis Deus says "by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God," (singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio) the Theotokos was IC'd.  If SS. Jeremiah and John are in on that, it's not singular now, is it?
The singular grace was that she received it at conception.  St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the grace of sinlessness in their mother's womb.

Oh?  Where did the Theotokos' conception take place?

I didn't respond only because I thought any apostolic Christian reading that would immediately see the error of your interpretation.
Ditto.
You're responding now, and I've refuted you.

LOL.  I'll let the readers decide that.

Btw, Salpy is an Apostolic Christian
Yes, like Salpy:
If you want to go to CAF, there is a father deacon there named Diak who has had contact with an Armenian priest who personally believes in the IC.  As your Catholicos states, it is not an article of Faith in your Church, but that's all he says about it.

So there's this discussion forum where someone says they know a priest who believes in IC.  That means nothing.  I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant I know who says they know someone who knows a priest who forbids people from reading the Bible. 

Even if this "father deacon" (obviously not an Armenian Orthodox--we don't call our deacons that) really does know a priest who said he believes that, it means nothing.  One priest doesn't represent the Church.  Also, as I said, a lot of Armenians mistake the phrase "Immaculate Conception" to mean something other than what it means in your Church.  Indeed the title of this thread indicates that it is misunderstood by many.  Especially with non-native speakers of English, you get people who think it means the Mother of God was conceived in a miraculous way (as in her parents were very old and infertile,) or they think it means the Virgin Birth of Christ.  I wasn't there for the conversation that took place between this deacon and the priest.  So I can't tell you what he really believes.  All I know is that this is not a teaching of our Church. 

Do you think the words "do not accept as an article of faith" precludes anyone believing it, albeit as theologoumenon (i.e., not as an article of Faith)?

My problem here is that I don't know what the word "theologoumenon" means.  I've seen the word a few times since I have been here, but I don't know what it is.  I've only seen it used by EO's.

With regard to what individual Armenians believe, there are Armenians out there who believe in just about anything.  There was a guy at my church a few years ago who got involved with some Oneness Pentecostals and then started going around telling people that it is acceptable in the Armenian Church to not believe in the Holy Trinity.  I am also sure that the Armenian Vassula crowd believes in IC, as well as all the other Latin innovations that my Church has rejected over the centuries.  One of those ladies likes to go around telling people that the Pope in Rome is the "vicar of Christ," whatever that means.

Is that what theologoumenon means?  Is it a fancy Greek word for BS?  If that is the case, then yes, it's theologoumenon.  What it is not, however, is a legitimate teaching of my Church.
Speaking of legitimate teaching, the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne is cited as proof for the Eastern belief in the IC. Yet not a peep of this in the Fathers.
In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?

Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.
Did you ever find those sermons on the Conception of St. Anne?  Any sermon by any Father on that event?
No. Like I said, the only ones I could find from Medieval times were from the English Church. I was hoping to find one from the Eastern Church, but have not.
Hmmmm.  And what do we conclude from that.....
As Father Ambrose stated, it's possible your Church might have gone around destroying the manuscripts in the 19th century.
LOL.  By that time most of them had been carted away to the West.

Rather odd, since the apologists point to the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, confused in the West as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, is pointed to as the "proof" that the Orthodox believed the IC-before, of course, the Great Purge and Destruction of Dogma of the 19th century in the East  Roll Eyes-that no Patristics can be found for the day. Lex orandi....

Fr. Ambrose also responded
As Father Ambrose stated, it's possible your Church might have gone around destroying the manuscripts in the 19th century.

O Lord, forgive me, I've done it again, used British irony with an American audience and found it goes right over their heads.  When will I learn not to speak British to non-Brits?

Development of doctrine should be another thread. It is not the topic of discussion here.

I would see development of doctrine as germane to this discussion though.   Obvioulsly there was a significant development of doctrine with the IC, from the outright denials by Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans (as well as Teresa of Avila's divine revelation of its falsity) to its present status as a dominant dogma.

And there is the reverse side of the coin - the degradation and destruction of doctrine, which some here believe has taken place in Orthodoxy where the IC was once believed and has now been abandoned.
 Huh

Undetered, Mardukm proceed to turn the absence of evidence into evidence of presence
Nevertheless, the teaching is still evident in other sermons (such as the one we discussed from St. Palamas.

You speak as if you proved it was in St. Gregory's speech.  It's not.

I might add, IIRC, we never did get other sermons of St. Gregory e.g. on the conception of St. Anne.  And AFAIR and as far as I see now, every alleged proof in St. Gregory's sermon was shown by us to not to be so.

Another is the one from St. Andrew of Crete that I quoted earlier - and there are others as well as other proofs [such as the existence of a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Ukraine]).


Aren't the Ukrainians the largest group in the East who have submitted to the Vatican?

I don't think the EO would do that, and Fr. Ambrose I'm sure was joking around.  Maybe the simple answer is that the Sermons have never been translated and put on the Net.
I'll buy that, once you give some indication that any sermons were preached on the Conception of St. Anne.

We have, as far as I have seen, never seen an explanation of this absence of sermons on the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, the inadvertant seed of the IC, taken from the East but genetically modified and planted and grown in England, whence it spread like kudzu over the West.

But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

Oh, yes we have:
Nope.  You're referring to statements that give to Mary some magnanimous titles.  I was referrring, as I stated, to the quotes I gave that EXPLICITLY state that Mary was formed or created without stain.  I believe brother Papist even gave one from your favorite Saint, too.  No responses then, no responses now.

No, I think it more explidient (i.e. less a waste of my time) to point out that all the East never saw the IC in all those quotes that Vatican sees, especially after the English translations.  And then there's that fact that the Conception of St. Anne never became a major feast day, as opposed to the Birth, Entry into the Temple, Conception/Annunciation and the Dormition.

As Father Ambrose points out, it is amazing how us EO, OO and even Nestorians got together and wipped the IC from our collective ecclesiastical memory.  A conspiracy not even Dan Brown would imagine....
"More expedient" doesn't equate to "true."  Would you like me to give you JUST A FEW of those quotes to see if you can rationalize them away just for the sake of "expedience?"
Knock yourself out.
As far as I've seen on that thread, Mardukm did not give me ANY of those quotes.  If he gets around to it, Lord willing, I will post as I have, as I had, on St. Gregory Palamas.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 07:57:21 PM by ialmisry » 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 #77 on: November 09, 2010, 08:31:33 PM »

Forgive me Fr.Ambrose.
I can not focus on one topic but I am overwhelmed by too many sensory stimuli.


Of course you are forgiven.   Although I detest being called things wrongly, I don't feel animosity towards whoever is doing it.  Let's pray for one another.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2010, 08:36:27 PM »


It seems ridiculous to me to make a dogmatic stand against this idea when the overwhelming amount of our understanding of Mary is consistent with it.

The belief of the Orthodox is that Mary the Mother of God was conceived in the same state as all humans.   It would be kind of ridiculous for us NOT to oppose an heretical dogma which teaches otherwise.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2010, 09:14:38 PM »



Not having the experience, we aren't the experts at cognitive dissonance like the Vatican.

Really? Because, according to Fr. Amborse, your Churhc both believes in and rejects the doctrince of consubstantiation.
No, Fr. Ambrose has posted some Fathers may appear to favor consubstantiation, and others have denounced it explicitely: I know because I had to renounce it explicitely:
Quote
The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Lutheran Confession thus :

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father" : doth not suffice ; and that the addition, of man's invention : " and from the Son " : is required ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread is not transmuted into the Body of Christ, and doth not become the Body of Christ; and that the wine is not transmuted into the Blood of Christ, and doth not become the Blood of Christ; but that the presence of Christ's Body only for a short time doth touch the bread, which remaineth simple bread ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the teachers who do not accept as Sacraments Chrismation, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid and the living of spiritual consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?

Answer. I do.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA456&dq=Hapgood%20Lutheran%20bread&ei=zqvZTL-sBs2TnAfy17TqCQ&ct=result&id=hVIXAAAAYAAJ&output=text

We have a thread on this
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23647.msg374969.html#msg374969
and this
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10540.msg146699/topicseen.html#msg146699

I sort of wish the RCC required people to specifically renounce their former beliefs as Protestants that go against RC teaching. I suppose we do something similar when we declare in front of the congregation that we believe everything that the RCC teaches before being confirmed, but I think it would be cool to formally renounce specific heretical teachings. Of course, I am a bit bitter about my Protestant past so I think such a formal renunciation would have possibly been a way to heal from that.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 09:15:35 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,069



« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2010, 11:46:21 PM »

Personally I have no objections to the Immaculate Conception, for reasons I could go into.  I think it's an unfortunate reaction against Catholicism that comes from bitterness, not historical theology.

I am not anti-Catholic and I reject the IC.  Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), who is considered to be quite moderate (liberal heretic, according to the zealots  Roll Eyes ) also rejects it.  While some may reject it simply because Roman Catholics believe it, I doubt that is the case for the majority.  Orthodox believers in person are very different than the internet variety, in my experience. 
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2010, 12:00:23 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.

But the Enlightenment / Scholastics can't answer the question on why the first child of King David and Bathsheba died and the second child became King Solomon, an ancestor of the Virgin Mary.  Instead, Scholastics, like Dunn Scotus, can change one word and create infallible dogmas that former Eastern Orthodox Churches had to accept when they started commemorating the Pope.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2010, 12:10:21 AM »

Some of the patristic Fathers are every bit the scholastic that later scholars of the west were.  In fact the idea of the western university was brought to Italy from Greece.

University of Bologna was founded in 1088 and is recognized as the world's first University.  The Pandidakterion in Constantinople was founded in 425 even though it didn't use the word University.  After the Schism, Europe needed its own Universities after being cut off from the East.

These kinds of slap-dash generalizations have no real meaning at all and are the lazy-man's gun to shoot down any real dialogue based upon real people, real events and truly determinative ideas.

You can embrace or reject the mess created by the Enlightenment.   Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2010, 12:51:51 AM »

Some of the patristic Fathers are every bit the scholastic that later scholars of the west were.  In fact the idea of the western university was brought to Italy from Greece.

University of Bologna was founded in 1088 and is recognized as the world's first University.  The Pandidakterion in Constantinople was founded in 425 even though it didn't use the word University.  After the Schism, Europe needed its own Universities after being cut off from the East.

These kinds of slap-dash generalizations have no real meaning at all and are the lazy-man's gun to shoot down any real dialogue based upon real people, real events and truly determinative ideas.

You can embrace or reject the mess created by the Enlightenment.   Smiley
or wallow in it. Sad
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2010, 12:57:00 AM »

I'd like to see Mary's response to Reply #3 since it is on a less "academic" tangent with the goal to repudiate the "proof by reason" (Reason being the child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment) cited in links from the New Catholic Encyclopedia....

I didn't intend to rehash old discussions since I'm a recent participant on these Catholic threads....

Reason and logic and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the patristic Fathers.   If we begin with the absolutely false premise that reason is a product of the enlightenment while all else is inspired theology, then I really cannot address the issue because the fundamental premises are absurdities.


For the Fathers reason was only the means, not the end nor the basis.  The Scholastics, making it an end unto itself (e.g. the number of angels on a pin question), laid the groundwork for dispensing with revelation as happened in the "Enlightenment," and the mess that has all created.

Some of the patristic Fathers

Can you name names.

Quote
are every bit the scholastic that later scholars of the west were.  In fact the idea of the western university was brought to Italy from Greece.
We know that. What's your point?

Quote
These kinds of slap-dash generalizations have no real meaning at all and are the lazy-man's gun to shoot down any real dialogue based upon real people, real events and truly determinative ideas.
Can you come up with real quotes from real authorities (Fr. Lev being of questionable autority) of the truly determinative ideas of the Church's teaching?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 12:57:51 AM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2010, 01:33:07 AM »

For those who are not aware of it today is the day of Duns Scotus who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.  One is pleased to note that now, being in the heavenly realms, Scotus is repentant of the error he encouraged with regard to the Immaculate Conception.  

Hubris

No hubris, dear Mary but just common sense.  The IC is either true or false.  Scotus' far-fetched attempt to explain the mechanics is either true or false.

If it is false, then he has repented of his error long ago and found God's mercy.


And if it is true then there was nothing for him or for me to repent.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. I John 1:8
Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth. John 9:41.
Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:31-2.

Quote
And for you to declare, at this point in time, some esoteric and infallible knowledge that we have repented or need to repent of it is hubris.
Father isn''t claiming anything estoric: just the plain, manifest truth. And mercy: Duns Scotus dying outside of the Orthodox communion of the Catholic Church, there is no guarentee he made it upstairs,

Quote
Go back and read Father Lev's article.  Orthodoxy is not of one voice on the issue.
That the unconverted mutterings of Fr. Lev have failed to resonate among the Orthodox tells us otherwise.  I've only heard Ultramontaniist repeating them in their echo chamber.

we've read it. Several times already.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 01:33:50 AM by ialmisry » 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 #86 on: November 10, 2010, 02:58:28 AM »

Let us pray for Mary, and more specifically for her finances.  Word has come through that her 'puter is ill and she cannot use the keyboard.
Logged
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2010, 11:45:35 AM »

I appreciate your responses, and I could offer a rejoinder, but I don't think it would be helpful given how polarized this discussion is.  God bless,

Don
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: November 11, 2010, 02:00:57 PM »

I appreciate your responses, and I could offer a rejoinder, but I don't think it would be helpful given how polarized this discussion is.  God bless,

Don

Dear Don,

I very much appreciate your comments and elaboration of your understanding of the issues at hand.  We know, of course, that you are not alone in your estimations.

Eventually our bishops will be able to make more clear statements to Orthodox believers that will put something of a stop against the most vigorous of the negative confusion that is evident on the part of some Orthodox discussants in discussion threads such as this one. 

It has always been my expectation that the continued celebration of the Marian feasts in Orthodoxy will suffice for the teaching that the Mother of God is patently more holy than any other human being who ever has walked, walks and will walk the face of the earth and that she was so from the most early moments of he becoming.

That will be sufficient I am certain.

In any event I particularly appreciate your courage.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #89 on: November 11, 2010, 02:54:28 PM »

I appreciate your responses, and I could offer a rejoinder, but I don't think it would be helpful given how polarized this discussion is.  God bless,

Don

Dear Don,

I very much appreciate your comments and elaboration of your understanding of the issues at hand.  We know, of course, that you are not alone in your estimations.

Eventually our bishops will be able to make more clear statements to Orthodox believers that will put something of a stop against the most vigorous of the negative confusion that is evident on the part of some Orthodox discussants in discussion threads such as this one.


They already have, e.g.:
Quote
XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Quote
It has always been my expectation that the continued celebration of the Marian feasts in Orthodoxy will suffice for the teaching that the Mother of God is patently more holy than any other human being who ever has walked, walks and will walk the face of the earth and that she was so from the most early moments of he becoming.

That will be sufficient I am certain.
But not enough for us to accept the innovation of the IC.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 11, 2010, 03:10:07 PM »

When someone says that the IC means merely that the Virgin Mary is holier than the other saints, that is a non-sequitur.

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

The danger lies in that the mind is more obedient than the conscious mind to the natural logic and the necessary consequence will impress itself despite what RCs believe.

IC, as stated currently by the RC, is absolutely unecessary to affirm that Mary was holier than all the saints.

Also, all the statements about her early holiness are but an application to her specific case of the common sense knowledge that God has a vocation to every one, a "mission" that He knows even before we are born. We are known to God even from our conception, even before that, and what He wishes for us He already knew even before Creation itself.

Quote
By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise {shall be} continually of thee. Psalms 71:6

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. Psalms 139:13


Apply that to the Virgin Mary and the mission God assigned to her (including knowing that she would be the holiest person ever) and you will have the texts the RC mistankenly assumed to be about something exclusive to the Virgin Mary.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2010, 04:26:15 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #92 on: November 11, 2010, 05:27:49 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?
He's also God: do you believe in the Semi-incarnation Immaculata?

Quote
  Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).

Quote
  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.
And His divinity, and eternal hypostasis.

Quote
  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice abstaction, but hypostasis do not exist in abstraction.

Quote
  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: November 11, 2010, 06:46:52 PM »


Quote
 His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you] do not exist in abstraction.

Quote
 It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.

There is no abstraction in noting that Jesus' humanity is no different from our own.  That is real.

At least there are Church councils that suggest that it is real.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 06:47:22 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #94 on: November 11, 2010, 08:45:17 PM »

His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you

You did? Looks the same.


do not exist in abstraction.
It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.
Indeed it does, but since all of us do not exist in abstraction, what is your point?

Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.
That is because He emptied Himself and became sin for us.
There is no abstraction in noting that Jesus' humanity is no different from our own.  That is real.

At least there are Church councils that suggest that it is real.

I didn't say it wasn't real.  The IC says that is not real.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 08:46:59 PM by ialmisry » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 11, 2010, 08:53:20 PM »

His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.
That's a nice  abstaction [sic, fixed that for you], but hypostasis [sic, fixed that for you

You did? Looks the same [sic].




Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 11, 2010, 08:55:11 PM »

=

I didn't say it wasn't real.  The IC says that is not real.

Of course you assert this but you don't ever explain it....accurately
Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #97 on: November 12, 2010, 07:34:20 AM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool. One thing is to get all the dirt water and putting it in the ocean (just remembering that the wate would not loose its form in a Christian view). Another entirely different is to get a cup of that water, clean it and throw in the ocean.

Here "throwing in the ocean" is the equivalent of "inherit the nature". Jesus inherited human nature from Mary.

Now, of course, if one agrees, contrary to Tradition and to the Bible in my opinion, that sin does not change human being, than it would make sense. The substance inherited would be the same and just the accident would be different. But I contend that Christian Catholic tradition states in a very clear manner that sin changes us, if not onthologically, at least it changes our nature, which is all that matters in this case. That is what the Fall is about, that is what explains how saints are different and miracles happen through them.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 07:35:18 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2010, 09:21:46 AM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool.

Jesus has precisely the same human nature that we do.  There's a pretty famous council that says so.  And the divine nature and the human nature are not confused.  That famous council says that too.

So his body is perfectly capable of bleeding, being hungry, processing waste, and dying, and corrupting.

He is also sinless. 

So there needs to be another explanation for how He can be sinless and his body can still experience all of the various modes of corruptibility that we have all incurred from the time of the fall.

Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.



Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2010, 12:29:13 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #100 on: November 12, 2010, 01:56:55 PM »

This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.

Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?  Is his humanity then different than ours?  We know the answer is no, He was like us in all things but sin.  His humanity was not differrent then ours so sin is not a determining factor in what makes us human in an ontological sense.  It is certainly a factor which affects all humans in an existential sense.  Even as Christ was sinless he suffered the effects of a fallen nature, being born, living, suffering, and dying as we do.


Deacon,

in *Him* human nature was healed. That is one of the consequences of having human nature brought into a Divine Person. And yes, sin makes an ontological difference, that's the whole point of Genesis. If the imaculate nature of Mary meant that she was made sinless, instead of that she did not commit any sin, she *would* have been another kind of humanity.

The difference of human nature in Jesus, is that it is our nature tamed by the infinity of God.  Let's think of cleaning the water in swiming pool.

Jesus has precisely the same human nature that we do.  There's a pretty famous council that says so.  And the divine nature and the human nature are not confused.  That famous council says that too.

So his body is perfectly capable of bleeding, being hungry, processing waste, and dying, and corrupting.

He is also sinless. 

So there needs to be another explanation for how He can be sinless and his body can still experience all of the various modes of corruptibility that we have all incurred from the time of the fall.
"Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him." II Cor. 5:21.

Idle speculation on how is exactly how the heresy of the IC raised its head.
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
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2010, 02:01:13 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.  That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.  The nature which Christ assumed from Mary is therefore the same nature as fallen humanity, which he sanctified and redeemed through his life, death, and resurrection. Further, it was no small thing that Mary chose to be perfectly obedient to God considering that she lived in a world where she was tempted by the demons, surrounded by fallen people, struggled to provide for herself and her family, etc., these are all powerful influenced toward sin.  If Adam fell into sin after only a single temptation and without all of these influences, how much more profound is it that Mary was obedient?  As St. Irenaeus says comparing Mary and Eve, “As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God."  This obedience could only have happened by the grace of God, and indeed the angel salutes her saying “Hail Mary, full of grace.”  

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 02:04:22 PM by dcointin » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #102 on: November 12, 2010, 02:38:42 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.

which is restored only in the Incarnation, which hadn't happened when the Holy Theotokos was conceived. To say otherwise is to adopt Pelagianism.

Quote
That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.

Of course, as she received that nature from Adam. As such even her son was capable of being tempted, but as the Son He was incapable of choosing to sin. Unlike the Son of Man, Mary received the whole of her nature and person from Adam.

Quote
The nature which Christ assumed from Mary is therefore the same nature as fallen humanity, which he sanctified and redeemed through his life, death, and resurrection.
All of which happened after her conception.

Quote
Further, it was no small thing that Mary chose to be perfectly obedient to God considering that she lived in a world where she was tempted by the demons, surrounded by fallen people, struggled to provide for herself and her family, etc., these are all powerful influenced toward sin.  If Adam fell into sin after only a single temptation and without all of these influences, how much more profound is it that Mary was obedient?

DING! DING! DING!
So rejection of the IC does not lessen the Holy Theotokos, but rather affirms her pride of place among the saints.

Quote
 As St. Irenaeus says comparing Mary and Eve, “As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God."  This obedience could only have happened by the grace of God, and indeed the angel salutes her saying “Hail Mary, full of grace.”
 

Now you slip back to potuit, decuit ergo fecit.  There is no basis for the IC in the Angelic Salutation of the beginning of salvation, nor in the Grace of God.

Quote
Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
AMEN!
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 12, 2010, 02:56:01 PM »


Your understanding of Incarnation is pretty deeply flawed.


And you have a mellon face. Everytime you give me such silliness as this kind of kindergarten attitude, it's kindergarten attitude that you'll get as a response.

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

In that case, Jesus is sinless because of His divine nature, thus, being onthologically incapable of sin. His human nature was still "normal", it could even be tempted, and that is why He could be hurt, killed, etc. Because Mary never had a divine nature she is sinless only in a relative sense, that she actually did not commit any sin - which in itself shows enormous grace over her. But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

I’m going to offer a response despite my previous statement that I wouldn’t.  This is a common Orthodox objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and I would like to explain why I don’t think it’s valid.

It cannot be inferred from the IC that Mary was incapable of sinning.  To be without original sin is to be without the corruption of our nature, reason, ability to make moral choices, and a having a propensity toward sin, i.e. the loss of the likeness of God.

which is restored only in the Incarnation, which hadn't happened when the Holy Theotokos was conceived. To say otherwise is to adopt Pelagianism.

Quote
That is to say, one without original sin would be in the same state as Adam, who was “very good” but capable of being tempted and choosing to sin.  The human nature of Adam was not a different nature than ours, but ours is the same nature, only fallen.   Mary, likewise, was therefore capable of being tempted and choosing to sin, and possesses the same human nature as Adam, and therefore all of humanity.

Of course, as she received that nature from Adam. As such even her son was capable of being tempted, but as the Son He was incapable of choosing to sin. Unlike the Son of Man, Mary received the whole of her nature and person from Adam.


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.

M.
Logged

dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #104 on: November 12, 2010, 04:03:58 PM »

I was addressing two separate issues in my post, which I should have been more clear about.  The first was the argument that the IC teaches that Mary had a different nature than ours, and thus that Christ assumed a different nature, which destroys orthodox soteriology.  The second was that the IC deprives Mary of the dignity that she acquired through living a life of perfect holiness.  As poster dogdan wrote, “The problem is IC imputes the holiness upon her. She is not all that great in reality because she was sinless because God says so. Whereas the Orthodox Church says she is sinless because she chose to be sinless, just like any of us could do if we truly loved God (and we don't, not as much as she did).” 
Objecting that the likeness of God was only restored in the incarnation, that salvation happened after her conception, etc., is a valid argument, but doesn’t address my point about what the IC is saying.  Again I’m responding only to two specific objections to the IC which I believe are erroneous.  My point in talking about the salutation is that it isn’t that either she was born immaculately and therefore had no further need of grace, or she was not and did need grace, but that it could be both/and.  If she were born immaculately she would still need grace to remain holy for the reasons I gave. 
Logged
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #105 on: November 12, 2010, 04:11:16 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #106 on: November 12, 2010, 06:16:24 PM »

Quote
 Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).
Why so snotty?  Don't you ever make typos?  

That's a nice abstaction abstraction, but hypostasis hypostases do not exist in abstraction.
Fixed that for you btw.  People in glass houses...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 06:32:28 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #107 on: November 12, 2010, 06:28:02 PM »

But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

Another fallacy.  Being conceived immaculately does not render one unable to sin.  She still had the freedom to choose to sin, just as Adam and Eve did, who were created immaculate.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #108 on: November 12, 2010, 07:18:51 PM »

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

It is both/and not either/or

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Annunciation

Behold our restoration is now revealed.  God beyond words is united with humanity.  The error is erased by the Archangel’s voice, for the virgin receives the joy.  What is earthly has become heaven; the world is freed from the ancient curse.  Let creation rejoice and give voice to hymns: O Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, glory to you!
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #109 on: November 12, 2010, 08:33:11 PM »

Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #110 on: November 12, 2010, 08:39:30 PM »

I was addressing two separate issues in my post, which I should have been more clear about.  The first was the argument that the IC teaches that Mary had a different nature than ours, and thus that Christ assumed a different nature, which destroys orthodox soteriology.  The second was that the IC deprives Mary of the dignity that she acquired through living a life of perfect holiness.  As poster dogdan wrote, “The problem is IC imputes the holiness upon her. She is not all that great in reality because she was sinless because God says so. Whereas the Orthodox Church says she is sinless because she chose to be sinless, just like any of us could do if we truly loved God (and we don't, not as much as she did).”  
Objecting that the likeness of God was only restored in the incarnation, that salvation happened after her conception, etc., is a valid argument, but doesn’t address my point about what the IC is saying.  Again I’m responding only to two specific objections to the IC which I believe are erroneous.  My point in talking about the salutation is that it isn’t that either she was born immaculately and therefore had no further need of grace, or she was not and did need grace, but that it could be both/and.

And we were just pointing out, no, it cannot.

Quote
 If she were born immaculately she would still need grace to remain holy for the reasons I gave.

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 08:39:51 PM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #111 on: November 12, 2010, 08:51:18 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?

Good breeding: Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless  7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years...13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John...34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren 37 For with God nothing will be impossible."  38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. 39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechari'ah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." ....7:18 The disciples of John told him of all these things. 19 And John, calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?'" 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me." 24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts. 26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' 28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John.

I'd comment, but I am interested in whay you have to say.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #112 on: November 12, 2010, 08:58:52 PM »

But, had her nature been changed so that she would not be able to commit sin, instead of her having a "normal" human nature constantly aided by Grace, than she would have to have been like Christ's human nature after the resurrection. If that had happened, than a second humanity would have been created, it would have been this one that would have been saved and not us.

Another fallacy.  Being conceived immaculately does not render one unable to sin.  She still had the freedom to choose to sin, just as Adam and Eve did, who were created immaculate.
But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #113 on: November 12, 2010, 09:17:57 PM »

Quote
 Is Hhis humanity then different than ours?
His divinity is. (fixed that for you btw).
Why so snotty?  Don't you ever make typos?

All the time. I was underlining your theological error brought on by an error of logic:
This is not what RCs believe but it is what necessarily follows from the IC: that she is not human like us, but the first of a second parallel humanity. If the IC were true in the sense this dogma is affirmed, our salvation would have been impossible, for it would have been that second humanity that was united to God.
Of course that is a fallacy of logic continually put forth.  For if it is claimed that being conceived without sin makes her not like us, what then of Christ being without sin?
He's also God: do you believe in the Semi-incarnation Immaculata?

That's a nice abstaction abstraction, but hypostasis hypostases do not exist in abstraction.
Fixed that for you btw.

Thank you.

Quote
People in glass houses...
...shouldn't strain gnats and swallow camels.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 09:18:45 PM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #114 on: November 12, 2010, 09:27:17 PM »

Now, for the rest of the more serious response, the focal point of the argument, is "when did Jesus heal human nature?" At His own conception, where He united it to His divine nature, or in His resurrection? Although this is not explicit in RC doctrine now (maybe in the future another dogma will be issued arguing it was implicit all along), it does sugest that it was in His conception. That the West unconsciously gives more importance to Christmas than to Easter is just a symptom of that. My understanding of Orthodox teaching tells me that the healing of our nature occurs in the resurrection.

It is both/and not either/or
None of the above.

Quote
3rd Vespers Stichera of the Annunciation

Behold our restoration is now


NOW.

Not 12+ years prior. Now.

Quote
revealed.  God beyond words is united with humanity. 

The humanity from Adam. Not the parallel humanity of the IC.

Quote
The error is erased by the Archangel’s voice, for the virgin receives the joy. 

Receives. Not received 12+ years ago.

Quote
What is earthly has become heaven; the world is freed from the ancient curse.

Now freed. Not 12+ years ago.

Quote
  Let creation rejoice and give voice to hymns: O Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, glory to you!
Glory to Him!
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #115 on: November 12, 2010, 10:05:55 PM »

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

Well the Byzantine Church proclaims grace entered the world with her conception and birth and these were the beginning of salvation:

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Conception of the Theotokos
The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb; the divine ladder is set up; the throne of the great king is ready; the God-inspired city is being adorned.  The unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is over flowing.  It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfullness of the God-wise Anna, whom we glorify in faith.


4th Vespers Stichera of the Nativity of the Theotokos
To day the barren gates are opened, and the Virgin, the Gate of God, comes forth.  Today grace begins to bear fruit, showing forth to the world Theotokos, through whom earth is united to heaven for the salvation of our souls.


Litija Sticheron of the Nativity of the Theotokos
Today is the beginning of our salvation, O people; for behold, the Mother and Virgin who was chosen from all generations to be the habitation of God is born and comes forth from the barren one.  She is the flower from Jesse and possesses the rod from his root.  May our forefather Adam rejoice and be full of joy; for behold, she who was created from the rib of Adam declares that her daughter and descendant is blessed.  She says: My deliverance has been born to me.  Through her, I will be freed from the bonds of Hades.  May David rejoice, play on his harp, and bless God; for behold, the Virgin comes forth from the womb of the barren woman for the salvation of our souls.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #116 on: November 12, 2010, 10:43:54 PM »

But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.

No it doesn't.  According to the IC, God endowed the Theotokos with same nature Adam and Eve were given.  Even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, the Incarnation would have been necessary to enable the theosis of man.  Even unfallen man was unable to bridge the gap between humanity and divinty.  St. Athansius' expression: God became man so that man might become god, is true with or without the Fall.  The Virgin conceived immaculately still needed a savior to deifiy her.  Her being filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception does not change her nature or nullify the need for Christ to unite humanity and divinity in His person.   

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Redemption.htm
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #117 on: November 12, 2010, 11:26:48 PM »

I have a question of my own that I would like to pose:

If Mary was not conceived immaculately, how was she able to live a life of perfect holiness when even the greatest of all other saints have failed to do so?

I would say simply because she loved God even more than they did. She voluntarily gave up 100% of her self-will, and no other person has done that. Not that we aren't theoretically capable, but we don't.

To me that seems to be the difference between Orthodoxy and IC. We are all theoretically capable of being sinless like the Theotokos, we don't have to sin, we aren't totally depraved, but we choose to be sinful.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #118 on: November 12, 2010, 11:33:01 PM »

Without grace entering human nature, she could not be born as the IC claims, and if grace had entered at her conception, then it did not enter at her Son's conception.  So the Annuciation would not be the beginning of salvation.

Well the Byzantine Church proclaims grace entered the world with her conception and birth and these were the beginning of salvation:

3rd Vespers Stichera of the Conception of the Theotokos
The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb; the divine ladder is set up; the throne of the great king is ready; the God-inspired city is being adorned.  The unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is over flowing.  It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfullness of the God-wise Anna, whom we glorify in faith.
Very interesting. What does the Orthodox Catholic Church proclaim on the Conception of St. Anne?
Quote
The Conception by Righteous Anna of the Most Holy Mother of God

St Anna, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was the youngest daughter of the priest Nathan from Bethlehem, descended from the tribe of Levi. She married St Joachim (September 9), who was a native of Galilee.

For a long time St Anna was childless, but after twenty years, through the fervent prayer of both spouses, an angel of the Lord announced to them that they would be the parents of a daughter, Who would bring blessings to the whole human race.

The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of Her Son. Only Christ was born perfectly holy and sinless, as St Ambrose of Milan teaches in Chapter Two of his Commentary on Luke.The Holy Virgin was like everyone else in Her mortality, and in being subject to temptation, although She committed no personal sins. She was not a deified creature removed from the rest of humanity. If this were the case, She would not have been truly human, and the nature that Christ took from Her would not have been truly human either. If Christ does not truly share our human nature, then the possibilty of our salvation is in doubt.

The Conception of the Virgin Mary by St Anna took place at Jerusalem. The many icons depicting the Conception by St Anna show the Most Holy Theotokos trampling the serpent underfoot.

"In the icon Sts Joachim and Anna are usually depicted with hands folded in prayer; their eyes are also directed upward and they contemplate the Mother of God, Who stands in the air with outstretched hands; under Her feet is an orb encircled by a serpent (symbolizing the devil), which strives to conquer all the universe by its power."

There are also icons in which St Anna holds the Most Holy Virgin on her left arm as an infant. On St Anna's face is a look of reverence. A large ancient icon, painted on canvas, is located in the village of Minkovetsa in the Dubensk district of Volhynia diocese. From ancient times this Feast was especially venerated by pregnant women in Russia.
Just a tinge of Latinism there. Yet no IC.

The Tropar:
Today the bonds of barrenness are broken
God has heard the prayers of Joachim and Anna
He has promised them beyond all their hopes to bear the Maiden of God,
by whom the uncircumscribed One was born as mortal Man;
He commanded an angel to cry to her:
"Rejoice, O full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

Kontak
Today the universe rejoices,
for Anna has conceived the Theotokos through God's dispensation
for she has brought forth the one who is to bear the ineffable Word!

Notice how both hymns are written from hindsight.

Quote
4th Vespers Stichera of the Nativity of the Theotokos
To day the barren gates are opened, and the Virgin, the Gate of God, comes forth.  Today grace begins to bear fruit, showing forth to the world Theotokos, through whom earth is united to heaven for the salvation of our souls.


Litija Sticheron of the Nativity of the Theotokos
Today is the beginning of our salvation, O people; for behold, the Mother and Virgin who was chosen from all generations to be the habitation of God is born and comes forth from the barren one.  She is the flower from Jesse and possesses the rod from his root.  May our forefather Adam rejoice and be full of joy; for behold, she who was created from the rib of Adam declares that her daughter and descendant is blessed.  She says: My deliverance has been born to me.  Through her, I will be freed from the bonds of Hades.  May David rejoice, play on his harp, and bless God; for behold, the Virgin comes forth from the womb of the barren woman for the salvation of our souls.
Same hindsight. If we were to read it any other way, it would result in the parrallel humanity that Fabio warned of.

I seem to recall that Fr. Ambrose or someone posting the doctored hymns that the Byantine churches use instead of the Orthodox texts for the Conception of St. Anne and perhaps others.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 11:33:35 PM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #119 on: November 12, 2010, 11:55:59 PM »

But Fabio's point still stands: according to the IC, God interferred and created a second human nature, one which, unlike the first, did not fall, and the only human nature which could have benefitted from the Resurrection, though what that second human nature needed remains a mystery.

No it doesn't.  According to the IC, God endowed the Theotokos with same nature Adam and Eve were given.

Even better. They only got a created nature. The IC gives her a new one.

Quote
Even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, the Incarnation would have been necessary to enable the theosis of man.  Even unfallen man was unable to bridge the gap between humanity and divinty.  St. Athansius' expression: God became man so that man might become god, is true with or without the Fall.  The Virgin conceived immaculately still needed a savior to deifiy her.  
Read Maximillian Kolbe's toughts of the "Immaculata."

Quote
Her being filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception does not change her nature
Yes, it does. It makes it Mary's nature, not Adam and Eve's.

Quote
or nullify the need for Christ to unite humanity and divinity in His person.    
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Redemption.htm
Yes, because, having cut off all connection with the nature of Adam's progeny, He saved no one but His mother who had nothing to be saved from.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 11:56:17 PM by ialmisry » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #120 on: November 13, 2010, 12:05:23 AM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism. 


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #121 on: November 13, 2010, 12:39:14 AM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


Where is it taught in Orthodoxy that we receive the "whole of our person" from Adam?

Besides Christ, do you know of a human person who did not come from a son and a daughter of Adam?

Gen.5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

or are you depending on your scholastics' favoring of creationism, over the tranducianism favored by the Early and Eastern Fathers?

Quote
I think I'd like to hear what Father teaches that our Personhood is inherited from Adam.
Any who taught tranducianism/generationism, e.g. St. Gregoy of Nyssa.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:41:53 AM by ialmisry » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: November 13, 2010, 12:24:37 PM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all.  So I think I will have to go back to talking around you.  And you do carry most of your Lutheran understandings with you to this moment.  You may or may not want to give that some serious consideration...after you tell me I am full of hooey of course.

Mary
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:25:25 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #123 on: November 13, 2010, 02:17:21 PM »

As I said, you've simply pasted an "Orthodox" label on much of your customary Lutheranism.

Missed that, although I did ask to explain yourself (which you still haven't).

Since nothing below has anything to do with Lutheranism, it seems you pasted the Lutheran label on in an attempt to paper over the holes in the IC.  The frustration apologists for the Vatican feel when they find out that their well rehearsed arguments against Protestantism fall flat before Orthodoxy. Particularly those dependent on converts we received from the Vatican who didn't leave all their baggage behind.


I am not an apologist.
LOL. You sure are full of excuses.

Quote
I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms
is that I posted that I had been Lutheran.

Another favorite ploy of apologists for Ultramontanism, assume everyone is as obsessed by the Vatican as they are and lump the Orthodox with the Protestants on that basis, "just rebels." If the Orthodox was previously Protestant, even better: just say he hasn't really left Protestantism no matter how much he debates from Orthodoxy (you do know sloth/indolence is a deadly sin, no?), and problem "solved.".  Of course, no doubt, those "more conservative Orthodox priests" (than that other Lutheran, Fr. Ambrose  Roll Eyes) who are feeding your dreams about intercommunion are "real Orthodox."

EP Jeremisas II had no problem strengthing the lay Bratstvo as the defense of Orthodoxy against the Metropolitans being wooed by Polish-Lithuanian secular authorities for the Vatican, elevating Moscow to a patriarchate, AND denouncing Lutheran heresies.  I have no such problem either.

A rather odd tactic on a thread on Fr. Lev Gillet and the baggage he brought from the Vatican with him into Orthodoxy.

Quote
for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.

Then you should be able to state some Lutheran specifics, rather than allegations alluded to by generalities.

Quote
The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all.

No, my defense of Orthodoxy and your confusion, or rather obfuscation (my fellow "Lutheran," Fr. Ambrose, has repeatedly pointed out that your version of "Orthodoxy" isn't found in any statment that the Orthodox Catholic Church has made with authority, and your rarefied version version of the Vatican isn't found in reality either), lays at the source of that problem. I simply hold fast to the formal Orthodox theological expressions, and you would have us abandon them for some misty hopes based on fuzzy doctrines.

Quote
So I think I will have to go back to talking around you.

I only have a problem with you talking about the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
And you do carry most of your Lutheran understandings with you to this moment.

Maybe you can point one out for the less clairvoyant.

Quote
You may or may not want to give that some serious consideration
Already have:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31149.msg491919.html#msg491919
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28972.msg476130/topicseen.html#msg476130

Quote
...after you tell me I am full of hooey of course.
Is there a difference between hooey and heresy?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 02:19:05 PM by ialmisry » 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
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #124 on: November 13, 2010, 03:31:02 PM »

Quote
The teaching of the Immaculate Conception teachings that the Theotokos was conceived without the darkening of her intellect or the weakness of the will.

These are things that are granted to us in Baptism, and they are what God preserved the Theotokos from at the moment of her becoming a person.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, this used to be something that Orthodox understood as well, even if it was never expressed a dogma.  It is a part of tradition, east and west.

Mary

The teaching of the Immaculate Comception is condemned as a heresy by the Holy Orthodox Church. The idea does not deny that the Theotokos needs a Saviour or that her Saviour is Christ. The problem is the special grace that is alone given to her and that is it given at her conception.

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin"
CCC 491
 
CCC 492: The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person.


The Holy Orthodox Church is very clear and united in voice in its rejection of the Immaculate Conception. The Theotokos strove and worked at every point. This is why we call her sinless. She is a Descendant of David  and God "chose her from among His elect down through the ages. Note the starting point of God's election. The excellent Seth was chosen by God from Adam's children." (from Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies, Mt. Tabor publishing, homily number 52).

The distinction here is that the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes no "special, singular grace". We only recognize her constant striving in her life and her never choosing sin.

As humans, our darkened will and the passions are balanced by certain natural virtues. We can choose good and grow in virtue. The Theotokos always chose virtuously.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: November 13, 2010, 05:00:41 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 13, 2010, 05:12:01 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris

My event manager is still living  laugh  laugh  laugh

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: November 13, 2010, 06:02:57 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 13, 2010, 06:26:22 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.

All in all, I remain a Catholic.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #129 on: November 13, 2010, 06:39:06 PM »


I am not an apologist.  I have been, formally, a catechist and the only cross confessional dialogue I've ever encountered has been with the Orthodox.  The only reason I recognize your Lutheranisms for what they are is that I was raised in a Lutheran household, and among Lutherans.   The real confusion that you demonstrate in terms of formal Orthodox theology makes it impossible to really dialogue with you at all. 



Dear Mary,

To the Orthodox you come across as an apologist and as a rather unusual one.   Although you moved into the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church 15 years ago (?), you still write out of a completely Roman Catholic ethos and theology.   Much of what you write here would be challenged by your fellow Eastern Catholics on such as the Byzantine Forum.   It is very clear to us that you, in your constant overlooking of Eastern Catholic beliefs and principles, have not laid aside your Roman Catholic baggage from earlier years.     I don't think that in all your dozens of contributions to any IC thread that you have ever presented the Eastern Catholic theology.  To avoid confusion, people should dialogue with you here simply as with a Roman Catholic.

Hubris


You spoke of how you perceived Ialmisry, as lumbered with his former Lutheranism.

I was speaking of how the Orthodox perceive you, lumbered with your former Roman Catholicism.  And to a much greater extent.  Ialmisry speaks on the Forum as an Orthodox Christian, You on the other hand speak only as a Roman Catholic and never from a Ruthenian Greek Catholic ethos.

All in all, I remain a Catholic.
So you keep claiming...
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #130 on: November 14, 2010, 12:48:53 AM »

Quote
Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: November 14, 2010, 07:29:26 AM »

Quote
Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

There's no real argument against it and the argument in its favor is huge actually. 

So you can cling to your Lutheran heresy of Traducianism and argue that it is Orthodox till you are blue.

It won't change the preponderance of the patristic witness to the exceptional holiness of the Theotokos and the fact that she was by most accounts free from all blemish of sin from the earliest time of her becoming as a person.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #132 on: November 14, 2010, 10:34:13 AM »

Quote
Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

Ah, tried sneaking that in.

The fact that the Conception of St. Anne isn't a Marian Feast (like the way the West changed the Dominical Presentation of the Lord into the Marian Purifiation of the Virgin) upsets that little progression of "thought." When you actually read the texts (as the Orthodox have them, not as they have been doctored), the stretch you are making is thrown into sharp relief.  Plus the fact that we still use the same language and explicitely do not believe in the IC.

There's no real argument against it and the argument in its favor is huge actually.
 
We're not Hindus. Mantras do not work.

So you can cling to your Lutheran heresy of Traducianism and argue that it is Orthodox till you are blue.

Why don't you argue with that notorious Lutheran heretic, St. Jerome:
Quote
...the testimony of Saint Jerome (Epist. cxxvi, 1)[is] that "the majority of Oriental writers think that, as the body is born of the body, so the soul is born of the soul...In the Symbol to be subscribed to by Bishop Peter of Antioch (1053), Leo IX declares the soul to be "not a part of God, but created from nothing" (Denzinger, 348).  Among the errors which the Armenians must reject, Benedict XII mentions the doctrine that the soul originates from the soul of the father (Denzinger, 533).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.l
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm

Unfortunately you can't argue with that other notorious Lutheran heretic and Old Calendar defender of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Ozgeorge of Australia, whose father was an Alexandrian Greek and a mother from Greece IIRC with ancestors IIRC from Pontus and Ionia (he was so old fashioned that he prefered "Romaios" over "Ellen"):
I also hold the same view as ialmisry, that both the body and the soul come from the parents by generativity and the spirit comes from God. The question is officially unresolved and there are Fathers on both sides, some saying the soul comes from God (created ex nihilo), and others saying it comes from the parents.
The arguments in favour of this view are

1)the righteousness of the Generations of the Ancestors of God: Sts. Joachim and Anna produced the soul of the Theotokos who produced the Soul of Christ.

2)if Christ only assumed his Human Flesh from the Theotokos and not His Human Soul, can He actually redeem Human Souls? ("What is not assumed is not redeemed")

3) Genesis 2:7 (LXX) says:
"And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul."
(καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν)
This act of God of infusing the "breath of life"  to make Adam "a living soul" is never actually repeated by God, even when God creates Eve (Genesis 2:22). And Eve is created from Adam's rib, so it is possible to understand that Eve's soul was formed from Adam's soul, just as Eve's body was formed from Adam's body.

Btw, in the two years of catechism for confirmation in the Lutheran church, Traducianism never came up. I doubt if any but the most educated Lutheran would know what you were talking about if you used the term.

It won't change the preponderance of the patristic witness to the exceptional holiness of the Theotokos

and who never came up with the  IC.

and the fact that she was by most accounts free from all blemish of sin from the earliest time of her becoming as a person.
and died anyway. That's quite a blemish.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: November 14, 2010, 05:45:58 PM »

Quote
Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary's incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as "all holy", "all pure",
"immaculate". This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother's womb like John the Baptist. This "sanctification" is not
the Immaculate Conception.

Quote
St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a
homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary's
conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day
(touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his
Son, and that this tabernacle was "fully sanctified" (kathagiazei).
There again we find the idea of Mary's sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)

I was just looking over the texts of the Conception of St. Anne, having finally gotten them (that it is not a major feast should been a give away on something considered of dogamtic importance).  Interesting how Fr. Lev, despite the imporance of Lex orandi lex credendi in the East, does not quote from the texts of the feast of that day (Dec. 9).

When you take the liturgical texts from all the Marian feasts, plus the language in all of the eighth century Marian homilies, for example, and the witness of the Fathers to her exceptional holiness from the earliest time of her being, a patter begins to emerge that refutes all of the ordinary arguments against the fact that she came into being with exceptional holiness and without stain or blemish of the ancestral sin.

Ah, tried sneaking that in.

The fact that the Conception of St. Anne isn't a Marian Feast (like the way the West changed the Dominical Presentation of the Lord into the Marian Purifiation of the Virgin) upsets that little progression of "thought." When you actually read the texts (as the Orthodox have them, not as they have been doctored), the stretch you are making is thrown into sharp relief.  Plus the fact that we still use the same language and explicitely do not believe in the IC.


No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #134 on: November 14, 2010, 06:04:37 PM »





No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.

Could you tell us the publication with Bishop Kallistos' translation.

The Feast of the Conception by Saint Anne is actually only a minor feast in the Orthodox Church.  It has the lowest ranking of all, the same as any minor Saint, and I am not aware of any translation by Bishop Kallistos.  Its low ranking alone should tell you something.

The Feast of the Conception has the very low ranking symbol of an open circle with three dots in red.  Looks like this 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #135 on: November 14, 2010, 06:23:34 PM »





No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.

Could you tell us the publication with Bishop Kallistos' translation.

The Feast of the Conception by Saint Anne is actually only a minor feast in the Orthodox Church.  It has the lowest ranking of all, the same as any minor Saint, and I am not aware of any translation by Bishop Kallistos.  Its low ranking alone should tell you something.

The Feast of the Conception has the very low ranking symbol of an open circle with three dots in red.  Looks like this 
Yes, I had to go to Church to see the December Volume of the Menaion to find it.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: November 14, 2010, 10:35:26 PM »





No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.

Could you tell us the publication with Bishop Kallistos' translation.

The Feast of the Conception by Saint Anne is actually only a minor feast in the Orthodox Church.  It has the lowest ranking of all, the same as any minor Saint, and I am not aware of any translation by Bishop Kallistos.  Its low ranking alone should tell you something.

The Feast of the Conception has the very low ranking symbol of an open circle with three dots in red.  Looks like this 
Yes, I had to go to Church to see the December Volume of the Menaion to find it.

Anything to side-track the fact that there is a great deal of text, liturgical and patristic, that indicates that the Mother of God was NOT just like we are.  She was and is and will be holy in a way that is not known among mankind only to be exceeded by her own Son.  She has been that way since she became a person.

That is the preponderance of evidence.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #137 on: November 15, 2010, 01:50:54 AM »





No sneaks.  I take my texts from the Bishop Ware translations.  We've been around on that one several times on this board.

Could you tell us the publication with Bishop Kallistos' translation.

The Feast of the Conception by Saint Anne is actually only a minor feast in the Orthodox Church.  It has the lowest ranking of all, the same as any minor Saint, and I am not aware of any translation by Bishop Kallistos.  Its low ranking alone should tell you something.

The Feast of the Conception has the very low ranking symbol of an open circle with three dots in red.  Looks like this 
Yes, I had to go to Church to see the December Volume of the Menaion to find it.

Anything to side-track the fact that there is a great deal of text, liturgical and patristic, that indicates that the Mother of God was NOT just like we are.  She was and is and will be holy in a way that is not known among mankind only to be exceeded by her own Son.  She has been that way since she became a person.

That is the preponderance of evidence.
All your "evidence" goes down a black hole if the feast of the alleged event constitutes a lacuna.
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
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #138 on: November 15, 2010, 12:55:53 PM »

Quote

Anything to side-track the fact that there is a great deal of text, liturgical and patristic, that indicates that the Mother of God was NOT just like we are.  She was and is and will be holy in a way that is not known among mankind only to be exceeded by her own Son.  She has been that way since she became a person.

That is the preponderance of evidence.



Pointing out the "facts" of our Liturgical heritage to us is disingenuous. We live our tradition. The Holy Orthodox Church alone understands how to interpret it.

Check out this quote:

Quote
"One of the main arguments of Eutyches was that, if Christ had a real human nature, He would also have inherited the stain of sin. Since at that date Mary's immaculate conception was unknown, Pope Leo could not argue from it, but had to make a distinction between the nature, which Christ did indeed assume from Mary, and the guilt which He did not assume, 'because His nativity is a miracle'... Any idea of Mary's own preservation from original sin, however, is ruled out not only in the Tome but also in Leo's sermons, for example: In 62,2 we read "Only the Son of the blessed Virgin is born without transgression; not indeed outside the human race, but a stranger to sin... so that of Adam's offspring, one might exist in whom the devil had no share."  -- Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of Doctrine and Devotion

In other words, in the fifth century the idea was unheard-of. It's an innovation. But it's not only wrong because it's new; it's a symptom of a shift in Western Christians' beliefs about sin, Christ, and humanity.

The immaculate conception dogma is a response to a situation created by the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin. Following Augustine, Rome teaches that man inherits from Adam a "stain" of original sin - primarily manifested in concupiscence , the tendency to sin. So Rome is left with a need to explain how Christ could be born of a human parent yet without sin. The immaculate conception dogma tries to break this chain by making Mary the exception, not Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius' treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a "stain" but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin.

Found it here http://web.archive.org/web/20070728015648/http://www.philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 01:03:09 PM by LakaYaRabb » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #139 on: November 15, 2010, 07:55:53 PM »



Pointing out the "facts" of our Liturgical heritage to us is disingenuous. We live our tradition. The Holy Orthodox Church alone understands how to interpret it.

Yes, Holy Orthodoxy does.... but Eastern Orthodoxy does not.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: November 15, 2010, 08:21:02 PM »


Pointing out the "facts" of our Liturgical heritage to us is disingenuous. We live our tradition. The Holy Orthodox Church alone understands how to interpret it.


Yes, Holy Orthodoxy does.... but Eastern Orthodoxy does not.

Pope Benedict disagrees with you and what he says points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of the true faith.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: November 15, 2010, 08:25:37 PM »


Pointing out the "facts" of our Liturgical heritage to us is disingenuous. We live our tradition. The Holy Orthodox Church alone understands how to interpret it.


Yes, Holy Orthodoxy does.... but Eastern Orthodoxy does not.

Pope Benedict disagrees with you and what he says points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of the true faith.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.
yes, the magisterium of the Vatican resembles disturbingly the office of president-prophet of the Mormons.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #142 on: November 15, 2010, 08:31:11 PM »


Pointing out the "facts" of our Liturgical heritage to us is disingenuous. We live our tradition. The Holy Orthodox Church alone understands how to interpret it.


Yes, Holy Orthodoxy does.... but Eastern Orthodoxy does not.

Pope Benedict disagrees with you and what he says points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of the true faith.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Yes.  Apostolic Succession and all the confusion of the Fathers alive and well in Orthodoxy.

He's a subtle one our Pope Benedict!!   laugh laugh laugh laugh
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #143 on: November 15, 2010, 09:31:47 PM »

The office of Peter which Pope Benedict talks about is part of Tradition itself, so while you may have preserved the faith in most instances, you have not preserved that. So no, you have not fully succeeded with the absence of the Magisterium.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 09:31:57 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #144 on: November 15, 2010, 09:37:11 PM »

The office of Peter which Pope Benedict talks about is part of Tradition itself, so while you may have preserved the faith in most instances, you have not preserved that.
It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.

Quote
So no, you have not fully succeeded with the absence of the Magisterium.
Innovations don't count.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #145 on: November 15, 2010, 10:00:24 PM »

It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.
And the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 A.D., yet I doubt you consider it three centuries too late.

Innovations don't count.
Every traditionalist schismatic group thinks they are preserving the truth free of innovations, when in truth they are merely in schism. You aren't unique.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:00:45 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #146 on: November 15, 2010, 10:29:29 PM »

It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.
And the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 A.D., yet I doubt you consider it three centuries too late.
The Church didn't make any new claims at Nicea, or any of the other Ecumenical Councils for that matter.

Innovations don't count.
Every traditionalist schismatic group thinks they are preserving the truth free of innovations, when in truth they are merely in schism. You aren't unique.
We are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with sole claim and unique credentials to that title.
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
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,069



« Reply #147 on: November 15, 2010, 10:37:06 PM »

Wyatt, what do you get from coming onto an Orthodox forum informing Orthodox that they are in fact not Orthodox and that their Church is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Is there a certain satisfaction in it?  Do you believe that your snarky remarks will somehow lead to a conversion of hearts?  Recently you made a post how you felt so unwelcome here as a Roman Catholic, and since that time, your posts have become more negative.  No doubt part of it is from a place of hurt, which is understandable, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable.  I am personally thankful for your presents here and I would hate to see your presence here turn into something negative simply because a select handful of people have been less than charitable towards you and other Roman Catholic members.  I want to hear you, but it has recently become more difficult for me to do so.  Remember, the majority of us have been charitable to you, please don't allow certain people to ruin this for you because your participation here is valuable.  Of course I can only speak on my own behalf here, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.   
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:40:31 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #148 on: November 15, 2010, 10:44:39 PM »

It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.
And the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 A.D., yet I doubt you consider it three centuries too late.
The Church didn't make any new claims at Nicea, or any of the other Ecumenical Councils for that matter.
Not change...development of existing truth. Yet, since it is development, it does not look identical to the original since...well, it develops. It isn't the truth that changes, it is our understanding and practices surrounding the truth that changes. If the truth looked exactly the same from the time of the Apostles until 2010 A.D., there would not only be no need for the Pope or the Magisterium, but there would also not be a need for any Ecumenical Councils, even those seven you hold so dear. For that matter, there would also not be a need for Pentecost since no Spirit of Truth would be necessary to guide a Church which already had the fullest understanding of that truth.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 11:02:10 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #149 on: November 15, 2010, 10:46:48 PM »

Wyatt, what do you get from coming onto an Orthodox forum informing Orthodox that they are in fact not Orthodox and that their Church is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Is there a certain satisfaction in it?  Do you believe that your snarky remarks will somehow lead to a conversion of hearts?  Recently you made a post how you felt so unwelcome here as a Roman Catholic, and since that time, your posts have become more negative.  No doubt part of it is from a place of hurt, which is understandable, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable.  I am personally thankful for your presents here and I would hate to see your presence here turn into something negative simply because a select handful of people have been less than charitable towards you and other Roman Catholic members.  I want to hear you, but it has recently become more difficult for me to do so.  Remember, the majority of us have been charitable to you, please don't allow certain people to ruin this for you because your participation here is valuable.  Of course I can only speak on my own behalf here, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.   
If silence is charitable then okay. Let me ask you a question: what specifically did you enjoy about my presence here before I became unpalatable?
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,069



« Reply #150 on: November 15, 2010, 10:58:42 PM »

Wyatt, what do you get from coming onto an Orthodox forum informing Orthodox that they are in fact not Orthodox and that their Church is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Is there a certain satisfaction in it?  Do you believe that your snarky remarks will somehow lead to a conversion of hearts?  Recently you made a post how you felt so unwelcome here as a Roman Catholic, and since that time, your posts have become more negative.  No doubt part of it is from a place of hurt, which is understandable, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable.  I am personally thankful for your presents here and I would hate to see your presence here turn into something negative simply because a select handful of people have been less than charitable towards you and other Roman Catholic members.  I want to hear you, but it has recently become more difficult for me to do so.  Remember, the majority of us have been charitable to you, please don't allow certain people to ruin this for you because your participation here is valuable.  Of course I can only speak on my own behalf here, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.   
If silence is charitable then okay. Let me ask you a question: what specifically did you enjoy about my presence here before I became unpalatable?

Forgive me for any offense I have caused you, Wyatt.  May God bless us both.
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: November 15, 2010, 11:13:45 PM »

It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.
And the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 A.D., yet I doubt you consider it three centuries too late.
The Church didn't make any new claims at Nicea, or any of the other Ecumenical Councils for that matter.
Not change...development of existing truth. Yet, since it is development, it does not look identical to the original since...well, it develops. It isn't the truth that changes, it is our understanding and practices surrounding the truth that changes. If the truth looked exactly the same from the time of the Apostles until 2010 A.D., there would not only be no need for the Pope or the Magisterium, but there would also not be a need for any Ecumenical Councils, even those seven you hold so dear. For that matter, there would also not be a need for Pentecost since no Spirit of Truth would be necessary to guide a Church which already had the fullest understanding of that truth.
How about preserving it, which we have.

No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.
I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks. Cheesy


So was cardinal umberto.
You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.
The envoy pope Leo IX sent to impose the filioque on the One, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church in the East.

No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20719.msg453992/topicseen.html#msg453992

Innovations don't count.
Every traditionalist schismatic group thinks they are preserving the truth free of innovations, when in truth they are merely in schism. You aren't unique.
We are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with sole claim and unique credentials to that title.
Keep repeating it. Maybe it will become true.
Do so every Compline, because it is True.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 11:14:50 PM by ialmisry » 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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #152 on: November 16, 2010, 12:14:10 AM »

It was made up long after the Traditions which we received of the Apostles.  The earliest glimmer of it I've been able to find is St. Stephen I of Rome, c. 255, about two centuries too late.
And the First Council of Nicea was held in 325 A.D., yet I doubt you consider it three centuries too late.
The Church didn't make any new claims at Nicea, or any of the other Ecumenical Councils for that matter.
Not change...development of existing truth. Yet, since it is development, it does not look identical to the original since...well, it develops. It isn't the truth that changes, it is our understanding and practices surrounding the truth that changes.

Is that what Roman Catholicism has become ... another Protestant sect?

If the truth looked exactly the same from the time of the Apostles until 2010 A.D., there would not only be no need for the Pope or the Magisterium, but there would also not be a need for any Ecumenical Councils, even those seven you hold so dear.

So you reject the 7 Ecumenical Councils like your Protestant co-religionists?

For that matter, there would also not be a need for Pentecost since no Spirit of Truth would be necessary to guide a Church which already had the fullest understanding of that truth.

Maybe the next Papal Encyclical will end the celebration of Pentecost; My Latin stinks and a proposed title is Plenus Intelligendo Verum.   Roll Eyes
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
***