OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 02:37:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Compiled threads on the Immaculate Conception  (Read 45546 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #405 on: January 09, 2009, 04:31:43 PM »

I hope my Orthodox brethren will contribute to this.

Please read this before posting: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=299559

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.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #406 on: January 09, 2009, 04:51:09 PM »

Please read this before posting: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=299559

With all due respect, give me a break.  I'm not reading a long, protracted thread on Orthodoxy's belief regarding IC doctrine on a RC forum, especially when we've got enough of those right here!

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.

Please, enjoy:

Is it okay to agree with Immaculate Conception and still be Orthodox?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.0.html

Post Schism Doctrines of Rome
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18639.0.html

Mary, Sin, and the Immaculate Conception
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13769.0.html

Regarding the immaculate conception
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17083.0.html

Immaculate Conception question
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3827.0.html

Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satisfaction theory
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11389.0.html

Immaculate Conception - Serious Inquiry
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3237.0.html

FUNDAMENTAL DOGMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3246.0.html

Immaculate conseption
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9345.0.html

Was Mary sinless?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18031.0.html

Original Sin and Orthodoxy
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,458.0.html

Orthodox Beliefs
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2153.0.html
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #407 on: January 09, 2009, 04:56:08 PM »

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.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #408 on: January 09, 2009, 05:20:41 PM »

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.

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

Thanks, brother.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #409 on: January 09, 2009, 05:47:53 PM »



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. 
And many of those differences in theological approaches existed well before the schism. However, we managed to remain a united Church then...
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 #410 on: January 09, 2009, 06:19:00 PM »

So far, no one has given any reasons why the dogma is a heresy to such an extent that it is Church-dividing.

Yes, I believe that the Roman Catholics see it as a dogma which is Church-dividing.  I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

Of course in this I would simply be agreeing with Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux..... but development of doctrine has rendered their beliefs heretical too.

Take Aquinas...

""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.




« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 06:20:27 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #411 on: January 09, 2009, 08:13:44 PM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

I was  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,268



« Reply #412 on: January 09, 2009, 08:38:15 PM »

I believe it was Khomiakov who said something to the effect that the immaculate conception was an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #413 on: January 09, 2009, 08:56:25 PM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense....

I was.  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.

Did you stay quiet?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,514


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #414 on: January 09, 2009, 09:51:25 PM »

We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

As you may recall nearly all of us were banned from the Catholic Answers Forum.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 09:51:55 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #415 on: January 09, 2009, 10:24:14 PM »

We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

As you may recall nearly all of us were banned from the Catholic Answers Forum.

I am banned but they still insist, over one year later, on showing me publicly as an active member in good standing.  I have asked them more than once to correct this deception but they have refused.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #416 on: January 09, 2009, 11:00:10 PM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

I was  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.
Excellent catechetical tactic. Roll Eyes  Just sweep the deal breaking dogmas under the rug and hope that nobody notices them too much.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #417 on: January 09, 2009, 11:20:58 PM »

We can discuss it here or if you so choose at the Catholic Answers website.

As you may recall nearly all of us were banned from the Catholic Answers Forum.

I am banned but they still insist, over one year later, on showing me publicly as an active member in good standing.  I have asked them more than once to correct this deception but they have refused.

It's a shame you were banned Fr. Ambrose you were frequently a very inspiring presence there.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
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 #418 on: January 09, 2009, 11:35:42 PM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

I was  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.
Excellent catechetical tactic. Roll Eyes  Just sweep the deal breaking dogmas under the rug and hope that nobody notices them too much.

Really hard when such dogmas are on penalty of damnation, have a day of obligation attached to them, and serve as a stepping stone for the Marian dogma mania.
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
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #419 on: January 09, 2009, 11:43:49 PM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

I was  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.

And after this intellectual dishonesty you actually entered the Roman Catholic Church?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #420 on: January 09, 2009, 11:57:49 PM »

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.
...
Unless anyone else has anything else to add, I guess there really is no good reason for stating that the dogma is heresy.  Thanks, brother.
Mardukm, you've asked this question on an internet forum, understanding that there are members from all parts of the globe, in all time zones, etc.  Yet less than an hour later, you state that since you don't have any more responses, you're going to go ahead and conclude what you wanted to conclude in the first place.

This appears to be a textbook example of confirmation bias.  If you're truly here to engage in discussion and critical thinking, I'd recommend a different approach.
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 #421 on: January 10, 2009, 12:20:51 AM »

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
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 12:24:57 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #422 on: January 10, 2009, 12:49:12 AM »

^" RE-post" of the month?  Cheesy
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #423 on: January 10, 2009, 02:16:36 AM »

Mardukm, you've asked this question on an internet forum, understanding that there are members from all parts of the globe, in all time zones, etc.  Yet less than an hour later, you state that since you don't have any more responses, you're going to go ahead and conclude what you wanted to conclude in the first place.

This appears to be a textbook example of confirmation bias.  If you're truly here to engage in discussion and critical thinking, I'd recommend a different approach.
I guess the phrase "unless anyone has anything else to add..." is not clear enough for some people.  Sorry to have offended.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #424 on: January 10, 2009, 02:29:35 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

1) Am I to assume that the emboldened/highlighted portions of the excerpt from St. Bernard were from YOU, and that you are using those particular parts to prove some point about the dogma of the IC?  I just want to make sure before I refute them.

2) Can you please show us a magisterial document that defines that Mary died?  Otherwise, your claims seem rather hollow.

3) Can you show us where the dogma states that damnation is the penalty for lack of belief in it?  Certainly, without it, once again your claims are rather hollow.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #425 on: January 10, 2009, 02:47:09 AM »

2) Can you please show us a magisterial document that defines that Mary died?  Otherwise, your claims seem rather hollow.

It's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption.  Ther Pope says, at least five times, that the Mother of God DIED.   Catholics can wriggle out of this and say the Pope has no idea what he is talking about.  They will claim that only the very small paragraph where the Pope defines the Assumption is binding on them.  As for the rest of the infallible document it is erroneous, the Pope is wrong.  I personally find it hard to belioeve that any Catholic could claim that the Spirit protected the Pope from error over one small paragraph and yet allowed him to teach erroneously five times in the same magisterial document!!

It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their own sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

This is inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary
which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor
Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us,
O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God
suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of
death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt
in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from
the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing
out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the
dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him
who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her
into paradise after her death if he could?"

These quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

So there you are, Marduk.  There is the "magisterial document" you are asking for.

_________________________________
"MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" Pope Pius XII
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

-oOo-
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 03:21:17 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #426 on: January 10, 2009, 03:07:41 AM »

Marduk,

I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned.   Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.
 
There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting.  I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”   ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.  Whether one posits infalibillity in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholic must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 03:12:49 AM by Irish Hermit » 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 #427 on: January 10, 2009, 07:55:41 AM »

2) Can you please show us a magisterial document that defines that Mary died?  Otherwise, your claims seem rather hollow.

It's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption.  Ther Pope says, at least five times, that the Mother of God DIED.   Catholics can wriggle out of this and say the Pope has no idea what he is talking about.  They will claim that only the very small paragraph where the Pope defines the Assumption is binding on them.  As for the rest of the infallible document it is erroneous, the Pope is wrong.  I personally find it hard to belioeve that any Catholic could claim that the Spirit protected the Pope from error over one small paragraph and yet allowed him to teach erroneously five times in the same magisterial document!!

But Father (btw, good to see you), when you are defending "Papal Infallibility," wriggling is part of the art.

How they wriggle out of this one, I can't fathom.  But that doesn't stop them from trying.

Quote
It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their own sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

But isnt' doing violence to their own tradition, breaking lex orandi, lex credendi, a large part f submitting to the Vatican?  Hence my comment to the Chaldean in my OP.

Quote
People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

Yes, this is the favorite part for the immortalists, and some of the immortalists (some think she died voluntarily.  We can see that this would go down well with the 5th Marian Dogma types).

Quote
This is inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary
which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor
Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us,
O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God
suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of
death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt
in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from
the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing
out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the
dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him
who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her
into paradise after her death if he could?"

These quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

But when you are trying to be more Catholic than the pope, what are a few papal quotes?

Quote
So there you are, Marduk.  There is the "magisterial document" you are asking for.

_________________________________
"MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" Pope Pius XII
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

-oOo-


Thanks, father.
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 #428 on: January 10, 2009, 07:58:01 AM »

Marduk,

I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned.   Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.
 
There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting.  I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”   ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.  Whether one posits infalibillity in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholic must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.



I think we have brought up LG para. 25 up a bit, espeicially in the context of what exactly does papal infallibility ex cathedra "accomplish."
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 #429 on: January 10, 2009, 08:04:26 AM »

Dear brother Isa,

1) Am I to assume that the emboldened/highlighted portions of the excerpt from St. Bernard were from YOU, and that you are using those particular parts to prove some point about the dogma of the IC?  I just want to make sure before I refute them.

Yes, and I've checked.  They are actually still up on CAF.

Quote
2) Can you please show us a magisterial document that defines that Mary died?  Otherwise, your claims seem rather hollow.

Father Ambrose has graciously relieved me of the trouble.

Quote
3) Can you show us where the dogma states that damnation is the penalty for lack of belief in it?  Certainly, without it, once again your claims are rather hollow.

Ineffallibus Deus:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 08:04:54 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
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #430 on: January 10, 2009, 08:17:45 AM »

I don't think I would be accepted into the Catholic Church if I announced to my catechist:  I am sure that the IC is a piece of nonsense.  The Pope's infallible pronouncement is erroneous and I will never accept it and I will never celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

I was  Grin I was told that the Immaculate Conception can be read simply as an abundance of grace at the point of conception (which I have no problem with) and I should just be quiet and move onto the next topic.

And after this intellectual dishonesty you actually entered the Roman Catholic Church?


I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem. Along with the Flioque which another priest told me made no difference to what people believed and that he thought Rome would and should probably drop it anyway.

At the time I knew little of the Orthodox Church and I was sure there wasn't anywhere to go in England so I stuck with it. + they did make these issues seem like small points of disagreement rather than lifechanging schisms. The Catholic Church does teach its layity that the Orthodox are simply 'the Eastern Roman Catholic Church' and with all or talk of your sacraments being valid the average lay person really does believe that your are just a load of silly people that are really Catholic but don't like the Pope's dress sense.

It sounds silly I know but when I went to my first orthodox Liturgy I was shocked when I was told I couldn't take communion, I'd always been taught by the Romans that I could!


To cut a long story short basically I started talking to more people about my problems with Catholicism, including the people of Catholic Answers, and they very quickly convinced me I had problems and needed to change my mindset on various issues. I decided, given that I really like the old Latin Mass and I disagree heavily with the versus populum change to the Catholic Mass along with the general whitewashing of Catholic Churches in England, that I should not change because the Church was wrong but rather that the Church should change. It took about two conversations with different people to realise that that wasn't going to happen so I decided to leave.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #431 on: January 10, 2009, 09:10:55 AM »

Dearest Father Ambrose  Smiley,

I beg your forgiveness for having put you through all that work. I completely miswrote my intention.  Brother Isa was insisting that the "immortalists" had an upper hand in the Church.  What I meant to say was "Can you show us a magisterial document that states that Mary did not die."

Once again, I am very sorry, but perhaps my mistake was a blessing, because it definitely refutes brother Isa's claims that the "immortalists" prevail in the Church.

I will respond to anything else that requires my response as I have time this weekend  - but I promise I will respond.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #432 on: January 10, 2009, 09:12:52 AM »

I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem.
Go with your instincts, brother.  It really is not a major problem.

Blessings
Logged
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #433 on: January 10, 2009, 09:51:51 AM »

I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem.
Go with your instincts, brother.  It really is not a major problem.

Blessings

It really is for me. I don't believe it to be true. I should probably put a post up somewhere on why I'm thinking of leaving the Catholic Church.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #434 on: January 10, 2009, 10:30:18 AM »

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. 
And many of those differences in theological approaches existed well before the schism. However, we managed to remain a united Church then...

We managed to remain a Church all right, with each half trying to convince the other half of their errors.  Eventually it became too much - our complaints about the West were never addressed or corrected, and the West's complaints about the East were never addressed.  Please, don't make the history out to be so rosy - schism between East and West was common enough between the 9th and 11th centuries.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #435 on: January 10, 2009, 10:31:42 AM »

I don't think I can post a link to CAF under the rules here,

You can indeed link to a post "over there" relevant to the current discussion.  However, I like what you did much more.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 10:32:02 AM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #436 on: January 10, 2009, 10:32:30 AM »

I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem.
Go with your instincts, brother.  It really is not a major problem.

Blessings

It really is for me. I don't believe it to be true. I should probably put a post up somewhere on why I'm thinking of leaving the Catholic Church.

Hi Jonny,

It seems that we two are the 'converting' Roman Catholics around here and the ones that need to work this out. I think St. Bernard's letter was helpful but I have understood, in the past, that St. Bernard 'did' believe that the BVM was 'sanctified' by the Holy Ghost in the womb of her mother St. Anna. I'm not absolutely positive about this. Is there any evidence that affirms this or is contrary to this belief?

BTW, Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) holds the same position as I do with regard to the fact that Catholics honestly "can't" hold to an immortalist position and be intellectually honest. I hold this position in good company.

Peace.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
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 #437 on: January 10, 2009, 11:14:56 AM »

Dearest Father Ambrose  Smiley,

I beg your forgiveness for having put you through all that work. I completely miswrote my intention.  Brother Isa was insisting that the "immortalists" had an upper hand in the Church.

I said no such thing.  I said that they exist, that they are within, evidently, Vatican orthodoxy (which they might be rewritting, again).  Based on my experience that most of those under the Vatican have no idea what the IC teaches, I am not sure the IC have the upper hand.

If the "Fifth Marian Dogma" is proclaimed, the Immortalists might assert their strength.  Even the "Mortalists" or borderline: I once argued with Fr. Pachwa on radio about his idea that Mary died "voluntarily, as the perfect disciple."  Not as the wages of sin.


Quote
What I meant to say was "Can you show us a magisterial document that states that Mary did not die."

Problem with "magisterial documents," is they don't say, we are told, what they plainly say.  You asked for one on the damnation from denying the IC.  I gave it to you.

Quote
Once again, I am very sorry, but perhaps my mistake was a blessing, because it definitely refutes brother Isa's claims that the "immortalists" prevail in the Church.

 Roll Eyes

A look on the Marian mania at the site below can show how "restrained" your church is on these matters.

http://www.voxpopuli.org/
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/old_site/

Quote
I will respond to anything else that requires my response as I have time this weekend  - but I promise I will respond.

I don't have that much time this weekend, but will give a look as I am able.

Btw, Mardukm, take a look on the ecclesiology here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18981.0.html
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 11:24:31 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 #438 on: January 10, 2009, 11:17:08 AM »

I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem.
Go with your instincts, brother.  It really is not a major problem.

Blessings

It really is for me. I don't believe it to be true. I should probably put a post up somewhere on why I'm thinking of leaving the Catholic Church.

I was completely unaware that it was such a major problem.
Go with your instincts, brother.
  It really is a major problem.
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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #439 on: January 10, 2009, 11:34:13 AM »

Thanks for the response!  I'm glad you don't think it is Church-dividing.

I didn't think my message was that hopeful - it was merely pragmatic; the IC can't be Church-dividing because there are bigger issues that are Church-dividing.  But it could be, if the others were addressed first.

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.

I've been educated about the IC from Catholic Theologians, and I fail to see where it is Christ-centered.

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

Have you really read all those threads I linked for you?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #440 on: January 11, 2009, 02:47:28 AM »

Dear all,

I came on here because I was not getting any responses to my question at CAF. If any of you have been lurking on CAF, you will notice that the thread I started is finally getting a lot of participation, so I will be busy there for a while.  But I do want to respond to several things stated here:

Brother Isa,

-- The "Immortalists" are a minority.  Father Ambrose amply proved to you that the magisterial documents reflect an understanding that Mary indeed died.

-- That Mary died because of a voluntary acceptance of death is a particularly Latin theologoumenon that I, as an Oriental, am not bound to accept.  I believe that she died simply because her physical body was subject to corruption.  The dogma of the IC does not touch upon that question, and my belief in the dogma does not require me to accept Father Pacwa's explanation of why she died.

-- The dogma of the IC contains no anathema. It simply contains a sentence of excommunication.  Excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, and for you to claim that the dogma of the IC contains a sentence of damnation is dishonest.

Brother cleveland,

I read two of the links, and they did not give me any information why the dogma of the IC is a heresy, per se.  After that, my attention was occupied by other matters.  So I admit I did not read all of the links.  In any case, the current discussion in the CAF is sufficiently holding my interest, and I think those who have participated have represented the EO position pretty well.  When the hustle and bustle over there finishes, I will come back here to finish the reading.

Thanks for posting the links, btw.  I'm sure you have other things better to do as an admin, so I really do appreciate it.

Blessings all,
Marduk
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #441 on: January 11, 2009, 03:37:25 AM »

I came on here because I was not getting any responses to my question at CAF. If any of you have been lurking on CAF, you will notice that the thread I started is finally getting a lot of participation,

Your CAF thread is specifically addressed to Orthodox Christians.  Last time I looked there had been no Orthodox participation.  Only Catholics were involved.  Has this changed?  Are the Orthodox now debating with you?  I need to go and have a look.

--

OK, I've had a look now and I see only ONE post from a Ukrainian Orthodox - that is really not "a lot of participation" and surely not enough to keep you busy.  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 03:52:59 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #442 on: January 11, 2009, 03:52:18 AM »

-- The dogma of the IC contains no anathema. It simply contains a sentence of excommunication.
What do you think an anathema is?

Excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, and for you to claim that the dogma of the IC contains a sentence of damnation is dishonest.
When your church has historically taught that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and that those outside the Catholic Church stand condemned to hell already, then how is excommunication NOT a condemnation to hell?  Either I'm not entirely familiar with historic RC teaching on this matter, or you just stated a logical non sequitur.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #443 on: January 11, 2009, 10:58:27 AM »

After reading several of the links the admin provided for me, it certainly appears that the EO who reject the dogma of the IC really has no actual understanding of the Catholic doctrine of original sin.  Case in point is the link given to me entitled "Why the EO reject penal substitution."  I was thinking to myself, "what in the world does THAT have to do with this topic?"  Answer - it doesn't.  The Catholic Church does NOT teach the theory of penal substitution.  That is a Protestant MISinterpretation of St. Augustine.  Funny thing - currently, there is a debate between a Protestant and the Latins in CAF about this topic, where the Protestant is defending the idea of penal substitution and the Latins are denying it.  Obviously, the EO here are pretty off in their understanding of Catholicism.

I noticed in the first thread that there was actually one EO who defended Catholicism - insisting that the CC does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.  But it seems like no one wanted to listen to him. 

As long as EO think they understand Catholicism better than Catholics themselves, and then criticize the Catholic Church based on their own MISunderstanding of Catholicism, I do not see how reunion is possible.  For those who truly understand Catholicism, reunion will be possible.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Brother PeterAleut - yes, it seems you do not fully comprehend the Catholic teaching on the matter.  Would it be worthwhile for you to hear it from the horse's mouth, instead of the cow's?

P.P.S. I will be back in three days.  At that point, I will tackle brother Isa's citations regarding the IC.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 11:00:23 AM by Mardukm » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,479


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #444 on: January 11, 2009, 12:09:29 PM »

P.S. Brother PeterAleut - yes, it seems you do not fully comprehend the Catholic teaching on the matter.  Would it be worthwhile for you to hear it from the horse's mouth, instead of the cow's?
Do I want to know what is most often taught as Catholic doctrine today, or do I want to know what the Catholic Church has traditionally taught and what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official compendium of Roman Catholic doctrine?  It seems from what I've seen that there is a substantial difference here.  That's why I really don't trust most modern apologists and teachers of the Roman Catholic faith.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #445 on: January 11, 2009, 05:48:47 PM »

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. 
And many of those differences in theological approaches existed well before the schism. However, we managed to remain a united Church then...

We managed to remain a Church all right, with each half trying to convince the other half of their errors.  Eventually it became too much - our complaints about the West were never addressed or corrected, and the West's complaints about the East were never addressed.  Please, don't make the history out to be so rosy - schism between East and West was common enough between the 9th and 11th centuries.
Oh, I agree. Schisms were plenty but those dividing issues existed even prior to the ninth century.
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 #446 on: January 11, 2009, 06:09:17 PM »

For those who truly understand Catholicism, reunion will be possible.

For those who truly understand Orthodoxy, conversion becomes an imperative.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #447 on: January 11, 2009, 06:17:11 PM »

Do I want to know what is most often taught as Catholic doctrine today, or do I want to know what the Catholic Church has traditionally taught

Hear the authentic traditional voice of the Catholic Church and what it believed in the 13 century and through the preceding centuries...


The 13th century Thomas Aquinas:

"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.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 06:17:55 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #448 on: January 11, 2009, 06:19:15 PM »



And one hundred years before Thomas Aquinas, the traditional voice of Bernard of Clairvaux:

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, 'One must
glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.' This is true; but the
glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal
Virgin does not have need of false glorifications,
possessing as She does
true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh
and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this
Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing
concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet
need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the
conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception
had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But
what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind
of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally
demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity.
Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was
concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was
conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy
Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her."


"I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception,
inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified
in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable
from conception,
then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after
She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it
annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is
given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was
conceived of the Holy Spirit,
and He alone is holy from His very conception.
Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred
that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility
and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities
(Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not
the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence?
The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies
sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the
teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the
sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness"


Epistle 147







Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,942


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #449 on: January 11, 2009, 06:59:46 PM »

Oh, I agree. Schisms were plenty but those dividing issues existed even prior to the ninth century.

Uh-huh - we tried to convince one another of the error and have them repent, seeing division as only a last resort; after generations of not changing, the separation was finally inevitable.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tags: Immaculate Conception 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.191 seconds with 72 queries.