OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 29, 2014, 01:20:18 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: immaculate conception  (Read 3197 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2011, 12:23:48 PM »

My apologies, abject apologies in fact.

I should have known, coming from you, what you meant.

Mary

There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.
This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.

I was talking about this. This IS Roman teaching, official Roman teaching, from the Pope himself, ex cathedra Roman teaching. Orthodoxy does not teach this. Orthodoxy teaches that she was received into heaven because of her whole life being devoted to God, not because of an immaculate conception. As the great example that she is, her death and translation to heaven is the great example of what we look forward to as one of us receiving the promise of Christ that He will raise us up on the last day.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2011, 12:38:49 PM »

Why is this the issue for you?

It's the issue for the entire Orthodox Church. Everyone is born inheriting Adam's fallen nature and bound to death and corruption. In Orthodoxy, "original sin" (or whatever else anyone might wanna call it) refers to this curse. Mary was not born "exempt" from this, although she did synergistically cooperate with God throughout her life. The IC deals with original sin and by extension baptism (which no one received the benefits of Christ's death until He died and descended into hades). There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

Quote
It sounds almost like you accept an IC.

No more or less than St Gregory Palamas.
Catholics are free to believe that Mary died. In fact, it seems that we must believe that she died because that is what is found in the Liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2011, 12:38:49 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2011, 02:43:36 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.

I was reading somewhere that if original sin is a disease, diseases sometimes leave scarring. (Original) sin is the disease but even after baptism cleanses us from the infection, the scarring of corruption and death remain as its unfortunate consequences. This is just an analogy though, and imperfect.

Not sure it helps RCs though, since according to the IC, Mary never had original sin.

Sorry I hope this hasn't been answered already, but what logical reason would there be for Mary to have died/be subject to death, if she was conceived without original sin?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2011, 03:04:54 PM »

Can you explain in simple terms why the RC dogma of the immaculate conception is wrong!
Orthodox theology lacks the idea of inherited guilt from Adam and the idea that man is incapable of not sinning-both of which form the problem in RC theology which the IC is meant to solve.

Depends on what you mean by "inherited guilt" and "incapable of sinning".
Quote
What is this mystery – the birth of a man in sin? How is it that one who has not yet lived has already died? That one who has not yet walked has already fallen? That one who has done nothing has already sinned? How are our forefather’s children, still in their wombs, separated from him by thousands of years, participants in his sin? My mind reverently gazes upon the judgements of God; it does not comprehend them.
- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

Ok. Then what do you mean by them? St. Ignatius sounds like a Protestant in this quote. The kind of thing I would have had no problem affirming earlier.
I assume by "earlier" you mean 'when I was Protestant'. I'm curious what you've been learning that makes you have trouble affirming this as an Orthodox.
If we can already be fallen in the womb, then it must be for Adam's sin, I don't see how a foetus can sin. I thought imputed guilt was a Western thing. I have no problem with saying we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it, etc.

To me imputed guilt implies personal sin; it is not the Orthodox teaching that anyone save Adam and Eve are personally (keep in mind the origin of the word 'person' in Roman jurisprudence) guilty for Adam and Eve's sin. However, IMHO it is also not the traditional Orthodox teaching that all that afflicts us is that "we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it". The baptismal tradition makes it clear that some sort of guilt-forgiveness dynamic is at work even in the case of infants.

From what I can tell, the Orthodox teaching is that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden involved not only a personal fall, but a defiling of human nature as a whole. In Orthodoxy, human nature is considered as one. This is why Paul can make statements about personal actions of Adam and Christ having damning or salvific effects for everyone. In Adam, we lost the grace of God, our nature became in a sense hostile to God. So even a baby in the womb, by having an adam nature is missing the mark, which is what sin means.

I may be mangling things here but this is just an attempt to understand how original sin can be (1) really sin, but (2) not personal guilt.

BTW, I think original sin makes more sense than accusing a fetus of even involuntary sin. I don't think fetuses sin personally at all even on an involuntary level.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2011, 03:07:18 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.

I was reading somewhere that if original sin is a disease, diseases sometimes leave scarring. (Original) sin is the disease but even after baptism cleanses us from the infection, the scarring of corruption and death remain as its unfortunate consequences. This is just an analogy though, and imperfect.

Not sure it helps RCs though, since according to the IC, Mary never had original sin.

Sorry I hope this hasn't been answered already, but what logical reason would there be for Mary to have died/be subject to death, if she was conceived without original sin?
Well, even Christ was free of original sin and yet was subject to sickness, pain, suffering, death, etc. I couldn't see how it would be any different with Mary. Perhaps it had to do with having to live life outside of "the garden".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2011, 04:11:05 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Lets simply define "Immaculate Conception"

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin.

This exclusionary concept is why the Orthodox firmly reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.  For Christ's own humanity to have been true and perfect, His Mother's would have also needed to be such.  Both in essence and in substance, Mary then must have been subject under Original Sin, and further, Christ subjected Himself willingly to this same guilt on the Cross.  We die as a consequence of our fallen nature, and yet we live according to the Grace of God.  While Our Lady is indeed Full of Grace, the Orthodox Fathers have interpreted that if she were to be excluded from Original Sin or a fallen nature, then she would not be "full" of Grace but instead would be a "source" of Grace itself.  It is because Mary was filled with Grace that her own Original Sin was reputed, as is ours, by Grace, of which she is filled.  The theological flaws of the Immaculate Conception are precisely why in the spirit of Nestorius, many Pentecostals have condemned RC Marian traditions as Goddess worship, as if Mary is a source of Grace rather then filled with Grace, she would be semi-divine, or as the sister Hiwot has suggested, would be an angelic being, and not a human at all. 



stay blessed,
habte selassie

« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 04:13:44 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2011, 04:30:59 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.

I was reading somewhere that if original sin is a disease, diseases sometimes leave scarring. (Original) sin is the disease but even after baptism cleanses us from the infection, the scarring of corruption and death remain as its unfortunate consequences. This is just an analogy though, and imperfect.

Not sure it helps RCs though, since according to the IC, Mary never had original sin.

Sorry I hope this hasn't been answered already, but what logical reason would there be for Mary to have died/be subject to death, if she was conceived without original sin?

For much the same reason that we suffer and die after being redeemed AND after Baptism.
Logged

JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2011, 04:43:04 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.

I was reading somewhere that if original sin is a disease, diseases sometimes leave scarring. (Original) sin is the disease but even after baptism cleanses us from the infection, the scarring of corruption and death remain as its unfortunate consequences. This is just an analogy though, and imperfect.

Not sure it helps RCs though, since according to the IC, Mary never had original sin.

Sorry I hope this hasn't been answered already, but what logical reason would there be for Mary to have died/be subject to death, if she was conceived without original sin?

For much the same reason that we suffer and die after being redeemed AND after Baptism.

Yes but that is the question: why do we?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2011, 07:08:24 PM »

Can you explain in simple terms why the RC dogma of the immaculate conception is wrong!
Orthodox theology lacks the idea of inherited guilt from Adam and the idea that man is incapable of not sinning-both of which form the problem in RC theology which the IC is meant to solve.

Depends on what you mean by "inherited guilt" and "incapable of sinning".
Quote
What is this mystery – the birth of a man in sin? How is it that one who has not yet lived has already died? That one who has not yet walked has already fallen? That one who has done nothing has already sinned? How are our forefather’s children, still in their wombs, separated from him by thousands of years, participants in his sin? My mind reverently gazes upon the judgements of God; it does not comprehend them.
- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

Ok. Then what do you mean by them? St. Ignatius sounds like a Protestant in this quote. The kind of thing I would have had no problem affirming earlier.
I assume by "earlier" you mean 'when I was Protestant'. I'm curious what you've been learning that makes you have trouble affirming this as an Orthodox.
If we can already be fallen in the womb, then it must be for Adam's sin, I don't see how a foetus can sin. I thought imputed guilt was a Western thing. I have no problem with saying we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it, etc.

To me imputed guilt implies personal sin; it is not the Orthodox teaching that anyone save Adam and Eve are personally (keep in mind the origin of the word 'person' in Roman jurisprudence) guilty for Adam and Eve's sin. However, IMHO it is also not the traditional Orthodox teaching that all that afflicts us is that "we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it". The baptismal tradition makes it clear that some sort of guilt-forgiveness dynamic is at work even in the case of infants.

From what I can tell, the Orthodox teaching is that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden involved not only a personal fall, but a defiling of human nature as a whole. In Orthodoxy, human nature is considered as one. This is why Paul can make statements about personal actions of Adam and Christ having damning or salvific effects for everyone. In Adam, we lost the grace of God, our nature became in a sense hostile to God. So even a baby in the womb, by having an adam nature is missing the mark, which is what sin means.

I may be mangling things here but this is just an attempt to understand how original sin can be (1) really sin, but (2) not personal guilt.

BTW, I think original sin makes more sense than accusing a fetus of even involuntary sin. I don't think fetuses sin personally at all even on an involuntary level.
So God punishes us just for being born a particular way? That hardly sounds just. He might as well punish based on hair color.

I also don't see how this makes original sin "really sin."
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2011, 07:18:19 PM »

Can you explain in simple terms why the RC dogma of the immaculate conception is wrong!
Orthodox theology lacks the idea of inherited guilt from Adam and the idea that man is incapable of not sinning-both of which form the problem in RC theology which the IC is meant to solve.

Depends on what you mean by "inherited guilt" and "incapable of sinning".
Quote
What is this mystery – the birth of a man in sin? How is it that one who has not yet lived has already died? That one who has not yet walked has already fallen? That one who has done nothing has already sinned? How are our forefather’s children, still in their wombs, separated from him by thousands of years, participants in his sin? My mind reverently gazes upon the judgements of God; it does not comprehend them.
- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

Ok. Then what do you mean by them? St. Ignatius sounds like a Protestant in this quote. The kind of thing I would have had no problem affirming earlier.
I assume by "earlier" you mean 'when I was Protestant'. I'm curious what you've been learning that makes you have trouble affirming this as an Orthodox.
If we can already be fallen in the womb, then it must be for Adam's sin, I don't see how a foetus can sin. I thought imputed guilt was a Western thing. I have no problem with saying we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it, etc.

To me imputed guilt implies personal sin; it is not the Orthodox teaching that anyone save Adam and Eve are personally (keep in mind the origin of the word 'person' in Roman jurisprudence) guilty for Adam and Eve's sin. However, IMHO it is also not the traditional Orthodox teaching that all that afflicts us is that "we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it". The baptismal tradition makes it clear that some sort of guilt-forgiveness dynamic is at work even in the case of infants.

From what I can tell, the Orthodox teaching is that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden involved not only a personal fall, but a defiling of human nature as a whole. In Orthodoxy, human nature is considered as one. This is why Paul can make statements about personal actions of Adam and Christ having damning or salvific effects for everyone. In Adam, we lost the grace of God, our nature became in a sense hostile to God. So even a baby in the womb, by having an adam nature is missing the mark, which is what sin means.

I may be mangling things here but this is just an attempt to understand how original sin can be (1) really sin, but (2) not personal guilt.

BTW, I think original sin makes more sense than accusing a fetus of even involuntary sin. I don't think fetuses sin personally at all even on an involuntary level.
So God punishes us just for being born a particular way? That hardly sounds just. He might as well punish based on hair color.

I also don't see how this makes original sin "really sin."

Who are you to judge God based on human standards of justice and fairness?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2011, 07:20:06 PM »

From what sort of sin does baptism cleanse an infant?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2011, 07:35:53 PM »

Can you explain in simple terms why the RC dogma of the immaculate conception is wrong!
Orthodox theology lacks the idea of inherited guilt from Adam and the idea that man is incapable of not sinning-both of which form the problem in RC theology which the IC is meant to solve.

Depends on what you mean by "inherited guilt" and "incapable of sinning".
Quote
What is this mystery – the birth of a man in sin? How is it that one who has not yet lived has already died? That one who has not yet walked has already fallen? That one who has done nothing has already sinned? How are our forefather’s children, still in their wombs, separated from him by thousands of years, participants in his sin? My mind reverently gazes upon the judgements of God; it does not comprehend them.
- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

Ok. Then what do you mean by them? St. Ignatius sounds like a Protestant in this quote. The kind of thing I would have had no problem affirming earlier.
I assume by "earlier" you mean 'when I was Protestant'. I'm curious what you've been learning that makes you have trouble affirming this as an Orthodox.
If we can already be fallen in the womb, then it must be for Adam's sin, I don't see how a foetus can sin. I thought imputed guilt was a Western thing. I have no problem with saying we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it, etc.

To me imputed guilt implies personal sin; it is not the Orthodox teaching that anyone save Adam and Eve are personally (keep in mind the origin of the word 'person' in Roman jurisprudence) guilty for Adam and Eve's sin. However, IMHO it is also not the traditional Orthodox teaching that all that afflicts us is that "we constantly sin, are inclined to sin, sin without realizing it". The baptismal tradition makes it clear that some sort of guilt-forgiveness dynamic is at work even in the case of infants.

From what I can tell, the Orthodox teaching is that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden involved not only a personal fall, but a defiling of human nature as a whole. In Orthodoxy, human nature is considered as one. This is why Paul can make statements about personal actions of Adam and Christ having damning or salvific effects for everyone. In Adam, we lost the grace of God, our nature became in a sense hostile to God. So even a baby in the womb, by having an adam nature is missing the mark, which is what sin means.

I may be mangling things here but this is just an attempt to understand how original sin can be (1) really sin, but (2) not personal guilt.

BTW, I think original sin makes more sense than accusing a fetus of even involuntary sin. I don't think fetuses sin personally at all even on an involuntary level.
So God punishes us just for being born a particular way? That hardly sounds just. He might as well punish based on hair color.

I also don't see how this makes original sin "really sin."

Who are you to judge God based on human standards of justice and fairness?
The Church sure feels free to bash Calvinism for the exact same reason.
From what sort of sin does baptism cleanse an infant?
I don't really buy the idea that infants don't sin. If they don't, then I don't know.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2011, 07:52:22 PM »


 There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.

This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.
What is more, the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that she died. Therefore, it appears that we are bound to believe this.

I was reading somewhere that if original sin is a disease, diseases sometimes leave scarring. (Original) sin is the disease but even after baptism cleanses us from the infection, the scarring of corruption and death remain as its unfortunate consequences. This is just an analogy though, and imperfect.

Not sure it helps RCs though, since according to the IC, Mary never had original sin.

Sorry I hope this hasn't been answered already, but what logical reason would there be for Mary to have died/be subject to death, if she was conceived without original sin?

For much the same reason that we suffer and die after being redeemed AND after Baptism.

Yes but that is the question: why do we?

I've known people to lose their faith over that question!!

What does universal Orthodoxy say? [You understand why I must pose the question back to you here on the Faith section]
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2011, 07:55:44 PM »

From what sort of sin does baptism cleanse an infant?

If you see the body, mind and soul of an infant as being disconnected from God, then Baptism opens the door and reestablishes the connection: thereby the focus on the newly illumined.  But then why if we are Redeemed by Jesus by his passion, death and third day resurrection, must we then be Baptized.  And if he did indeed trample down death by death, why must we suffer and die?

What does Orthodoxy say?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2011, 08:26:08 PM »

From what sort of sin does baptism cleanse an infant?

If you see the body, mind and soul of an infant as being disconnected from God, then Baptism opens the door and reestablishes the connection: thereby the focus on the newly illumined.  But then why if we are Redeemed by Jesus by his passion, death and third day resurrection, must we then be Baptized.  And if he did indeed trample down death by death, why must we suffer and die?

What does Orthodoxy say?
Christ died for us, not instead of us. One rises with Him only by being buried with Him in baptism and putting on His immortality.  Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

In the case of someone not subject to original sin, there is no reason to be buried with Him, because they would already be immortal, not being subject to death.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 08:32:01 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2011, 08:27:35 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2011, 08:33:55 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
As much as St. Paul did. Col. 1:24.

If you are buried into Christ, you have put on Christ, and do the work of Christ.  Hence "Christian."
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2011, 08:35:37 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
As much as St. Paul did. Col. 1:24.

If you are buried into Christ, you have put on Christ, and do the work of Christ.  Hence "Christian."

So you think we need to fill was is lacking in Jesus' redemption?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2011, 08:37:53 PM »

The Church sure feels free to bash Calvinism for the exact same reason.
The Church doesn't oppose Calvinism for thinking God's justice is ineffable. That His justice, like His mercy, is in fact ineffable is clear. The Church opposes Calvinism because Calvinism's teaching that God knowingly creates persons whom He eternally wills to be damned is opposed to revealed truth as found in the Orthodox Tradition.
Quote
From what sort of sin does baptism cleanse an infant?
Quote
I don't really buy the idea that infants don't sin. If they don't, then I don't know.

Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419: “He who denies the need for young children and those just born from their mother’s womb to be baptized, or who says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they inherit nothing from the forefathers’ sin that would necessitate the bath of regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for the remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false sense], let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: ‘By one man sin came into the world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned’ (Romans 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. For in accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not yet able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have acquired from the old birth.”
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2011, 08:50:34 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Church doesn't oppose Calvinism for thinking God's justice is ineffable. That His justice, like His mercy, is in fact ineffable is clear. The Church opposes Calvinism because Calvinism's teaching that God knowingly creates persons whom He eternally wills to be damned is opposed to revealed truth as found in the Orthodox Tradition.

Amen Amen. post of the month quality


I think we are in agreement much more than you realize, as it was never my intent to argue most of the things you seem to be arguing against. I said Christ was not subject to death. I did not say Christ's pre-Resurrection flesh was inherently invincible, an absurdity that can be disproved by the most cursory glance at Scripture.


Yes but we are trying to tell you that is incorrect, because Christ died, and was therefore obviously subject unto it.  You are absolutely correct that Christ did such Willingly, but still, it was a willing subjugation.  Death is a process, and Christ entered into this process just was we do.  Further, who is to say that all human beings do not at the point of death, willingly embrace it? We do not necessarily know, death is like birth, it is not well communicated.  I would say that for ourselves, death is an involuntary process in speculation, but to the end, we must embrace it like we do a lot of things we start out involuntarily.  We may involuntarily sit in the dentists' chair in the sense that our own volition does not enjoy nor necessarily want to participate in this action, however we sit there like good and obedient human beings that we are and endure.

 Jesus Christ, who is God, as God, willingly accepted death as you have said, but in accepting it He was also temporarily subject unto it.  The Resurrection is the opposite of the coin, it is the Divine manifestation of the Godhead bodily beyond the limits of death and Hell, proving it weak by having submitted to it, and proven Himself God by surviving it and conquering it for all time.  God could, does, and can always conquer death, and it is through subjecting Himself to it that He proves exactly how much more powerful He is than anything or any process He has created.

Stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 08:54:41 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2011, 09:22:17 PM »

It's the issue for the entire Orthodox Church. Everyone is born inheriting Adam's fallen nature and bound to death and corruption. In Orthodoxy, "original sin" (or whatever else anyone might wanna call it) refers to this curse. Mary was not born "exempt" from this, although she did synergistically cooperate with God throughout her life. The IC deals with original sin and by extension baptism (which no one received the benefits of Christ's death until He died and descended into hades). There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.
Catholics are free to believe that Mary died. In fact, it seems that we must believe that she died because that is what is found in the Liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I addressed this in post #44 on this thread.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2011, 10:11:17 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
As much as St. Paul did. Col. 1:24.

If you are buried into Christ, you have put on Christ, and do the work of Christ.  Hence "Christian."

So you think we need to fill was is lacking in Jesus' redemption?
Who am I to argue with God's Word?
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
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #68 on: September 15, 2011, 12:36:19 AM »

The Church sure feels free to bash Calvinism for the exact same reason.
The Church doesn't oppose Calvinism for thinking God's justice is ineffable. That His justice, like His mercy, is in fact ineffable is clear. The Church opposes Calvinism because Calvinism's teaching that God knowingly creates persons whom He eternally wills to be damned is opposed to revealed truth as found in the Orthodox Tradition.
Every official statement on it I've seen goes on about how it makes God the author of sin, makes Him responsible for people's rebellion, etc. In other words condemning it for a corollary of it which actual Calvinists don't neccesarily conciously hold to- the same sort of corollary I pointed out in what you say.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2011, 12:44:02 AM »

The Church sure feels free to bash Calvinism for the exact same reason.
The Church doesn't oppose Calvinism for thinking God's justice is ineffable. That His justice, like His mercy, is in fact ineffable is clear. The Church opposes Calvinism because Calvinism's teaching that God knowingly creates persons whom He eternally wills to be damned is opposed to revealed truth as found in the Orthodox Tradition.
Every official statement on it I've seen goes on about how it makes God the author of sin, makes Him responsible for people's rebellion, etc. In other words condemning it for a corollary of it which actual Calvinists don't neccesarily conciously hold to- the same sort of corollary I pointed out in what you say.
But Calvinist doctrines logically imply that "corollary".
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 12:44:13 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2011, 12:53:48 AM »

The Church sure feels free to bash Calvinism for the exact same reason.
The Church doesn't oppose Calvinism for thinking God's justice is ineffable. That His justice, like His mercy, is in fact ineffable is clear. The Church opposes Calvinism because Calvinism's teaching that God knowingly creates persons whom He eternally wills to be damned is opposed to revealed truth as found in the Orthodox Tradition.
Every official statement on it I've seen goes on about how it makes God the author of sin, makes Him responsible for people's rebellion, etc. In other words condemning it for a corollary of it which actual Calvinists don't neccesarily conciously hold to- the same sort of corollary I pointed out in what you say.
But Calvinist doctrines logically imply that "corollary".
I quite agree. I think what JLatimer is saying implies something similar.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2011, 01:06:20 AM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
I think he is quoting St. Paul.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2011, 01:06:24 AM »

There's also the RC doctrinal tie which says that because she was not bound by original sin in her conception, she could not be bound by death at her death, which is not found anywhere that I am aware of in Orthodox teaching.
This is the speculation of some Catholics and Orthodox.  It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.  She is said to have come to the natural end of her life which is death.  The Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception spends a good bit of ink talking about her death.  I wish this "speculating" would die on the vine.  It has no purpose save to raise doubt.

I was talking about this. This IS Roman teaching, official Roman teaching, from the Pope himself, ex cathedra Roman teaching. Orthodoxy does not teach this. Orthodoxy teaches that she was received into heaven because of her whole life being devoted to God, not because of an immaculate conception. As the great example that she is, her death and translation to heaven is the great example of what we look forward to as one of us receiving the promise of Christ that He will raise us up on the last day.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.
Just because her body was not in the grave long enough to "corrupt" does not mean that she did not die.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2011, 01:58:46 AM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?
As much as St. Paul did. Col. 1:24.

If you are buried into Christ, you have put on Christ, and do the work of Christ.  Hence "Christian."

So you think we need to fill was is lacking in Jesus' redemption?
Who am I to argue with God's Word?
What could possibly be lacking in His suffering?
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2011, 03:53:51 AM »

The OT about Jesus and corruption was moved here.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2011, 10:59:25 AM »

Just because her body was not in the grave long enough to "corrupt" does not mean that she did not die.

I'm not talking about whether or not she died.

I'm talking about the reason and nature of why her body was translated to heaven.

Rome teaches it was because of the nature of her coneption.

Orthodoxy does not.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2011, 11:07:09 AM »

What could possibly be lacking in His suffering?

Our willful participation and cooperation. To proclaim the message of Christ's suffering for others to hear.

I believe these are the immediate contexts that can be pulled from the preceding and following verses of this particular quote.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2011, 12:36:11 PM »

Just because her body was not in the grave long enough to "corrupt" does not mean that she did not die.

I'm not talking about whether or not she died.

I'm talking about the reason and nature of why her body was translated to heaven.

Rome teaches it was because of the nature of her coneption.

Orthodoxy does not.
Oops. I am sorry. I missed your point. However, I would argue that we would say that it becasue of both reasons, since the reason that EOs put forward for Mary's Assumption, is also in the Byzantine Liturgy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant Universalist
Posts: 3,129


« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2011, 06:32:17 PM »

What could possibly be lacking in His suffering?

Our willful participation and cooperation. To proclaim the message of Christ's suffering for others to hear.

I believe these are the immediate contexts that can be pulled from the preceding and following verses of this particular quote.
I can agree with that.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,628



« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2011, 11:13:25 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?

Saw this coming a mile away. Favorite verse to boggle nearly any Christian's mind.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2011, 11:35:25 PM »

Putting on Christ means taking up His Cross and filling what is lacking in His suffering to redeem all creation.

Do I need a comma to make this work? or did you actually mean that?

Saw this coming a mile away. Favorite verse to boggle nearly any Christian's mind.
Heh tried to talk to my dad about that verse, he tried to explain it away.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #81 on: September 16, 2011, 12:14:26 AM »

Another good one to pull out is Paul's napkin in Acts 19:11-12.

"God was performing extraordinary mighty works by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 12:15:26 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Tags: Immaculate Conception 
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.166 seconds with 64 queries.