First, my brother's remark was this: "I think it is silly when former Protestant converts to Orthodoxy make up stories about how the Roman Catholic venerate the Mother of God too much. Have you never been to a Russian Church?"
I think I read him correctly
I think it is silly when former Protestant converts to Orthodoxy make up stories about how the Roman Catholic venerate the Mother of God too much. Have you never been to a Russian Church?
I knew I had.
How on earth does one distill from this opinion the view that there is not a single Russian Orthodox Christian who objects to some element of Catholic Marian devotion or dogma?
You'll have to ask that distiller. Neither Jah nor myself were drinking that moonshine, any more than we drink the Kool Aid.
I don't think St. John the Wonderworker of San Francisco was a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, though the fact that he was a bishop in ROCOR and served the Divine Liturgy daily indicates that he certainly did enter a Russian Church on a number of occasions. In any case, in his book “Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God”, he devotes an entire chapter to the subject of the Immaculate Conception and how Roman Catholicism perverted the veneration of the Mother of God. As he demonstrates, even many of those whom the Papacy now venerates as saints did not accept the teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux who spoke against it.
Your brother didn't deny that there are Orthodox out there that criticize the Vatican's position, he denied that they did so without any basis, and tried to dismiss it as some Protestant baggage in Orthodoxy.
Only if one is out sniffing for an opportunity to add to the mix
like I said, I stay away from the Kool Aid.
could one take this rhetorical question as a challenge to find some inflammatory assertions from the Russians toward Catholic Marian devotion.
No, it was intended to dismiss Orthodox arguments against the Mariolatry of the Vatican as "Protestant" baggage. Pope Shenoudah, whose ancestors probably have confessed the Orthodox Faith from the Era of Martyrs under Diocletian, has often criticized the Vatican for turning the Holy Theotokos into some goddess (and rebuked the Protestants for treating her as an incubator); back West your Doctor Bonaventure would have nothing to do with that "foreign dogma" of the IC. Such examples can be multiplied, that have nothing to do with Protestants, converts, America, the Tea Party, or a host of other non sequiturs thrown in to throw the unwarry off track.
And the Russians have a right to fight the inflammotry assertions that they have to fulfill the hallucinations of Fatima.
Second, you haven't provided a single example of "false" Marian devotion in Catholicism; instead you remain stuck on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
More than false enough. But no, that's not enough, we have to have your recently canonized Maximillian Kolbe preach the quasi-incarnation of the "Immaculata" (based explicitely in part on the "visions" of Lourdes: we get told here a lot that the Vatican doesn't base dogma on visions: if it did, what would it do differently?), and Dr. Mark Miravalle off in Stuebenville, the airwaves, the net etc. preaching in apocalyptic tones the pressing need to proclaim the "Fifth Marian Dogma," of which the IC was one step in the walk down the broad way through the wide gates that will not prevail against the Orthodox Church.
-on that note, I make my standard statement that at no time ever has the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church included a belief in a "coredemptrix mediatrix of all graces": I have to make that statement so it can be a witness when the Vatican goes down that rut that Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus carved out-we are always being told that we always believed in the IC until the Vatican made it infallible. We don't share its megalomania, as would be required for such an inflammatory assertion to contain any veracity.-
On that, however, the disputes which exist in the Catholic tradition over the precise meaning of the doctrine (including the objections of Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux) are not dispositive. John of S.F's choice to bring Aquinas and Bernard into the debate is a rehash of the old Protestant polemic against the doctrine.
LOL. And so you return to the vomit you just said wasn't yours.
Your Doctor Bonaventure started the Angelus (a nice office, btw) by ringing bells to celebrate the Annunciation, a feast on the calender 9 months before the Nativity of Christmas, and as a biological event the Doctor Bernard shows his awareness precise enough that when they rejected celebration of the conception of St. Anne (note the title), it cannot be squared by any meaning of the IC.
The Protestant polemic can't be that old: 157 years isn't ancient history.
It doesn't carry much water unless you believe (which the Catholic Church does not) that any single thinker in her 2,000 year history is infallible.
The Vatican claims it has had about 266 (it refuses to issue an official list, and the ones in common use have been "revised" a la Winston Smith) infallible thinkers. The trick is knowing when they are infallible, a secret it is not telling. Btw, the length of its history only stretches about a 1,000 years back.
Moreover, Aquinas does not fully reject the doctrine; his work offers an alternative understanding of Mary's sanctification prior to her birth (cf. ST III:27:4).
"God made Him Who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." I Cor. 5:21. Aquinas seems to have missed that. It could have saved him some trouble, seeing that his argument was needless. And he quotes St. John Chrysostom, so close but so far.
'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say 'righteous,' but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm
Catholicism has a realistic enough understanding of its own theological history to know that there is no such thing as a "uniform witness";
The Catholic Church does have a uniform (=/=unanimous;monolithic) witness consensus of the Faithful everywhere at all times, but as for the Vatican, do tell your clergy: I keep hearing many on EWTN, Relevant Radio, etc. stating as the "proof" of their claims that all 266 (or whatever number they use) of those infallible pontiffs taught the same thing without exception. I've never had the pleasure of seeing them exchange thoughts with the (mainly ex-Protestant convert) apologists who depend on "development of dogma."
this myth -- which is paraded amongst some Orthodox with respect to its own tradition
No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.
I'm sure you see it that way.
Didn't read my post above, did you?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.
Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.
I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures. You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.
My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either. He looks like his baby picture, though, too.
I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same. You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.
I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:
But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development. So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."
Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks.
The envoy pope Leo IX sent to impose the filioque on the One, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church in the East.
So was cardinal umberto.You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.
No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
-- doesn't get one very far when trying to ascertain the defining of dogmas over the centuries. I once thought it was a Protestant hangup, but it seems to have some traction amongst contemporary Orthodox as well.
In the case of the IC, it would have to be contemporary: no one needed to bother with it much until the Vatican made it the immortal teaching of the Apostles in 1853. The Vatican is quite up to date with these things: as has been brought up here many a time, the Anglo-Irish Cathechism +1870
Nihil obstat. Imprimatur, denied papal infallibility as "a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith." The next edition took the opportunity of "correcting" this:+Nihil Obstat. Winston Smith, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. + Cardinal O'Brien, Archbishop of Oceania.
Somewhere here I recently posted the tracks that traction left over poor Cardinal Hefele when it ran him down.
Third, the arguments contained in John of S.F's book on Mary are primarily rehashes of Protestant objections. So I suspect my brother may have been hinting at more than he knew.
Can't comment, as I haven't read the book as far as I recall.
but again, I don't have to, to know the problems with the IC, the Quasi-Incarnation of the Immaculata, Fatima, Lourdes, the Immaculate Heart....
But again, the Immaculate Conception doctrine is distinct from the type of Catholic practices vis-a-vis Mary that he was getting at.
yes,well we Orthodox have a habit of peering behind the facade of the Potemkin basilica to see what's there, and not stick with the guided tour with the minder. And its not all that distinct: e.g. saying an akathist in front of this:
"Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?" We have more than a bakers dozen here on the IC.
It wasn't his intention, I suspect, to open up a doctrinal debate.
I don't think so either, which is why I haven't opened one up with him.
I am still waiting for an example, whether it comes from John of S.F. or not, of what Catholic devotions toward Mary are false and constitute putting her on par with Christ (which was the original charge made earlier in this thread.).
LOL. If you were half as well read as you claim, you would recognize the IC (which St. John IIRC specifies) as one.
Your Doctor Bernard said it well enough
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).too bad the Vatican refused to be innoculated, and instead became infected.
Fourth, I don’t recall ever stating that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is identical with the Feast of the Conception.You don't have to: if the Vatican's followers confuse what conception we are talking about (most of your correligionists confuse it with the Virgin Birth), we aren't confused. We're familiar with a similar transformation of the Meeting of the Lord into the Purficiation of the Virgin. Top billing tells, one reason why St. Anne is named in the Feast in question, to restrain the exuberance from getting out of hand as happened in the IC.
This is a red herring.No, that's a calendar.
My focus was on devotional practices, not doctrine (though I understand the two are linked to a certain extent).We are aware how the lex orandi, lex credendi has fallen into abeyance with the Vatican accepting anyone as is, as long as they kiss the papal slipper, but we still say what we mean and mean what we say. Though you may take the scholastic compartimentalization of the Church, we hold to her as a well articulated Body, not a pile of disjointed limbs and members. As such, your focus doesn't limit our line of vision.
How does the Immaculate Conception lead Catholics to do something which fundamentally deviates from what the Orthodox do?http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=23&Itemid=560
Or, better yet, explain how the Immaculate Conception places Mary on par with Christ. I’m all eyes.
but can you see?
These words fell from the lips of the Immaculata herself. Hence, they must tell us in the most precise and essential manner who she really is.
In a 1933 Letter from Nagasaki, St. Maximilian explains further that in the name, “Immaculate Conception,” the Mother also gives us the secret of her very nature:
In her apparition at Lourdes she does not say: “I was conceived immaculately,” but “I am the Immaculate Conception.” This points out not only the fact that she was conceived without original sin, but also the manner in which this privilege belongs to her. It is not something accidental; it is something that belongs to her very nature. For she is Immaculate Conception in [her very] person.
The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit.
“The Co-redemptrix” Because
“The Immaculate Conception”
The Immaculate Conception, the unparalleled prodigy of grace granted by the Eternal Father, is (along with her Divine Maternity), the foundation for all of the subsequent roles assigned her by the Trinity for the benefit of humanity.
Indeed, the humble Virgin of Nazareth is the Coredemptrix not only because she is Mother of God, but also because she is the Immaculate Conception who presents our petitions to our Divine Judge and King.
Indulgenced Prayers in Relation to Mary Co-redemptrix
Lex orandi, lex credendi — as the Church prays, so she believes. The indulgences approved by the Holy See for prayers associated with the Immaculate conception also finds its parallel with the Co-redemptrix doctrine. On June 26, 1913, the Holy Office issued a document expressing the Congregation’s satisfaction in adding the name of Mary to the name of Jesus in the indulgenced greeting, “Praised be Jesus and Mary” which is then responded to, “Now and forever.” The document then states: “There are those Christians whose devotion to the most favored among virgins is so tender as to be unable to recall the name of Jesus without the accompanying name of the Mother, our Co-redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Six months later, the same Holy Office granted a partial indulgence for the recitation of a prayer of reparation to the Blessed Virgin (Vergine benedetta). The prayer ends with the words: “I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stainof sin, Coredemptrix of the human race.”
Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada
pretty soon you will be accusing us of de-incarnating the Theotokos.
Last, if you want to believe that John of S.F. was a “first rate thinker,” that’s your business.
I haven't said a thing about what I believe about St. John as a thinker, though I will say here and now that he was/is a first rate pastor. If I need to defend that, I am quite prepared to do so. Since compliments are rarely a cause of slander, I don't think it necessary.
To dismiss his ideas as mere prejudice, attributing to him a small mind, label his writings inflammatory rubbish, daring to grade him and find him wanting, questioning his piety and asceticism ("may have...")-such invective not only fails as analysis, but consititute libel, counselor, if not substantiated. Given St. John's Advocate in a supremer court than here, I should think there would be bigger concerns, but in the mundane world of the net, coming on an Orthodox forum and libeling not only an Orthodox saint, but a beloved one (not only of the Orthodox:St. John I'm sure will remember this EM) at that, something beyond taking your word on it is in order. Unlike compliments, defamation usually causes problems.
stand fall by my judgment based on what I have read.
based on what we have read so far.
That he relies shopworn
LOL. Cliché much?
arguments against Catholic doctrine doesn’t instill me with a lot of confidence that he could do much more than parrot the party line. If it’s enough to convince you, that’s fine.
your parroting certainly isn't.