OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 12:19:54 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Imaculate Conception  (Read 18506 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #135 on: November 29, 2011, 09:45:56 PM »

"Mary was not only sinless but incapable of sinning, yet not absolutely so and in her own right as Christ was, but in virtue of the confirmation of grace that was granted her from the beginning and because of the special assistance of divine providence. This special assistance was the effect of the Blessed Virgin Mary's predestination, and under this particular help she retained her complete freedom in the performance of good, without deviating from the right path. This is a participation in the immortality and impeccability of God's supreme liberty."

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas' Theological Summa
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1957)
Page 697
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2011, 10:08:18 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.

I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



There is certainly no opinion in the East that Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation.

Theosis is a never-ending journey to “become by grace what God is by nature.”  The achievement of theosis is not possible..... no human will ever achieve 100% divinisation.

I certainly know Orthodox clergy and bishops who are indeed of that opinion.

Yes.  I know.  They are...and will remain anonymous when I am sluggin' it out around here.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2011, 10:12:49 PM »

"Mary was not only sinless but incapable of sinning, yet not absolutely so and in her own right as Christ was, but in virtue of the confirmation of grace that was granted her from the beginning and because of the special assistance of divine providence. This special assistance was the effect of the Blessed Virgin Mary's predestination, and under this particular help she retained her complete freedom in the performance of good, without deviating from the right path. This is a participation in the immortality and impeccability of God's supreme liberty."

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas' Theological Summa
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1957)
Page 697

Yes.  Through this expression we can get to some of the issues raised by her absolute sinlessness.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2011, 10:21:10 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.

I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



There is certainly no opinion in the East that Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation.

Theosis is a never-ending journey to “become by grace what God is by nature.”  The achievement of theosis is not possible..... no human will ever achieve 100% divinisation.

I certainly know Orthodox clergy and bishops who are indeed of that opinion.

Yes.  I know.  They are...and will remain anonymous when I am sluggin' it out around here.

Admittedly you never defined “achieved theosis at the annunciation”  but if it means that she achieved full theosis and her spiritual development ceased/was completed with the appearance of the Archangel, then it is very wrong.  Full divinity belongs only to the Divinity.  The rest of the earth-born whether the Mother or God or Saint Samson of Dol or Mrs McGillicuddy are on a never-ending journey of theosis where there is actually no terminus ad quem.


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2011, 10:23:37 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.

I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



There is certainly no opinion in the East that Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation.

Theosis is a never-ending journey to “become by grace what God is by nature.”  The achievement of theosis is not possible..... no human will ever achieve 100% divinisation.

I certainly know Orthodox clergy and bishops who are indeed of that opinion.

Yes.  I know.  They are...and will remain anonymous when I am sluggin' it out around here.

Admittedly you never defined “achieved theosis at the annunciation”  but if it means that she achieved full theosis and her spiritual development ceased/was completed with the appearance of the Archangel, then it is very wrong. 


You will never find me speaking of theosis/divinization or the prayer of union in these terms...ever.  Rest yourself in that...at least.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: November 29, 2011, 10:33:24 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria
It is coming back as I think about it.  Mother, at 80, fell and broke a hip this summer in early June, and had a colon resection and a post operative embolism all in a period of six weeks.  She is up and tooling around in the grocery store on her own steam now and has been since October.  She's been through PT and continues with her exercises.  Sometimes I wonder why I am needed...  Smiley

Lord have mercy. St. Pantaleimon, pray for us.

Thank you.  I don't know if she realizes how graced she is to still be with us here.  Any one of those challenges alone could have been the end of this life for her.  She has grand-daughters who love her so dearly.  I expect she is kept here for them.  I will do my part to assist... Wink
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #141 on: November 30, 2011, 12:25:57 AM »


I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



Mary, may we ask what you mean by "there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation..."
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #142 on: November 30, 2011, 02:54:21 AM »

And what evidence do you have that that is the case?
One cannot prove a negative. You cannot cite silence from the magisterium as proof that our Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable. Could you perhaps cite a magisterial teaching which says that Mary was impeccable? If you are going to make claims about what our Church allegedly teaches, you're going to have to do better than just quoting individual clergy who may or may not have a nihil obstat and/or imprimatur. I know several people on this forum like to pretend that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are some kind of magisterial seal that makes every letter of a literary work dogmatic and binding, but unfortunately that is just not the way it is.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #143 on: November 30, 2011, 03:32:12 AM »

I certainly know Orthodox clergy and bishops who are indeed of that opinion.

Yes.  I know.  They are...and will remain anonymous when I am sluggin' it out around here.

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't, but if they don't hold the teaching publicly they are essentially irrelevant to the discussion. From the earliest Fathers on, the teaching is quite clear--the Church does not have 'secret' teachings. If a bishop holds a private opinion he's unwilling to publicly stand behind it either means that
a) He knows the opinion would be considered unacceptable for an Orthodox bishop to publicly teach, or
b) He considers the opinion so irrelevent to anyone but himself that he won't waste people's time teaching/defending it.

Either way, if such clergy and bishops actually exist, they are, if anything, an argument that their position is not the position of the Orthodox Church

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #144 on: November 30, 2011, 05:54:20 AM »

And what evidence do you have that that is the case?
One cannot prove a negative. You cannot cite silence from the magisterium as proof that our Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable. Could you perhaps cite a magisterial teaching which says that Mary was impeccable? If you are going to make claims about what our Church allegedly teaches, you're going to have to do better than just quoting individual clergy who may or may not have a nihil obstat and/or imprimatur. I know several people on this forum like to pretend that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are some kind of magisterial seal that makes every letter of a literary work dogmatic and binding, but unfortunately that is just not the way it is.
I have posted quotations from reputable Catholic sources, and you have not provided any documentation that the position held by these theologians has been condemned by the magisterium, so it stands to reason that their teaching does reflect the common belief of the Roman Church on Mary's impeccability. 

That said, it is up to you to show that the magisterium has condemned these men for teaching that Mary is impeccable.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 05:57:55 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: November 30, 2011, 12:54:47 PM »


I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



Mary, may we ask what you mean by "there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation..."


Yes.  I am going to write the following in the most simple language that I can and still be as accurate as I am able, so please bear that in mind.

Three things: 

First:  When I speak to other Orthodox clergy/monastics or read the Fathers and other spiritual writers in Orthodoxy, I have been taught, by those who have taken the time with me, to understand theosis as something that is not a one-and-done life-event. 

I have offered in discussion the idea that theosis is a creature's share in the divine life, and been told that is satisfactory an understanding and I am going to use that understanding here.   The prayer of union is part of theosis and that union of the soul with the divine life may happen more than once in a lifetime. 

Second:  With the particularly holy soul, union with the divine life becomes more and more a part of their being as they go through this life.  As the soul becomes more and more in conformity with the divine will, the desire for sin, the opportunity for sin, the raw ability to sin diminishes by grace, if God is so inclined.  It is the most rare of occurrences that the soul is bound so closely to the divine life that the person never sins in this life.  The Mother of God is that occurrence.

Third:  In terms of my understanding of Orthodox teaching, the timing of that perfect conformity of the will of the Theotokos with the will of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, varies.  Some teach it is while in her mother's womb.  Some say it is during her life in the Temple.  Some say it is at the time of the Annunciation.  Some say it is never in this life.

It seems to me from my reading and what I've been taught, that the strongest line of thinking is that this union of the will of the Theotokos and the divine will happens at the time of the Annunciation.

For the west this comports with one of the quotes offered by Todd earlier in this discussion.  I can find it easily enough since I commented on it.  In fact my comment prompted your reaction to me.

I think this is enough for the moment and I have not tried to be exhaustive here.

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #146 on: November 30, 2011, 01:27:57 PM »

And what evidence do you have that that is the case?
One cannot prove a negative. You cannot cite silence from the magisterium as proof that our Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable. Could you perhaps cite a magisterial teaching which says that Mary was impeccable? If you are going to make claims about what our Church allegedly teaches, you're going to have to do better than just quoting individual clergy who may or may not have a nihil obstat and/or imprimatur. I know several people on this forum like to pretend that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are some kind of magisterial seal that makes every letter of a literary work dogmatic and binding, but unfortunately that is just not the way it is.
I have posted quotations from reputable Catholic sources, and you have not provided any documentation that the position held by these theologians has been condemned by the magisterium, so it stands to reason that their teaching does reflect the common belief of the Roman Church on Mary's impeccability. 
So you have no magisterial teaching to prove that Mary's impeccability is an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Got it!

That said, it is up to you to show that the magisterium has condemned these men for teaching that Mary is impeccable.
No it is not. I have said from the beginning that it is quite likely a theological opinion that Mary was impeccable (though to be perfectly honest I have never heard her referred as such before participating in this thread). You are the one who is making it out to be an official dogma of our Church when it clearly is not...and no, the presence of a nihil obstat and imprimatur does not make it doctrine or dogma.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,572



« Reply #147 on: November 30, 2011, 01:37:40 PM »

I certainly know Orthodox clergy and bishops who are indeed of that opinion.

Yes.  I know.  They are...and will remain anonymous when I am sluggin' it out around here.

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't, but if they don't hold the teaching publicly they are essentially irrelevant to the discussion. From the earliest Fathers on, the teaching is quite clear--the Church does not have 'secret' teachings. If a bishop holds a private opinion he's unwilling to publicly stand behind it either means that
a) He knows the opinion would be considered unacceptable for an Orthodox bishop to publicly teach, or
b) He considers the opinion so irrelevent to anyone but himself that he won't waste people's time teaching/defending it.

Either way, if such clergy and bishops actually exist, they are, if anything, an argument that their position is not the position of the Orthodox Church


Amen! Amen! Amen!
Logged

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

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: 37,572



« Reply #148 on: November 30, 2011, 01:40:45 PM »

And what evidence do you have that that is the case?
One cannot prove a negative. You cannot cite silence from the magisterium as proof that our Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable. Could you perhaps cite a magisterial teaching which says that Mary was impeccable? If you are going to make claims about what our Church allegedly teaches, you're going to have to do better than just quoting individual clergy who may or may not have a nihil obstat and/or imprimatur.
They do have them, as have been posted already here. That is not up for discussion nor debate, as it is a cold hard fact.

And they prove, LOUD AND CLEAR, that your magisterium allows the teaching in your church that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable.

I know several people on this forum like to pretend that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are some kind of magisterial seal that makes every letter of a literary work dogmatic and binding, but unfortunately that is just not the way it is.
So, could Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" get a nihil obstat and imprimatur?  After all, they don't mean that the issuing authorities of your "magisterium" agree with the contents...?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 01:42:01 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #149 on: November 30, 2011, 04:52:47 PM »


I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 



Mary, may we ask what you mean by "there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation..."


Yes.  I am going to write the following in the most simple language that I can and still be as accurate as I am able, so please bear that in mind.

Three things: 

First:  When I speak to other Orthodox clergy/monastics or read the Fathers and other spiritual writers in Orthodoxy, I have been taught, by those who have taken the time with me, to understand theosis as something that is not a one-and-done life-event. 

I have offered in discussion the idea that theosis is a creature's share in the divine life, and been told that is satisfactory an understanding and I am going to use that understanding here.   The prayer of union is part of theosis and that union of the soul with the divine life may happen more than once in a lifetime. 

Second:  With the particularly holy soul, union with the divine life becomes more and more a part of their being as they go through this life.  As the soul becomes more and more in conformity with the divine will, the desire for sin, the opportunity for sin, the raw ability to sin diminishes by grace, if God is so inclined.  It is the most rare of occurrences that the soul is bound so closely to the divine life that the person never sins in this life.  The Mother of God is that occurrence.

Third:  In terms of my understanding of Orthodox teaching, the timing of that perfect conformity of the will of the Theotokos with the will of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, varies.  Some teach it is while in her mother's womb.  Some say it is during her life in the Temple.  Some say it is at the time of the Annunciation.  Some say it is never in this life.

It seems to me from my reading and what I've been taught, that the strongest line of thinking is that this union of the will of the Theotokos and the divine will happens at the time of the Annunciation.

For the west this comports with one of the quotes offered by Todd earlier in this discussion.  I can find it easily enough since I commented on it.  In fact my comment prompted your reaction to me.

I think this is enough for the moment and I have not tried to be exhaustive here.

M.

Thank you for taking time to respond to my query.  What I get from your message is that for you theosis means the union of the will of a human with the will of God?  Is this a particular Eastern Catholic understanding?  Or something born from your personal refection?


May I place a question and make a comment.

Question – I do not know what the “prayer of union” is.   Where may one read about it?

Comment --  I have not encountered in the Fathers the teaching that at some moment in her life the will of the Mother of God became, usque ad aeternitatem, in union with the will of God.   You say that this is Orthodox teaching?  Where may one read of it in Orthodox literature?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2011, 05:00:47 PM »



Thank you for taking time to respond to my query.  What I get from your message is that for you theosis means the union of the will of a human with the will of God?  Is this a particular Eastern Catholic understanding?  Or something born from your personal refection?



This is why it is so difficult talking to you.

In the very beginning of that note I made a statement about theosis:  I said it was "a creature's participation in the divine life"...I also said that I have used that when speaking to other Orthodox clergy and monastics and they seem to accept that as a working understanding of theosis.

Can't really do much till we settle on what theosis means.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #151 on: November 30, 2011, 05:07:48 PM »

[I have posted quotations from reputable Catholic sources, and you have not provided any documentation that the position held by these theologians has been condemned by the magisterium, so it stands to reason that their teaching does reflect the common belief of the Roman Church on Mary's impeccability. 

So you have no magisterial teaching to prove that Mary's impeccability is an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Got it!

Yes, I think we've got it.

So there is no magisterial teaching that the Mother of God led a life of impeccability.  This is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

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

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



WWW
« Reply #152 on: November 30, 2011, 05:50:59 PM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned. But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.
Logged


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

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: 37,572



« Reply #153 on: November 30, 2011, 05:53:31 PM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned.
Oh? Why not?
But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.
Oh? How so?
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 #154 on: November 30, 2011, 05:55:51 PM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned.
Oh? Why not?

But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.
Oh? How so?

Reference this thread.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 05:56:27 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #155 on: November 30, 2011, 06:42:27 PM »

And what evidence do you have that that is the case?
One cannot prove a negative. You cannot cite silence from the magisterium as proof that our Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable. Could you perhaps cite a magisterial teaching which says that Mary was impeccable? If you are going to make claims about what our Church allegedly teaches, you're going to have to do better than just quoting individual clergy who may or may not have a nihil obstat and/or imprimatur.
They do have them, as have been posted already here. That is not up for discussion nor debate, as it is a cold hard fact.
Yes, but the presence of a nihil obstat and imprimatur doesn't instantly put a religious text on par with doctrine or dogma.

And they prove, LOUD AND CLEAR, that your magisterium allows the teaching in your church that the Blessed Virgin Mary is impeccable.
There are plenty of theological opinions that the magisterium of the Church is silent on. That does not mean that they are all correct...hence the term theological opinion. They could be true...they might be true, or they could be completely false.

I know several people on this forum like to pretend that nihil obstats and imprimaturs are some kind of magisterial seal that makes every letter of a literary work dogmatic and binding, but unfortunately that is just not the way it is.
So, could Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" get a nihil obstat and imprimatur?  After all, they don't mean that the issuing authorities of your "magisterium" agree with the contents...?
Roll Eyes
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #156 on: December 01, 2011, 12:20:03 AM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned. But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.

Wyatt, would you say that this is magisterial teaching?  Can you referrence a statement from the magisterium?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2011, 01:30:09 AM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned. But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.

Wyatt, would you say that this is magisterial teaching?  Can you referrence a statement from the magisterium?
Father, I am not aware of any magisterial statement concerning whether the Blessed Virgin Mary could have sinned. I would say it would make sense that she could have sinned since she was human, and because the absence of original sin does not guarantee that one is unable to fall into sin (e.g. Adam and Eve). To my knowledge, the only dogmatic truths that have been defined about the Blessed Virgin Mary is that she A. was conceived immaculate, B. was perpetually a virgin, C. did not sin throughout her life, and D. was assumed into heaven at the end of her life. By the way, the dogma of the assumption does not state whether her body was assumed while she was still alive or whether she passed away first and then her body was taken...so this is another area where individual Catholics would be free to speculate.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 01:31:33 AM by Wyatt » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,348


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2011, 01:42:04 AM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned.
Oh? Why not?

But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.
Oh? How so?

Reference this thread.

Do you mean this thread is a sin?  Huh Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2011, 03:55:45 AM »


at the end of her life. By the way, the dogma of the assumption does not state whether her body was assumed while she was still alive or whether she passed away first and then her body was taken...so this is another area where individual Catholics would be free to speculate.


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 infallibility 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, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2011, 04:10:27 AM »

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.  The 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 we are....  There is the "magisterial document" proclaiming that she died.

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

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

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



WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2011, 12:10:32 PM »

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned.
Oh? Why not?

But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.
Oh? How so?

Reference this thread.

Do you mean this thread is a sin?  Huh Huh


...

no
Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2011, 12:21:39 PM »


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."


Then they would be wrong in the "smoothing".

Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith.  It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error.   It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin.

That's the "smoothing" that needs to be done.
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,399


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #163 on: December 01, 2011, 12:37:27 PM »


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."


Then they would be wrong in the "smoothing".

Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith.  It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error.   It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin.

That's the "smoothing" that needs to be done.
So you would have assented to Pope Honorius just because he's pope? What about John XXII?

Quote
Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith
ummm.....huh? Dont get it.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #164 on: December 01, 2011, 12:45:00 PM »


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."


Then they would be wrong in the "smoothing".

Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith.  It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error.   It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin.

That's the "smoothing" that needs to be done.
So you would have assented to Pope Honorius just because he's pope? What about John XXII?

Quote
Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith
ummm.....huh? Dont get it.


PP

The underlying message in all of that sort of thing is to avoid the sin of schism.  If you know your Abbott is wrong, unless he asks you to sin, you go along and trust that the Holy Spirit will eventually get things right again.   But I think that is an alien message to Orthodoxy so I'll just state the fact and move on.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #165 on: December 01, 2011, 12:46:20 PM »

So you would have assented to Pope Honorius just because he's pope? What about John XXII?
I would have respected the fact that he was Pope, despite the fact that he was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,399


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 01, 2011, 12:57:51 PM »

So you would have assented to Pope Honorius just because he's pope? What about John XXII?
I would have respected the fact that he was Pope, despite the fact that he was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Quote
The underlying message in all of that sort of thing is to avoid the sin of schism.  If you know your Abbott is wrong, unless he asks you to sin, you go along and trust that the Holy Spirit will eventually get things right again.   But I think that is an alien message to Orthodoxy so I'll just state the fact and move on.
I understand what you both are saying but thats not what happened in the scriptures. Paul stood to Peter and corrected him. He did not assent just because he was who he was (belief that he was Pope or not is immaterial). I think that St. Paul was completely prepared to separate from St. Peter if he did not see the error of his ways.

Schism is bad and not what our Lord wants from us, but at the same time I think it is equally as bad to just "go with the flow" just so separation does not occur. Accepting doctrines that are wrong just to protect what you have seems to me to be a tool that demons would not doubt for a second to use.
PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #167 on: December 01, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »

So you would have assented to Pope Honorius just because he's pope? What about John XXII?
I would have respected the fact that he was Pope, despite the fact that he was wrong. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Quote
The underlying message in all of that sort of thing is to avoid the sin of schism.  If you know your Abbott is wrong, unless he asks you to sin, you go along and trust that the Holy Spirit will eventually get things right again.   But I think that is an alien message to Orthodoxy so I'll just state the fact and move on.
I understand what you both are saying but thats not what happened in the scriptures. Paul stood to Peter and corrected him. He did not assent just because he was who he was (belief that he was Pope or not is immaterial). I think that St. Paul was completely prepared to separate from St. Peter if he did not see the error of his ways.

Schism is bad and not what our Lord wants from us, but at the same time I think it is equally as bad to just "go with the flow" just so separation does not occur. Accepting doctrines that are wrong just to protect what you have seems to me to be a tool that demons would not doubt for a second to use.
PP

I am not concerned with your opinion any more than you are concerned with mine, or anyone else here is concerned with my opinion.

I have explained what the Church asks of us and I am willing to comply.  I do not think it is unreasonable.

When I asked the priest who is my spiritual father to take that responsibility for me, he eventually told me that he would under one condition.  He said that when I disagreed with something that I take time to think about it, days/weeks...not minutes...before saying no I would not do something or simply arguing a point.  He said that I must think of three possible ways that what he said or asked me to do might be right.  Until I could think of three things that might be positive about what he had said then I could not argue with him or refuse.

It has not always worked perfectly for us but it has worked well enough that he is still my spiritual father and God-willing I have made some small progress in the devout life.  It keeps me humble and it keeps me from making very serious errors born in pride and arrogance.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #168 on: December 01, 2011, 03:44:14 PM »


Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith.  It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error.   It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin.

And yet Lumen Gentium says nothing of that and does not even hint at it.  It is stating the requirement for Catholics to give assent of mind and will to the theological teachings of the Pope which are not explicilty ex cathedra.

"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..."
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 03:46:20 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #169 on: December 01, 2011, 04:11:24 PM »

You will never find me speaking of theosis/divinization or the prayer of union in these terms...ever.  Rest yourself in that...at least.

Mary,  what is the “prayer of union”?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #170 on: December 01, 2011, 05:07:49 PM »

  ~~BUMP~~

Catholics are free to believe that Our Lady sinned during her life, as we all do.

 Huh

No, Father. They cannot believe that she sinned. But they are free to believe that she COULD have sinned.

Wyatt, would you say that this is magisterial teaching?  Can you referrence a statement from the magisterium?
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #171 on: December 01, 2011, 07:09:40 PM »

I found the following texts helpful:




"Impeccability - Not merely the absence of sins committed by a person, but also the impossibility of sinning.  In theology this quality is applied to Jesus.  He was sinless in fact and impeccable in theory.  The Church Fathers and theologians unanimously teach the impeccability of Christ.  His freedom from original sin was declared by the Council of Florence and from person sin by the Council of Chalcedon.  The Second Council of Constantinople condemned the theory that Christ became completely impeccable only after the Resurrection. 

The Blessed Virgin Mary also possesses this special quality. She was free from original and personal sin (Immaculate Conception) because of the divine grace of God in choosing her to be the mother of His Son. The blessed in heaven are also impeccable, since they are eternally realizing the purpose of their lives. They possess the beatific vision of God, which renders sin impossible."

Fr. Peter Stravinskas (Editor)
Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia
(Huntington:  Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1998)
Page 524



"Theologians go a step further, and assert that Mary was 'impeccable,' i.e., unable to commit sin; not indeed, like Christ, by the essential perfection of her nature, but by that special Divine privilege which assimilated her as far as possible to her Son."
 
Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D.
Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.
A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatik' (Volume 2)
(London:  Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, Ltd., 1901)
Page 218



"1260.  3° Corollaria.  (A) B. Virgo nullum experta fuit concupiscentia motum; nam concupisentia est consectarium originalis peccati; atqui B. Virgo immunis fuit ab originali peccato; ergo etiam a concupiscentia. Olim disputabatur inter theologos utrum in Maria fomes peccati fuerit ab initio plene exstinctus an tantum ligatus: juxta S. Thomam, ab initio fuit tantum ligatus nec penitus exstinctus nisi tempore conceptionis Christi.  Sed hodie, definito immaculato conceptu, dicendum est fomitem ab initio exstinctum esses seu potius nunquam exstitisse.

(B) B. Virgo nullum commisit peccatum actuale, sive mortale, sive veniale. Hoc enim aperte constat ex Tridentino definiente: 'Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit amplius peccare non posse... aut contra, posse in tota vita peccata omnia, etiam venialia, vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de B. Virgine tenet Ecdesia, A.S.' Et sane decebat, ut Ea, quae in suo utero sanctitatis auctorem gestare debebat, nullo unquam peccato inquinaretur.

Objiciuntur quidem verba S. Basilii, S. Chrysostomi et S. Cyrilli Alex., in quibus asseritur B. Virginem aliquot peccata venialia commisisse; sed ex contextu apparet S. Cyrillum nihil aliud docere nisi Mariam fuisse tentatam, duos autem alios non ut testes Ecclesiae, sed ut doctores privatos, locutos esse, et quidem falso principio innixos quod, nisi Maria peccasset, Redemptione non eguisset.

(C) Communius docetur B. Mariam fuisse impeccabilem ex superabundantia gratiae et donorum supernaturalium eidem collata."

Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey
Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae: De fide, De Deo uno et Trino, De Deo creante et elevante, De Verbo incarnato
(Rome:  Desclee, 1933 edition)
Page 822
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 07:26:57 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #172 on: December 01, 2011, 07:12:08 PM »

Sorry, I forgot to include this text in my previous post:




"Mary, who already by a singular privilege had been conceived without the stain of sin, appeared at her birth all pure, and all fair to the eyes of her Lord; and God, on contemplating His work, again found it perfect, and decreed that the light should remain eternally separated from the darkness, that is to say, God confirmed her in grace, and rendered her impeccable."

Msgr. Romualdo Gentilucci
The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(New York:  Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1860)
Page 123
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 07:30:26 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #173 on: December 01, 2011, 08:44:24 PM »

You will never find me speaking of theosis/divinization or the prayer of union in these terms...ever.  Rest yourself in that...at least.

Mary,  what is the “prayer of union”?

There are a variety of names given to what I generally refer to as the prayer of union.

From the Philokalia, Vol.II, pp.122-123, Maximos the Confessor, Two Hundred Texts on Theology...

#38, 45, 46, 47, 48
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 08:46:15 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #174 on: December 01, 2011, 08:47:25 PM »

Sorry, I forgot to include this text in my previous post:




"Mary, who already by a singular privilege had been conceived without the stain of sin, appeared at her birth all pure, and all fair to the eyes of her Lord; and God, on contemplating His work, again found it perfect, and decreed that the light should remain eternally separated from the darkness, that is to say, God confirmed her in grace, and rendered her impeccable."

Msgr. Romualdo Gentilucci
The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(New York:  Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1860)
Page 123

Again we have to say that over the centuries the Church has always listened to her theologians yet certainly not all of what they have had to say has become formal doctrine, much less has it been dogmatically defined.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #175 on: December 01, 2011, 08:57:22 PM »

"By the personal union of the human with the divine nature, it was necessarily beatified.  For the same reason, it was impeccable.  In Christ merit had a more restricted, though a more dignified sphere.  He could merit only by choosing among all possible good works certain ones which were very illustrious and perfectly voluntary, and merit only for others, but not for Himself.  The Blessed Virgin was also impeccable; though she merited for herself, and not for others, by merit of condignity; because her office required that she should receive a grace incompatible with sin.

[. . .]

We cannot say that holiness and aptitude for glory demand per se that the creature should have the power of sinning; for our Lord and the Blessed Virgin were impeccable.  We cannot say that God cannot give glory without merit; for Christ did not merit for Himself the right to glory, and baptized infants do not receive it for any personal merit of their own.  We cannot say that merit absolutely requires it; for Christ and the Blessed Virgin merited without the power of sinning.

[. . .]

God is good, and is blessed, by His nature.  The human nature of Christ is holy, impeccable, and beatified by its hypostatic union with the divine nature.  The Blessed Virgin was impeccable from the instant of her immaculate conception.  The holy angels and just men made perfect have finished their moral probation, and are in an unchangeable state.  The perfection of intelligent nature, therefore, so far from implying, excludes liberty of choice between good and evil.

[. . .]

Jesus Christ as man, and the Blessed Virgin, on whom the fulfillment of the divine plan absolutely depended, were absolutely predestined, and rendered impeccable; Jesus Christ by nature, and the Blessed Virgin by grace."

Fr. Augustine Francis Hewit
Problems of the Age: with Studies in St. Augustine on Kindred Topics
(New York:  The Catholic Book Exchange, 1868; reprinted 1893)
Pages 60, 62, 171, and 189
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 08:59:37 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #176 on: December 01, 2011, 09:09:15 PM »

"By the personal union of the human with the divine nature, it was necessarily beatified.  For the same reason, it was impeccable.  In Christ merit had a more restricted, though a more dignified sphere.  He could merit only by choosing among all possible good works certain ones which were very illustrious and perfectly voluntary, and merit only for others, but not for Himself.  The Blessed Virgin was also impeccable; though she merited for herself, and not for others, by merit of condignity; because her office required that she should receive a grace incompatible with sin.

[. . .]

We cannot say that holiness and aptitude for glory demand per se that the creature should have the power of sinning; for our Lord and the Blessed Virgin were impeccable.  We cannot say that God cannot give glory without merit; for Christ did not merit for Himself the right to glory, and baptized infants do not receive it for any personal merit of their own.  We cannot say that merit absolutely requires it; for Christ and the Blessed Virgin merited without the power of sinning.

[. . .]

God is good, and is blessed, by His nature.  The human nature of Christ is holy, impeccable, and beatified by its hypostatic union with the divine nature.  The Blessed Virgin was impeccable from the instant of her immaculate conception.  The holy angels and just men made perfect have finished their moral probation, and are in an unchangeable state.  The perfection of intelligent nature, therefore, so far from implying, excludes liberty of choice between good and evil.

[. . .]

Jesus Christ as man, and the Blessed Virgin, on whom the fulfillment of the divine plan absolutely depended, were absolutely predestined, and rendered impeccable; Jesus Christ by nature, and the Blessed Virgin by grace."

Fr. Augustine Francis Hewit
Problems of the Age: with Studies in St. Augustine on Kindred Topics
(New York:  The Catholic Book Exchange, 1868; reprinted 1893)
Pages 60, 62, 171, and 189


Again we have to say that over the centuries the Church has always listened to her theologians yet certainly not all of what they have had to say has become formal doctrine, much less has it been dogmatically defined.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #177 on: December 01, 2011, 09:27:50 PM »

Again we have to say that over the centuries the Church has always listened to her theologians yet certainly not all of what they have had to say has become formal doctrine, much less has it been dogmatically defined.
It is sad that so many priests, bishops, cardinals, and saints, have been wrong on this issue, believing that Mary could not sin because of the special graces given to her through her immaculate conception.  Even Pope Pius IX, who graciously accepted the dedication of Msgr. Gentilucci's book to him through a letter written by Cardinal Bedini, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, was evidently fooled into accepting the idea that Mary was impeccable.  It is truly sad to see all this confusion in the Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 09:28:55 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #178 on: December 01, 2011, 09:31:37 PM »

"This fidelity to her graces, made Mary constantly advance in all virtues. She watched over them, as if she feared to lose them. What a lesson for us! Whatever our graces, let us guard them carefully. Mary, the impeccable one, not by nature, but in consequence of her union with God - Mary whom temptation never approached, watched over herself and labored incessantly at the work of her sanctification. She was always advancing in holiness."

St. Peter Julian Eymard
Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament
(New York:  The Sentinel Press, 1901)
Page 42
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #179 on: December 01, 2011, 09:40:21 PM »

Again we have to say that over the centuries the Church has always listened to her theologians yet certainly not all of what they have had to say has become formal doctrine, much less has it been dogmatically defined.
It is sad that so many priests, bishops, cardinals, and saints, have been wrong on this issue, believing that Mary could not sin because of the special graces given to her through her immaculate conception.  Even Pope Pius IX, who graciously accepted the dedication of Msgr. Gentilucci's book to him through a letter written by Cardinal Bedini, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, was evidently fooled into accepting the idea that Mary was impeccable.  It is truly sad to see all this confusion in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is no more confusion than that holy mess we call "patristic consensus"...

It is only you trying to cast a pall over your own religious organization that prompts you to cast your observations in such a dull and ugly light.

There is room in the Church for speculation.  It is through that interplay of inspirations of the nous that the truth can be most clearly revealed in time.

Even you and your clear efforts to deform is welcome.
Logged

Tags: Charitable Ultramontanists Medieval Augustine 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 0.187 seconds with 72 queries.