OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 01:35:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Imaculate Conception  (Read 18163 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #360 on: December 20, 2011, 11:55:27 AM »


Quote
Anthony: She received her human nature the same way as we received ours,but she did not receive the guilt of original sin or the damage to human nature and will.

We keep on being told that, according to the Vatican, there is no guilt involved.

The inheritance of original sin does not entail that we are guilty of committing Adam's sin,it entails guilt in the sense that we have participated  in the sin for being descended from Adam,and have inherited the stain and burden of it.

If she received her human nature the same way as we received ours, then she received ancestral sin, a fallen human nature and a gnomic will.

Hence the IC does not comport with the Orthodox teaching from the Scripture through the Catholic Tradition of the Church.

Quote
Anthony: It is an authentic teaching of Catholic tradition,whether or not it is considered to be a teaching from scripture.

Quote
It is against scripture, so it is not an authentic teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is not against scripture.

Quote
Of the Vatican it might be, though we get conflicting reports of its "magisterium" authenticating teachings.

Just read the Catechism and Vatican documents for authentic teachings.

The Catholic Church and and Orthodox churches don't just  cull their doctrines from scripture through Catholic tradition,they also teach doctrines that have been passed on from the apostles and ancient theologians which are not found in scripture.

Quote
That the Orthodox Catholic Church does,but her Tradition and scripture are not opposed but one and the same.

That opinion requires logical argumentation to justify it. Protestants can easily point to apparent contradictions between Catholic or Orthodox traditions and scripture,such as the title Father for priests,the veneration of icons and statues of saints,praying to the saints as mediators between us and God,the belief that we can be saved through good works,and the mass as sacrifice.

The Immaculate Conception is not opposed to scripture.

Quote
The Vatican teaches things the Apostles and Fathers never dreamed of, let alone taught, which it made up.  Like the IC.

The

Some Catholic doctrines are confirmed by visitations of Jesus and Mary to saints.
Odd how the Vatican didn't look for confirmation from "visionaries" until it went in schism from us.

Instead of just criticizing the doctrine based on scripture and Greek and Eastern tradition,

Quote
I criticize it on Western Tradition (and common sense):somewhere here I've posted your Bernhardt of Clairveaux's denouncement of it when it first appeared in the West.  I also have criticized its basis on the faulty Latin translation of the Vulgate, cited in Ineffibilis Deus.

The belief in the Immaculate Conception did not first appear in the West during the time of St. Bernard. It was believed by some theologians in the West at least as early as the 3rd century.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"By the Spirit, Christ is born from the body of his unsullied Mother; by this same Spirit, the Christian is reborn from the womb of holy Church." (Leo I, Sermo 29:1)

The doctrine has been accepted by the Latin Church since the late 1400's and made into a dogma,so why would you criticize it on the basis of  over-ruled objections of a few theologians of the Western Tradition? Theological traditions are discerned by the magisterium.

St. Bernard was not aware of the Greek and Syrian tradition that Mary was free from original sin,and he thought that Rome should have been consulted about the feast.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception

< VII. THE CONTROVERSY
No controversy arose over the Immaculate Conception on the European continent before the twelfth century. The Norman clergy abolished the feast in some monasteries of England where it had been established by the Anglo-Saxon monks. But towards the end of the eleventh century, through the efforts of Anselm the Younger, it was taken up again in several Anglo-Norman establishments. That St. Anselm the Elder reestablished the feast in England is highly improbable, although it was not new to him. He had been made familiar with it as well by the Saxon monks of Canterbury, as by the Greeks with whom he came in contact during his exile in Campania and Apulia (1098-9). The treatise "De Conceptu virginali", usually ascribed to him, was composed by his friend and disciple, the Saxon monk Eadmer of Canterbury (Kellner, op. cit., 446). When the canons of the cathedral of Lyons, who no doubt knew Anselm the Younger, Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, personally introduced the feast into their choir, after the death of their bishop in 1240, St. Bernard deemed it his duty to publish a protest against this new way of honoring Mary. He addressed to the canons a vehement letter (Epist. clxxiv), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own authority and before they had consulted the Holy See. Not knowing that the feast had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he asserted that the feast was foreign to the old tradition of the Church. Yet it is evident from the tenor of his language that he had in mind only the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and its animation by the soul had not yet been drawn. No doubt, when the feast was introduced in England and Normandy, the axiom "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit", the childlike piety and enthusiasm of the simplices building upon revelations and apocryphal legends, had the upper hand. The object of the feast was not clearly determined, no positive theological reasons had been placed in evidence. >


Quote
I also have criticized its basis on the faulty Latin translation of the Vulgate, cited in Ineffibilis Deus.

What is faulty about it?

you should consider whether Mary really appeared to St. Bernadette and told her "I am the Immaculate Conception".

Quote
If even an angel of light preaches to you another Gospel than what the Apostles preached, let it be accused.  That's all I need to consider.

The apparition of Mary didn't preach a different gospel. She advised penance for the sins of the world.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to edit the quote.  So I'll have to make some quick comments clustered here after your conclusion.

The IC is a different Gospel.

The Gospel teaches that God made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us that we might become the rigtheousness of God in Him.  The IC contradicts this.

We get told that the CCC is not infallible when we cite it.  Somewhere here we have some thing about magisterial documents, and the inability it seems to identify them by Vatican apologists when Orthodox cite them.

That Orthodoxy's Scripture and Tradition do not contradict nor oppose each other, but are one and the same, is not an expression of opinion but a statement of fact, demonstrated here over and over again.  The apparent contraditions that Protestants point out that you listed are easily refute by equal referencing to the Scripture.  Not so the Vatican and its dogmas.

There was no Greek and Syrian teaching of the IC, nor is there, as I've pointed out:
As this thread is started by a Copt who has submitted to Rome, what I wrote about proof of the IC in the East to a Chaldean I think is also relevant:

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

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


Btw, Mardukm.  You posted:


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

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

The IC as proclaime by the Vatican is heretical in at least the sense that it is, the Vatican states, to be believed on penalty of damnation and "shipwreck of faith."  No such necessity exists: to claim so is heresy.
Btw, your quote of Hipplytus involves the Assumption, but your co-religionists claim that has nothing to do with the IC.  Of course, we disagree (as does your Vatican: its bull explicitely linking the two): the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos is the most eloquent refutation of the IC.

Your quote from Ambrose can just as well argue, as your coreligionists have, for the impeccability of Mary.

The objections of St. Bernhardt et alia are sound, and your "magisterium" has no authority to "overrule" clear thinking.  At least for right believers (Ortho-dox).

Yes, the IC did not appear until around the change of the millenium, in the far west.  Trying to read into texts that do not teach it in an effort to read it back into history do not change that.

The feast among the Greeks and Syrians was not the IC, but the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, and, as has been pointed out here before, it is not celebrated "with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary" but the miraculous birth from a barren mother. Lex orandi, lex credendi.  The fact that the eastern churches who submitted to the Vatican have switched the feast from the conception of St. Anne to the IC, raised it to a major feast, and interpolated texts into the service in support of the IC betrays the IC's foreignness to the East.
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 #361 on: December 20, 2011, 12:19:23 PM »

If a lineage of pruity is not necessary, why was it necessary for Jesus' sake?

PP

Because he was to receive his human nature from his mother,not from her ancestors.
She could only give Him what she got from them, which is why the IC is false: it teaches she got something else than from her ancestors.

Something... from God...
Yes, that's called "deus ex machina," and it makes both poor plays and hideaous theology.
Quote
The Latin phrase deus ex machina comes to English usage from Horace's Ars Poetica, where he instructs poets that they must never resort to a god from the machine to solve their plots. He refers to the conventions of Greek tragedy, where a crane (mekhane) was used to lower actors playing gods onto the stage. The machine referred to in the phrase could be either the crane employed in the task, a calque from the Greek "god from the machine" ("ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός," apò mēkhanḗs theós), or the riser that brought a god up from a trap door. The idea is that the device of said god is entirely artificial or conceived by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

You're losing me.

Objectively, to say that God bestowed a blessing is not 'God from the machine', it's literally a divine working.
Objectively it is to say Christ did not assume His humanity from Adam and his descendents, but from a machinically modified (in the deus ex machina sense) new prototype. 


This doesn't work. He still assumed his humanity, it is merely a sanctified humanity. And again, it hasn't been mechanically modified, it would have been sanctified by God, which is a huge difference.

IOW God did not make Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 

This is a good argument. Scripture does say he became sin... hmmm.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #362 on: December 20, 2011, 12:23:00 PM »

If a lineage of pruity is not necessary, why was it necessary for Jesus' sake?

PP

Because he was to receive his human nature from his mother,not from her ancestors.
She could only give Him what she got from them, which is why the IC is false: it teaches she got something else than from her ancestors.

Something... from God...
Yes, that's called "deus ex machina," and it makes both poor plays and hideaous theology.
Quote
The Latin phrase deus ex machina comes to English usage from Horace's Ars Poetica, where he instructs poets that they must never resort to a god from the machine to solve their plots. He refers to the conventions of Greek tragedy, where a crane (mekhane) was used to lower actors playing gods onto the stage. The machine referred to in the phrase could be either the crane employed in the task, a calque from the Greek "god from the machine" ("ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός," apò mēkhanḗs theós), or the riser that brought a god up from a trap door. The idea is that the device of said god is entirely artificial or conceived by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

You're losing me.

Objectively, to say that God bestowed a blessing is not 'God from the machine', it's literally a divine working.
Objectively it is to say Christ did not assume His humanity from Adam and his descendents, but from a machinically modified (in the deus ex machina sense) new prototype.


This doesn't work. He still assumed his humanity, it is merely a sanctified humanity. And again, it hasn't been mechanically modified, it would have been sanctified by God, which is a huge difference.
"merely" doesn't belong in that sentence, and Bernhardt had the good sense to point that out.  And of course God would be the One the IC says interjected Himself into creation (depriving the Incarnation of being that, as the Troparion says "Today is the beginning of Salvation....as Gabriel announces the coming of Grace...):that's the deus in deus ex machina.

IOW God did not make Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.  

This is a good argument. Scripture does say he became sin... hmmm.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 12:23:48 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
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,267


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #363 on: December 20, 2011, 12:32:47 PM »

Quote
He still assumed his humanity, it is merely a sanctified humanity.

God became incarnate to sanctify humanity. If the humanity He acquired was already fully sanctified, then what was the point of the Incarnation?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #364 on: December 20, 2011, 12:51:18 PM »

Quote
He still assumed his humanity, it is merely a sanctified humanity.

God became incarnate to sanctify humanity. If the humanity He acquired was already fully sanctified, then what was the point of the Incarnation?

Everyone else.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #365 on: December 20, 2011, 01:56:06 PM »

Quote
He still assumed his humanity, it is merely a sanctified humanity.

God became incarnate to sanctify humanity. If the humanity He acquired was already fully sanctified, then what was the point of the Incarnation?

Everyone else.
LOL
1) that will not comport with the Vatican's own statements on the IC, as it (illogically) claims that the IC was based on the Incarnation.
2) if the IC were true, then everyone else was left out of the redemptive work of the Incarnation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #366 on: December 20, 2011, 02:05:04 PM »

If a lineage of pruity is not necessary, why was it necessary for Jesus' sake?

PP

Because he was to receive his human nature from his mother,not from her ancestors.
She could only give Him what she got from them, which is why the IC is false: it teaches she got something else than from her ancestors.
So it's impossible for God to preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from original sin?
Before we get to that scholastic question, you have to deal with the fact, expressed in the podcast, that the Holy Theotokos is a person, not a syllogism, a principle or an argument.  So the "potuit" is irrelevant, begging the question of "decuit" misleading. You need a statement on her personal history for the "fecit": sticking "ergo" in there doesn't do it.
Speak English.

It's a simple question...please answer it: "Is it impossible for God to preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from original sin?" Yes or no?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #367 on: December 20, 2011, 02:05:04 PM »

LOL
1) that will not comport with the Vatican's own statements on the IC, as it (illogically) claims that the IC was based on the Incarnation.
2) if the IC were true, then everyone else was left out of the redemptive work of the Incarnation.

1) What are you saying here? How is it illogical?
2) The redemptive work of Christ happened on Calvary...not the Incarnation. The Incarnation was a necessary step leading up to His death and resurrection.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #368 on: December 21, 2011, 04:44:06 PM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by  "ancestral sin.

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #369 on: December 21, 2011, 05:44:20 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??
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 #370 on: December 21, 2011, 05:51:06 PM »

Below is a quotation, which I found at a traditionalist Catholic weblog, from a book entitled Our Lady: Queen of the Religious Life, by Fr. Louis Colin, CSSR.:



The Impeccability of the Blessed Virgin Mary

"The impeccability of the Virgin finds its explanation and its origin, first of all, in the Divine goodness, and then in the very plenitude of her interior life. It is the common work of God and Mary.
       
Our Lady owed the privilege of her moral incorruptibility in the first place to the wisdom, to the power and to the love of the Lord. Does not every perfect gift come from the Father of lights? The Trinity, who had presided at her creation and had kept all stain from her, must thereafter and for the same reasons watch over that first innocence and preserve it from every sin and imperfection. The future Mother of the Word, from the moment of her Immaculate Conception, and by the very merits of her Son, was forever confirmed in grace and in total purity.
     
'Logically Our Lady's Immaculate Conception brought with it her confirmation in grace; for the reasons that required that she be kept from the shadow of sin and from even the most ephemeral domination of the devil over her at the first moment of her existence, had efficacy and value for every moment of her life' (D. Gaston Desmaret).

Immunity from evil in Mary is explained also by reasons of the psychological order: exemption from all concupiscence, the depth of her faith, the perfection of her virtues and gifts, and especially the plenitude and ardor of her charity.  In addition to a very special protection by Providence, Our Lady found in Providence an impregnable rampart and an invincible armor against all which could threaten her moral integrity and tarnish the splendor of her soul.  Illumined as she was in her sublime contemplation, on the holiness of God, His sacred and imprescriptible rights, 'seeing, as she did, in all sin a monstrosity, an injury against the Most High, a destruction of the order that the love of God has conceived for men' (William, La Vie de Marie, Mère de Jésus, I, 20, 21); free as she was from all passionate impulses and from all enslavement of the senses, with no possible collusion with the world, its spirit and its maxims, bountifully supplied with an incomparable sanctifying grace, rich with heroic virtues, always under the power of the Holy Ghost--how easy it was for the immaculate, 'Beati immaculati in via--Blessed are the undefiled in the way' (Ps. 118: 1).

But what, perhaps more than anything else, enlightens and confirms this mystery of the innocence of Mary is the immensity of her love. 'Mary ... had no other thought, no other desire, no other joy than God; ... her soul being as it were ... in a continual contemplation of God, the acts of love she made were innumerable.... She passed her life in contemplation ... frequently repeating an act of love' (Saint Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary).  It is impossible actually to love God with all one's heart, with all one's strength and at the same time to depart even a little from His will and from His good pleasure.  'Divine love inflamed her so that not the slightest imperfection could ever penetrate her life' (Richard of Saint Victor, De Emmanuele, II, XXIX).

The heart of Mary was a 'brazier of candor,' without smoke or cinder so that the flame which mounted from it was clear and consuming. 'Mary is fair, from the root of her conception to the achievement of her glory' (Sertilanges, Mois de Marie, in Les Cahiers de la Vierge). Conceived as she was in immaculate purity, it is in the same purity that her sanctity must be consummated.

To spot or mar a canvas of Raphael or of Rubens would be an act of vandalism. Our Lady is the purest masterpiece of God; shall we imagine, can we imagine, the Virgin herself defiling and staining that masterpiece?

And not only did Mary keep the brilliance of her original virginity intact, unbesmirched, pure, but that virginity of soul became every instant more and more radiant. She was constantly rising spiritually; the more the Virgin approached the Sun of Justice, the more she was 'clothed with the sun' (Apoc. 12:1); the more she was united and imbued with God, through faith and love, the more she participated in His infinite purity.

In fine, Our Lady was never more pure, more virginal, more immaculate than at the hour of her death. Her assumption into glory was only the crowning and the triumph of her royal purity."


Taken from:  From A Traditional Catholic Perspective
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #371 on: December 21, 2011, 06:04:42 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #372 on: December 21, 2011, 06:54:05 PM »

That's a beautiful reflection.  I found it to be interesting in that it refutes the claim that the Immaculate Conception somehow means that the Mother of God did not grow in virtue and grace throughout the long years of her life.

Below is a quotation, which I found at a traditionalist Catholic weblog, from a book entitled Our Lady: Queen of the Religious Life, by Fr. Louis Colin, CSSR.:



And not only did Mary keep the brilliance of her original virginity intact, unbesmirched, pure, but that virginity of soul became every instant more and more radiant. She was constantly rising spiritually; the more the Virgin approached the Sun of Justice, the more she was 'clothed with the sun' (Apoc. 12:1); the more she was united and imbued with God, through faith and love, the more she participated in His infinite purity.

In fine, Our Lady was never more pure, more virginal, more immaculate than at the hour of her death. Her assumption into glory was only the crowning and the triumph of her royal purity."


Taken from:  From A Traditional Catholic Perspective
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 06:58:29 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #373 on: December 21, 2011, 07:08:01 PM »

refutes it how?
That's a beautiful reflection.  I found it to be interesting in that it refutes the claim that the Immaculate Conception somehow means that the Mother of God did not grow in virtue and grace throughout the long years of her life.

Below is a quotation, which I found at a traditionalist Catholic weblog, from a book entitled Our Lady: Queen of the Religious Life, by Fr. Louis Colin, CSSR.:



And not only did Mary keep the brilliance of her original virginity intact, unbesmirched, pure, but that virginity of soul became every instant more and more radiant. She was constantly rising spiritually; the more the Virgin approached the Sun of Justice, the more she was 'clothed with the sun' (Apoc. 12:1); the more she was united and imbued with God, through faith and love, the more she participated in His infinite purity.

In fine, Our Lady was never more pure, more virginal, more immaculate than at the hour of her death. Her assumption into glory was only the crowning and the triumph of her royal purity."


Taken from:  From A Traditional Catholic Perspective
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 #374 on: December 21, 2011, 08:21:01 PM »

That's a beautiful reflection.  I found it to be interesting in that it refutes the claim that the Immaculate Conception somehow means that the Mother of God did not grow in virtue and grace throughout the long years of her life.

Doesn't Anthony Dragani say that at her immaculate conception She achieved final theosis.  This would preclude any increase in grace since the achievement of theosis means the attainment of full divinisation and the possession of all uncreated divine grace.

Below is a quotation, which I found at a traditionalist Catholic weblog, from a book entitled Our Lady: Queen of the Religious Life, by Fr. Louis Colin, CSSR.:



And not only did Mary keep the brilliance of her original virginity intact, unbesmirched, pure, but that virginity of soul became every instant more and more radiant. She was constantly rising spiritually; the more the Virgin approached the Sun of Justice, the more she was 'clothed with the sun' (Apoc. 12:1); the more she was united and imbued with God, through faith and love, the more she participated in His infinite purity.

In fine, Our Lady was never more pure, more virginal, more immaculate than at the hour of her death. Her assumption into glory was only the crowning and the triumph of her royal purity."


Taken from:  From A Traditional Catholic Perspective

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #375 on: December 22, 2011, 06:03:25 AM »

That's a beautiful reflection.  I found it to be interesting in that it refutes the claim that the Immaculate Conception somehow means that the Mother of God did not grow in virtue and grace throughout the long years of her life.

Doesn't Anthony Dragani say that at her immaculate conception She achieved final theosis.  This would preclude any increase in grace since the achievement of theosis means the attainment of full divinisation and the possession of all uncreated divine grace.

Speaking to someone tonight about this and he said that if this is the case then the theology of the Eastern Catholic Church (is Dragani Ruthenian?) is beginning to diverge from its Orthodox roots and from Roman Catholicism.

 
Below is a quotation, which I found at a traditionalist Catholic weblog, from a book entitled Our Lady: Queen of the Religious Life, by Fr. Louis Colin, CSSR.:



And not only did Mary keep the brilliance of her original virginity intact, unbesmirched, pure, but that virginity of soul became every instant more and more radiant. She was constantly rising spiritually; the more the Virgin approached the Sun of Justice, the more she was 'clothed with the sun' (Apoc. 12:1); the more she was united and imbued with God, through faith and love, the more she participated in His infinite purity.

In fine, Our Lady was never more pure, more virginal, more immaculate than at the hour of her death. Her assumption into glory was only the crowning and the triumph of her royal purity."


Taken from:  From A Traditional Catholic Perspective


[/quote]
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #376 on: December 22, 2011, 11:55:26 AM »

I know a Father Deacon Anthony Kotlar, who is really quite a brilliant and loving fellow and well worth the time and energy to read his texts on the Byzantine Forum, but I don't know any Anthony Dragani.

And I am not gettin' on a hobby horse over some lay Catholic's opinions.

I leave all that to you and al Misry.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #377 on: December 22, 2011, 12:25:54 PM »

I know a Father Deacon Anthony Kotlar, who is really quite a brilliant and loving fellow and well worth the time and energy to read his texts on the Byzantine Forum, but I don't know any Anthony Dragani.

And I am not gettin' on a hobby horse over some lay Catholic's opinions.

I leave all that to you and al Misry.
Laity?  You just ignore the opinions of priests and even bishops (even "supreme pontiffs"  Shocked)) as well.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #378 on: December 22, 2011, 12:56:15 PM »

I know a Father Deacon Anthony Kotlar, who is really quite a brilliant and loving fellow and well worth the time and energy to read his texts on the Byzantine Forum, but I don't know any Anthony Dragani.

And I am not gettin' on a hobby horse over some lay Catholic's opinions.

I leave all that to you and al Misry.
Laity?  You just ignore the opinions of priests and even bishops (even "supreme pontiffs"  Shocked)) as well.

I ignore what my Church indicates is safe to ignore. 

I haven't asked them about you yet.... Cheesy
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #379 on: December 22, 2011, 04:41:41 PM »

I don't know any Anthony Dragani.

I believe he is an up and coming theologian in the Ruthenian Church.  A Steubenville grad.  I'd like to get hold of his book "Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches."

Here is his website
http://www.east2west.org/index.htm
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #380 on: December 22, 2011, 04:44:19 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.

the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #381 on: December 22, 2011, 04:48:01 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.

the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?
Do you think that man comes into the world missing the mark?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #382 on: December 22, 2011, 04:51:23 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.



the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?

What a strange thought  Roll Eyes Grin!  I have to admit that I have yet, to my shame, to read much of Augustine at all--soooo many books, soooo little time  Cheesy!  On that basis I cannot claim to know if that is what he said or meant.  I'm pretty sure, however, that that is *not* what either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church teaches.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #383 on: December 22, 2011, 06:58:39 PM »

Do you think that man comes into the world missing the mark?

We do if our "mark" is to have life in Christ in unity with His Church.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #384 on: December 22, 2011, 08:41:38 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.

the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?
Do you think that man comes into the world missing the mark?

well i am referring to the inherited guilt...whose guilt are we inheriting, just adam's or all of mankind?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #385 on: December 22, 2011, 08:42:31 PM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.



the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?

What a strange thought  Roll Eyes Grin!  I have to admit that I have yet, to my shame, to read much of Augustine at all--soooo many books, soooo little time  Cheesy!  On that basis I cannot claim to know if that is what he said or meant.  I'm pretty sure, however, that that is *not* what either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church teaches.

Ok so RC teaches that we are guilty of adam's sin only, not all of mankind?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #386 on: December 22, 2011, 10:23:18 PM »

guilt by analogy, in that we are born missing the mark.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #387 on: December 23, 2011, 12:02:48 AM »

It has been a few days since I posted on this thread.  I recently came across this article on the Mother of God attributed to St. Maria Skobtsova.  In it she discusses the conception of the Virgin.  I would be interested to hear the opinions of others regarding her statements about the Theotokos.  Thank you!

http://www.berdyaev.com/skobtsova/veneratio_Bogomater.html
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #388 on: December 23, 2011, 12:51:46 AM »


Quote
The doctrine does not teach that she inherited her purity from her ancestors. She was created without the stain of sin by God.

Exactly the problem.  No human nature for Christ to assume, because God created something else to assume.
[/quote]

Why are you acting like human nature is identical to the inheritance of sin?
The IC doctrine does not entail that Christ did not receive human nature,but that he did not receive original sin.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 12:52:41 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #389 on: December 23, 2011, 12:53:07 AM »


Quote
The doctrine does not teach that she inherited her purity from her ancestors. She was created without the stain of sin by God.

Exactly the problem.  No human nature for Christ to assume, because God created something else to assume.

Why are you acting like human nature is identical to the inheritance of sin?
The IC doctrine does not entail that Christ did not receive human nature,but that he did not receive original sin.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 12:55:07 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #390 on: December 23, 2011, 01:06:30 AM »


Quote
The doctrine does not teach that she inherited her purity from her ancestors. She was created without the stain of sin by God.

Exactly the problem.  No human nature for Christ to assume, because God created something else to assume.

Why are you acting like human nature is identical to the inheritance of sin?
The IC doctrine does not entail that Christ did not receive human nature,but that he did not receive original sin.
The IC, supposedly, has nothing to do with Christ not being subject to original sin. After all, He wasn't, even though His mother was.

If you get your human nature from Adam, it is a fallen nature.
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
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #391 on: December 23, 2011, 01:18:03 AM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #392 on: December 23, 2011, 01:33:46 AM »

According to the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, are all humans guilty of all sins of all humans before them??

 Huh

Is that some sort of trick question or am I missing something here?  I'm not sure if you're actually asking it in order to find out because you don't know, in which case what made you think of it?; or, are you making a statement with an inadvertent question mark at the end of it?

Sorry for my confusion.

the thought just came to my mind...do you think thats an accurate statement?
Do you think that man comes into the world missing the mark?

well i am referring to the inherited guilt...whose guilt are we inheriting, just adam's or all of mankind?

Adam's guilt,which was passed on to all mankind,with the exception of Mary and Jesus. This inherited guilt is not personal guilt for Adam's sin,but the guilt of being out of perfect grace and thus having an inclination to evil.

Pope John Paul 2,October 1,1986,general audience:

"In context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a 'sin of nature' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin'". In other words: It is only the lack, or privation, of that which God wanted us to have, which we should have inherited from our first parents."
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #393 on: December 23, 2011, 02:13:14 AM »

The IC, supposedly, has nothing to do with Christ not being subject to original sin. After all, He wasn't, even though His mother was.

The IC does bear upon Christ's perfect human nature,because he inherited it from Mary.

Quote
If you get your human nature from Adam, it is a fallen nature.

You wouldn't say that about Christ,so why would you say it about the person from whom he directly received human nature? Do you think that God gave him a human nature that was not that of the rest of mankind? Christ did inherit his human nature from Adam,but not the privation of grace and the corruption.

St. John of Damascus [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary]:
Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 02:19:16 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #394 on: December 23, 2011, 02:21:21 AM »

The IC, supposedly, has nothing to do with Christ not being subject to original sin. After all, He wasn't, even though His mother was.

The IC does bear upon Christ's perfect human nature,because he inherited it from Mary.
No, it was perfected in His, the sole Immaculate, conception.  Were it otherwise, He would be consubstantial with His mother alone, not with us.

If you get your human nature from Adam, it is a fallen nature.

You wouldn't say that about Christ,so why would you say it about the person from whom he directly received human nature?
Because I haven't fallen for the folly of the semi-incarnation of the Immaculata.  I'm sticking to the Gospel the Apostles preached, not the one Maximillian Kolbe claimed to receive from Bernadette.

Do you think that God gave him a human nature that was not that of the rest of mankind? Christ did inherit his human nature from Adam,but not the privation of grace and the corruption.
Because He inherited that from His Father.

St. John of Damascus [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary]:
Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!
You are aware that he is speaking of St. Anne's barrenness, no?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #395 on: December 23, 2011, 02:33:56 AM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

The trouble is that that brief answer tells us almost nothing...

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #396 on: December 23, 2011, 02:44:30 AM »


Adam's guilt,which was passed on to all mankind,with the exception of Mary and Jesus.

Denied by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, writimng against the new doctrine of the immaculate conception...

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

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #397 on: December 23, 2011, 03:07:12 AM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

The trouble is that that brief answer tells us almost nothing...

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv


So do you think that RC theology of original sin is moving closer to the Orthodox understanding of original sin?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #398 on: December 23, 2011, 04:02:14 AM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

The trouble is that that brief answer tells us almost nothing...

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv


So do you think that RC theology of original sin is moving closer to the Orthodox understanding of original sin?

I've found that 10 years of Internet discussion with Roman Catholics on original sin have been very confusing but yes, I believe that some theologians evaluate the changes in Catholic teaching as quietly moving the Catholic Church closer to the Orthodox position.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #399 on: December 23, 2011, 10:28:33 AM »

Fr. A, while I do not believe that the essence of the Latin teaching has changed one iota, I do agree that the emphasis has changed.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #400 on: December 23, 2011, 11:14:06 AM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

The trouble is that that brief answer tells us almost nothing...

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv


So do you think that RC theology of original sin is moving closer to the Orthodox understanding of original sin?

I've found that 10 years of Internet discussion with Roman Catholics on original sin have been very confusing but yes, I believe that some theologians evaluate the changes in Catholic teaching as quietly moving the Catholic Church closer to the Orthodox position.

When you read the teachings of the saints and doctors of the Church, pre- and post-Trent then you will see that this inane assertion is empty of all truth.

Father has a distinct need to say this and I will yield to that sorry condition in his life.

But those who hear it and seek the truth only need seek it in the spiritual writings of the sons and daughters of the Church...Particularly those who are granted the title of doctor of the Church or who stand out in particular light for their insights in doctrine and scripture.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #401 on: December 23, 2011, 11:25:41 AM »

Fr. A, while I do not believe that the essence of the Latin teaching has changed one iota, I do agree that the emphasis has changed.

The emphasis has not changed at all. 

The hell-fire of purgation and the fearsome aspect came up out of the people in the Church, laity and clergy, who sought to terrify rather than teach.  That there are fewer of them is debatable.  That they are not as influential as they were in the middle ages and into the 19th century is clear.
Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #402 on: December 23, 2011, 11:30:41 AM »

Fr. A, while I do not believe that the essence of the Latin teaching has changed one iota, I do agree that the emphasis has changed.

The emphasis has not changed at all. 

The hell-fire of purgation and the fearsome aspect came up out of the people in the Church, laity and clergy, who sought to terrify rather than teach.  That there are fewer of them is debatable.  That they are not as influential as they were in the middle ages and into the 19th century is clear.

That is a valid observation but I would add that for the Church of Rome, like with any large, pyramidal structure of hierarchy,  putting out such fires among the masses is not always possible either practically or politically.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #403 on: December 23, 2011, 03:11:06 PM »

Mary did not receive ancestral sin.

Would you take a moment to define what you mean by "ancestral sin".

The inheritance of Adam's sin.

The trouble is that that brief answer tells us almost nothing...

"Current Roman Catholic theology of original sin is undergoing a radical transition and is marked by considerable pluralism..."

"Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives"
By Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

http://tinyurl.com/26vkexv


So do you think that RC theology of original sin is moving closer to the Orthodox understanding of original sin?

I've found that 10 years of Internet discussion with Roman Catholics on original sin have been very confusing but yes, I believe that some theologians evaluate the changes in Catholic teaching as quietly moving the Catholic Church closer to the Orthodox position.

When you read the teachings of the saints and doctors of the Church, pre- and post-Trent then you will see that this inane assertion is empty of all truth.

Father has a distinct need to say this and I will yield to that sorry condition in his life.

My "disinct needs" [sic]  - again the amateur psychologist and the claim to insight she does not possess.  Grin

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings. So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

For a post about the confusing reductionism and reconstruction which is at work in contemporary Catholicism please see this message

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg306110.html#msg306110
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #404 on: December 24, 2011, 03:06:45 AM »

Fr. A, while I do not believe that the essence of the Latin teaching has changed one iota, I do agree that the emphasis has changed.

The emphasis has not changed at all

Oh dear, not a good day!  Let us look at what a theologian of your own Ruthenian Church says on this. 

"Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again dwell within man.

"It should be noted that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more Eastern understanding in recent years. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very Eastern in its approach to original sin."


http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Sin
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 0.218 seconds with 72 queries.