OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 01:23:44 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 18335 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2011, 08:13:50 PM »


THEN you need to look at the stories of the desert fathers and see that for ANY human being who grows in holiness, it becomes ever more difficult to sin, until such time as it SEEMS that it is impossible for them to sin and they will tell you that it is unthinkable that they sin.  Does this then mean that they have no free will?  That the graces that they have been given over-ride their free will?


The day you meet a monk in the deserts of Athos or Syria or the Russian forests and he tells you it has become unthinkable for him to sin, run a mile.  He could be in the grip of the devil. Run a mile too from any disciples who tell you the same of their elder.  If he has not disabused them of such insanity then he is living in illusion.

That is your opinion.  There is another set of opinions in Orthodoxy that understands that the more genuinely holy a person becomes the more difficult it becomes for the soul to sin because the will becomes ever more oriented toward God.

It is in this light that the Mother of God would be without sin.

Not because there are not temptations:  Not because there is not danger:  Not because there is no choice.

But because there is great and abiding holiness.


I can only repeat that your claim that “they will tell you that it is unthinkable that they sin” is very wrong and those who have told you that are in a gross state of self-delusion.

I suspect you are making a “dixit Maria” statement and cannot back up the words in inverted commas.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2011, 10:56:51 PM »


THEN you need to look at the stories of the desert fathers and see that for ANY human being who grows in holiness, it becomes ever more difficult to sin, until such time as it SEEMS that it is impossible for them to sin and they will tell you that it is unthinkable that they sin.  Does this then mean that they have no free will?  That the graces that they have been given over-ride their free will?


The day you meet a monk in the deserts of Athos or Syria or the Russian forests and he tells you it has become unthinkable for him to sin, run a mile.  He could be in the grip of the devil. Run a mile too from any disciples who tell you the same of their elder.  If he has not disabused them of such insanity then he is living in illusion.

That is your opinion.  There is another set of opinions in Orthodoxy that understands that the more genuinely holy a person becomes the more difficult it becomes for the soul to sin because the will becomes ever more oriented toward God.

It is in this light that the Mother of God would be without sin.

Not because there are not temptations:  Not because there is not danger:  Not because there is no choice.

But because there is great and abiding holiness.


I can only repeat that your claim that “they will tell you that it is unthinkable that they sin” is very wrong and those who have told you that are in a gross state of self-delusion.

I suspect you are making a “dixit Maria” statement and cannot back up the words in inverted commas.

When I have time I will start a new thread.  What I meant when I wrote that is that the idea of sinning would make them ill and they would shy away from all sin and agonize over the smallest bad habit.  The more holiness there is in a soul the more difficult it is to sin and the greater the temptations.  I know I can pull corroboration out of the Philokalia at least, maybe later this week.

It really doesn't make any difference here.  This thread is off the rails again in any event.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2011, 11:04:23 PM »

Impeccability is by God's grace in the Virgin Mother of God.  HOWEVER implicit in that statement is the understanding that she cooperated with that grace.  Her sinlessness was by her own freely willed choice, and by her faith.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

From the CCC:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

    As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,446



« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2011, 11:13:06 PM »

Impeccability is by God's grace in the Virgin Mother of God.  HOWEVER implicit in that statement is the understanding that she cooperated with that grace.  Her sinlessness was by her own freely willed choice, and by her faith.
Are those the words of the CCC, or your words?
++++++++++++++++++++++++

From the CCC:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

    As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143
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 #49 on: November 27, 2011, 11:55:54 AM »

Impeccability is by God's grace in the Virgin Mother of God.  HOWEVER implicit in that statement is the understanding that she cooperated with that grace.  Her sinlessness was by her own freely willed choice, and by her faith.
Are those the words of the CCC, or your words?


That is what is taught formally concerning the Annunciation.  She responded freely to the Holy Spirit.

No.  I am not going to go and get it.  It's free and open on-line.

The Immaculate Conception does not alter the Virgin's free will:  that is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Everything else must be "read" in light of that teaching.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 12:04:46 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #50 on: November 27, 2011, 02:52:55 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 02:58:49 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2011, 03:58:54 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2011, 03:59:58 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
I think that this is an incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith. If she is capable of sining then she is not impeccable.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2011, 05:01:48 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403


This is the most clear, complete, and therefore I believe accurate one, of all the quotes to date on this thread.

Note that her impeccability is by grace and not nature so that it means that though her nature was preserved from the stain of original sin in the Immaculate Conception, it was by grace at the Annunciation that she was finally rendered fully impeccable...by grace.  It was not her Immaculate Conception that rendered her impeccable, but it was at the Annunciation.

The results of her Immaculate Conception was that she was conceived with an inlightened nous and strengthened will, and was not subject to corruption, though she was subject to death.  She was not subject to illness or suffering, and her virginity was miraculously preserved through her delivery of the Son of God into the world.

I have heard other Orthodox say that she was divinized at the time of the Annunciation, which would fit with what is being said here.

A similar thing applies to us as sinners.  Our baptisms are our first sanctification.  Yet we often dismiss that moment in favor of our most precious sin.  However as we succeed in pressing evil away in our lives and move away from rather than toward sin,  then the more we are filled with grace the less our inclination to sin.  If we are more inclined toward sin, than away from sin, then we can rest assured that we are not pressed down and over-flowing with grace.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 05:02:26 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #54 on: November 27, 2011, 05:23:50 PM »

This is the most clear, complete, and therefore I believe accurate one, of all the quotes to date on this thread.

Note that her impeccability is by grace and not nature so that it means that though her nature was preserved from the stain of original sin in the Immaculate Conception, it was by grace at the Annunciation that she was finally rendered fully impeccable...by grace.  It was not her Immaculate Conception that rendered her impeccable, but it was at the Annunciation.

The results of her Immaculate Conception was that she was conceived with an inlightened nous and strengthened will, and was not subject to corruption, though she was subject to death.  She was not subject to illness or suffering, and her virginity was miraculously preserved through her delivery of the Son of God into the world.

I have heard other Orthodox say that she was divinized at the time of the Annunciation, which would fit with what is being said here.

A similar thing applies to us as sinners.  Our baptisms are our first sanctification.  Yet we often dismiss that moment in favor of our most precious sin.  However as we succeed in pressing evil away in our lives and move away from rather than toward sin,  then the more we are filled with grace the less our inclination to sin.  If we are more inclined toward sin, than away from sin, then we can rest assured that we are not pressed down and over-flowing with grace.
I thought all the quotations I posted were clear.  Several of them point out that Mary's impeccability is by grace alone, while God's is metaphysical. 

I really like the quotation by Fr. Paul Haffner myself.
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 #55 on: November 27, 2011, 05:25:11 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
I think that this is an incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith. If she is capable of sining then she is not impeccable.
What about the other quotations I posted?  What do you think about them seeing that they all assert Mary's impeccability.  Are all of the quotations in error? 
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 #56 on: November 27, 2011, 05:26:40 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
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 #57 on: November 27, 2011, 05:34:38 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
I think that this is an incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith. If she is capable of sining then she is not impeccable.
What about the other quotations I posted?  What do you think about them seeing that they all assert Mary's impeccability.  Are all of the quotations in error? 

One thing that is common to all of the quotes posted is that they are quotes from theologians.  The deposit of faith is not determined by the best guesses/thinking of theologians.  The only quote which begins to capture the fullness of Church teaching on the Virgin Mother's sinlessness is the one I took time to comment on.

But theologians do not speak for the Church.  It is good that we have holy men and women writing in the Church but not every man or woman writing theology becomes part of the formal teaching of the Church.

M.
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 #58 on: November 27, 2011, 05:49:27 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
I think that this is an incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith. If she is capable of sining then she is not impeccable.
What about the other quotations I posted?  What do you think about them seeing that they all assert Mary's impeccability.  Are all of the quotations in error? 

One thing that is common to all of the quotes posted is that they are quotes from theologians.  The deposit of faith is not determined by the best guesses/thinking of theologians.  The only quote which begins to capture the fullness of Church teaching on the Virgin Mother's sinlessness is the one I took time to comment on.

But theologians do not speak for the Church.  It is good that we have holy men and women writing in the Church but not every man or woman writing theology becomes part of the formal teaching of the Church.

M.
Interestingly, all of the theologians I have quoted claim to be proclaiming the common doctrine of the Church on this topic, which they base upon the teachings of the medieval Scholastics.  Moreover, the quotations I have supplied come from both before and after Vatican II, and of course the references given by these theologians themselves go back - as I indicated - to the Scholastics, so it seems odd to say that all of these priests (and the Scholastic theologians that they rely upon) are wrong.

Here is another quotation I found in my two volume Mariology text written by Fr. Juniper B. Carol, not to be confused with his Fundamentals of Mariology from which I quoted earlier:


"Moreover, because the perfection of motherhood cannot be lost, the sanctity which Mary has in virtue of her motherhood necessarily means impeccability.  Whereas Mary was impeccable at least in an extrinsic and consequent sense before the conception of her Son, afterwards she was intrinsically and antecedently impeccable; of course, she remained free to merit, a mystery we meet primarily in Christ."

Fr. Juniper B. Carol
Mariology (Volume 2)
(Milwaukee:  Bruce Publishing Company, 1955)
Page 227

« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 06:08:44 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 #59 on: November 27, 2011, 05:59:05 PM »

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403
I think that this is an incorrect understanding of the Catholic faith. If she is capable of sining then she is not impeccable.
What about the other quotations I posted?  What do you think about them seeing that they all assert Mary's impeccability.  Are all of the quotations in error? 

One thing that is common to all of the quotes posted is that they are quotes from theologians.  The deposit of faith is not determined by the best guesses/thinking of theologians.  The only quote which begins to capture the fullness of Church teaching on the Virgin Mother's sinlessness is the one I took time to comment on.

But theologians do not speak for the Church.  It is good that we have holy men and women writing in the Church but not every man or woman writing theology becomes part of the formal teaching of the Church.

M.
Interestingly, all of the theologians I have quoted claim to be proclaiming the common doctrine of the Church on this topic, which they base upon the teachings of the medieval Scholastics.  Moreover, the quotations I have supplied come from both before and after Vatican II, and of course the references given by these theologians themselves go back as I indicated to the Scholastics, so it seems odd to say that all of these priests (and the Scholastic theologians that they rely upon) are wrong.

Here is another quotation I found in my two volume Mariology text written by Fr. Juniper B. Carol, not to be confused with his Fundamentals of Mariology from which I quoted earlier:


"Moreover, because the perfection of motherhood cannot be lost, the sanctity which Mary has in virtue of her motherhood necessarily means impeccability.  Whereas Mary was impeccable at least in an extrinsic and consequent sense before the conception of her Son, afterwards she was intrinsically and antecedently impeccable; of course, she remained free to merit, a mystery we meet primarily in Christ."

Fr. Juniper B. Carol
Mariology (Volume 2)
(Milwaukee:  Bruce Publishing Company, 1955)
Page 227



I don't see how this corrects or adds much to anything I've said in this thread.  It's nice you have theology books.  Most students have a whole library of them if they can afford not to resell them.  We are happy you are so blessed.

M.
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 #60 on: November 27, 2011, 06:02:33 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,446



« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2011, 06:17:42 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #62 on: November 27, 2011, 06:26:28 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
The bishop who gave this document a "nihil obstat" did not believe that there was anything inherently objectionable in the work. However, I am free to disagree. That does not mean it is perfect, and Hardon's understanding of this matter may be deficient. That being said, I think that the term "impeccable" can be discussed in more than one way. If one were to say that Mary has free will, and could have sinned, I would argue that is is correct and one cannot use the term "impeccable". To adopt Aquinas' language, she always had the "potential" to sin. Thus, intrinsically, Mary was capable of sin. However, we also know that from all eternity, God had planned for Mary to be the Theotokos, and for this reason, had always planned from all eternity to give her the grace to avoid every sin. what is more, God also knew from all eternity that Mary would choose to not sin. Thus, while not being essentially impeccable, she was so, accidentally, by way of grace given and the actions she chose. While I know that this makes perfect sense, you will all now misinterpret it and pretend not to understand it. Have fun.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #63 on: November 27, 2011, 06:27:24 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
If you believe that the Church is in such grave error, why don't you get on with it and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?
Logged

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

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #64 on: November 27, 2011, 06:41:19 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
If you believe that the Church is in such grave error, why don't you get on with it and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?
I've asked him the same question. He is only fooling himself.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2011, 06:47:48 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
If you believe that the Church is in such grave error, why don't you get on with it and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?
I've asked him the same question. He is only fooling himself.
He may not be formally separated from the unity of the Catholic Church, but he is at least in some kind of material schism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 #66 on: November 27, 2011, 07:59:02 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
If you believe that the Church is in such grave error, why don't you get on with it and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?
All I have done is to transcribe quotations from books written by Roman Catholic priests (and quite a few very important ones historically speaking).  Why has that made you uncomfortable?
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 #67 on: November 27, 2011, 08:07:09 PM »

"The anointing of the humanity in the Hypostatic Union makes even the possibility of sin an absurd hypothesis in Jesus, however difficult systematic theology finds it to reconcile the human freedom of Christ with His impeccabilitas.  In the case of Mary, however, there is only a weak human person, conscious of her own lowliness and of God's mercy.  What meaning does impeccabilitas have in Mary's life on earth?  In what did it consist?  How does it show God's love for her?  What meaning has it for the Church?

Our first main point is the exact meaning of impeccabilitas.  It is 'indefectibility in the moral order,' as infallibility is 'indefectibility in the doctrinal order.'  Mary's impeccantia was her freedom from actual sin throughout her life; her impeccabilitas means she was 'unable to sin.'  Through her whole life she was unable to lose friendship with God in grace.  In contrast to the 'physical impeccability' of the blessed in heaven, in contrast to the 'metaphysical impeccability' of Christ in His humanity, Mary has a moral impeccabilitas."

Fr. Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm.
University of Dayton Review (Volume 5)
University of Dayton Press, 1968
Page 22
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2011, 09:57:25 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).
If you believe that the Church is in such grave error, why don't you get on with it and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?
All I have done is to transcribe quotations from books written by Roman Catholic priests (and quite a few very important ones historically speaking).  Why has that made you uncomfortable?
I am not uncomfortable at all. why would I be? Are you uncomfortable? Is that why you bring up the whole idea of "discomfort"?
Anywho, you have not answered the question. If you believe that Catholic Church is truly in such grave error, why don't you convert to Eastern Orthodoxy so that you can be in communion with those with whom you agree?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2011, 09:58:35 PM »

"The anointing of the humanity in the Hypostatic Union makes even the possibility of sin an absurd hypothesis in Jesus, however difficult systematic theology finds it to reconcile the human freedom of Christ with His impeccabilitas.  In the case of Mary, however, there is only a weak human person, conscious of her own lowliness and of God's mercy.  What meaning does impeccabilitas have in Mary's life on earth?  In what did it consist?  How does it show God's love for her?  What meaning has it for the Church?

Our first main point is the exact meaning of impeccabilitas.  It is 'indefectibility in the moral order,' as infallibility is 'indefectibility in the doctrinal order.'  Mary's impeccantia was her freedom from actual sin throughout her life; her impeccabilitas means she was 'unable to sin.'  Through her whole life she was unable to lose friendship with God in grace.  In contrast to the 'physical impeccability' of the blessed in heaven, in contrast to the 'metaphysical impeccability' of Christ in His humanity, Mary has a moral impeccabilitas."

Fr. Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm.
University of Dayton Review (Volume 5)
University of Dayton Press, 1968
Page 22
Well, I disagree with Fr. Eamon R. Carroll, as do most of the Catholic posters on this forum.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2011, 09:59:14 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
One bishop is not the magisterium. You should know better than to make such a silly argument.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2011, 10:18:11 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2011, 10:32:29 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
One bishop is not the magisterium. You should know better than to make such a silly argument.

The issue is not whether or not the Mother of God was absolutely sinless but whether or not her actions were the result of her free willed choices.  The Catholic Church teaches that her actions were freely chosen.
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 #73 on: November 27, 2011, 11:13:36 PM »

I am not uncomfortable at all. why would I be? Are you uncomfortable? Is that why you bring up the whole idea of "discomfort"?
Nope, I feel no discomfort at all, but you seem to be uncomfortable, and I honestly do not know why.  Perhaps I have misinterpreted your rather aggressive demeanor for discomfort.  If that is the case I apologize.

Anywho, you have not answered the question. If you believe that Catholic Church is truly in such grave error, why don't you convert to Eastern Orthodoxy so that you can be in communion with those with whom you agree?
Now if you look at my posts so far in this thread you will see that I have not accused anyone (Catholic or Orthodox) of being in error; instead, I have simply posted quotations from reputable Roman Catholic scholars and theologians.  To the best of my knowledge none of the authors that I have quoted are viewed as highly polemical anti-Catholics; instead, they are Catholic priests who either died in the peace of the Church, or who are living members in good standing with their respective bishops.

Do you believe that Fr. Scheeben, or Fr. Carol, or any of the other authors I have quoted on this topic, are anti-Catholic?  I would be shocked if you said "Yes" to that question, because - for example - Fr. Scheeben's texts on dogma (and some of the texts of the other authors as well) - at least prior to Vatican II - were used in seminaries in the United States and other countries.  To my knowledge Fr. Scheeben is a highly respected theologian, and so I see no reason for you to take offense at my quoting him on this topic.  The same holds for Fr. Carol, Fr. Baker, Fr. Pohle, and Fr. Haffner, all of whom are (or were - in the case of those who have passed away) respected priests and theologians in the Roman Catholic Church.

I am curious, did you even listen to Fr. Peter Fehlner's audio recording?  Do you believe that he distorted Catholic teaching on this subject?  Now, if you think he has promoted error, perhaps you could be more precise and state exactly what it is in his teaching that is wrong.

Finally, what is it about the authors I have quoted so far in this thread that seems to make you uneasy?  As far as I can tell, they are all respected Catholic scholars and theologians, at least they were held to be so in the years prior to my becoming an Eastern Catholic in 2005.  To be blunt, you make it sound as if I have quoted someone like Charles Curran or Hans Küng as an approved theologian in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Could it be that you simply do not agree with the quotations because I have provided them? 
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 11:27:05 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 #74 on: November 27, 2011, 11:18:53 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
I am glad that you know what the Church teaches.  But I do not share the grace of infused knowledge with you, and so I have had to study the writings of the Church Fathers, the saints, and medieval and modern theologians in order to better understand what is or is not commonly accepted doctrine.

To quote St. Augustine:  "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 11:22:42 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,446



« Reply #75 on: November 27, 2011, 11:25:49 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
One bishop is not the magisterium. You should know better than to make such a silly argument.
Pastor Aeternus makes that silly argument. Of course, getting a straight answer of when that one bishop speaks ex cathedra is like nailing jello.

One bishop certainly trumps any poster here in your "magisterium."  Or are we getting an admission of how useless the concept of a "magisterium" is?

Your Supreme Potiff isn't telling whether the Holy Theotokos is immpecable or not, no council of yours has taken a position (which, given the Vatican's papocentric view of councils, amounts to the same thing as your SP not telling), and your bishops have not agreed on a position on the matter (which, given the Vatican's papocentric view of the episcopacy, amounts to the same thing as your SP not telling), so your "magisterium" has no comfort to give to millitantsparrow on this matter, and you can't invoke its "authority" to comfort him.

Even EM has admitted, as Apotheum has demonstrated, that the Vatican has allowed and still allows those who teach that the Holy Theotokos is impeccable as a "Catholic teaching." And until your Supreme Pontiff speaks up ex cathedra, gets a council to rubber stamp his thoughts on the matter, or force an agreement on all your bishops to the contrary, so the matter stands.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,446



« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2011, 12:34:56 AM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
Good, because you haven't.

So you possess such authority in your ecclesial community to speak on your own for it.  No need to cite authorities. No need to provide sources approved by your "magisterium."  Just +Sic Maria dixit.

The sources that Apotheum (who knows what the Church teaches) know too what the Vatican teaches. True, they do not have a +Sic Maria dixit, just a +Nihil Obstat and +Imprimatur from your magisterium.

You may not like what they had to say (and Apotheum hasn't said what he thinks of what they say: he has merely accurately posted them saying it).  But you have an uphill battle to dismiss it as not "a formal teaching" (whatever that means), unless you can produce, with the dispositive authority, the contrary "formal teaching."  And you have no basis whatsoever to say that the Orthodox have made it up or misrepresented Vatican teaching on the impeccability of the Holy Theotokos.  Much less disown what your "Angelic Doctor" says:
Quote
The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.
IMPRIMI POTEST
Alexander J. Burrowes, SJ.
Praep. Prov. Missour.
Sti. Ludovici, die 6 Jan. 1917.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tt1JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA402&dq=%22All+power+of+sinning+was+taken+away%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22All%20power%20of%20sinning%20was%20taken%20away%22&f=false

NIHIL OBSTAT
Sti. Ludovici, die 18 Maii, 1917.
F. G. Holwick
Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR
Sti. Ludovici, die 18 Maii, 1917.
+Joannes J. Glennon,
Archiepiscopus
Sti Ludovci


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 #77 on: November 28, 2011, 12:42:27 AM »

Apparently some of the posters in this thread missed this:

"Along with the extinction of the fomes, the Scholastics also defend Mary's confirmation in grace.  This they usually connect with the second sanctification; although even before that sanctification took place, Divine Providence preserved her from all personal sin.  Hence, in a certain sense, Mary was impeccable.  However, her impeccability differed both from that of Christ and of the blessed in heaven.  Mary was a pure creature and still on her way to the state of final blessedness; hence she was rendered impeccable exclusively through the abundance of grace which she received.  St. Thomas explains it in this way:  'The power of sinning may be taken away in one of two ways:  First, by the union of the free will with its last end, which so entirely fills it that no defect remains; and this is brought about by the vision of God in glory; hence, in no person who is still on the way to heaven is the power of sinning taken away in such a manner.  . . . Secondly, the power of sinning may be removed by the infusion of such an abundance of grace that thereby all defects are expelled:  and so it was removed in the case of the Blessed Virgin when she conceived the Son of God.  All power of sinning was taken away, although the Virgin herself still remained in statu viae.'  Or as St. Bonaventure briefly puts it:  'Not only was sanctifying grace given to the Virgin in her second sanctification, but also the grace whereby she was confirmed in good; and this was granted to her because she was so closely united to her Son that He could in no way permit her to be separated from Himself.'"

Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
A Manual of the History of Dogmas (Volume 2)
(St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1918)
Pages 402-403


This is the most clear, complete, and therefore I believe accurate one, of all the quotes to date on this thread.

Note that her impeccability is by grace and not nature so that it means that though her nature was preserved from the stain of original sin in the Immaculate Conception, it was by grace at the Annunciation that she was finally rendered fully impeccable...by grace.  It was not her Immaculate Conception that rendered her impeccable, but it was at the Annunciation.

The results of her Immaculate Conception was that she was conceived with an inlightened nous and strengthened will, and was not subject to corruption, though she was subject to death.  She was not subject to illness or suffering, and her virginity was miraculously preserved through her delivery of the Son of God into the world.

I have heard other Orthodox say that she was divinized at the time of the Annunciation, which would fit with what is being said here.

A similar thing applies to us as sinners.  Our baptisms are our first sanctification.  Yet we often dismiss that moment in favor of our most precious sin.  However as we succeed in pressing evil away in our lives and move away from rather than toward sin,  then the more we are filled with grace the less our inclination to sin.  If we are more inclined toward sin, than away from sin, then we can rest assured that we are not pressed down and over-flowing with grace.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 12:43:10 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2011, 10:26:56 AM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2011, 11:23:59 AM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
It literally means "nothing objectionable". It's not infallbile, and they only granted by individual bishops, not the magesterium.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2011, 11:24:55 AM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
I am glad that you know what the Church teaches.  But I do not share the grace of infused knowledge with you, and so I have had to study the writings of the Church Fathers, the saints, and medieval and modern theologians in order to better understand what is or is not commonly accepted doctrine.

To quote St. Augustine:  "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."
I was under the impression that you despised medieval theology.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,459



« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2011, 11:40:12 AM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
I am glad that you know what the Church teaches.  But I do not share the grace of infused knowledge with you, and so I have had to study the writings of the Church Fathers, the saints, and medieval and modern theologians in order to better understand what is or is not commonly accepted doctrine.

To quote St. Augustine:  "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."
I was under the impression that you despised medieval theology.

You might want to hold off on that blog till you some fundamentals straight.

Go back to history 101. And whatever is before Theology 101.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2011, 12:15:17 PM »

That I own the books in question is unimportant, but what is important is that I have - unlike you - supplied approved Roman Catholic sources that assert that Mary could not sin (i.e., that she was impeccable).

Unlike me?...of course, unlike me.  I know what the Church teaches.  I don't have to scrabble around to try to prove anything to anyone.
I am glad that you know what the Church teaches.  But I do not share the grace of infused knowledge with you, and so I have had to study the writings of the Church Fathers, the saints, and medieval and modern theologians in order to better understand what is or is not commonly accepted doctrine.

To quote St. Augustine:  "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."
I was under the impression that you despised medieval theology.

You might want to hold off on that blog till you some fundamentals straight.

Go back to history 101. And whatever is before Theology 101.
Ha!!! You are riot sweetie pie. Kiss Kiss
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 12:16:04 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2011, 12:18:22 PM »

I am not uncomfortable at all. why would I be? Are you uncomfortable? Is that why you bring up the whole idea of "discomfort"?
Nope, I feel no discomfort at all, but you seem to be uncomfortable, and I honestly do not know why.  Perhaps I have misinterpreted your rather aggressive demeanor for discomfort.  If that is the case I apologize.

Anywho, you have not answered the question. If you believe that Catholic Church is truly in such grave error, why don't you convert to Eastern Orthodoxy so that you can be in communion with those with whom you agree?
Now if you look at my posts so far in this thread you will see that I have not accused anyone (Catholic or Orthodox) of being in error; instead, I have simply posted quotations from reputable Roman Catholic scholars and theologians.  To the best of my knowledge none of the authors that I have quoted are viewed as highly polemical anti-Catholics; instead, they are Catholic priests who either died in the peace of the Church, or who are living members in good standing with their respective bishops.

Do you believe that Fr. Scheeben, or Fr. Carol, or any of the other authors I have quoted on this topic, are anti-Catholic?  I would be shocked if you said "Yes" to that question, because - for example - Fr. Scheeben's texts on dogma (and some of the texts of the other authors as well) - at least prior to Vatican II - were used in seminaries in the United States and other countries.  To my knowledge Fr. Scheeben is a highly respected theologian, and so I see no reason for you to take offense at my quoting him on this topic.  The same holds for Fr. Carol, Fr. Baker, Fr. Pohle, and Fr. Haffner, all of whom are (or were - in the case of those who have passed away) respected priests and theologians in the Roman Catholic Church.

I am curious, did you even listen to Fr. Peter Fehlner's audio recording?  Do you believe that he distorted Catholic teaching on this subject?  Now, if you think he has promoted error, perhaps you could be more precise and state exactly what it is in his teaching that is wrong.

Finally, what is it about the authors I have quoted so far in this thread that seems to make you uneasy?  As far as I can tell, they are all respected Catholic scholars and theologians, at least they were held to be so in the years prior to my becoming an Eastern Catholic in 2005.  To be blunt, you make it sound as if I have quoted someone like Charles Curran or Hans Küng as an approved theologian in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Could it be that you simply do not agree with the quotations because I have provided them? 
Again, you are the one who keeps bringing up the concept of discomfort, so it makes me wonder if the position in which you find yourself, makes you discomfort.

But again, if you personally believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the error that Mary was essentially impeccable, and you truly believe that that is an error, why do you remain in commuin with the Latin Church?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,446



« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2011, 12:20:58 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
It literally means "nothing objectionable". It's not infallbile, and they only granted by individual bishops, not the magesterium.
More than enough to deflate the shrill protestations that the Vatican's dogma's are being misrepresented.  An individual bishop stamped the impeccability of the Holy Theotokos as "nothing objectionable" according to the Vatican.  When you can induce your magesterium to say otherwise (and not in a tea cup), let us know.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,446



« Reply #85 on: November 28, 2011, 12:23:26 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
Sure do: one of the devices by which your magisterium projects an aura of infallibility while maintaining plausible deniability.  Here those uncomfortable with the doctrine of impeccability of the Theotokos are making use of the latter to cloak their denial in the former.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #86 on: November 28, 2011, 12:23:51 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
It literally means "nothing objectionable". It's not infallbile, and they only granted by individual bishops, not the magesterium.
More than enough to deflate the shrill protestations that the Vatican's dogma's are being misrepresented.  An individual bishop stamped the impeccability of the Holy Theotokos as "nothing objectionable" according to the Vatican.  When you can induce your magesterium to say otherwise (and not in a tea cup), let us know.
I don't see any evidence that the magesterium has said anything, one way or another. So please don't make an argument from silence. It's a logical fallacy to do so. The magesterium has not said anything one way or another, and I tend to side with those that believe that Mary made a free will choice not to sin.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: November 28, 2011, 12:24:35 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
Sure do: one of the devices by which your magisterium projects an aura of infallibility while maintaining plausible deniability.  Here those uncomfortable with the doctrine of impeccability of the Theotokos are making use of the latter to cloak their denial in the former.
Izzy, stop lying. You know very well that that is not what a Nihil Obstat is. It's simple an approval given by an individual bishop.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,446



« Reply #88 on: November 28, 2011, 12:28:01 PM »

I am not uncomfortable at all. why would I be? Are you uncomfortable? Is that why you bring up the whole idea of "discomfort"?
Nope, I feel no discomfort at all, but you seem to be uncomfortable, and I honestly do not know why.  Perhaps I have misinterpreted your rather aggressive demeanor for discomfort.  If that is the case I apologize.

Anywho, you have not answered the question. If you believe that Catholic Church is truly in such grave error, why don't you convert to Eastern Orthodoxy so that you can be in communion with those with whom you agree?
Now if you look at my posts so far in this thread you will see that I have not accused anyone (Catholic or Orthodox) of being in error; instead, I have simply posted quotations from reputable Roman Catholic scholars and theologians.  To the best of my knowledge none of the authors that I have quoted are viewed as highly polemical anti-Catholics; instead, they are Catholic priests who either died in the peace of the Church, or who are living members in good standing with their respective bishops.

Do you believe that Fr. Scheeben, or Fr. Carol, or any of the other authors I have quoted on this topic, are anti-Catholic?  I would be shocked if you said "Yes" to that question, because - for example - Fr. Scheeben's texts on dogma (and some of the texts of the other authors as well) - at least prior to Vatican II - were used in seminaries in the United States and other countries.  To my knowledge Fr. Scheeben is a highly respected theologian, and so I see no reason for you to take offense at my quoting him on this topic.  The same holds for Fr. Carol, Fr. Baker, Fr. Pohle, and Fr. Haffner, all of whom are (or were - in the case of those who have passed away) respected priests and theologians in the Roman Catholic Church.

I am curious, did you even listen to Fr. Peter Fehlner's audio recording?  Do you believe that he distorted Catholic teaching on this subject?  Now, if you think he has promoted error, perhaps you could be more precise and state exactly what it is in his teaching that is wrong.

Finally, what is it about the authors I have quoted so far in this thread that seems to make you uneasy?  As far as I can tell, they are all respected Catholic scholars and theologians, at least they were held to be so in the years prior to my becoming an Eastern Catholic in 2005.  To be blunt, you make it sound as if I have quoted someone like Charles Curran or Hans Küng as an approved theologian in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Could it be that you simply do not agree with the quotations because I have provided them? 
Again, you are the one who keeps bringing up the concept of discomfort, so it makes me wonder if the position in which you find yourself, makes you discomfort.

But again, if you personally believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the error that Mary was essentially impeccable, and you truly believe that that is an error, why do you remain in commuin with the Latin Church?
Why do you?

Apotheum still hasn't given his personal belief on the matter (or did I miss it).  You call it error that Mary was essentially impeccable (and it is, but then that's Orthodoxy).  He has only shown that people in communion with the Vatican teach it.  Why do you remain in communion with an institution that allows (with it seal of inspection) error to be taught?

Why don't you relieve your discomfort on that by pestering your "magisterium" to disown such teaching, and leave Apotheum to answer to his bishops?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,446



« Reply #89 on: November 28, 2011, 12:29:26 PM »

Apotheoun,
Wow! Thank you for sharing. Fr. Hardon is considered by many to be the definitive catechist so his words carry weight beyond a regular priest. This is troubling.

And yet, Fr. Hardon is not the Magesterium, and thus, there is is no reason for you to be troubled.
Fr. Hardon's is just one of the many quotations from Roman Catholic priests and scholars that I have supplied.  Are you saying that all of the priests quoted are in error?
And the fact that the "magisterium" gave its "nihil obstat" to Fr. Hardon et alia, should give reason to be troubled, if you believe in the "magisterium" but do not believe the Holy Theotokos was impeccable.
I see you still don't know what a nihil obstat is.
Sure do: one of the devices by which your magisterium projects an aura of infallibility while maintaining plausible deniability.  Here those uncomfortable with the doctrine of impeccability of the Theotokos are making use of the latter to cloak their denial in the former.
Izzy, stop lying. You know very well that that is not what a Nihil Obstat is. It's simple an approval given by an individual bishop.
Like I said, approval projecting an aura of infallibility but only by one bishop (and NEVER the bishop of Rome) to maintain plasible deniability.

Caveat Lector.
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
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 0.215 seconds with 72 queries.