OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 09:17:49 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 18866 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #90 on: November 28, 2011, 12:30:42 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?
Ya'll must be so uncomfortable, because you keep bringing up the issue of "discomfort". Is the fact that you are in error in so many theological matters causing you psychological dissonance?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #91 on: November 28, 2011, 12:32:56 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.
EXACTLY
So please don't make an argument from silence.

No silence involved: the quotes that have been provided speak loud and clear.

Or are you refering to the campaign to silence Apotheum?

It's a logical fallacy to do so.
So is imposing silence when the sources say otherwise.

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.
That's nice. As we have seen, many of your theologians, with your bishops blessings, have taught otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,960



« Reply #92 on: November 28, 2011, 12:35:44 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?
Ya'll must be so uncomfortable, because you keep bringing up the issue of "discomfort". Is the fact that you are in error in so many theological matters causing you psychological dissonance?
Just the discomfort when I come across a heavy metal station.  Listening to the Vatican's teachings, I expect to hear lots of cognitic dissonance, not to mention theological cacophony.  Rather unpleasant.

Maybe I'll go listen to AFR.
http://ancientfaith.com/listen
Aaaaah! That's better. Wink
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 #93 on: November 28, 2011, 12:54:11 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.
It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops. All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching. I realize that you have an axe to grind when it comes to our Church but, seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #94 on: November 28, 2011, 12:54:11 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?
The magisterium does not proclaim such a teaching, so your point is moot. Just like your Church, we have beliefs that fall under the realm of theological opinion. It is quite possible that Mary's impeccability is one of them. It is not heretical to believe that she was, but it is also not dogma.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2011, 01:00:34 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.
Like Pope Honorius?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,960



« Reply #96 on: November 28, 2011, 01:03:26 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.
It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops. All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical.
And since saying that the Holy Theotokos was impeccable is inherently heretical, what does that say about the bishops who make up your magisterium, and their "head" who lets such things go on?
It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching. I realize that you have an axe to grind when it comes to our Church but,
not my problem you have bishops letting theologians slit your throats.
seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #97 on: November 28, 2011, 01:07:32 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?
The magisterium does not proclaim such a teaching, so your point is moot.

au contraire, since your "magisterium" does not teach that the Holy Theotokos' impeccability is inherently heretical, the usefulness of your "magisterium" is what is "moot."

Just like your Church, we have beliefs that fall under the realm of theological opinion.
but unlike our Church, you have heretical beliefs that fall under the realm of theological opinion. Until the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra and makes them "infallible," as he did with the IC and we are waiting now from him to do with the "mediatrix" followed by "the semi-incarnate Immaculata."

It is quite possible that Mary's impeccability is one of them. It is not heretical to believe that she was, but it is also not dogma.
It is dogma that it is heretical.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,960



« Reply #98 on: November 28, 2011, 01:14:53 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.
and people are free to agree with such heretical ideas as the impeccability of the Holy Theotokos.  In your ecclesiastical community, that is.  Orthodoxy won't allow such things.
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.
LOL.  Your being a Thomist schoastic, I'm sure you can.
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.
Sneaking a little Calvin in there I see.
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.
your presentation doesn't come with a "nihil obstat" nor an "imprimatur."
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
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #99 on: November 28, 2011, 01:37:07 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

Sheesh. And I thought the rules of this thread were to be snarky. And here you go being all unnaturally . . . *cough* nice.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: November 28, 2011, 02:44:53 PM »

Perhaps to get the thread back on topic?

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.

Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #101 on: November 28, 2011, 04:22:07 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.
and people are free to agree with such heretical ideas as the impeccability of the Holy Theotokos.  In your ecclesiastical community, that is.  Orthodoxy won't allow such things.
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.
LOL.  Your being a Thomist schoastic, I'm sure you can.
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.
Sneaking a little Calvin in there I see.
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.
your presentation doesn't come with a "nihil obstat" nor an "imprimatur."

And what would you make of it if it *did* come with a "nihil obstat" and an "imprimatur"?  Just askin'  Wink.  (Yes, yes, I know--it didn't, so the question *is* hypothetical, but I'm curious anyway.)
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #102 on: November 28, 2011, 05:00:42 PM »

Bickering Watch . The OC.net Moderatorial Service has declared a Bickering Watch for this thread. Conditions are right for the formation of a stream of bickering, pointlessly reviewing the same topics ad nauseum that have derailed and poisoned past threads. Repeat, there is a Bickering Watch over this thread; any posters interested in actually learning anything are advised to stay away from this potential bickering activity and seek refuge in polite discourse within the topics originally presented in this thread.   username! Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator"
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: November 28, 2011, 05:09:44 PM »

Deleted because it was not on topic.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 05:12:22 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2011, 05:15:48 PM »

Bickering Watch . The OC.net Moderatorial Service has declared a Bickering Watch for this thread. Conditions are right for the formation of a stream of bickering, pointlessly reviewing the same topics ad nauseum that have derailed and poisoned past threads. Repeat, there is a Bickering Watch over this thread; any posters interested in actually learning anything are advised to stay away from this potential bickering activity and seek refuge in polite discourse within the topics originally presented in this thread.   username! Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator"

Good point.  You're right, of course.  Apologies for my part.  Must learn to exercise greater control over my keyboard   Wink Embarrassed.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
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 #105 on: November 28, 2011, 05:29:03 PM »

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?
I have not accused anyone of error; instead, I have simply posted quotations from reputable Roman Catholic theologians.  Alas, so far you have not posted any texts that contradict the teaching contained in the sources I have quoted.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 05:32:24 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 #106 on: November 28, 2011, 05:40:18 PM »

. . . that Mary was essentially impeccable . . .
Your use of language here is rather sloppy.  Do you mean by "essentially" that Mary is - according to her nature or essence - impeccable?  Because none of the authors I have quoted so far teaches that proposition.  All of them, in different modes of expression, teach that Mary is "morally" but not "metaphysically" impeccable. 

Could you clarify what you mean by the use of the word "essentially" in your post?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: November 28, 2011, 05:51:11 PM »

i believe that the Mother of God never sinned but we must acknowledge that this was not always  the understanding of some of the greatest Fathers of the Church.

We can find two or three early Church Fathers who believed that she sinned... one is Saint John Chrysostom who thought she committed the sin of presumption when she used her maternal influence with her Son to cause Him to work the miracle before His time over the water jars at Cana and to reveal Himself earlier than planned. The sudden appearance of a quite enormous quantity of the finest wine in the world did not go unnoticed!! Another is (Saint Basil the Great? need to check which Father) who believed that she sinned by doubt at the time when Symeon was prophesying in the temple of the future fate of her baby Son.

But it is important to point out that these were opinions of two or three Fathers which were not accepted by the Church into her sacred tradition. The Fathers after all may be mistaken on some points; none are infallible.

It sometimes happens that converts today discover these minor anomalies and get a tad excited about them. Probably because they see them as some sort of distinction from Roman Catholicism.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #108 on: November 29, 2011, 12:28:45 PM »

. . . that Mary was essentially impeccable . . .
Your use of language here is rather sloppy.  Do you mean by "essentially" that Mary is - according to her nature or essence - impeccable?  Because none of the authors I have quoted so far teaches that proposition.  All of them, in different modes of expression, teach that Mary is "morally" but not "metaphysically" impeccable. 

Could you clarify what you mean by the use of the word "essentially" in your post?
I mean that she is NOT essentially impeccable. In and of her self, there is nothing about her taht is impeccable.
BTW, everything about your theology is generally sloppy, like your communion with a Church that you believe is heretical.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #109 on: November 29, 2011, 12:52:26 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
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 #110 on: November 29, 2011, 02:44:35 PM »

. . . that Mary was essentially impeccable . . .
Your use of language here is rather sloppy.  Do you mean by "essentially" that Mary is - according to her nature or essence - impeccable?  Because none of the authors I have quoted so far teaches that proposition.  All of them, in different modes of expression, teach that Mary is "morally" but not "metaphysically" impeccable. 

Could you clarify what you mean by the use of the word "essentially" in your post?
I mean that she is NOT essentially impeccable. In and of her self, there is nothing about her taht is impeccable.
BTW, everything about your theology is generally sloppy, like your communion with a Church that you believe is heretical.
You have a right to your opinion even if I do not agree with you, but in this thread we are not talking about my theology; instead, we are talking about the theology of the Roman Catholic scholars and theologians that I have quoted in this thread.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 02:56:26 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: November 29, 2011, 03:04:48 PM »

You have a right to your opinion even if I do not agree with you, but in this thread we are not talking about my theology; instead, we are talking about the theology of the Roman Catholic scholars and theologians that I have quoted in this thread.

 This is fine as far as it goes.  Where the trouble comes is when people try to force the opinions of Catholic scholars and theologians upon the Church as formal teaching of the Church.  That is not real or true or accurate.

Any more than it is accurate to say that the approval of a text by two bishops means that everything in the text is truth and acceptable teaching.  Those guarantees by the bishops are only that whatever errors there are are not harmful to the faithful...for whatever reason that bishop has for saying so.  It does not mean that another bishop would give the text the same "pass"...

As long as these qualifiers are clearly understood...there's no real problem in the discussion.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 03:06:30 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 #112 on: November 29, 2011, 03:18:16 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
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 #113 on: November 29, 2011, 04:07:02 PM »

"Impeccability is predicated also of Mary on account of her superhuman dignity as the Mother of God, on account of her exemption from original sin and, consequently, from the foment of concupiscence, and on account of the fullness of grace with which her soul was adorned. But Mary’s impeccability was not intrinsic like Jesus’, but extrinsic rather, i.e., due to a special assistance of God."

Peitro Cardinal Parente, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo
Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology
(Milwaukee:  Bruce Publishing Company, 1951)
Page 135
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 #114 on: November 29, 2011, 04:13:44 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.


That is not the point.  The point is that you've offered nothing by way of any explanation.  You did offer one text that pointed out that her impeccability is not on account of the Immaculate Conception, but because of the Annunciation.  I agreed that is most closely allied to the Church's teaching.  I still agree that is most closely allied to the Church's teaching.

And you've offered no corresponding formal documents from the Church.

So the best one can say about your theologians and scholars is..."oh...ok"

You have led us with much ado to a "so what" moment...

well...thanks   Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #115 on: November 29, 2011, 04:19:07 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
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 #116 on: November 29, 2011, 05:31:05 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
That is not the point.  The point is that you've offered nothing by way of any explanation.  You did offer one text that pointed out that her impeccability is not on account of the Immaculate Conception, but because of the Annunciation.  I agreed that is most closely allied to the Church's teaching.  I still agree that is most closely allied to the Church's teaching.
I have no interest in trying to explain the texts; instead, I have simply provided the quotations so that people can judge for themselves what the teaching is on Mary's impeccability.

Nevertheless I will say this:  One thing is clear from the authors I have quoted, and that is that all of them hold Mary to be impeccable (i.e., unable to sin) by a special grace of God.
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 #117 on: November 29, 2011, 05:35:44 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
And what evidence do you have that that is the case?  Were any of these theologians condemned for teaching that Mary is impeccable? 

It would have been rather amusing to see Cardinal Parente sanctioned by the magisterium seeing that he was a theologian and inquisitor in the Holy Office for many years, and was appointed secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 05:38:20 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 #118 on: November 29, 2011, 05:58:59 PM »

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

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

Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2011, 06:07:10 PM »

I confess that I am quite convinced that the consensus of Catholic teaching is that the Mother of God was possessed of impeccability during her earthly life.  Apotheoun has produced about 8 extracts from major Catholic theologians supporting this belief.    While theologians may not comprise any part of your magisterium it is unlikely that they would expound questionable teachings not in accord with magisterial thought.
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 #120 on: November 29, 2011, 06:07:39 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.
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 #121 on: November 29, 2011, 06:09:48 PM »

While theologians may not comprise any part of your magisterium it is unlikely that they would expound questionable teachings not in accord with magisterial thought.

 Cheesy...surely you jest

Be that as it may, there's more to be said than the out of context quotes that we've seen to date...
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2011, 06:11:08 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.


But you are so good at it...Don't let me get in your way... Grin
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 #123 on: November 29, 2011, 06:13:00 PM »

I confess that I am quite convinced that the consensus of Catholic teaching is that the Mother of God was possessed of impeccability during her earthly life.  Apotheoun has produced about 8 extracts from major Catholic theologians supporting this belief.    While theologians may not comprise any part of your magisterium it is unlikely that they would expound questionable teachings not in accord with magisterial thought.
Here is a list of the authors I have quoted so far in this thread:

Johannes Tauler, OP
Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Fr. Juniper B. Carol, OFM
Fr. Bernard John Otten, S.J.
Fr. Paul Haffner
Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Fr. Joseph Pohle
Fr. Matthias J. Scheeben
Fr. Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm.
Fr. Peter Fehlner
Peitro Cardinal Parente, Archbishop of Perugia*
Msgr. Antonio Piolanti
Msgr. Salvatore Garofalo


*Cardinal Parente was also an assessor of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, and was appointed secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Paul VI in 1965.  More information about Cardinal Parente is available at the website linked below:

The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 06:34:57 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: November 29, 2011, 06:13:50 PM »

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

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



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

Theosis is a never-ending journey to “become by grace what God is by nature.”  The achievement of theosis is not possible..... no human will ever achieve 100% divinisation.
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 #125 on: November 29, 2011, 06:15:08 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.


But you are so good at it...Don't let me get in your way... Grin
Alas, I have no Orthodox books that assert Mary's impeccability, but then the vast majority of the books in my library are Catholic, not Orthodox.  After all I was Roman Catholic for 18 years and have only been Eastern Catholic for 5 years.  Cheesy
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2011, 06:15:33 PM »

While theologians may not comprise any part of your magisterium it is unlikely that they would expound questionable teachings not in accord with magisterial thought.

 Cheesy...surely you jest


I am speaking of the reputable theologians whom Apotheoun has been quoting.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2011, 06:25:35 PM »

While theologians may not comprise any part of your magisterium it is unlikely that they would expound questionable teachings not in accord with magisterial thought.

 Cheesy...surely you jest


I am speaking of the reputable theologians whom Apotheoun has been quoting.

I don't think theirs is the last word and there's more to be said by way of further explanation in most of them, but I agree with you, with those qualifications...more seriously.  Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2011, 06:39:19 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.


But you are so good at it...Don't let me get in your way... Grin
Alas, I have no Orthodox books that assert Mary's impeccability, but then the vast majority of the books in my library are Catholic, not Orthodox.  After all I was Roman Catholic for 18 years and have only been Eastern Catholic for 5 years.  Cheesy

I gnu that you had been a Latin rite Catholic transfer to one of the eastern jurisdictions.  But I didn't know the transfer was only five years old...
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 #129 on: November 29, 2011, 06:45:46 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.


But you are so good at it...Don't let me get in your way... Grin
Alas, I have no Orthodox books that assert Mary's impeccability, but then the vast majority of the books in my library are Catholic, not Orthodox.  After all I was Roman Catholic for 18 years and have only been Eastern Catholic for 5 years.  Cheesy

I gnu that you had been a Latin rite Catholic transfer to one of the eastern jurisdictions.  But I didn't know the transfer was only five years old...
Actually, I was mistaken in my previous post, because my transfer was granted over six years ago.  To be precise my canonical transfer took place on Lazarus Saturday in 2005 (19 March), but of course I began attending an Eastern Catholic Church in 2003 and so the process of transfer can be held to have started at that point.  Cheesy
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 #130 on: November 29, 2011, 06:54:58 PM »

So far no one has provided any information that contradicts the teaching set forth in the quotations I have posted.
There's no need. The "teaching" that you presented is merely the musing of a theologian...not a teaching of the Church. It carries no weight therefore the Church has no need to speak out against it. It's insignificant.
I would not go nearly that far.  I do believe that there's a history, both in the east and in the west, that the Mother of God achieved theosis at the time of the Annunciation and from that time on she could not sin by the fullness of grace. 
Perhaps you can provide quotations from Orthodox authors who assert Mary's impeccability (i.e., her inability to sin) as opposed to her simply being sinless - just as I have done with Catholic authors.  That would go a long way toward highlighting Catholic / Orthodox agreement on teachings related to the Theotokos.


But you are so good at it...Don't let me get in your way... Grin
Alas, I have no Orthodox books that assert Mary's impeccability, but then the vast majority of the books in my library are Catholic, not Orthodox.  After all I was Roman Catholic for 18 years and have only been Eastern Catholic for 5 years.  Cheesy

I gnu that you had been a Latin rite Catholic transfer to one of the eastern jurisdictions.  But I didn't know the transfer was only five years old...
Actually, I was mistaken in my previous post, because my transfer was granted over six years ago.  To be precise my canonical transfer took place on Lazarus Saturday in 2005 (19 March), but of course I began attending an Eastern Catholic Church in 2003 and so the process of transfer can be held to have started at that point.  Cheesy

I think I may have some vague recollection.  2005 was the summer my father died.  Things are a little muzzy from that period.  I did not take it at all well or gracefully and there were all kinds of unexpected pressures on me back then with my mother moving into her own great age.  I remember talking to you about that back then and learning that you were a caretaker as well.

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 #131 on: November 29, 2011, 07:12:55 PM »

Actually, I was mistaken in my previous post, because my transfer was granted over six years ago.  To be precise my canonical transfer took place on Lazarus Saturday in 2005 (19 March), but of course I began attending an Eastern Catholic Church in 2003 and so the process of transfer can be held to have started at that point.  Cheesy
I think I may have some vague recollection.  2005 was the summer my father died.  Things are a little muzzy from that period.  I did not take it at all well or gracefully and there were all kinds of unexpected pressures on me back then with my mother moving into her own great age.
Yes, I believe we spoke about my canonical transfer those many years ago. 

I remember talking to you about that back then and learning that you were a caretaker as well.
Yes, and I continue to take care of my 73 year old mother who suffers from emphysema.
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 #132 on: November 29, 2011, 07:59:16 PM »

Actually, I was mistaken in my previous post, because my transfer was granted over six years ago.  To be precise my canonical transfer took place on Lazarus Saturday in 2005 (19 March), but of course I began attending an Eastern Catholic Church in 2003 and so the process of transfer can be held to have started at that point.  Cheesy
I think I may have some vague recollection.  2005 was the summer my father died.  Things are a little muzzy from that period.  I did not take it at all well or gracefully and there were all kinds of unexpected pressures on me back then with my mother moving into her own great age.
Yes, I believe we spoke about my canonical transfer those many years ago. 

I remember talking to you about that back then and learning that you were a caretaker as well.
Yes, and I continue to take care of my 73 year old mother who suffers from emphysema.

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

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,019


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #133 on: November 29, 2011, 08:49:47 PM »

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

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

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #134 on: November 29, 2011, 09:31:00 PM »

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

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



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

Theosis is a never-ending journey to “become by grace what God is by nature.”  The achievement of theosis is not possible..... no human will ever achieve 100% divinisation.
except of course, Father, the one human Who was born with it (or perhaps better, "Him").
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 0.21 seconds with 73 queries.