OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 11:55:55 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nihil obstats, imprimaturs, and such  (Read 3050 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2011, 10:25:32 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.

I know many who have not come around, as you say, many of them are in the Catholic Church now and some of them remain convinced that both Orthodox and Catholic teachings are evil. 

I also know many Catholics who succumbed to Orthodoxy only to return to the Church of their Baptism...unless of course they have spouses and families in Orthodoxy.  They tend to remain.

So it is a very fluid kind of world, this world of souls. 

Best, as you say, not to worry.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2011, 10:26:23 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.
Its weasely to characterize some one else's church as "weasely" just to advance your agenda of scoring points.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2011, 10:32:05 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.
Its weasely to characterize some one else's church as "weasely" just to advance your agenda of scoring points.

He responded to my reference to Orthodox who habitually refer to Catholic explanations of some teaching or other as "weasel words", particularly when they do not agree with the teaching...whether or not they understand it is irrelevant for this point.  I find, with no little humor, the same kinds of so-called weasel words being used by Orthodox who try to explain the meaning of some contested teaching to Protestants.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2011, 02:20:25 AM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.
Ah...so a knee-jerk reaction based on perceived bullying of your co-religionists completely divorced from logic and rationality. Got it! How convenient to notice the splinter in our eye......

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?
Since the Vatican has seen fit to dogmatize "in the first instance of her conception" to her "having completed the course of her earthly life" and beyond, it would seem the Vatican is in a mad dash to dogmatize every single aspect of her life.
Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,816


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2011, 12:24:23 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2011, 12:38:08 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,816


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2011, 01:10:33 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 

That was my point however, it shows the  reality of what these things mean. I sense that individual Bishops united with Rome like to stress their view of centralized Roman eccesiology when it suits their purposes and to minimize the same when they take issue within the administration of their own Dioceses! (Imagine that, they like Federalism when it supports their agenda and they are states righters' depending on the issue! Just like American politicians!!!)

 One can certainly argue that neither east nor west are currently entirely faithful to the views of the early fathers regarding these issues!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2011, 01:17:56 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 

That was my point however, it shows the  reality of what these things mean. I sense that individual Bishops united with Rome like to stress their view of centralized Roman eccesiology when it suits their purposes and to minimize the same when they take issue within the administration of their own Dioceses! (Imagine that, they like Federalism when it supports their agenda and they are states righters' depending on the issue! Just like American politicians!!!)

 One can certainly argue that neither east nor west are currently entirely faithful to the views of the early fathers regarding these issues!

Yes! 

And with respect to the early fathers, why would be be entirely faithful to their way of being and doing?  They were not +entirely+ faithful [equivalent] in their own dealings with one another. 

We are a living Body.  Our members make mistakes, have terrible habits and sin without ceasing almost as much as other members pray without ceasing.  If there is a golden mean to be found in theological or moral terms then it will be found in our interactions, not in some static lawbook.  I think there's a gospel or two about that in fact.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2011, 04:27:14 PM »

Quote from: irish hermit
I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.

Ah...so a knee-jerk reaction based on perceived bullying of your co-religionists completely divorced from logic and rationality. Got it! How convenient to notice the splinter in our eye......


A knee-jerk reaction?  Ha! ha! ha!  But do I detect a note of bile in your words? Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2011, 04:34:09 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2011, 04:43:26 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2011, 04:56:53 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


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


« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2011, 05:07:37 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.
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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2011, 05:48:05 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.

His enthusiastic preaching and support of the Crusades is completely out of line with the Gospel of Christ, something quite extraordinary for a monk.  To his credit, he was horrified by the Catholic slaughter of the Jews in the Holy Land.

Apart from the Crusades, many Orthodox greatly respect him and consider him the last of the Westerners to stand in the patristic tradition before it was overlaid by the incoming schoolmen.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 05:57:41 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: 10,240


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


« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2011, 05:56:58 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?
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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2011, 06:01:47 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:05:19 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2011, 06:13:29 PM »

Sorry. Wrong thread.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:14:53 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: 10,240


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


« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2011, 06:23:32 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?
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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2011, 06:31:57 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:34:03 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2011, 07:43:08 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2011, 08:11:20 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 

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

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



WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2011, 08:16:21 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 



I have trouble believing that.

"It's ok to believe in the IC.... as long as you don't ACTUALLY believe it."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2011, 08:31:48 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 



I have trouble believing that.

"It's ok to believe in the IC.... as long as you don't ACTUALLY believe it."

 Smiley Cheesy Grin Kiss laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM »

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel

You have your coterie of Orthodox bishops and theologians.  I have the McGillicuddies.

Meet the McGillicuddies....  laugh

Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2011, 01:19:06 AM »

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel

You have your coterie of Orthodox bishops and theologians.  I have the McGillicuddies.

Meet the McGillicuddies....  laugh



Oooooh, I'll have three of each, thanks!  Kiss laugh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2011, 01:46:52 AM »

What does the dogma of the Immaculate Conception have to do with a nihil obstat or imprimatur? Huh
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2011, 01:51:26 AM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2011, 03:05:40 AM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.

What a pity that his writings were not examined for a Nihil Obstat.  His errors may never have seen the light of day.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 03:06:22 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2011, 02:39:38 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.

What a pity that his writings were not examined for a Nihil Obstat.  His errors may never have seen the light of day.

Oh if only you learned and intelligent Greeks could have taken him by the hand and guided him to truth.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2011, 06:20:49 PM »


My I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

Were you able to ask the Orthodox priest?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,240


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


« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2011, 06:28:21 PM »


My I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

Were you able to ask the Orthodox priest?

'Fraid not.
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 (?)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.217 seconds with 58 queries.