Topic: Privileges of the Primacy

[Peter J]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

[domNoah]

Im sure this has come up before, but I can't find a thread on it. Can anyone spell out just what the privileges and prerogatives of Rome were in the early Church? And cite examples or quotations from the Fathers? I think when I read things that point to the primacy, I looking through a Catholic lens say, "Well there you go, he had power over the other Churches..." But perhaps that's mixing up the primacy with supremacy.

I have a somewhat long essay from 1858 that I am working on fixing the OCR errors on that covers this, I will post a link to it once it is published but it will take some more time (up to two days depending on other things).

[Nicene]

This one comes to mind:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius to the romans, opening


I've heard this one quoted alot recently though I think its not clear what Ignatius means by a preside, does that mean over the entire church or just over the territory which he is assigned? I will be honest and say I don't think Ignatius is clear, though obviously I lean to the orthodox understanding.

Then theres always Iraneaus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Then again I think the qualifier is that Rome at that point had perfectly preserved the teaching of the church, not that in of itself and because it had held faithful tot he traditions received fromt he apostles that we ought have been in communion with rome.

[Clemente]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative? I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty?

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

[Peter J]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty?

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

[ErmyCath]

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

[J Michael]

And Clemente wonders why I said, "Get out the popcorn". 

[Clemente]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty?

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

[Clemente]

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

Yes it would.

[J Michael]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty?

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

A question borne of my own ignorance, so I beg your forebearance: What evidence, if any, is there that the Theotokos sinned?  If you are able, please cite references.  Thanks!

[Clemente]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty?

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

A question borne of my own ignorance, so I beg your forebearance: What evidence, if any, is there that the Theotokos sinned?  If you are able, please cite references.  Thanks!

Good question for another thread.

[Peter J]

Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

That's very kind of you. Why don't just go ahead and pass sentence, since you're obviously judge and jury?

[Clemente]

Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

That's very kind of you. Why don't just go ahead and pass sentence, since you're obviously judge and jury?

No, just trying to avoid silly debates.

2 Timothy 2:23-26

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25

I sense you are just trying to be disputatious. If not, forgive me. I should be glad to refer you to the Orthodox perspective on the IC.

[domNoah]

To the original question.

In order to understand the Privileges of the Primacy you have to understand the privelages of Patriachs and Exarchs in the early Church as well.  When I saw your question I remembered reading about these in detail in the essay I have put on the interent, taken from an Old Catholic Journal called The Rambler.

This is about 15 pages and it is not light reading.
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

This essay discusses the Pope in relation to the other Patriarchs, correspondence between the early Church and legal disputes (that involved the Roman see), the degrees of authority, and the Popes Universal primacy.  It is worth a read, here is one extract that you might find particarly interesting.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles' times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, "When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ' Teach all nations.'"
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : "He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter's chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;' 'confirm thy brethren;' 'feed my sheep.' And so, though there are many Apostles, yet on account of his primacy, his chair alone, in the three places where it was pitched, preserved the chief authority. He gave its preeminence to the see where he finally rested, and where he closed his earthly career. He gave its honour to the see to which he sent his disciple the Evangelist. He gave its power to the see where he sat seven years, though he was not to remain there. Since, therefore, the chair is one, and his alone, in which now by God's authority three Bishops sit, whatever good I hear of you I take to myself: and if you believe any good of me, think it belongs to your stock of merits ; for we are one in Him who says, ' That they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us." In another letter to the same, St. Gregory says, " As everybody knows that the Blessed Evangelist Mark was sent to Alexandria by his master St. Peter the Apostle, so are we united in the unity of the master and disciple. Thus I seem to preside over the disciple's see through the master, and you over the master's see through the disciple." St. Innocent I. speaks in an analogous way about Antioch : " We know that it has this attribute, not so much for the magnificence of the city, as because it is shown to be the first see of the first Apostle, where also our religion was first called Christian, and where the celebrated gathering of the Apostles took place. A see which would not yield in importance to that of Rome, except that it only received St. Peter on his passage, while Rome received him for good, and possessed him till he died.""

[William]

and the NO was dropped last year.

Except it wasn't.

[Maria]

and the NO was dropped last year.

Except it wasn't.

Quite right.
I wish that Pope Benedict had the courage to drop it.

No doubt the butler's leaks show who is really in control.
Not the pope, that is for sure.

[William]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.

(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.

[Cavaradossi]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.

(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.

Then offer your own interpretation.

[Peter J]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.

(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.

Then offer your own interpretation.

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

[ErmyCath]

I gave you an explanation above at reply #50...

[theistgal]

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Now of course if you don't believe in the IC that's not an issue, and you can easily accept the possibility that she may have sinned, without doing any great theological damage. (I personally don't think she did, though.   )

[JoeS2]

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I believe that this is the take of the Orthodox church; that after the Annunciation by virtue of the Holy Spirit Our Lady was made pure.  This is why we believe she was ever virgin and spotless at her Dormition.

[Peter J]

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I certainly acknowledge that in each of these ^^ posts, a connection is shown between the IC and the teaching that Mary never sinned. But that isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

[Clemente]

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I certainly acknowledge that in each of these ^^ posts, a connection is shown between the IC and the teaching that Mary never sinned. But that isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

I can sympathise with your frustration. You haven't answered my questions either. That isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

Before we delve off into a silly, unproductive tanget and derail this thread (which is somewhat critical of the Roman pope and therefore may not be completely to your liking), I asked you if you could name any theologian (Orthodox, heterodox, or heretic) from any place and any age who believes in the immaculate conception but rejects the sinlessness of Mary, thereby justifying such a tangent.

Your silence had left me feeling like this man:http:http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rXJ0rAyE_mQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrXJ0rAyE_mQ&gl=GB

[Peter J]

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.

[ErmyCath]

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.

[Clemente]

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk; you can start a thread with that subject and I shall gladly participate.

However, your philosophical musings here are not germane to this thread, at least to the argument I posited, since Rome has dogmatised both the sinlessness doctrine (at Trent) and the IC. In doing so, the Bishop of Rome effectively anathematised many saints and Christian leaders, including St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and Origen. Whilst acknowledging these believed something contrary to modern RC dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia defends the RC church as such:

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So, in the name of "progressive science", the Pope has the power to turn good Catholics into bad ones.

[Peter J]

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

It just keeps on coming.

If history is any guide, next an ex-moderator or other Orthodox poster will ask me "If you don't like the way your treated here, then why don't you make us all happy by leaving?" (Well, maybe not, that's just a guess.)

[domNoah]

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

[LBK]

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

This would make the Mother of God equal to God. No wonder Orthodoxy rejects the IC.

[theistgal]

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

[ialmisry]

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk; you can start a thread with that subject and I shall gladly participate.

However, your philosophical musings here are not germane to this thread, at least to the argument I posited, since Rome has dogmatised both the sinlessness doctrine (at Trent) and the IC. In doing so, the Bishop of Rome effectively anathematised many saints and Christian leaders, including St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and Origen. Whilst acknowledging these believed something contrary to modern RC dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia defends the RC church as such:

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So, in the name of "progressive science", the Pope has the power to turn good Catholics into bad ones.

such is the nonsense of "development of doctrine."

[LBK]

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin. Adam and Eve were tempted, and sinned.  

[theistgal]

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

[LBK]

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.

[Peter J]

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

This would make the Mother of God equal to God. No wonder Orthodoxy rejects the IC.

Well, I don't think not sinning makes her equal to God; but your second sentence harks back to my original question: Does Mary's sinlessness logically follow from the Immaculate Conception? The Orthodox responses I have gotten were about me (and not in a very complementary way):

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

and

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

and more recently:

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

I'm sure some people reading this find it amusing to see me treated in this way, but it makes me feel like dirt (which will probably just make it more amusing for some, since it isn't considered manly to express sadness). Maybe there should be an Orthodox equivalent of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". (Although perhaps no equivalent is necessary, if that statement isn't unduly Western.)

Clemente, I don't have a problem with receiving or not receiving an answer, but I really don't appreciate the above.

[ErmyCath]

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

You are correct.

[theistgal]

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.

But once again - are you saying that before they sinned, Adam and Eve were equal to God?

Because the whole thing with the IC and Mary being sinless is that she was born in the same state as Adam and Eve.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that that's the teaching, but I never heard, or thought, that it made Mary (or Adam & Eve) "equal to God".

[Peter J]

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.

But once again - are you saying that before they sinned, Adam and Eve were equal to God?

I, too, am curious to hear LBK's answer to this.

[Cyrillic]

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin.

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.

[Clemente]

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

I'm sure some people reading this find it amusing to see me treated in this way, but it makes me feel like dirt (which will probably just make it more amusing for some, since it isn't considered manly to express sadness). Maybe there should be an Orthodox equivalent of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". (Although perhaps no equivalent is necessary, if that statement isn't unduly Western.)

Nah, I was not trying to be especially funny, though I am not averse to humour. Rather, I was trying to avoid your derailing a thread about the "Priviledges of the Primacy" into a discussion of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC.

As you can see from subsequent posts of others, my efforts failed summarily, so you perhaps got the last laugh!

[LBK]

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin.

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.

There is nothing whatsoever Nestorian in what I wrote. This form of phrasing ("as Man, ..., as God, ...) in reference to Christ is a literary device, seen particularly in the hymnography for the feast of the Raising of Lazarus, as it addresses the simultaneous divine omniscience and the "ignorant" humanity of Christ.

[Romaios]

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.

Cool picture!

Is he dancing or preparing for a catwalk down the aisle?

[brastaseptim]

Well, on my part, I do remember a quote from St. Ignatius "2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

[Romaios]

Well, on my part, I do remember a quote from St. Ignatius

That's St. Irenaeus - St. Ignatius is the one with "the Church presiding in love".