OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 07:10:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox & Roman Catholic  (Read 3237 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rob1500
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic seeking Orthodoxy
Posts: 6



« on: February 28, 2013, 01:22:22 AM »

The Orthodox Church(es) have not changed any doctrine since the times of the Apostles, correct? If so, then wouldn't this be true for the Roman Catholic Church as well? Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 01:52:38 AM »

The Orthodox Church(es) have not changed any doctrine since the times of the Apostles, correct? If so, then wouldn't this be true for the Roman Catholic Church as well?
How does that follow, logically speaking?

Quote
Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.
IIRC, because of Luke 13:20-21: 20 And again He said, “To what shall I liken the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.”

Others who are better educated on the subject can explain further.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 02:04:21 AM »

The Orthodox Church(es) have not changed any doctrine since the times of the Apostles, correct?

We hold true to the 7 Ecumenical Councils.  The Roman Catholics have had 20+ Ecumenical Councils including the first 7, Vatican I and Vatican II.

If so, then wouldn't this be true for the Roman Catholic Church as well?

Roman Catholics have made dogmatic statements in their "extra" Ecumenical Councils.  They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.

Leavened bread symbolizes the resurrection (rising) of Christ.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,199


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 05:21:13 AM »

Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.

The Passover of the Jews was a prefiguration of the sacrifice of the true Lamb, who is Jesus Christ. Leavened bread is made with yeast, a living organism, just as Jesus Christ, the Bread and Life of all, rose from the dead. We worship a living God, so we partake of His Body which has life.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 08:40:51 AM »

Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.

This doesn't really answer your question, but I'd like to mention that in the Roman Communion we use either leavened or unleavened bread, depending on which church it is. (For example, yesterday I received communion with leavened bread, because it was in a parish of the Melkite Catholic Church.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 09:20:27 AM »

The Last Supper was not the Passover meal.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,105


« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2013, 04:52:34 PM »

Quote
  They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,710



« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2013, 05:04:51 PM »

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Didn't Christ eat with tax collectors and didn't he touch lepers?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 05:05:12 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2013, 05:05:33 PM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.
"He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" II Corinthians 5:21.

If being in contact with sinful bodies was a problem, there would be no Eucharist.

btw, your popes have many a number of mistakes in Faith and morals.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 05:06:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,105


« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2013, 05:08:01 PM »

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Didn't Christ eat with tax collectors and didn't he touch lepers?
Well we're talking Original Sin here, being personally guilty since the fall.

Not Christ ministering to sinful humans.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2013, 05:08:33 PM »

The Orthodox Church(es) have not changed any doctrine since the times of the Apostles, correct?

No. Both have changed in the manner you are thinking of.

In order for the Church to be described as changeless, you need a more robust and subtle definition of the Church than most people have.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2013, 05:50:03 PM »

Quote
  They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

This is unfortunately how a lot of conversations about PI go: one person says "The pope is infallible" and someone else says (as you did)  "He is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals" -- which is (arguably) better, since it mentioned one of the conditions required for infallibility.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2013, 05:51:21 PM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.
"He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" II Corinthians 5:21.

If being in contact with sinful bodies was a problem, there would be no Eucharist.

btw, your popes have many a number of mistakes in Faith and morals.

See my last post.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2013, 06:22:37 PM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.
"He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" II Corinthians 5:21.

If being in contact with sinful bodies was a problem, there would be no Eucharist.

btw, your popes have many a number of mistakes in Faith and morals.

See my last post.
many have also talked ex where they touch the cathedra.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2013, 06:52:19 PM »

The Last Supper was not the Passover meal.

It was not just the Passover meal.

"And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer." Luke 22:15
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2013, 07:21:37 PM »

Rome used leavened bread until about the 8th century.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2013, 08:26:10 AM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Because the Theotokos was purified in the womb of her mother. So far before Christ was ever born. Furthermore, Aquinas or bernard of Clairveaux didn't have any problem in holding both to Mary being born with original sin and Jesus being immaculately born.

So very bad argument, is that what is taugh in RCIA? And by the way, if you go by this logic, Mary's ancestors must all have been touched by this special Grace. If you reply that it was not necessary, then it was not necessary for Mary either.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 08:27:07 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2013, 09:12:01 PM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Because the Theotokos was purified in the womb of her mother. So far before Christ was ever born. Furthermore, Aquinas or bernard of Clairveaux didn't have any problem in holding both to Mary being born with original sin and Jesus being immaculately born.

So very bad argument, is that what is taugh in RCIA? And by the way, if you go by this logic, Mary's ancestors must all have been touched by this special Grace. If you reply that it was not necessary, then it was not necessary for Mary either.





When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2013, 02:49:24 AM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Because the Theotokos was purified in the womb of her mother. So far before Christ was ever born. Furthermore, Aquinas or bernard of Clairveaux didn't have any problem in holding both to Mary being born with original sin and Jesus being immaculately born.

So very bad argument, is that what is taugh in RCIA? And by the way, if you go by this logic, Mary's ancestors must all have been touched by this special Grace. If you reply that it was not necessary, then it was not necessary for Mary either.





When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.
He has to be born of the flesh of Adam to be the Second Adam.

It wasn't a privilege for Adam and Eve.  Just how they were made.

"He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" II Corinthians 5:21.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 02:50:16 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2013, 03:58:36 AM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2013, 06:13:42 AM »

Quote
 They say that Mary was conceived Immaculately and that the Pope is infallible.

The pope is only infallible concerning issues on faith and morals.

I have to accept the Immaculate Conception of the BVM, otherwise how could the body of our Lord be in contact of the sinful body of his mother while he was in her womb? It's not so hard to believe that the mother of God on earth was given a special grace for this reason.

Because the Theotokos was purified in the womb of her mother. So far before Christ was ever born. Furthermore, Aquinas or bernard of Clairveaux didn't have any problem in holding both to Mary being born with original sin and Jesus being immaculately born.

So very bad argument, is that what is taugh in RCIA? And by the way, if you go by this logic, Mary's ancestors must all have been touched by this special Grace. If you reply that it was not necessary, then it was not necessary for Mary either.





When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.



I know what you are saying, but i disagree, and Tradition as well, with the way you understand the term new Eve and new Adam. Those expressions mean that in contrast to Eve and Adam who brought sin into the World, Jesus and the Theotokos brought Righouthness in the World:

Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Romans 5:11-12

The point so, of new Eve and new Adam is not the way they were made, but what they accomplished. That is they did obey God to the End, what Adam and Eve were supposed to do, but didn't.

Justin Martyr: [Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Dialogue with Trypho, 100).


so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down.

This is the meaning of New Adam and New Eve.

Irenaeus “Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve…who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children…having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race….Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24).

The parallel that St Irenaeus is making is Eve desobediance vs Mary obediance. Mary did what Eve should have done. Nothing to do with the way Eve or Mary were created. As such, expressions such as new Eve do not necesarely imply the immaculate conception of Mary.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 06:22:22 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2013, 08:48:20 AM »

We are not born with "Original Sin", as understood by the Roman - Protestant church.

If the Theotokos was born "immaculately", we do not need Christ to save us. This would mean that Christ's sacrifice was without purpose. Also, if Christ was not born in a natural way, humanity has no hope in following Christ's example of humility, which overcame the pride that turned us away from God.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,500



« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2013, 09:18:20 AM »

We are not born with "Original Sin", as understood by the Roman - Protestant church.

There's no such thing as "the Protestant church".
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2013, 11:22:59 AM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2013, 01:11:56 PM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2013, 01:17:54 PM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2013, 01:19:44 PM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.

And how does that happen with IC?  How does his perfect human nature in perfect communion with his divine nature get passed on to us?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2013, 01:20:38 PM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.

But here's the thing, we inherited Adam's nature.  If Christ is a new creation in the sense you are talking, how does that get passed on to us?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2013, 01:24:23 PM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.

But here's the thing, we inherited Adam's nature.  If Christ is a new creation in the sense you are talking, how does that get passed on to us?
Deus ex machina.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2013, 07:37:29 AM »

We are not born with "Original Sin", as understood by the Roman - Protestant church.

There's no such thing as "the Protestant church".

How about "the Roman - Protestant church"?

 laugh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2013, 10:59:39 AM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.

But here's the thing, we inherited Adam's nature.  If Christ is a new creation in the sense you are talking, how does that get passed on to us?
The sacraments.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2013, 11:02:47 AM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.

But here's the thing, we inherited Adam's nature.  If Christ is a new creation in the sense you are talking, how does that get passed on to us?
The sacraments.

So why did Christ need to take flesh at all?  Why not just give us the Sacraments like the manna from heaven?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2013, 11:03:42 AM »

When Adam was created he was made of the earth, an earth which had not been cursed yet with sin.  Eve his wife was made from the earth, out of a rib from the side of Adam.  They were not super human, but fully human and free from all stain of sin.

Christ is the new Adam, made from substance free from sin (the Flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary). Please consider that Eve and Adam were both made free from sin, and that Catholics are in effect saying that  Jesus our Lord had the same privilege that God had bestowed upon Adam.

But isn't this contrary to what St. Maximos taught?  What is assumed is what is saved.  If Christ assumed a pure flesh different from the flesh we have, then what of us do we have in common with him?  Why does Roman Catholic theology believe that Christ can be defiled?  My understanding of this is that Christ took on our own sinful flesh, that He sanctified by his very being which is the source of all holiness, the same way Christ's baptism in the Jordan sanctified all of creation.  So the Immaculate Conception isn't only unnecessary, it would have been counter to the plan of salvation.
No. Christ didn't not save our sinfulness or the defect in our nature. He restored us from this defect.
If His mother was IC'd, He never touched our nature to restore it.
You assume that RC think had a different human nature than ours. He didn't have a different one. It was the same nature, but in the case of Christ it was working right and in our case it was not.

But here's the thing, we inherited Adam's nature.  If Christ is a new creation in the sense you are talking, how does that get passed on to us?
The sacraments.

So why did Christ need to take flesh at all?  Why not just give us the Sacraments like the manna from heaven?
So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:03:55 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2013, 11:08:00 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2013, 11:09:40 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2013, 11:17:07 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2013, 11:29:32 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2013, 11:33:23 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:34:13 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,710



« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2013, 11:35:11 AM »

I too wonder what was the reason for dogmatising the IC.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2013, 11:36:17 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2013, 11:37:26 AM »

I too wonder what was the reason for dogmatising the IC.

I think there's a difference between the fact of the IC, and dogmatising the IC.  Or am I wrong, again  Embarrassed?

But, isn't there like a plethora of threads about the IC on this forum?
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2013, 11:38:20 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

God did it, and He doesn't have to answer to us about His reasons.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,710



« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2013, 11:40:33 AM »

Meh. On the IC I have no strong opinion either way. I just wonder why Pius IX had to dogmatise it.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2013, 11:48:27 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2013, 11:50:49 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

God did it, and He doesn't have to answer to us about His reasons.
It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.18 seconds with 72 queries.