OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 07:50:56 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 3279 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: 11,102


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
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


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: 6,104



« 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: 3,130


« 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: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,365



« 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: 3,130


« 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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« 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: 6,104



« 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: 6,104



« 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: 37,365



« 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: 7,969


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: 37,365



« 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: 6,602



« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 37,365



« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 37,365



« 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: 6,104



« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


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

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

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 10,032


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: 10,032


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: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,365



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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2013, 11:53:26 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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:53:54 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2013, 11:56:06 AM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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 #47 on: March 08, 2013, 12:00:29 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

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
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 #48 on: March 08, 2013, 12:02:40 PM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2013, 12:04:04 PM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

James

I guess for the same reason why a dyophysite christology became "essential" only after 451 or so years.


When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James

Apparently so.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:06:54 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2013, 12:10:22 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.
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 #51 on: March 08, 2013, 12:12:27 PM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

James

I guess for the same reason why a dyophysite christology became "essential" only after 451 or so years.

No, I don't think so. The idea that Christ was fully human and fully God was essential from the beginning - long, long before Chalcedon. The tragedy of Chalcedon seems to me to be that the two sides were saying the same thing in different words - both sides believe in the same dogma, just expressed differently. And as I mentioned earlier with reference to the Theotokos, the denial of it has obvious inherent consequences that put one outside the faith. And this is true both before and after the dogma was formulated. The IC is a completely different kettle of fish, even judging by the answer that Papist gave me above, assuming that I understood his meaning correctly.

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2013, 12:13:29 PM »

It's very simple. The most fundamental reason that I believe in the IC is because I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church which God established. The Catholic Church teaches the IC, so I believe it.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2013, 12:18:48 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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 #54 on: March 08, 2013, 12:19:50 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

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: 37,365



« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2013, 12:26:32 PM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?
Everything that non-belief thereof would lead to hell fire through a "shipwreck of of [our] Faith," yes.

And that is the big problem with the IC: as St. John of Damascus warns from the start of "The Orthodox Faith" as a first principle:
Quote
Chapter 1. That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holyProphets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

The divine Tradition knows nothing of an "IC."  The Vatican's Scholastics tried to get around that with "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit."

Cataphatic theology depends on the revelation of God. Overpassing it Apophatic theology reigns, otherwise theology leads to heresy: splitting hairs when a simple answer is rejected.  The IC is not only an ingenious solution in search of a problem, but it is based on an argument ex silentio, making pronouncements where God has said no such thing: it argues on an analogy between Christ and His mother as to her humanity on the relationship between His humanity with His divinity.

Christ and the Father (and the Holy Spirit, but just to keep it simple, like the Gospel does) share the same divine will. Yet Christ says "Your will, not Mine, be done" at Gathsemene.  That can only be the human will, which the Father does not share, although in the person of Christ it is united with His (the Father's) will.  That will in Gathsemene resembles how the Son, but not the Father or Holy Spirit, suffered in the flesh on the Cross.

Since Christ is the New Adam, He would have everything that Adam had, except sin.  But then, Adam didn't have sin until the Fall, although he obviously had the potential.

In the Resurrection, both that potential and its effects are burned away by the fires of Theosis, as none will fall from paradise (contrary, IIRC, to some ideas Origen had on the matter).

In the meantime between the Fall and the Resurrection, is the gnomic will and the ability to sin, i.e. ancestral sin, a necessary part of humanity? Obviously not, as it will not be resurrected, and Christ did not assume it in the incarnation.  Why not?  Because Christ's divinity cannot sin by its nature.  The divine nature cannot suffer by nature either, but He could and did freely choose to unite to humanity, and through the Incarnation the Son (but not the Father nor the Holy Spirit) could and did suffer the effects of sin.  But to sin would entail Him to be able and to freely choose to go against His nature, for the Son to use His will against His Father's.  Such is impossible, as the Son and the Father share the same will.

The gnomic will and the ability to sin, i.e. ancestral sin, is not a necessary part of the human being, but it is a universal part of the human condition, save one.  It is because the Son only had one will (which He shares with the Father) to unite to the human will He took from His mother, or had only one will which was incarnated of the Holy Theotokos, ancestral sin could not be transmitted, as transmission would entail not only the human nature annihilating the divine nature, but something not of the essence of human nature (i.e. sin-otherwise Adam would not be human until the Fall) overcoming the divine essence.  For the incarnation to occur with each nature retaining its essence in one person, the gnomic will would have to be burned off like dross in the womb of the Virgin. Only in that way, in the Incarnate Christ with His divine nature and His human nature united without confusion but without seperation, could human free will be maintained and sin defeated.

That is why the Nestorian Christ would not work: the Word would redirect the human will of the man He assumed, but the gnomic will would still be left intact, only losing its freedom by association with the divine Will of the Word. So too why the IC is incorrect: only a hypostaic union of the divine will could eliminate the gnomic will without destroying human free will.  Only in the Orthodox understanding of the divine will and the human will in the hypostatically united will of the one person of Christ is the Good News proclaimed.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:46:55 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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2013, 12:27:35 PM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?
Everything that non-belief thereof would lead to hell fire through a "shipwreck of of [our] Faith," yes.

I see. But then RC's would quote "full of grace" and say that it somehow implies the IC.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2013, 12:31:22 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2013, 12:31:57 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
I'll have to read the encylical to find his reasons again. Maybe this weekend when I get a chance.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2013, 12:32:34 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2013, 12:32:56 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
I'll have to read the encylical to find his reasons again. Maybe this weekend when I get a chance.

Thank you.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2013, 12:45:06 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
Don't Catholics and Orthodox appeal to the scriptures and the Church Fathers all the time? Should we stop doing this? An appeal to authority is not a bad argument. An appeal to an irrelevant authority is a bad argument.
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: 37,365



« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2013, 12:48:28 PM »

'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.
You just summed up the theology of Ultramontanism, and the errors thereof.

The supreme pontiff is right because he says he's right.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:00:23 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2013, 12:51:16 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
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: 37,365



« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2013, 12:52:14 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.
You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position on the papacy held the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III to condemn Monothelism (and the pope who aided and abetted it).  Those who believe in the Vatican's position on the papacy would have been satisfied with Pope Martin (and St. Maximus the Confessor)'s first Council of the Lateran.
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2013, 12:53:25 PM »

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
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: 37,365



« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2013, 12:56:24 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
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
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 #67 on: March 08, 2013, 12:56:50 PM »

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
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.

If this way of thinking is normative for Roman Catholics then I suppose it leaves me with some room for optimism that in the (most likely distant) future there may be a reconciliation. It means that the only real stumbling block to union remains the position of the Pope of Rome. If 'because the Pope said so' becomes once more as irrelevant to you as it is to us, then it seems as though the other 'dogmas' should come tumbling down also. I'd often suspected as much but it's nice to see it confirmed - it seems like it should be easier to solve one difference (even if it's a massive one and one I can't presently see Rome abandoning) than a whole plethora of them.

James
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:58:11 PM 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2013, 01:03:36 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are not Catholic silly. You are Eastern Orthodox.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2013, 01:13:54 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:26:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,365



« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2013, 01:32:04 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are not Catholic silly. You are Eastern Orthodox.
You forget your place, silly papist. (That's an appeal to authority).

I'm aware that your supreme pontiff has redefined "Catholic" to mean submission to him, but we're sticking to that definition of St. Ignatius of Antioch, those in communion with the Orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church, who teach what has been believed by the Church everywhere at all times, which definitely does not include the teaching of your supreme pontiff of the IC.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2013, 01:51:39 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:52:18 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2013, 02:10:04 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?

Counter-reformation.  Because the Protestants have pushed the Theotokos to the side that the Catholic Church needed to respond by affirming certain beliefs about the Theotokos.  Dogmatizing it leaves little doubt for the Catholic faithful that such beliefs are open to debate, especially to those subjected by constant proselytazion by Protestants.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2013, 02:11:22 PM »

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.

No.  You believe that Christ's humanity is perfect because he inherited a perfect humanity from Mary who was given the single privilege of IC.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2013, 02:12:49 PM »

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.

No.  You believe that Christ's humanity is perfect because he inherited a perfect humanity from Mary who was given the single privilege of IC.
ok
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #75 on: March 08, 2013, 02:13:56 PM »

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

Because of Original Sin.  Because Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos is the new Eve, they have to be, like Adam and Eve, have perfect human nature.  Because Adam and Eve were made without original sin, Christ and Mary too should not have it.
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: 37,365



« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2013, 02:55:09 PM »

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

Because of Original Sin.  Because Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos is the new Eve, they have to be, like Adam and Eve, have perfect human nature.  Because Adam and Eve were made without original sin, Christ and Mary too should not have it.
At best true of Christ (and then not even), not true of the Holy Theotokos at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,365



« Reply #77 on: March 08, 2013, 02:56:44 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.
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 #78 on: March 08, 2013, 03:01:15 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

Please elaborate.
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: 37,365



« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2013, 03:05:49 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

Please elaborate.
They judged Pope Honorius (who supported Monotheletism) and Pope Martin (who held a council to condemn it, with St. Maximus).  The former they anathematized, the latter they rehabilitated.  They did not, however, make Pope Martin's council into their statement of Faith.  They issued their own.

The Vatican claims that no one may judge a supreme pontiff, and that once Rome has spoken, the case is closed.   Evidently not.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2013, 03:26:13 PM »

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

*kuch*  Wink



« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 03:28:37 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,365



« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2013, 03:32:41 PM »

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

*kuch*  Wink




Any reason for that specific section?
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,915


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2013, 03:35:48 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 03:37:27 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,365



« Reply #83 on: March 08, 2013, 03:59:46 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
I thought so, but wanted to check.

The problem is that although Pope Agatho contributed much to calling the Council, he reposed shortly after it opened. Alas! for the supporters of Pastor Aeternus, not only did the Council not suspend its sessions, but continued on and concluded while the see of Old Rome remained vacant.  The new Pope, Leo II, was not consecrated until almost a year after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,365



« Reply #84 on: March 08, 2013, 04:44:59 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
I thought so, but wanted to check.

The problem is that although Pope Agatho contributed much to calling the Council, he reposed shortly after it opened. Alas! for the supporters of Pastor Aeternus, not only did the Council not suspend its sessions, but continued on and concluded while the see of Old Rome remained vacant.  The new Pope, Leo II, was not consecrated until almost a year after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith.
Btw, definitely not how Vatican II was conducted.
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: 6,104



« Reply #85 on: March 08, 2013, 08:59:02 PM »

Sorry for late reply ...

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.

I think you might be right there. It's always bothers me when Catholics say that not only Mary was immaculately conceived, but that she had to be immaculately conceived.

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.

Exactly. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #86 on: March 08, 2013, 10:21:02 PM »

You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position

No, as we Catholics can

Side question that perhaps you or another Catholic could answer for me: Who are these "Orthodox" mentioned in the section title "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion"? 

Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #87 on: March 09, 2013, 12:55:58 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.

Not sure if these were already answered this way but:

1.  No
2.  Because the Lord took Artos after the Passover had ended (brought Old Covenant to close, inaugurated New Covenant)
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #88 on: March 09, 2013, 01:20:20 AM »

'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.
You just summed up the theology of Ultramontanism, and the errors thereof.

The supreme pontiff is right because he says he's right.

But the claim is that it is not because he says he's right, but because he has this authority from Peter. 
Of course, let us assume that everything the Vatican says is right is right. 
1.  That the Bishop of Rome's authority is given by Peter, and to Peter given by Christ. 
2.  That said authority can be exercised because it is given by Peter

In order for #1 to be true, one would have to say that the Cardinals hold the place of Peter, or even Christ, at the time of Papal election.  The problem with Vatican theology is the Lord's principle that "neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him."  With this principle, the one who is sent (the Pope) cannot be greater than those who sent him (the bishops, in this case, the cardinal electors). 

   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #89 on: March 09, 2013, 01:23:11 AM »

You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position

No, as we Catholics can

Side question that perhaps you or another Catholic could answer for me: Who are these "Orthodox" mentioned in the section title "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion"? 

Wink

Its the non-masons.  There's no way around it. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #90 on: March 09, 2013, 01:26:14 AM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
I thought so, but wanted to check.

The problem is that although Pope Agatho contributed much to calling the Council, he reposed shortly after it opened. Alas! for the supporters of Pastor Aeternus, not only did the Council not suspend its sessions, but continued on and concluded while the see of Old Rome remained vacant.  The new Pope, Leo II, was not consecrated until almost a year after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith.

exactly
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #91 on: March 09, 2013, 01:28:17 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.)

It doesn't answer his question at all
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #92 on: March 09, 2013, 01:31:54 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.

"I have to...otherwise how could..." 
Why, did she give birth in the womb of St. Anna? 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #93 on: March 09, 2013, 01:34:51 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.
"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.

Right, He sanctifies everything He touches.  To make His incarnation dependent upon another's pre-sanctity is seriously problematic.  To say it can be true is one thing, but to say it must be is to suppress the sanctifying power of the Savior. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #94 on: March 09, 2013, 01:36:54 AM »

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.

Well there you go.  There is where you stumble, over personal guilt that does not exist. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2013, 01:41:36 AM »

Rome used leavened bread until about the 8th century.

Yes.  The change to azyma came as the result of a departure from the traditional understanding of the "Last Supper." 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #96 on: March 09, 2013, 01:45:37 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.

Good post, with emphasis added above. 
Logged
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #97 on: March 09, 2013, 02:13:50 AM »

Being made in "the image and likeness of God" (Gen 1:6) means that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation with God, his ‘prototype’. In paradise, Adam and Eve were called to participate in God’s life and to naturally go “from glory to glory”. To be “in God” is, therefore, the natural state of man. This is particularly important when considering ‘human freedom’, because mankind is truly free only when communing with God; otherwise he is a slave to the ‘world’ he was meant to rule.

This implies that separation from God is sin, and visa versa, and the reduction of man to a separate and autonomous existence, in which he is deprived of both his natural glory and his freedom, is the consequence of sin; the image of God being blurred like a moon shadow.

Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam and Eve, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by mankind, which led our ancestors to a subhuman and unnatural existence and consequential death, which is most unnatural aspect of their new state of being. In this perspective, the common cliché “original sin” is not a state of guilt inherited from Adam and Even, but is an unnatural condition of human life that has not attained immortality. Mortality is what each of us inherits at birth and this is what leads us to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to be subject to the laws of decay.

The ‘prince of this world’, has dominion over mankind through sin and death; mankind is now freed from this vicious condition through the death and Resurrection of Christ during our Baptism. However, this is a synergy of salvation requiring mankind’s limited repentance, contrition, confession and faith, and God’s infinite grace, as outlined by the likes of St John Cassian many centuries ago.

Therefore, people are fully human only when they participate in God and His Kingdom, where divine life becomes possible. Mankind does not inherit "Original sin" but, instead, an unrealised immortality.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #98 on: March 09, 2013, 02:27:34 AM »

Rome used leavened bread until about the 8th century.

Yes.  The change to azyma came as the result of a departure from the traditional understanding of the "Last Supper." 


Father, what about the use of unleavened bread in the OO?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #99 on: March 09, 2013, 07:43:58 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.
"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.

Right, He sanctifies everything He touches.  To make His incarnation dependent upon another's pre-sanctity is seriously problematic.  To say it can be true is one thing, but to say it must be is to suppress the sanctifying power of the Savior. 

That sounds about right to me.  Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #100 on: March 09, 2013, 07:44:49 AM »

You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position

No, as we Catholics can

Side question that perhaps you or another Catholic could answer for me: Who are these "Orthodox" mentioned in the section title "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion"?  

Wink

Its the non-masons.  There's no way around it.  

Not sure what that means but  laugh .
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2013, 06:42:21 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.

Why not extend that back further? That Mary's mother had to be a pure vessel in order to contain Mary (a pure vessel). And therefore Mary's grand-mother had to be as well, to contain Mary's mother... and so on
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2013, 06:45:18 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.



That doesn't make sense. If Mary is akin to Eve then her mother is akin to the earth... which you say was without sin. Therefore Mary's mother was without sin. Else the analogy fails.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2013, 07:01:19 PM »

Rome used leavened bread until about the 8th century.

Yes.  The change to azyma came as the result of a departure from the traditional understanding of the "Last Supper." 


Father, what about the use of unleavened bread in the OO?

Wasn't the use of unleavened bread introduced among the Armenians at the same time as the skyscraper Latin Mitre usage? 
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2013, 08:42:37 PM »

Rome used leavened bread until about the 8th century.

Yes.  The change to azyma came as the result of a departure from the traditional understanding of the "Last Supper." 


Father, what about the use of unleavened bread in the OO?

Wasn't the use of unleavened bread introduced among the Armenians at the same time as the skyscraper Latin Mitre usage? 

I don't know, that is why I ask Smiley

I haven't really spent any time reading on OO history.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #105 on: March 11, 2013, 06:57:22 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

Because of Original Sin.  Because Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos is the new Eve, they have to be, like Adam and Eve, have perfect human nature.  Because Adam and Eve were made without original sin, Christ and Mary too should not have it.
At best true of Christ (and then not even), not true of the Holy Theotokos at all.

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.



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 #106 on: March 11, 2013, 08:32:24 PM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 08:32:51 PM by domNoah » 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/
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #107 on: March 12, 2013, 06:42:50 AM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



None of those quotes are related to the IC, only with her purity when Christ was concieved. Since the Fathers believed she was purified in the womb of her mother by Grace. So nothing to do with the IC, but nice try.

And dont confuse things. All i did was to show that new Eve does not mean necessarely IC, i didnt say it refutes the IC. Dont change the roles.
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
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #108 on: March 12, 2013, 07:08:13 AM »

Quote
Since the Fathers believed she was purified in the womb of her mother by Grace.

The most explicit pronouncement by the Church, as expressed in the hymnography, on when the Virgin was fully purified is at the Annunciation. From Matins of that feast:

The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul; it has sanctified my body: it has made me a temple containing God, a divinely adorned Tabernacle, a living Sanctuary, and the pure Mother of Life.

You appear to me to speak the truth, answered the Virgin. For you have come as a messenger, bringing joy to all. Since then I am purified in soul and body by the Spirit, let it happen to me according to your word: May God now dwell in me. I cry aloud to Him with you: All works of the Lord, bless the Lord.




Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #109 on: March 12, 2013, 07:40:41 AM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #110 on: March 12, 2013, 08:47:51 AM »

A few questions:

1. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the IC?
2. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope?
3. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the Supremacy of the Pope?

I use the term Catholic to reference the Western Christian church here.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


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


« Reply #111 on: March 12, 2013, 11:09:28 AM »

A few questions:

1. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the IC?
2. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope?
3. Is there salvation for the Catholic who does not believe in the Supremacy of the Pope?

I use the term Catholic to reference the Western Christian church here.

Maybe.

God knows.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #112 on: March 12, 2013, 11:36:15 AM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?
Sweeping through the Vatican. LOL. Il Risorgimento
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
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: 37,365



« Reply #113 on: March 12, 2013, 11:36:15 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.
"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.

Right, He sanctifies everything He touches.  To make His incarnation dependent upon another's pre-sanctity is seriously problematic.  To say it can be true is one thing, but to say it must be is to suppress the sanctifying power of the Savior. 
yes, and eliminate her synergy in the Incarnation, which would be deprived of her free will, and thus no Incarnation at all. At least not one consubstantial with us.
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: 6,104



« Reply #114 on: March 12, 2013, 05:03:16 PM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?

Good point. Vatican I was a lot different, in that regard, even from Trent.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #115 on: March 12, 2013, 05:58:47 PM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?

The Protestant Reformation.  I take everything from Trent and afterwards as a Counter Reformation act by the RC Church.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #116 on: March 14, 2013, 10:10:53 AM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?

The Protestant Reformation.  I take everything from Trent and afterwards as a Counter Reformation act by the RC Church.

Thus declares Choy.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #117 on: March 15, 2013, 01:02:02 AM »

Thus declares Choy.  Grin

What heresies do you think were raging through the church that Vatican II addressed?

My experience from Vatican II was turning up to Mass as per usual, but finding a young man sitting up the front with long hair and an acoustic guitar who lead us (not through hymns) but songs such as "Let it Be".
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 01:05:12 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,627


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #118 on: March 15, 2013, 01:15:44 AM »

Thus declares Choy.  Grin

What heresies do you think were raging through the church that Vatican II addressed?

My experience from Vatican II was turning up to Mass as per usual, but finding a young man sitting up the front with long hair and an acoustic guitar who lead us (not through hymns) but songs such as "Let it Be".

Or "If I had a hammer."
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #119 on: March 15, 2013, 01:34:18 AM »

No. Both have changed in the manner you are thinking of.
I would tend to agree with you.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #120 on: March 15, 2013, 01:42:33 AM »


My experience from Vatican II was turning up to Mass as per usual, but finding a young man sitting up the front with long hair and an acoustic guitar who lead us (not through hymns) but songs such as "Let it Be".
But now you are going to have a version of the Catholic New Mass accompanied by guitars in the Syrian Orthodox Church:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50404.msg894424.html#msg894424
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 01:43:06 AM by stanley123 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,825


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #121 on: March 15, 2013, 01:46:55 AM »

I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was.
Bad understanding of human nature at best, Docetism at worst.

So Christ was walking around with an impassible resurrection body during his ministry?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 01:49:13 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #122 on: March 15, 2013, 01:54:15 AM »

Thus declares Choy.  Grin

What heresies do you think were raging through the church that Vatican II addressed?

My experience from Vatican II was turning up to Mass as per usual, but finding a young man sitting up the front with long hair and an acoustic guitar who lead us (not through hymns) but songs such as "Let it Be".

Or "If I had a hammer."
Ha ha ha. I like that one.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,825


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #123 on: March 15, 2013, 02:04:45 AM »

the gnomic will would still be left intact
On another note, Isa,

Does the gnomic will continue to exist it if it is not used/rejected entirely, as in a saint on earth? If so, how does it exist?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 02:05:35 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #124 on: March 15, 2013, 02:19:24 AM »


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.

So God told us about everything He did?
Everything that non-belief thereof would lead to hell fire through a "shipwreck of of [our] Faith," yes.
-snipped-

Only in the Orthodox understanding of the divine will and the human will in the hypostatically united will of the one person of Christ is the Good News proclaimed.
Thanks for this post, it's explained simply enough for me.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #125 on: March 15, 2013, 04:27:58 AM »

Wow, thats a lot written.


First of all the Immaculate Conception is a mystery.  Second it was defined because a large debate was raging in the west at the time over it from different schools and the Pope was appealed to to make a decision on it, by many Bishops, Priests and laymen.  We also believe that the Miracle of Lourdes and other subsequent Miracles of our Lady being invoked under the title of the Immaculate Conception are confirmation of this dogma.

Just because Our Lady is obedient does not cause the effect that she was not immaculately conceived Napoletani,

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).



What debate? I find the Catholic 'ecumenical' councils run differently from the ones we hold in common (and even the council in Acts 15)

All these were 'reactive'; some great controversy needed to be settled. Perhaps a reaction against heretical teaching.

Take Vatican I by comparison, what great heresy was sweeping through the Catholic world that it needed to be called in order to address it?

The Protestant Reformation.  I take everything from Trent and afterwards as a Counter Reformation act by the RC Church.

Thus declares Choy.  Grin

Well, you can see for yourself how radically the Roman Catholic Church has changed since the reformation (including the beliefs), or you can choose to be blind to it.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #126 on: March 15, 2013, 04:36:22 AM »

The one thing I always chuckle over are the RCs being the first Protestants.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #127 on: March 15, 2013, 09:35:45 PM »

The one thing I always chuckle over are the RCs being the first Protestants.

Does that mean you don't chuckle over the Orthodox being the first Protestants?

Wink
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:36:05 PM by Peter J » 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: 37,365



« Reply #128 on: March 16, 2013, 08:04:20 AM »

The one thing I always chuckle over are the RCs being the first Protestants.

Does that mean you don't chuckle over the Orthodox being the first Protestants?

Wink
Cardinal Umberto came over to us to protest for his supreme pontiff Leo IX.  We were just fine if ya'll would have minded your own business.
Quote
This is what I hinted at, and what you understand very rightly, viz., that all Protestants are Crypto-Papists; and indeed it would be a very easy task to show that in their Theology (as well as philosophy) all the definitions of all the objects of creed or understanding are merely taken out of the old Latin System, though often negatived in the application.  To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative –, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same.  Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world.”  When the Unity of the Church was lawlessly and unlovingly rent by the Western clergy, the more so inasmuch as at the same time the East was continuing its former friendly intercourse, and submitting to the opinion of the Western Synods the Canons of the second Council of Nicea, each half of Christianity began a life apart, becoming from day to day more estranged from the other. There was an evident selfcomplacent triumph on the side of the Latins; there was sorrow on the side of the East, which had seen the dear ties of Christian brotherhood torn asunder, — which had been spurned and rejected, and felt itself innocent. All these feelings have been transmitted by hereditary succession to our time, and more or less, either willingly or unwillingly, we are still under their power. Our time has awakened better feelings; in England, perhaps, more than anywhere else, you are seeking for the past brotherhood, for the past sympathy and communion. It would be a shame for us not to answer your proffered friendship, it would be a crime not to cultivate in our hearts an intense desire to renovate the Unity of the Church; but let us consider the question coolly, even when our sympathies are most awakened.
Russia and the English Church during the last fifty years.
http://books.google.com/books?id=REJbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Now+a+passage+to+Orthodoxy+seems+indeed+like+an+apostacy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q9ZDUd66LaGi2gX81YDoAw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Now%20a%20passage%20to%20Orthodoxy%20seems%20indeed%20like%20an%20apostacy%22&f=false
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
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #129 on: March 16, 2013, 09:21:43 AM »



I see. But then RC's would quote "full of grace" and say that it somehow implies the IC.

The Blessed Mother was full of grace because of her steadfast obedience to God's word. The Theotokos is the great example not the great exception.  The saints are full of grace that doesn't make them a result of an IC.
The only IC was the conception of Our Lord Jesus Christ....
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 09:24:48 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
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 0.48 seconds with 157 queries.