Immaculate conception of Mary?

[prodromos]

I believe the Catholic Church--in all her ethnic diversity-- is the body of Christ, as the Creed indicates. I really don't see any reason to side with the Eastern Orthodox as against Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Russian Catholics, Greek Catholics, Albanian Catholics, East Indian Catholics, South American Catholics, African Catholics, European Catholics, etc.

Since the Latin rite makes up more than 99% of the Catholic Church and ALL the Eastern rites COMBINED just under half of 1%, it makes those bold claims of ethnic diversity sound rather hollow, don't you think?

I think Matthew 16 clearly indicates that the Church is built on Simon Rock, to whom Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom--the keys of the Chief Steward, which have been passed on to all the Vicars of Christ. Intuitively by reason and faith it makes sense that the unity of the Church would be reflected in a single visible head with conditional infallibility ("whatever you bind", etc).

If you have been following one of the threads on Catholic Answers forum, you will have learned that many Latin fathers interpreted the rock in Matt 16 as Peter's confession. They didn't see in it a special promise exclusive to the bishop of Rome

 

[patricius79]

Since the Latin rite makes up more than 99% of the Catholic Church and ALL the Eastern rites COMBINED just under half of 1%, it makes those bold claims of ethnic diversity sound rather hollow, don't you think?

No, I don't. Rite is not the same as ethnicity. And the Family of God is not a matter of percentages or mathematics. It is a matter of knowing Jesus Christ through His Immaculate Mother. For those who don't have the benefits of being evangelized explicitly, it is a matter of following their conscience through the help of the Blessed Mother and Christ, whom they do not know explicitly or consciously. I'm in the Roman rite, but I'm not Italian at all, and what matters to me is that I'm a member of the Catholic Church, in union with the Vicar of Christ, and that I know Jesus through Mary. I'm not very educated, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church's attitude toward the Eastern Orthodox and reunion is positive, as we both have the same Mother, the Mother of God. I'm not sure, but I think Eastern Orthodox can receive Communion in Catholic Churches, though I believe they may need to ask permission of the priest. I'm sure people much smarter than either of us could get into arguments about whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox are more diverse, etc. My understanding is that the largest numbers of Catholics (totally 1.2 billion people) are in Latin America, then Europe, then Africa, then Asia, then North America, then Oceania.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313

In some regions, there is very little Catholicism. But that doesn't make the much smaller ethnic groups of Catholics less important. I would imagine that large parts of Asia and Eastern Europe have few Catholic churches. For example, Russia, Greece, Turkey, the Middle-East, parts of North Africa, Central Asian countries (I would assume). Correct me if my knowledge limitations, ignorance, or confusion is showing. But that doesn't make them less important. It seems like the Catholic Church is much larger than Eastern Orthodoxy--about 900 million more members as I understand it. Orthodoxy seems more localized to particular regions--especially Eastern Europe and, even much more so, Russia (which loves Our Lady so much)-- than the Catholic Church. But I don't think that in itself proves that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the Family of God, or that Catholics have any cause for pride, or that a Catholic can assume they are closer to God. And what's important is that we all do our best to seek Christ through Mary and to follow the voice of God in our consciences. I don't have a problem with the Orthodox who are practicing their faith, following their consciences, and staying close to the Blessed Virgin, our Mother. I think it's great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

 

[patricius79]

If you have been following one of the threads on Catholic Answers forum, you will have learned that many Latin fathers interpreted the rock in Matt 16 as Peter's confession. They didn't see in it a special promise exclusive to the bishop of Rome

I don't see a problem with saying that Church is built on St. Rock's confession of faith in some sense. That would support the Catholic Church's faith about the Papacy. I also don't have a problem with the clear sense of the passage that the Church is built on St. Rock, to whom Christ gives the Keys of the Kingdom. I don't know much about the Church fathers. If you do, which of the Church fathers--in East or West--say that the Church is not built on St. Rock?

I think it's clear by the light of reason and faith that there is a definitive, central authority in the Church to proclaim the truth of the Immaculate Conception of the New Eve, the Mother of God.

 

[prodromos]

No, I don't. Rite is not the same as ethnicity.

Not too long ago, if you were Latin rite then the Mass was only celebrated in Latin. So much for ethnic diversity.

 

[patricius79]

Not too long ago, if you were Latin rite then the Mass was only celebrated in Latin.

I don't know much about that since I've only known the Mass in the vernacular. Perhaps the Catholic Church didn't allow the vernacular like she should have, though there is a unifying element in using the primary language of the Church (Latin). Or perhaps many allowances were made for the vernacular depending on circumstances in a given country.

Apparently prior to Vatican II in the U.S., there were missals to make sure one could understand the meaning of the Latin in English, and the homiles were in the vernacular, and the GOspel was normally read in both Latin and Englis:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...eason-for-latin-was-so-the-people-couldnt-und

Have the Orthodox always celebrated in the vernacular? I think there are very many ethnicities in the Catholic Church, all children of Immaculate Mary. I recently learned that the Congo, for example, is one of the most Catholic-populated places in the world. So if they were required to celebrate the Mass in Latin--maybe they weren't-- I think many people must still have understood with the help of Mary and her Divine Spouse, the Holy Spirit of Pentecost. Or else how did the Catholic Church grow in so many different countries which didn't speak Latin?

 

[Arsenios]

Have the Orthodox always celebrated in the vernacular?

In the New Rome which supplanted the Latin Rome when it was over-run, it is celebrated in the Original Language of Christianity: Greek, which was the language of the Roman Empire. Whenever we evangellize, we do so in the language of the peoples whom we are evangellizing... The Kyrilic alphabet of the Slavs came to them when they did not have an alphabet or a written language, when Saints Kyril and Methodios evangellized them. Same with the Aleuts of Alaska...

We provide them a written language...

Do you know, for instance, the meaning of Slava of the Slavic peoples?

Or else how did the Catholic Church grow in so many different countries which didn't speak Latin?

Conquest by the sword...
Imposition of the Latin Rite...
Subjugation of the peoples...
Thereby imposing the Authority of the Chair of Peter upon the people...

Native Americans do not have fond memories of the "Black Robes" in the settlement of the Americas at the hands of the Conquistodores...

Authority is imposed...
You see... And
Obedience is given...

That's the difference in Praxis between Orthodoxy and the Latins...
We give our obedience to our hierarchs...
You impose your authority upon your lessers...

A fairly radical phronomenological differentiation...

Now, of course, you do not have the sword to do so...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Just some other thoughts. My understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology is that each individual church is considered the fullness of the Church. An article I read at the Greek Orthodox Church of America said that if the Church is a whole composed of parts--as the Catholic Church claims--then the Papacy is necessary. It said that some Orthodox say that Christ is the Head of the Church, so we don't need the Pope. They said that is false, because then that would mean that the church doesn't need bishops. It said that there is no power in the church over that of the local Bishop, and that all Bishops are equal. So in light of this, I don't see how one could criticize the Catholic Church for lack of diversity, since then each Orthodox church--each one being "the fullness of the Church"-- would also have to have multiple rites in order to be diverse. This discussion has helped me--dull as I am--to learn a little more about both the Latin rite Catholic Church and the Eastern rite Churches
http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat15.pdf

But in the end, all that matters is that we are all seeking to follow our consciences--the voice of God in our souls- with the help of Immaculate Mary, Her Divine Spouse, and her Divine Son.

 

[patricius79]

In the New Rome which supplanted the Latin Rome when it was over-run, it is celebrated in the Original Language of Christianity: Greek, which was the language of the Roman Empire. Whenever we evangellize, we do so in the language of the peoples whom we are evangellizing... The Kyrilic alphabet of the Slavs came to them when they did not have an alphabet or a written language, when Saints Kyril and Methodios evangellized them. Same with the Aleuts of Alaska...

We provide them a written language...

Do you know, for instance, the meaning of Slava of the Slavic peoples?



Conquest by the sword...
Imposition of the Latin Rite...
Subjugation of the peoples...
Thereby imposing the Authority of the Chair of Peter upon the people...

Native Americans do not have fond memories of the "Black Robes" in the settlement of the Americas at the hands of the Conquistodores...

Authority is imposed...
You see... And
Obedience is given...

That's the difference in Praxis between Orthodoxy and the Latins...
We give our obedience to our hierarchs...
You impose your authority upon your lessers...

A fairly radical phronomenological differentiation...

Now, of course, you do not have the sword to do so...

Arsenios

Are you saying that the Orthodox churches have always celebrated the Liturgy in the vernacular? My understanding is that St. Cyril and St. Methodius were faithful Catholics who testified strongly to universal Papal authority. If I recall right, there might have been a lot of questionable conversion practices early in Russia's history. I don't believe that the Orthodox churches are always right and the Catholic Church is always wrong, or anything like that. I don't think our Immaculate Mother wants us to be so negative toward each other. I'm sure both Catholics and Orthodox have done a great deal of good and have done a great deal of harm, being human and needing mercy. I know that Mexico is the second most Catholic-populated country in the world. Around 100 million Catholics if I remember right. As with Orthodoxy, the question is how many are really living out their faith. I don't know much history at all, let alone about Mexico, but my understanding is that the native Mexican-Aztec culture that Cortez conquered was sacrificing vast numbers of people. But Cortez did not forcibly convert the people. Maybe he tried. I don't know. But if so, it didn't work. Until Our Immaculate Lady of Guadalupe appeared and left behind a miraculous image of herself, there were very few Catholic Mexicans. But after she appeared and word got out and people saw the image, they entered the Church. If I remember right, there were several million conversions in several years.

 

[Arsenios]

Are you saying that the Orthodox churches have always celebrated the Liturgy in the vernacular?

Great question, and funny too... So Yes, Dearest... We celebrate the Liturgy in the "vernacular"...

The Christian Faith of Peter was celebrated in Aramaic, the vernacular language of the Jews...

Then all the NT texts were translated, or originally written, in the VERY vernacular Greek, the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire...

Then Jerome translated this vernacular Greek into the even more vernacular Latin...

And the Latin Church elevated this utterly vernacular translation of the original vernacular Greek by her personal opinion of Herself, and declared it to be the "High Ecclesiastical" language of the Church at Rome, and imposed it upon all the language groups She ruled over in the West... So nobody could understand the Services except the educated elite...

In Egypt, the Greek was translated into the vernacular Coptic, which is still the language of the Coptic Bible... In Asia - eg India - The services were rendered into the local language... So too in Ethiopia... And in Alaska...

Rome is the ONLY Christian See whose Archdiocesan language for all the different ethnicities in Her domain of responsibility denied them worship in their own language... God corrected Her with the Guttenburg Printing Presses... And everyone else then could have their own Bible translation in their own language...

Surely you know this...

Do you know what Slava means in the Slavic countries?

My understanding is that St. Cyril and St. Methodius were faithful Catholics

Indeed they were, and they established the Russian Orthodox Church in the local language...

BUT...

They were not sent by Roma, Italia,

But instead by Constantinople, the Capitol of the Roman Empire...

Two men with no soldiers...

Conquered the whole of the RU....

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

I love the Immaculata's words at Guadalupe. I love how she talked about how we are in the folds of her mantel, and in the crossing of her arms, and that we need not fear anything, because she is our mother. Here is part of the story, with a link to the whole story.

Speaking to him in Nahuatl, his native language, she said to him, "Juanito, my son, where are you going?"—"Noble Lady, my Queen, I am going to the Mass in Mexico City to hear the divine things that the priest teaches us there."—"I want you to know for certain, my dear son, that I am the perfect and always Virgin MARY, Mother of the True God from Whom all life comes, the Lord of all things, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I greatly desire that a church be built in my honor, in which I will show my love, compassion, and protection. I am your Mother full of mercy and love for you and all those who love Me, trust in Me, and have recourse to Me. I will hear their complaints and I will comfort their affliction and their sufferings. So that I might show all My love, go now to the bishop in Mexico City and tell him that I am sending you to make known to him the great desire I have to see a church dedicated to me built here."
https://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/O/ourladyofguadalupe.asp


Here is that other quotation from Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of the Americas, which is my favorite:

"Listen, put it into your heart, my youngest and dearest son, that the thing that disturbs you, the thing that afflicts you, is nothing. Do not let your countenance, your heart be disturbed. Do not fear this sickness of your uncle or any other sickness, nor anything that is sharp or hurtful. Am I not here, I, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more? Let nothing else worry you, disturb you. Do not let your uncle's illness worry you, because he will not die now. You may be certain that he is already well."
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html

 

[Arsenios]

I love the Immaculata's words at Guadalupe. I love how she talked about how we are in the folds of her mantel, and in the crossing of her arms, and that we need not fear anything, because she is our mother. Here is part of the story, with a link to the whole story.

Speaking to him in Nahuatl, his native language, she said to him, "Juanito, my son, where are you going?"—"Noble Lady, my Queen, I am going to the Mass in Mexico City to hear the divine things that the priest teaches us there."—"I want you to know for certain, my dear son, that I am the perfect and always Virgin MARY, Mother of the True God from Whom all life comes, the Lord of all things, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I greatly desire that a church be built in my honor, in which I will show my love, compassion, and protection. I am your Mother full of mercy and love for you and all those who love Me, trust in Me, and have recourse to Me. I will hear their complaints and I will comfort their affliction and their sufferings. So that I might show all My love, go now to the bishop in Mexico City and tell him that I am sending you to make known to him the great desire I have to see a church dedicated to me built here."
https://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/O/ourladyofguadalupe.asp


Here is that other quotation from Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of the Americas, which is my favorite:

"Listen, put it into your heart, my youngest and dearest son, that the thing that disturbs you, the thing that afflicts you, is nothing. Do not let your countenance, your heart be disturbed. Do not fear this sickness of your uncle or any other sickness, nor anything that is sharp or hurtful. Am I not here, I, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more? Let nothing else worry you, disturb you. Do not let your uncle's illness worry you, because he will not die now. You may be certain that he is already well."
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html

Have you ever read such a quote from the Mother of our Lord in the entire first thousand years of Christianity?

We know our Mother...

Arsenios

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why is the lineage of Jesus that is recorded in both Matthew and Luke concerned with Joseph and not Mary? Why was not the lineage of Mary of any concern for the author but the lineage of Mary’s husband was so signicant that it had to be documented not once but twice?

 

[Arsenios]

Why is the lineage of Jesus that is recorded in both Matthew and Luke concerned with Joseph and not Mary? Why was not the lineage of Mary of any concern for the author but the lineage of Mary’s husband was so signicant that it had to be documented not once but twice?

It was a Patrilineal Society...
Lineages were through the men, not the women...

But the thing to remember is that Jesus was and needed to be concealed until His time... That is why the elder Joseph betrothed Her and thereby concealed him from knowledge of the true conception of our Lord. The story we get in the Bible about the Annunciation and all that is about Mariam is from Her as She told it to the writers of the Gospel... Jesus simply COULD NOT have grown up as a "virgin birther" known to all in Israel - Herod would have executed Him... That is why, when He visited Nazareth in His ministry, the people doubted His identity and teachings, saying: "Isn't this but the son of Joseph and Mary?" And He worked few Signs there...

Arsenios

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It was a Patrilineal Society...
Lineages were through the men, not the women...

But the thing to remember is that Jesus was and needed to be concealed until His time... That is why the elder Joseph betrothed Her and thereby concealed him from knowledge of the true conception of our Lord. The story we get in the Bible about the Annunciation and all that is about Mariam is from Her as She told it to the writers of the Gospel... Jesus simply COULD NOT have grown up as a "virgin birther" known to all in Israel - Herod would have executed Him... That is why, when He visited Nazareth in His ministry, the people doubted His identity and teachings, saying: "Isn't this but the son of Joseph and Mary?" And He worked few Signs there...

Arsenios

Ok, but the book of Matthew and Luke were written after Jesus was crucified and in a period of time when the apostles wanted people to know about the virgin birth. So why conceal the lineage after the crucifixion? But that's not the point.
Also, my point was that why was the lineage of Mary not included if she is to be held in such a high esteem?

 

[Arsenios]

Ok, but ... why was the lineage of Mary not included if she is to be held in such a high esteem?

Her lineage was not in question... The lineage of Christ is still patrilineal to the Jews, which Matthew provides...

Her import in the Faith comes not from Her lineage, but from Her Son, Who gave the Commandment: Honor thy mother... If you have any doubts, you need go no further than that... She is the Mother of our Lord Who honors Her, and we in Him do so too...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

I think the Orthodox and the Catholic Church (and other Christians, of course) should be very kind to each other because we are all trying to follow our consciences and we are all children of God and of Mary, the Mother of God. We are all sinners and all our histories are tainted, though God has made all things work for good by His grace. On the topic of the Liturgy, I know some Orthodox seem to believe--correct me if I'm misunderstanding--that the Mass shouldn't have been in Latin, even if the homily was in English, and the Gospel was read in English as well as Latin, and even if there were missals to explain the prayers in English. I've been wondering if the Orthodox have always prayed the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular. This article says that in Sydney Australia--a major metropolitan center long ways away from Greece-- all the parishioners were Greek and every word of the Liturgy was in Greek, including even the Scripture readings and preaching. He says he tried to converse with the priest because he was seriously interested in Orthodoxy but the Orthodox priest's knowledge of English was very limited.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn’t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

Again, though, I don't think such things should be used as weapons as if they prove that Catholicism isn't true or that Orthodoxy isn't true. We're all broken people in need of Mary and Jesus. I think we should be respectful of each other. I just want some balance here. Again, I think that Orthodoxy is wonderful because of their devotion to Jesus in the Eucharist through the Blessed Virgin.

 

[prodromos]

This article says that in Sydney Australia--a major metropolitan center long ways away from Greece-- all the parishioners were Greek and every word of the Liturgy was in Greek, including even the Scripture readings and preaching. He says he tried to converse with the priest because he was seriously interested in Orthodoxy but the Orthodox priest's knowledge of English was very limited.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn’t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

When Fr Harrison was investigating Orthodoxy in Sydney, which would have been the late sixties or early seventies, the Orthodox Churches in Australia then were still primarily serving first generation immigrants. The situation is very different today. The Catholic Church has gone through similar stages of ethnic enclaves in it own history.
It is rather ironic that learning Greek was such a barrier to Fr Harrison learning about Orthodoxy, seeing as he is now serving at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico and as such is now fluent in Spanish

 

[patricius79]

Great question, and funny too... So Yes, Dearest... We celebrate the Liturgy in the "vernacular"...

The Christian Faith of Peter was celebrated in Aramaic, the vernacular language of the Jews...

Then all the NT texts were translated, or originally written, in the VERY vernacular Greek, the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire...

Then Jerome translated this vernacular Greek into the even more vernacular Latin...

Well, I'm a a disadvantage because I'm not educated like many of the Catholic apologists on Catholic Answers. But I love our Immaculate Mother. I'm hearing you say that Latin was even more the vernacular than Greek.

Here is an article addressing these matters:

http://shamelesspopery.com/did-the-catholic-church-try-to-suppress-the-bible/

As far as Russia, supposing that they were Orthodox rather than Catholic, I don't think we should take the forced conversions under Prince Vladimir as proof that Orthodoxy generally spread by way of force. I'm sure both the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy both had members and priests who crossed the line. As far as St. Cyril and St. Methodius, my understanding is that they were members of the Catholic Church, loyal to the Pope (I'll see if I can find the quote I've read somewhere). Their invention of a new alphabet for Russia would seem to be an example of how the Catholic Church is truly universal and spread the faith and education at the same time. As far as the Mass, as I mentioned, prior to Vatican II in the U.S. it was easy to follow the prayers in Latin because of the Missals provided. And the homiles and Scriptures were read in the vernacular. If the people in the Middle Ages couldn't understand Latin, I would imagine that things were explained in the vernacular.

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):

"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

 

[patricius79]

Have you ever read such a quote from the Mother of our Lord in the entire first thousand years of Christianity?

I don't know about that. I know that after our Mother appeared and spoke such consoling and motherly words,, there were millions of conversions of the native Mexicans in several years, after she left a miraculous image that cannot be explained naturally.

http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2014/12/12/four-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/

The Catholic Church says that this apparition of the Immaculate Lady at Guadalupe is worthy of belief. And I know her personally. I am glad that the Orthodox and Catholics both know our Mother.

 

[prodromos]

Saints Cyril and Methodius were sent from Constantinople by Patriarch St Photius.