Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Basically, you're confirming exactly my point; that Mary's blood "defined" Jesus' blood, thus Mary had to be "pure blood".
The problem in the Catholic Church is that it keeps shifting the goal posts. At one point Papal Bulls were considered to be Truth proclaimed by the Pope. However, over time some of the Papal Bulls became downright embarrassing.
Thus, in 1871 the dogma of Papal Infallibility was devised.
As a result only four Dogmas have been infallibly declared, placing everything else in the gray area of doctrine, not dogma.
Then there is the spin that only matters of faith and morals can be considered when a Pope makes an infallible statement.
So, where does that leave you? It seems to me that it leaves you like most Catholics, having to sort through the accumulated doctrines and papal statements to determine which, if any, are really significant and which can be left in the dustbin of the Vatican.
Pope Honorius didn't define heresy. I'm not a historian, but from what I can tell, there are about three cases where Popes seem to have been in error. But none of them spoke ex cathedra. Two were under duress, and one--Honorius--was saying that Christ never opposed the Father.
On the other hand, the other Patriarchates were each heretical about half the time between 475 and 675, according to Dave Armstrong.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html
The attack against Pope Honorius l is a red herring cast by Christians who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility, Meanwhile they confuse the charism of inafallibilty with human impeccability. Honorius was not condemned by the holy fathers for having officially taught Monothelitism in his divine office, but because of his apparently permissive stance on this heresy. When Pope Leo ll confirmed the anathema borne by the Council, he pointed out that the offense consisted of Honorius having failed to take measures in extinguishing Monothelitism once and for all at its early stage and for having promoted it by his negligence.
Pope Honorius may have been expected to reach a dogmatic decision on the question of one will in Christ, but the fact is he never did. Meanwhile his reply in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was not an authoritative declaration of confirmation of the faith. He did not pronounce anything 'ex-cathedra", from the Chair of St.Peter. The pontiff merely sided with Sergius' cautionary move to discard the formula of "two operations" in Christ. But that was because it smacked of Nestorianism. It also appears that Honorius and Sergius asserted one will in Christ insofar he possessed no contrary human will which was vitiated by sin. Honorius expressed himself so ambiguously that it appeared he had embraced a form of Monophysitism (Cf. John Chapman, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Vll). Unfortunately the controversy flared up after the pontiff passed away. So he wasn't around any longer to explain himself in his letter to Sergius. Still Honorius hadn't come to a final conclusion for or against the patriarch's christology during his pontificate. It was more a matter of engaging in theological speculation when he shouldn't have been for so long. Thus, since Pope Honorius made no "ex-cathedra" pronouncement on this matter, the question of papal infallibilty does not arise. And although his letter to Sergius was formally an official one in reply to a formal consultation, it wasn't as public as an encyclical is in its address to the entire Church.
Suffice it to say, The Council of Constantinople lll embraced the decision reached by Pope Martin l and the bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome (649 A.D) on this question of one or two wills in Christ. The Lateran wasn't a general council, since not all the bishops of the Church attended, but that was only because these Eastern bishops who had absented themselves were Monothelites.
Rome had spoken!
We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome (The non-Greek Orthodox churches are a later addition.) Apart on their own, in contravention of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which received the Tome of Leo as a virtual declaration of St. Peter himself through the Pontiff, they've succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins. This is why the EO regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be heretical. It adds that Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin. By their reasoning, therefore, the dogma elevates Mary above Jesus who is supposed to have been inclined to sin just like any other human being. Their rejection of the IC is the result of their own heresy.
Justinus Angelus
Check this video out on this:Says you and the Roman Catholic Church, even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century. You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.
However, even if we take them to mean what you say, it doesn't follow that she ALWAYS was 'full of sinlessness," nor did the angel say any such thing to her, so it's still a legend without any Scriptural basis.
Christ restored HUMAN nature in His Own HUMAN body and soul, and we are Baptized into this Resurrected Human Nature that Christ IS... The UNION of humanity with divinity is not restored, but is attained, in this union with Christ through Baptism...”
We need to move on to maturity [be ye perfected, as God is perfect]... So we are grafted INTO the perfected human nature of Christ which Adam had, and beyond this we gain maturity in Christ unto union with Him in the Marriage of the Lamb...
“However, the EO don't believe that we are conceived and born inherently guilty."
True enough, though we do not lack for guilt thereby, mind you.
We do hold to the notion that we can be very sinful without committing sin for the wanting to sin when not sinning...This we call VIRTUE, you see... Not doing what one wants to do when the doing of it is wrong...
I think because of the limitless power of God it really doesn't matter what condition her blood was in. Heck, God says he can make children from rocks:Basically, you're confirming exactly my point; that Mary's blood "defined" Jesus' blood, thus Mary had to be "pure blood".
We hold that he [Christ] was tempted by both pride and concupiscence in His fallen human nature, and that in it He crushed both, and all manner of all other human sinfulness that arose in Him in the course of His Life... That He was exactly like us in every respect save sin... And that in His Life, He overcame all these inclinations to sin...
We hold it (the Immaculate Conception) to be heretical because it makes Mary the single and sole exception to the very condition of the rest of humanity that Jesus incarnated to save us from.
She overcame them (pride and concupiscence) early in her life...
“As Paul says: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ Because we fall short of the glory of God, we sin.”
The grammar is the reverse of your conclusion - eg The "and" means "and subsequently...
“Can you show ANY of this from first millennium Christian authors?”
"'Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.'"
Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)
This does not say WHEN, and can easily be understood to mean that there is no stain because she did not sin, and not because she was never tempted by sin...
Actually, the Church does not hold that Jesus inherited our fallen nature and will. Also, it should be noted that the Church is not infected with any heresy, in order to keep the record accurate.
We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome (The non-Greek Orthodox churches are a later addition.) Apart on their own, in contravention of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which received the Tome of Leo as a virtual declaration of St. Peter himself through the Pontiff, they've succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins. This is why the EO regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be heretical. It adds that Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin. By their reasoning, therefore, the dogma elevates Mary above Jesus who is supposed to have been inclined to sin just like any other human being. Their rejection of the IC is the result of their own heresy.
Justinus Angelus
In EO theology, which I’ve come across, our tainted human nature is the result of original sin. All human beings share in the sin of Adam by being like him in nature: inclined to sin. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they existed in a perfect mode of existence; meaning their human will had been directed towards God, and having been so, I would think that their humanity was united with the Divine.
The union of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ restored that perfect mode of existence which Adam and Eve were in before they disobeyed God.
Those who are incorporated in Christ may participate in this perfect mode of existence that Christ restored through the cleansing of baptism. What I can infer is that human beings are restored to this perfect mode of existence through the cleansing of baptism. We retrieve, so to speak, what Adam had forfeited by his disobedience: the original justice and holiness.
Still, I understand that what follows after baptism is the process of theosis, which resembles the Catholic idea of justification and sanctification being an on-going process as we grow in perfection.
The fall of Adam recurs again and again in our own lives, as we strive not to sin at all.
The less we sin, the more perfect we become in the likeness of Christ.
However, we should keep in mind that our covenant with God resembles the one He established with Israel. The relationship between God and His chosen people follows a cyclical restoration-fall-restoration pattern towards final restoration completed in and through Christ. What is to be attained is final restoration in consequence of the original Fall from grace. God's relationship with Israel all began when He separated a group of fallen people from the fallen people of other nations. Unless Adam and Eve had originally existed in a perfect mode of existence, there couldn't reasonably be a fall from grace. Sanctifying grace renders us perfect in God's estimation. It intrinsically cleanses the soul of all stain of sin and heals it, rendering us just in God's sight.
What Jesus means by being perfect, then, is that we obey God’s commands and try to be sinless, albeit our fallen state. Though not absolutely, we do reach a state of perfection each time we resist temptation and avoid committing a sin. God’s sanctifying grace renders us perfect in His estimation. Mortal sin deprives us of sanctifying grace. Our imperfection lies in how we fail to align our will with God’s will. As long as we do God’s will, we are perfect. Our growth in spiritual perfection is measured by how consistently we do the will of God for the sake of His love and goodness.
In this way, God created Adam and Eve perfect. Before the fall, their will was directed towards God and they were in a state of sanctifying grace – a perfect mode of existence. They were created perfect by having been given a will that was made to be directed towards God, and they remained so as long as they freely chose not to disobey.
Man (Adam) was not created sinful by nature. As the result of God’s creative work, Adam and Eve were entirely sinless (blameless) and holy. ‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness… God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’ (Genesis 1: 26, 31). Our sinful condition is the result of the historical consequence of our abuse of free will. The fall of Adam and Eve was not the result of some defect in God’s creative work. They couldn’t have been made in God’s image and be sinful by nature at the same time. Nor could they have been for the most part holy and sinless, since this notion does an injustice to the true freedom and consequences of free will. Free will presupposes that although Adam and Eve were completely sinless and originally in a state of grace, they were still capable of choosing to be sinful.
From the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D.D.
Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?
A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:
"..all have sinned." ...Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.
Q. What is required for Baptism, and is it necessary for infants?
A. Faith in Christ. Baptism is necessary for infants also, because while they
do not have personal sins, nevertheless they do have original sin of which
they need to be cleansed.
If we weren’t even guilty by association, then how is it we could ever be “charged” with the sin of Adam and Eve by ancestral inheritance? That's quite a strong verb to apply to the totally innocent. And why the need for all of us, including infants who haven’t yet committed any personal sins, to be “cleansed” through the water of baptism, if we are born in a state of spiritual cleanliness and innocence? The truth is that we all are conceived and born spiritually dead and unclean.
'There shall not enter into it [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb' (Rev. 21:27).
I came across an article on an EO website whose author claims that the Catholic Church teaches “original guilt” rather than “original sin”. But this is not true. He also states that Catholics believe Mary was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin by necessity; in other words, if Mary hadn’t received this singular privilege from God, Jesus would have been conceived and born in the state of original sin. However, the dogma states that Mary was conceived immaculately because it was fitting she be on account of her Divine Maternity. Not unlike the first Marian dogma, this third one is in principle Christo-centric. She had to be entirely holy and pure because her Son was from the moment he was conceived and incarnated (Luke 1:35). Jesus came into the world mentally and spiritually perfect. There was not the slightest flaw in his human constitution - no pride and not the least inclination to sin, just like Adam when he was originally created in God's image. For Jesus, it wasn't a matter of attaining perfection, but rather not falling from it. Jesus came into the world to restore it to God's grace and reverse the Fall. As the new Eve, Mary was intimately associated with her Son in his work of redemption. " "He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.'" (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100). "And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22). Not unlike her Divine offspring Jesus, Mary had to be entirely holy and sinless throughout her entire life in order to loose the knot of Eve's disobedience. The doctrine of the New Eve is totally senseless if Mary had been created short of perfection by being inclined to sin. Irenaeus equates Mary's spiritual purity and sinlessness with her virginity. She was as pure and spotless throughout her entire existence as Eve was before the Fall. And by being so, Mary restored in her person the state the woman had forfeited by her disobedience through her obedience. Concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh transpired upon the Fall and were not causative of it. "The former [Eve] was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve" (A.H. V.19.1).
‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the reatum of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.’
The General Council of Trent, Session V.
Anyway, some English translations of the original Latin text inaccurately read “the guilt of original sin is remitted.” Perhaps the author of that article was confused by a copy with this poor translation, though he doesn’t cite the Canon. Reatus refers to the state that accrues from a culpa (an actual wrong doing). Reatus culpa is guilt associated with the sentence (culpability). Reatus poena is the penalty of the sentence. Adam and Eve incurred the personal guilt (reatus culpa) of original sin and also the penalty (reatus poena). All their descendants at the moment they are conceived receive only the penalty of original sin (reatus poena). This penalty includes, for instance, being deprived of the original grace of justice and sanctity, the loss of integrity, ignorance, suffering, and death. All of us have been banned from paradise and are capable of committing sins once we have reached the age of reason. There is no human being who has never sinned besides Mary. Babies are born deprived of sanctifying grace; they suffer and die, even soon after they are born, since they all do in fact grow without exception only to commit personal sins of their own. So although babies and very young children aren’t personally guilty of having committed any sins (reatus culpa), they still incur the penalty of original sin (reatus poena), because they are capable of sinning once they are old enough. Many of them do in fact suffer and die while still too young. No descendant of Adam and Eve is culpable of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, but they still receive the penalty of original sin. A just God would not exact this penalty unless all human beings were guilty in some sense. Culpa contracta is the special phrase the Catholic Church uses to distinguish personal guilt (reatus culpa) from contracted guilt by association, which equals reatus poena. Hence, the Catholic Church does not teach original guilt. The personal sin of Adam is not imputed to us. If it were, God would certainly be unjust. But as Adam's descendants, we do receive the same penalty for his wrongdoing, since we all do sin once we are mature enough.
Romans 5, 12[/quote]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.
I do not understand my own actions.
For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Romans 7, 15-19
Vice: Not doing what we want (that which is natural), but doing the very thing we hate (that which is unnatural).
It appears Paul defines virtue as not doing what one hates and thus doing what one doesn’t want to do, albeit the passions. We lost complete mastery over the passions as a result of Adam’s sin. Adam had complete mastery before his fall from grace, since he wasn't created proud and lustful. God had created Adam to be naturally good and inclined to be good. Human nature is still good despite the Fall, however wounded it may be. The natural ability to direct the will towards the good was a divine gift that God bestowed on Adam (man) on condition that he remain faithful. As a result of his sin, we cannot master our passions completely, but we don't have a "sin nature" as Protestants believe. By nature, because of God's sufficient grace, we are still inclined to be good and to do what is righteous. But because human nature is wounded, we often fall in our weakness. Since we are God's creative work, which is good, our obedience to Him is natural; what is unnatural is the sin that we commit. Neither Jesus nor Mary were deprived of this preternatural gift of having complete mastery over the passions, which is an effect of original sin. That's because pride and concupiscence (effects of original sin) weren't part of their nature.
To be continued.
We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome... succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins.
I think because of the limitless power of God it really doesn't matter what condition her blood was in. Heck, God says he can make children from rocks:
And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. Matthew 3:9
I agree with your statement. However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception is not necessary. Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.Christ was not born of the Blessed Virgin for HIS sake...
But for OURS...
BECAUSE...
WE are the ones NEEDING purification from sins
IN ORDER THAT
Christ be Born IN US in Baptism...
"All who have been Baptized into Christ...
Have put on Christ..."
Arsenios
Actually, the Church does not hold that Jesus inherited our fallen nature and will. Also, it should be noted that the Church is not infected with any heresy, in order to keep the record accurate.
I agree with your statement.
However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless.
The Immaculate Conception is not necessary.
Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.
In the way that we read the Bible, Jesus is a human in addition to being the Word of God. One cannot develop into a healthy human person without good mothering. One cannot develop into a perfect human person without perfect mothering. This is an ontological necessity, and thus a Biblical necessity. So we understand that Theotokos is a sinless person, but conceived normally and mortal, as one belonging to the race of fallen mankind even as we all are, except Christ.I agree with your statement. However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception is not necessary. Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.
Take it up with Arsenios. He's Eastern Orthodox.
Justinius Angelus
Take it up with Arsenios. He's Eastern Orthodox.
Justinius Angelus
The Church has taught from the beginnings that Mary was sinless...
One cannot develop into a healthy human person without good mothering. One cannot develop into a perfect human person without perfect mothering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?