Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Arsenios]

The creed says "catholic". The Apostles creed says "I believe in the Holy Spirit ,the Holy Catholic Church, etc"

Yes, thee is but one Church...
And She is catholic and Apostolic...
She is whole in any of Her parts...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I agree that Christ is head of the Church on earth. That's why I accept the authority of His Vicar, the Successor of Rock, on whom Christ built the Church.

The Church is not about the authority of Her Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Popes...
It has never been about the imposition of Ecclesiastical authority...
It has always been about the Grace of God and the healing of the fallen human soul and its Union with God in the Marriage of the Lamb...

Matthew 20:26
But it shall not be so among you:
Whosoever should be willing to be be great among you,
let him be your servant;

And, where was the great Vicar when John received the 7 letters to the 7 Churches in Revelation...
Which clearly shows Christ directly acting as the Head of His Own Body, the Church...
With NO Papal involvement whatsoever...

And where was the Pope in Jerusalem when James made his ruling in Acts?
Peter spoke, the Church approved, and James made it official...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

May God bless your faith, my brother...

And may those above you and me address these issues...

Arsenios

Right. Thank you. God blessed your faith, too, brother. I'm glad we both have the same Mother. In the end, she will bring us all in to perfect communion in Christ.

 

[patricius79]

Yes, thee is but one Church...
And She is catholic and Apostolic...
She is whole in any of Her parts...

Arsenios

I think the Catholic Church's parts are in the whole, and the whole is in the parts. Likewise the Immaculata and Christ are in us, and we are in them.

 

[patricius79]

The Church is not about the authority of Her Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Popes...
It has never been about the imposition of Ecclesiastical authority...
It has always been about the Grace of God and the healing of the fallen human soul and its Union with God in the Marriage of the Lamb...

Matthew 20:26
But it shall not be so among you:
Whosoever should be willing to be be great among you,
let him be your servant;

And, where was the great Vicar when John received the 7 letters to the 7 Churches in Revelation...
Which clearly shows Christ directly acting as the Head of His Own Body, the Church...
With NO Papal involvement whatsoever...

And where was the Pope in Jerusalem when James made his ruling in Acts?
Peter spoke, the Church approved, and James made it official...

Arsenios

I neither have great skills nor authority to interpret Scripture or Tradition authoritatively. I agree entirely that the leaders of the Church are servants. They also have authority which people can accept or reject as they will "whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me". I don't see any separation between the authority of Christ and that of those in authority in the Church. Christ can act directly in souls and he can act through His Vicar. His Vicar can exercise his authority or choose to defer it. Pope Pius 9th could have refused to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. but he chose to infallibly definine it for the Catholic Church, by the grace of the Savior.

 

[Arsenios]

I neither have great skills nor authority to interpret Scripture or Tradition authoritatively.

Me too...

I agree entirely that the leaders of the Church are servants.

A servant lives in obedience...

They also have authority which people can accept or reject as they will "whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me".

Well, there are two issues here -
One, which you affirm, is that ANY person has the power to reject Christ...
The other, which you deny, is that the authority of the Church abides in the Church...
AND...
That Patriarch and Popes are to be obedient to the Church
AND NOT VICE-VERSA

YOU hold that the Church is to be obedient to the Popes and Patriarchs...
WE hold that the Body of Christ is greater than ANY Pope or Patriarch...

I don't see any separation between the authority of Christ and that of those in authority in the Church.

The difference is that the human beings in positions of authority in the Church are not Christ,
But instead are servants of Christ, Whose Body the Church IS...
Christ is the Head of His Own Body, and He warns us that our leadership can go astray...
Rome recognized this and asserted HER authority as infallible...
The entire rest of the Christian Church DENIED Her assertion of Her Own SUPERIORITY...
THEREFORE...
Papal Infallibility is DENIED by the Church...

Christ can act directly in souls and he can act through His Vicar.

EVERY Bishop who has not merely been appointed politically SHOULD BE a Vicar of Christ....

His Vicar can exercise his authority or choose to defer it.

Exercise of ecclesiastical authority over others is NOT what a Vicar of Christ is about AT ALL...

Matthew 20:26
But whosoever will be great among you,
let him be your Servant...

So, reading this passage, my question for you is this:
WHOSE Servant is the greatest Bishop of the Church??

He is YOUR servant - He is answerable to YOU - And that YOU is ALL the other Apostles, eg ALL the other Apostolic Churches Whose Communion IS the Church...

Pope Pius 9th could have refused to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. but he chose to infallibly define it for the Catholic Church, by the grace of the Savior.

He did so outside the Communion of the entire rest of the Churches Whose Communion IS the Body of our Lord... He only did it within the Latin Communion... Not the Russian, not the Greek, not the Serbian, not the Jerusalem, not the Georgian, not the Crete Church, not the Antiochian Church, not any of the Oriental Churches, not not not... ONLY the Latins under His Authority accept this teaching... The entire rest of the Christian Church rejects it...

So under Papal authority, you MUST receive it...
And may your obedience be blessed...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Me too...



A servant lives in obedience...



Well, there are two issues here -
One, which you affirm, is that ANY person has the power to reject Christ...
The other, which you deny, is that the authority of the Church abides in the Church...
AND...
That Patriarch and Popes are to be obedient to the Church
AND NOT VICE-VERSA

YOU hold that the Church is to be obedient to the Popes and Patriarchs...
WE hold that the Body of Christ is greater than ANY Pope or Patriarch...



The difference is that the human beings in positions of authority in the Church are not Christ,
But instead are servants of Christ, Whose Body the Church IS...
Christ is the Head of His Own Body, and He warns us that our leadership can go astray...
Rome recognized this and asserted HER authority as infallible...
The entire rest of the Christian Church DENIED Her assertion of Her Own SUPERIORITY...
THEREFORE...
Papal Infallibility is DENIED by the Church...



EVERY Bishop who has not merely been appointed politically SHOULD BE a Vicar of Christ....



Exercise of ecclesiastical authority over others is NOT what a Vicar of Christ is about AT ALL...

Matthew 20:26
But whosoever will be great among you,
let him be your Servant...

So, reading this passage, my question for you is this:
WHOSE Servant is the greatest Bishop of the Church??

He is YOUR servant - He is answerable to YOU - And that YOU is ALL the other Apostles, eg ALL the other Apostolic Churches Whose Communion IS the Church...



He did so outside the Communion of the entire rest of the Churches Whose Communion IS the Body of our Lord... He only did it within the Latin Communion... Not the Russian, not the Greek, not the Serbian, not the Jerusalem, not the Georgian, not the Crete Church, not the Antiochian Church, not any of the Oriental Churches, not not not... ONLY the Latins under His Authority accept this teaching... The entire rest of the Christian Church rejects it...

So under Papal authority, you MUST receive it...
And may your obedience be blessed...

Arsenios

There are many different eastern rites and churches within the Catholic Church which accept the authority of Rock's Successor and believe in the Immaculate Conception of the the New Eve. If I were Eastern Orthodox and I were going around causing trouble through heresy or something, I would expect that I would be charitably disciplined by my priest. That is imposition of legitimate authority. Of course I agree that the Vicar of Christ and my Bishop and my priest are my servants. But they are also servants of Christ, who said: "whoever listens to you listens to me" and "you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, etc". I am also the servant of the leaders of the Catholic Church, because they have the authority of Christ. It is paradoxical, like everything in the Church. When Pope Pius 9th defined the Immaculate Conception ex cathedra, it was after a lot of discernment in the Church over the centuries. By defining this dogma, he was serving both Christ and the Church. I don't have the authority to define doctrine. In the Catholic Church, there is an ecclesiastical standard for determining true doctrine and where the faithful Church is. Of course I can reject the truth taught by the legitimate leaders of the Catholic Church. But deciding for myself what true doctrine is does not define where the Church is. If I and some buddies think the Church is wrong about something, that doesn't mean that we are the true Church. But we can always choose to convert to true doctrine.

 

[Arsenios]

There are many different eastern rites and churches within the Catholic Church which accept the authority of Rock's Successor and believe in the Immaculate Conception of the the New Eve.

These churches were all established BY the Latin Church, regardless of which "rite" they practice... Show me but one Apostolic Church which believes the theory of the Immaculate Conception besides the Latin Church...

If I were Eastern Orthodox, and I were going around causing trouble through heresy or something, I would expect that I would be "charitably disciplined" by my priest.

The trouble we cause is sin, and we confess it regularly, and we are charitably taken out of Communion as a disciplinary measure - Have YOU EVER been taken out of Communion for committing a sin?

That is imposition of legitimate authority.

So which "charitable discipline" would you have the Orthodox Church impose on the Latin Pontiff? He has already been disciplined by our withholding of Communion from him for the past thousand years... And he keeps justifying his error, as do you and the rest of his followers.

Of course I agree that the Vicar of Christ and my Bishop and my priest are my servants.

Matthew 20:26
But whosoever will be great among you,
let him be your Servant...

The YOUR in this sentence does not specifically refer to everyone who is a Christian, but instead is Christ's words to His Apostles, which specifically makes every Apostolic Church's Patriarch the servant of ALL the Apostolic Churches, and the MEASURE of greatness is thereby specified - eg the lowly diaconate of the Church... The 'your' is plural, so it refers to all... And even this has had historical exceptions... So that even a political takeover of the leadership of all the Churches by some heresy does not make that heresy true for the Church...

When Pope Pius 9th defined the Immaculate Conception ex cathedra, it was after a lot of discernment in the Church over the centuries. By defining this dogma, he was serving both Christ and the Church.

ONLY the Communion of the Latin Church ever took this false dogma to heart. It is rejected and scorned by ALL the rest of the Apostolic Churches. And the Pontiff refuses to correct his error...

I don't have the authority to define doctrine.

Me too, thanks be to God!

In the Catholic Church, there is an ecclesiastical standard for determining true doctrine and where the faithful Church is. Of course I can reject the truth taught by the legitimate leaders of the Catholic Church. But deciding for myself what true doctrine is does not define where the Church is. If I and some buddies think the Church is wrong about something, that doesn't mean that we are the true Church. But we can always choose to convert to true doctrine.

In the Orthodox Catholic Church, NO local Church can determine for itself what it regards as a "true doctrine"...

ONLY by Ecumenical Council can such a determination be made, and even THEN, only by the RECEPTION of that Doctrine by the Church as a whole over time (normally, a few centuries suffices...)

That is a fundamental difference between our Churches...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

ONLY the Communion of the Latin Church ever took this false dogma to heart. It is rejected and scorned by ALL the rest of the Apostolic Churches. And the Pontiff refuses to correct his error...

How can two apostles or their successors teach contradiction to each other?

 

[prodromos]

How can two apostles or their successors teach contradiction to each other?

By one of them falling into error
It can happen easily enough. The main reason the ecumenical councils occurred was to defend the faith against the errors that some successors to the Apostles had fallen into.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So who is correct, Roman Catholic or eastern orthodox?

 

[Arsenios]

How can two apostles or their successors teach contradiction to each other?

Well, for many centuries, most of the Apostolic Churches were iconoclastic, for instance...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

So who is correct, Roman Catholic [Apostolic Church] or Eastern Orthodox [Communion of Apostolic Churches]?

Looking at their fruit might be help you...
eg their 20th Century Saints...

Padre Pio is the last of the Latins I have heard of with Apostolic Gifts...

Any after him?

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Looking at their fruit might be help you...
eg their 20th Century Saints...

Padre Pio is the last of the Latins I have heard of with Apostolic Gifts...

Any after him?

Arsenios

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

 

[patricius79]

These churches were all established BY the Latin Church, regardless of which "rite" they practice... Show me but one Apostolic Church which believes the theory of the Immaculate Conception besides the Latin Church...

I don't know much about these issues. This site lists numerous Eastern rites within the Catholic Church:
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
What do you mean when you say that the Eastern rite churches were established by the Catholic Church? I don't know much about this at all. For example, how exactly were the Antiochian-Syro-Malabarese Catholics established? Aren't the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria both in full communion with the Successor of Rock? According to the site, southern India, for example, was evangelized by the Apostle Thomas, and is also in communion with Rome (the Antiochian-Malankarese rite). As I see it, all the churches were established by Christ through the Catholic Church. All churches within the Catholic Church are Apostolic. Do you mean established directly by the Apostles? Have the churches established directly by the Apostles always been faithful, and never have fallen into heresies like Arianism or Semi-Arianism or Monophysitism or Nestorianism, or other heresies? My understanding is that many of the most ancient churches--including Alexandria and Antioch, along with Constantinople--were frequently heretical in the early Church. I don't know which churches were established directly by the Apostles or why that would be the definitive issue. My understanding is that the Orthodox believe that Bishops are fallible, and that all churches are equal and are, in themselves, the fullness of the Church, and are not to be seen as "parts" of a "whole". Is that mistaken? I think the definitive issue, ecclesiastically, is whether one is in communion with the Successors of Rock--on whom Christ built the Church and to whom he gave the keys of the kingdom and whose faith he specifically prayed that it would not fail-- the Vicars of Christ. Doctrinally, they teach--on behalf of Christ and the Catholic Church--that Mary is immaculately conceived. I don't know how this could not be the case, since she is the New Eve. Even the first Eve was created without the deprivation of holiness. Certainly the New Eve would be, like the New Adam, free of all sin.

 

[Standing Up]

By one of them falling into error
It can happen easily enough. The main reason the ecumenical councils occurred was to defend the faith against the errors that some successors to the Apostles had fallen into.

Yeah, I always find it funny when groups maintain themselves and others as apostolic, even though they teach contradiction to each other.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I duno. When we hear the RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, and LDS church all claim to be the one true church it sounds like a "no true Scotsmen " senario. They all cannot be the "one true church". So how do we know with absolute certainty which one is correct?

 

[Arsenios]

I don't know much about these issues.

Me neither...

This site lists numerous Eastern rites within the Catholic Church:
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Yes...

What do you mean when you say that the Eastern rite churches were established by the Catholic Church?

They were established in Orthodox countries by the Latin Church through political power as a consequence of invasion and political takeover... The Latin Rite was not recognizable to these countries peoples who had only known the Orthodox Church back to their beginnings, so that the Latins established churches in Communion with the Pope in Orthodox countries with "Eastern Rite" Services, married priests, etc etc. "Real" Latin Priests, celibate and monastic, scorned these 'defiled' priests as a step down, and they were NEVER elevated to positions of power in the Papal hierarchical structure, and none of them ever became a Pope. They were inserted into Orthodox countries in violation of the Canons of the Councils in order to attack the Body of Christ and bring it under subjection to Papal rule... It was a concealing of the Latin Rite in the Eastern "Rite", because when the military withdrew, and the lands returned to their Apostolic Orthodoxy, with that withdrawal departed also the Latin Rite Churches, and what remained was the Latin Communion hiding under the concealment of the appearance of Orthodoxy, but NOT in Communion with the Source of the Rite they were imitating...

The effort failed...

But it created a lot of troubles, and is an enduring source of conflict between the Churches, where the Latins feel justified in punishing the Greek Rebels who have forsaken their obedience to the Pope and his ruling Authority... And the Orthodox see the Latin incursion as a gross violation of the Body of Christ in Orthodox countries...

I don't know much about this at all.

Either do I...

For example, how exactly were the Syro-Malabarese Catholics established?

I am not familiar with these - Perhaps Podromos can fill us in...

As I see it, all the churches were established by Christ through the Catholic Church. All churches within the Catholic Church are Apostolic. Do you mean established directly by the Apostles? Have the churches established directly by the Apostles always been faithful, and never have fallen into heresies like Arianism or Semi-Arianism or Monophysitism or Nestorianism, or other heresies? I don't know which churches were established directly by the Apostles or why that would be the definitive issue.

The Orthodox Catholic Church in Antioch did not establish the Greek Church in Thessalonica, but the Church in Constantinople did establish the Russian Church, and the Serbian Church... They won their autocephaly as they matured from their mother Churches and began to run their own affairs. This is how Churches are spread. The Latin Church did NOT establish the Church in Russia - That was done through Kyrill and Methodios, resulting in the Kyrillic alphabet... The "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in Communion with (Latin) Rome" are all post-schism Churches established by Latin Rome in countries outside the territories of the Latin Church of the West, in territories legitimately under Orthodox Ecclesiastical responsibility, and are a reflection of the scorn of the Latins for the Orthodox Christian Faith... An extension of the 4th Crusade, because the Eastern Church will NEVER come UNDER Papal Rule... And therefore subject to ANY predations to which the Latin Church subject them...

The reason the issue has relevance is because there developed historically 5 major Apostolic Sees in the Mediterranean area, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, and Rome... The Church is hisorically understood as the Communion of these 5... With Constantinople functioning as the capitol of the Roman Empire...

Now Rome went off the rails in asserting Her AUTHORITY OVER the rest of the Apostolic Sees, and NOT ONE of these Sees ever agreed with Her, nor has EVER been under Her authority... And yet She parades Herself on discussion boards as the DEFINING COMMUNION of the Christian Church on earth, when the truth is, by doing so, She has REMOVED Herself from this Communion as Christ established His Body on earth...

My understanding is that the Orthodox believe that Bishops are fallible.

Of COURSE they are fallible - They confess themselves to be the worst of sinners at every Divine Liturgy [joining with Paul, btw], and beg forgiveness from their flock and their concelebrants... AS DO WE ALL... Our Bishops do not strut back and forth parading their false infallibility, but instead confess their sinfulness in humility and lowliness of heart...

Is that mistaken?

Not at all...

I think the definitive issue, ecclesiastically, is whether one is in communion with the Successors of Rock--on whom Christ built the Church and to whom he gave the keys of the kingdom and whose faith he specifically prayed that it would not fail-- the Vicars of Christ.

Christ is the Rock, and He NAMED Peter Petros, Rock, because He confessed Christ as Lord because God the Father had REVEALED to him the identity of Christ. This confession by revelation from the Father is the Rock, not merely the Apostle Peter... The text in Greek shows what the Aramaic would not, that the two rocks are not the same rock, because "this rock" (eg petra) upon which the Church is to be built [the Revelation of the Father] is a feminine noun, and Peter the Rock is "Petros", a very masculine Rock. I should think that your Latin translation of the Greek would reflect the same... It is lost again in English...

Doctrinally, they teach--on behalf of Christ and the Catholic Church--that Mary is immaculately conceived.

ONLY the Latin Communion teaches this, and NONE of the other Churches has EVER taught it, nor will they...

I don't know how this could not be the case, since she is the New Eve.
Even the first Eve was created without the deprivation of holiness.
Certainly the New Eve would be, like the New Adam, free of all sin.

You may rest assured that the Body of Christ knows how...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Me neither...


Yes...



They were established in Orthodox countries by the Latin Church through political power as a consequence of invasion and political takeover... The Latin Rite was not recognizable to these countries peoples who had only known the Orthodox Church back to their beginnings, so that the Latins established churches in Communion with the Pope in Orthodox countries with "Eastern Rite" Services, married priests, etc etc. "Real" Latin Priests, celibate and monastic, scorned these 'defiled' priests as a step down, and they were NEVER elevated to positions of power in the Papal hierarchical structure, and none of them ever became a Pope. They were inserted into Orthodox countries in violation of the Canons of the Councils in order to attack the Body of Christ and bring it under subjection to Papal rule... It was a concealing of the Latin Rite in the Eastern "Rite", because when the military withdrew, and the lands returned to their Apostolic Orthodoxy, with that withdrawal departed also the Latin Rite Churches, and what remained was the Latin Communion hiding under the concealment of the appearance of Orthodoxy, but NOT in Communion with the Source of the Rite they were imitating...

The effort failed...

But it created a lot of troubles, and is an enduring source of conflict between the Churches, where the Latins feel justified in punishing the Greek Rebels who have forsaken their obedience to the Pope and his ruling Authority... And the Orthodox see the Latin incursion as a gross violation of the Body of Christ in Orthodox countries...

Arsenios

I don't know about that, though I'm sure there are other perspectives on the sinfulness of all human beings, both Catholics and Orthodox alike. I know that anyone has the right to be a member of the Catholic Church, if they want, and to the whole truth about the Immaculate Virgin, our Mother, regardless of which country they live in.

 

[patricius79]

Christ is the Rock, and He NAMED Peter Petros, Rock, because He confessed Christ as Lord because God the Father had REVEALED to him the identity of Christ. This confession by revelation from the Father is the Rock, not merely the Apostle Peter... The text in Greek shows what the Aramaic would not, that the two rocks are not the same rock, because "this rock" (eg petra) upon which the Church is to be built [the Revelation of the Father] is a feminine noun, and Peter the Rock is "Petros", a very masculine Rock. I should think that your Latin translation of the Greek would reflect the same... It is lost again in English...


ONLY the Latin Communion teaches this, and NONE of the other Churches has EVER taught it, nor will they...

You may rest assured that the Body of Christ knows how...

Arsenios

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. The Eastern Orthodox themselves say that all churches are equal and in themselves, each individually are the fullness of the church, and should not be considered as "parts" of a "whole". And I don't have any evidence that the Eastern Orthodox are more right than all the Catholic churches in the West and the East. Where I live, most of the best people I know are Catholic, and there aren't any Eastern Orthodox that I know. I am abundantly helped by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church and especially the Catholic classics about our Immaculate Lady like True Devotion to Mary and the Glories of Mary.


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) As I understand it, the Catholic churches, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Assyrian churches of the East, and the Oriental Orthodox churches all have apostolic origins. Apparently some of those that had fallen into heresy or schism are now in full communion again. We can only hope that through our Immaculate Mother this unity increases more and more.