Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

So far, that idea qualifies only as your pious personal opinion...

I'm confused. Are you saying that the New Eve and the New Adam, in entering into our sinful lives, were deprived of holiness?

Could you explain what exactly you believe the consequences of Original Sin are? I believe that the principle consequence is being stained with sin (i.e. being deprived of holiness).

If this is in fact the doctrine of the Successors of Rock (the Popes), the Vicars of Christ, then it is not a pious personal opinion but a revealed truth.

 

[prodromos]

The first Eve and Adam were created perfectly yet fell into sin, didn't they?

Adam and Eve were created with the potential to become perfect. They would have eventually been permitted to eat from the tree of which they ate in disobedience, only when they had matured sufficiently.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the New Eve and the New Adam, in entering into our sinful lives, were deprived of holiness?

No...

Could you explain what exactly you believe the consequences of Original Sin are?

I will let Paul do it, with my literal translation of the Greek...
If you read Latin, I think Jerome will concur with some precision:

BYZ –
δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου
Through which just as through one man
η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν
Sin into the kosmos entered
και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος
And through sin death
και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους
so also in this manner into all men
ο θανατος διηλθεν
did death enter
εφ ω παντες ημαρτον
upon which (death) all have sinned

This clearly shows that death is the consequence of Adam's sin,
and that it is upon this death that all men have sinned.

I believe that the principle consequence is being stained with sin (i.e. being deprived of holiness).

Which so far is a pious opinion, until it is corroborated...
The stain of Adam's original sin you think is being deprived of holiness...

IF this is in fact the doctrine of the Successors of Rock (the Popes),
the Vicars of Christ,
then it is not a pious personal opinion but a revealed truth.

IF...

You have not shown it to be a doctrine of the Popes during the first thousand years of Christianity...

Until you do, you have not shown it to be a Papal Doctrine of the undivided Church...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Adam and Eve were created with the potential to become perfect.
They would have eventually been permitted to eat
from the tree of which they ate in disobedience,
only when they had matured sufficiently.

And indeed, those who are mature today in the Faith of Christ,
in their intercessions and interventions for the faithful,
do become one with the sins of the penitent
and cast out their demons from their prior perogatives...
Maturity in Christ has no fear of demonic powers...
And there are degrees of this perfecting of the person
in the Faith which Christ gave unto us...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

No...



I will let Paul do it, with my literal translation of the Greek...
If you read Latin, I think Jerome will concur with some precision:

BYZ –
δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου
Through which just as through one man
η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν
Sin into the kosmos entered
και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος
And through sin death
και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους
so also in this manner into all men
ο θανατος διηλθεν
did death enter
εφ ω παντες ημαρτον
upon which (death) all have sinned

This clearly shows that death is the consequence of Adam's sin,
and that it is upon this death that all men have sinned.



Which so far is a pious opinion, until it is corroborated...
The stain of Adam's original sin you think is being deprived of holiness...



IF...

You have not shown it to be a doctrine of the Popes during the first thousand years of Christianity...

Until you do, you have not shown it to be a Papal Doctrine of the undivided Church...

Arsenios

I'm hearing you say that the New Adam and the New Eve were not deprived of holiness in any way. That is true. And you agree that sin entered the world through Adam. As St. Paul says, "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". But you seem to be denying the related teaching of the Catholic Church that Original Sin resulted in having us all being conceived with a nature deprived of holiness. As far as the first thousand years, I'm no scholar. I know that the Catholic Church, which is under the Popes (the Successors of Rock) is the one historical Church and that she teaches that we are all conceived with the stain (deprivation of holiness) caused by Original sin, with the exceptions of the New Eve, our Blessed Virgin Mother, and the New Adam, Our Savior and God.

I don't think God requires that Christians necessarily be great scholars of Church history or Scripture. I think he gives us the reason to understand that the true Church must be easily identifiable by a central teaching office (the Papacy), and the heart to know that we are all conceived as sinners, but that our Mother, the New Eve, is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm hearing you say that the New Adam and the New Eve were not deprived of holiness in any way.

What you seem to be not hearing is that neither are you at conception... We deprive ourselves of holiness as we embrace unholiness, which means as we commit sins... And this neither Christ nor Mariam did... And this both you and I do...

That is true. And you agree that sin entered the world through Adam.

Yes... And through that one sin of Adam, Death entered Creation... This is Paul's teaching...

And He teaches that it is because of the fact of Death in Creation that all have sinned...

Do you agree?

As St. Paul says, "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners".

Indeed so, with Death being the proximal cause of our becoming sinners, and not the deprivation of holiness...

But you seem to be denying the related teaching of the Catholic Church that Original Sin resulted in having us all being conceived with a nature deprived of holiness.[?quote]

I have not encountered that teaching in the Orthodox Catholic Faith...

As far as the first thousand years, I'm no scholar.

IF the Latins are to regain the Holy Communion of the Eastern Orthodox Faith, the only basis we now have in common is the fact of our having been in Communion for the first thousand years of the Faith of Christ...

I know that the Catholic Church, which is under the Popes (the Successors of Rock) is the one historical Church and that she teaches that we are all conceived with the stain (deprivation of holiness) caused by Original sin, with the exceptions of the New Eve, our Blessed Virgin Mother, and the New Adam, Our Savior and God.

Well, if you are simply affirming the veracity of the teachings of your Church, then God Bless You... You do well... But if you wish to defend them, and seek the reunion of the two Communions that now are not in Communion, then you might want to consider looking for common ground in the history of when we did have communion...

I don't think God requires that Christians necessarily be great scholars of Church history or Scripture.

I could not agree more...

I think he gives us the reason to understand that the true Church must be easily identifiable by a central teaching office (the Papacy), and the heart to know that we are all conceived as sinners, but that our Mother, the New Eve, is the Immaculate Conception.

I could not disagree more...

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

What you seem to be not hearing is that neither are you at conception... We deprive ourselves of holiness as we embrace unholiness, which means as we commit sins... And this neither Christ nor Mariam did... And this both you and I do...



Yes... And through that one sin of Adam, Death entered Creation... This is Paul's teaching...

And He teaches that it is because of the fact of Death in Creation that all have sinned...

Do you agree?



Indeed so, with Death being the proximal cause of our becoming sinners, and not the deprivation of holiness...

I think that we should accept the interpretation of the Catholic Church under the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Rock, and I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. But as far as your interpretation and translation, what I'm hearing is that you are saying that the only direct consequence of Adams's sin is physical death, and that it is because of this physical death that we all become sinners. But as you have stated, even our Blessed Mother, the New Eve--as well as Christ--died, physically. But we both agree that they were sinless. Moreover, why would Original Sin have only a physical consequence? And if the consequence is only physical, then how would it have the power to lead all humans to sin?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that we should accept the interpretation of the Catholic Church under the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Rock, and I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. But as far as your interpretation and translation, what I'm hearing is that you are saying that the only direct consequence of Adams's sin is physical death, and that it is because of this physical death that we all become sinners. But as you have stated, even our Blessed Mother, the New Eve--as well as Christ--died, physically. But we both agree that they were sinless. Moreover, why would Original Sin have only a physical consequence? And if the consequence is only physical, then how would it have the power to lead all humans to sin?

More twaddle. I am not my birth process. Repeat that 199 times and maybe it might sink in.

 

[patricius79]

More twaddle. I am not my birth process. Repeat that 199 times and maybe it might sink in.

Why is Mary's Son called "the Resurrection"?

I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception and Jesus is God and is the Resurrection.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why is Mary's Son called "the Resurrection"?

I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception and Jesus is God and is the Resurrection.

Why is Mary's Son called "the Resurrection"?

I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception and Jesus is God and is the Resurrection.

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." (John 6:48)

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” (John 8:12)

Jesus said, "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (John 10:9)

Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (John 10:11)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies," (John 11:25)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

These are all metaphors. When you read them in context you see that Jesus makes comparisons between these things and Himself.

As for someone being The Immaculate Conception, it is not understood by your denomination to be a metaphor at all, but a literal truth. Mary was not conceived immaculately in a metaphorical situation so that one might say that her conception was pure and innocent because it was in the holy bonds of matrimony. No, rather, your dogma specifically states that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not a metaphor, but the reality that she was born sinless.

Thus, to call anyone an Immaculate Conception is no more logical than to call someone an Atmospheric Spelling.

 

[patricius79]

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." (John 6:48)

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” (John 8:12)

Jesus said, "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (John 10:9)

Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (John 10:11)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies," (John 11:25)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

These are all metaphors. When you read them in context you see that Jesus makes comparisons between these things and Himself.

As for someone being The Immaculate Conception, it is not understood by your denomination to be a metaphor at all, but a literal truth. Mary was not conceived immaculately in a metaphorical situation so that one might say that her conception was pure and innocent because it was in the holy bonds of matrimony. No, rather, your dogma specifically states that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not a metaphor, but the reality that she was born sinless.

Thus, to call anyone an Immaculate Conception is no more logical than to call someone an Atmospheric Spelling.

How so?

Does the Bible say that Jesus is not literally The Resurrection?

 

[Arsenios]

I think that we should accept the interpretation of the Catholic Church under the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Rock, and I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

You faithfully believe what you were taught - You do well...

What will you do when Rome recants?

But as far as your interpretation and translation,

Did YOU go and do the same?

what I'm hearing is that you are saying

OK, so correct me if I am wrong but are you saying what I am hearing?

that the only direct consequence of Adams's sin is physical death,

May I get you a hearing aid? I cited Paul stating that death entered the Kosmos through the sin of Adam...
You have added PHYSICAL to death...

Adam died the day he sinned, as God foretold to him...

He did not die physically for another 900 years or so...

The life we are given is death...

The life Mary was given from Joachim and Anna was death...

The life Christ received from Mariam was death...

Christ transformed that death into Life Eternal in His Own Body...

We are to follow Christ in His Body...

and that it is because of this physical death that we all become sinners.

Wrong - We sin because we are dead...

But as you have stated, even our Blessed Mother, the New Eve--as well as Christ--died, physically.

Christ only by an act of His will...

Mariam of natural causes...

But we both agree that they were sinless.

Christ restored in Himself the fallen and dead humanity which He received from the Blessed Virgin...

Moreover, why would Original Sin have only a physical consequence?

I don't know - Why did you restrict it that way?

And if the consequence is only physical, then how would it have the power to lead all humans to sin?

I think you have been given the hearing aid needed to answer that now...

May it be so!!

Arsenios

 

[bbbbbbb]

How so?

Does the Bible say that Jesus is not literally The Resurrection?

Just like the Jesus said he was literally a piece of wood with some metal hardware attached to it or that he was a grapevine.

 

[Albion]

Why is Mary's Son called "the Resurrection"?

Well, because the Bible describes him as having risen from the grave. That's unlike the "Immaculate Conception" idea for which there is absolutely no Biblical basis.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, because the Bible describes him as having risen from the grave. That's unlike the "Immaculate Conception" idea for which there is absolutely no Biblical basis.

Bingo!

 

[justinangel]

The difference then is just nominal?

Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.

Your Feast of the Assumption is simply a renaming
of the more ancient Feast of the Dormition
which you used to call it prior to your late doctrine of the IC,
and you are obligated by the Latin Church
to affirm that she did in fact die and was buried?

That is good news indeed!

The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".

So has the Latin Church EVER taught
that belief in Her death is optional?

Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.

I ran into that idea a lot over the years from my RC friends here in town...

Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.

And which "Ecumenical Council with Papal Approval"
authorized the changing of the name of the Feast of the Dormition...
to the new name, Feast of the Assumption?

No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.

And for what purpose was it changed?

The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

 

[justinangel]

Well, because the Bible describes him as having risen from the grave. That's unlike the "Immaculate Conception" idea for which there is absolutely no Biblical basis.

Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28). You won't find the word 'Trinity' in the Bible either. Many divine truths are implicitly contained in Scripture, which must be often read in a spiritual (analogical, anagogical, and moral) sense. The problem is you don't understand how to read the Scriptures properly, and you fail to see how they proceed from Tradition. God's unwritten word comes first in both the Judaic and Christian faiths.

 

[Albion]

Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28). You won't find the word 'Trinity' in the Bible either.

I didn't say that the words weren't there. The idea or concept isn't there.

But "nice try," I guess. It's been used before, though.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.

The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".

Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.

Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.

No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.

The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

You stated -

The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

Do you think that Enoch and Elijah were not taken up, body and soul, into heaven? If not, where did they go?

 

[patricius79]

You faithfully believe what you were taught - You do well...

What will you do when Rome recants?



Did YOU go and do the same?



OK, so correct me if I am wrong but are you saying what I am hearing?



May I get you a hearing aid? I cited Paul stating that death entered the Kosmos through the sin of Adam...
You have added PHYSICAL to death...

Adam died the day he sinned, as God foretold to him...

He did not die physically for another 900 years or so...

The life we are given is death...

The life Mary was given from Joachim and Anna was death...

The life Christ received from Mariam was death...

Christ transformed that death into Life Eternal in His Own Body...

We are to follow Christ in His Body...



Wrong - We sin because we are dead...



Christ only by an act of His will...

Mariam of natural causes...



Christ restored in Himself the fallen and dead humanity which He received from the Blessed Virgin...



I don't know - Why did you restrict it that way?



I think you have been given the hearing aid needed to answer that now...

May it be so!!

Arsenios

What I'm hearing is that you are saying that Adam, by the Original Sin, transmitted Death to all of us. I take it you mean spiritual death. That sounds like the Catholic Church's teaching that Original Sin resulted in the loss of holiness for all of us, excepting the New Eve and the New Adam. I know you won't agree with that, but then what does the transmission of Death mean? (As you've indicated, it is not merely physical death, and it is a Death which leads all of us into sin).

Praise be to Jesus through Mary!