Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

Don't believe that concept exists in scripture.

Judging by Luke 1:34 and the testimony of St. Augustine, it does.

 

[Standing Up]

Rome has always been orthodox.

Pope Honorius doesn't come to mind?

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

 

[patricius79]

Pope Honorius doesn't come to mind?

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

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.

The controversy stems from a letter that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius, a Monothelite heretic. The Monothelite heresy maintained that Jesus had only one will, a divine will. The Church had always taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man. As such, He had both a divine and a human will. Before the heresy was widely known, Sergius sought to get the pope's approval by deception. In a letter to the pope he stated that Jesus never opposed the Father. Consequently, if two persons agree they may be spoken of as being of "one will." The pope, unaware of Sergius' deception, answered to the subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. He wrote in part: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…Since Christ's human will is faultless there can be no talk of opposing wills." Subsequently, Monothelites fraudulently used this statement as proof that the pope believed with them that Christ had no human will.
http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm

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

 

[prodromos]

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.

If you murder one person or 1000 persons, you are still guilty of murder. If you lead one soul astray or 1000, it is the same thing. This "ex cathedra" clause is nothing more than a legal loophole

 

[concretecamper]

If you murder one person or 1000 persons, you are still guilty of murder. If you lead one soul astray or 1000, it is the same thing. This "ex cathedra" clause is nothing more than a legal loophole

Yes, the sin of omission can be deadly, but to say nothing is not teaching heresy.

 

[patricius79]

If you murder one person or 1000 persons, you are still guilty of murder. If you lead one soul astray or 1000, it is the same thing. This "ex cathedra" clause is nothing more than a legal loophole

It might seem that way. As I understand it, the issue of ex cathedra is part of the picture in which the other Patriarchates were often heretical, whereas Rome had a very good record of orthodoxy.

 

[prodromos]

It might seem that way. As I understand it, the issue of ex cathedra is part of the picture in which the other Patriarchates were often heretical, whereas Rome had a very good record of orthodoxy.

"had" being the operative word.
Note that despite all our failed bishops, we are still here with the same faith handed down by the Apostles.

 

[patricius79]

"had" being the operative word.
Note that despite all our failed bishops, we are still here with the same faith handed down by the Apostles.

I'm glad if you agree that Rome had a very good record of orthodoxy. I think that the Vicars of Christ had a very good record of orthodoxy in the early Catholic Church and still do, as evidenced by their proclamation, for example, of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Arsenios]

Hi Arsenios,

I think Christ gave his AUTHORITY to the Church's leaders, and especially St. Rock (You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church....I will give you keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind, etc)

The themes of the early Church had little to do with the imposition of Church authority, and everything to do with voluntary conversion and obedience... The Apostolic Commission was for the discipling of the Nations, and was not for the Apostles to go forth as having their authority over people...

It is Rome's preoccupation with her own imagined AUTHORITY over outside local Churches other than herself that created this schism in the first place... The Church disciples obedience to the Commandments of Christ... It does not disciple submission to Church authority... Christ is the Author of the authority of the Church... And this authority is His, and just as He writes to the 7 Churches in Revelation, it is He alone Who retains or takes away the Lampstand of any Church...

The Hierarchy of the various Churches is not authority over the people they serve, but is instead a solemn obedience to the commandment of Christ that they disciple the faithful in the commandments of Christ. No hierarch is authorized to invent new doctrines and impose them on Christians... This Faith was given once, for all, to the Apostles, and lacks nothing for our Salvation...

but that there was quite a great number of heretical patriarchs in the East, and I don't think that is because Eastern Christians are inferior, but because--as the Eastern Orthodox Scholar Schmemann says--the early Fathers and Councils unanimously saw Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

That is because Rome was the secular center of power in the Roman Empire in those early years, and because the Church at Rome was the most heavily persecuted...

And I think this is because Christ founded the Church on the Succession of Rock at Rome, as St. Augustine says...

Do you know that the Latin Communion is the ONLY one of ALL the Apostolic Churches that believes this? NO OTHER Apostolic Church shares the Latin Church's belief in this matter, and the Reformation specifically singled out the authority of Scripture as their ANTIDOTE for the poison of belief in Papal Power and Authority of all the Body of Christ... Which misuse of Holy Writ (as a weapon to attack a miscreant hierarch) accounts for their dispersal into endless doctrinal variations, each one it's own (quasi-Papal) Self-Authority, where each person is singularly responsible for the formulation of his or her own personal theological belief system...

I think this is necessary to preserve the unity of the Church in Christ, so that people can have an easy way of determining true doctrine and where the true Church is.

The unity of the collegial system of the Orthodox Churches proves Papal Authoritarianism not to be necessary... Our only WEAPON is the simple action of witholding Communion from a Church that strays outside of Her Ekklesiastical boundaries... And this, of course, is the Communion the Latins desire from us...

In the case of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Mother of God, our Lady, when we left off I was asking what this spiritual "Death" is that you refer to which causes us to sin. I believe it is the deprivation of holiness (the "stain of sin") which comes from Original Sin, from which the New Eve was naturally preserved and protected from by Her Divine Son, the New Adam.

We call it the darkening of the nous, for in this life we are living, as the Psalmist writes, "In the Valley of the SHADOW of Death..." We are devoid of the Divine Life which Adam had, and which Christ as the second Adam regained and then surpassed for us... Deprivation of holiness is but one CONSEQUENCE of being born dead to Life in God...

The other matter regarding the Immaculate Conception with Mary being born without the stain of the Original Sin, which stain is death, is that by being so born, she would be radically other that we are, and because Christ renewed the human nature He received from Her, IF she was exempted from the human nature that all the rest of humanity share together EXCEPT Her, THEN Christ did not heal OUR human nature, but only healed the IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED HUMAN NATURE OF MARIAM... And thus by that theory, we are all lost except Her...

IF She is exempted from the consequences of Adam's Sin,
And IF we are NOT so exempted...
THEN Christ did not redeem US...

I have not seen a clear answer from the Latins to this argument...

Arsenios

 

[justinangel]

I'm not really clear on the Eastern Orthodox objections to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. I was told that they don't believe we are conceived deprived of holiness, but only in a state of "Death", but I was told this death is not merely physical death, but a Death which leads us to sin. So from my perspective it sounds like another way of saying that we are conceived deprived of holiness. I was also told that if Mary is especially protected from sin, then that would deprive the New Eve of holiness. But why would it, when the New Adam was not deprived of human holiness or suffering, even though he--being God--could not sin

From what I understand, the Eastern Orthodox believe, as Catholics do, that God originally created man (Adam) perfect with free will and gave him a direction to follow in keeping with His will. But man (Adam) and (Eve) chose to disobey God. As a result, their perfect mode of existence changed to a flawed or wounded mode. As their descendants, we all have inherited a flawed nature by being human like them. We are cleansed of original sin through the water of baptism by being regenerated in Christ, on which occasion the union of humanity with divinity is restored and we are saved from sin and death, albeit our flawed human nature. However, the EO don't believe that we are conceived and born inherently guilty. We Catholics don't believe that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, but that we are conceived and born guilty by association. His personal sin isn't our sin, but by nature we do in fact sin just like he did. We are deprived of the original justice and sanctity simply by having the predisposition or potential to disobey God. In other words, we are morally imperfect by nature. Our will is prone to deviate from the direction God gave for it to follow. Thus only Christ was able to restore the equity of justice between God and man, since in his humanity he was morally perfect, unlike Adam (man). It wasn't simply because he never actually sinned, but that he wasn't predisposed to sin. Pride and concupiscence had no hold on Jesus.

Hence, the EO don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because for them it is unnecessary. According to them, Mary wasn't even guilty by association, though subject to inherit a flawed nature like everyone else. She was cleansed of original sin the first instant she conceived Jesus, as we are cleansed when we are baptized and our human nature is united with Christ's divine nature. If Mary hadn't committed any personal sins before she conceived Jesus, it must be because her will was always aligned with the will of God by the help of His grace since she was born, albeit a flawed nature. (Luke 1:28, 30). However, the dogma of the IC holds that God preserved Mary from contracting the stain of original sin, since she was subject to inheriting it like everyone else. In view of the foreseen merits of Christ, she was justified and sanctified the moment God created her soul and freed her from inheriting a flawed nature. Hence, she was truly born in a state of innocence by not having a predisposition to sin in the first place. Pride and concupiscence were not part of the fabric of her being. We aren't sinful by actually sinning through the abuse of our free will, but by nature the first instant we are conceived. 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. Human beings are in fact morally imperfect by nature, unlike God and the God-Man. We don't sin merely by acting in poor judgment, but rather by our human constitution. As I see it, without the IC, there can be no new Eve who totally resembles the new Adam in their shared humanity. The angel Gabriel told Mary that the child she will conceive shall be holy. It is because we are "conceived in sin and born in guilt" (Psalm 51:5) that baptism is necessary.

"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)



Justinus Angelus

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.

 

[justinangel]

Pope Honorius doesn't come to mind?

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

Pope Honorius was expected to declare something definitive as universal pastor of the Church. His silence was misconstrued as being tacit approval. But he never embraced and taught Monothelitism. Moreover, this heresy formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629.

http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-honorius-i



Justinus Angelus

 

[Arsenios]

From what I understand, the Eastern Orthodox believe, as Catholics do, that God originally created man (Adam) perfect with free will and gave him a direction to follow in keeping with His will. But man (Adam) and (Eve) chose to disobey God. As a result, their perfect mode of existence changed to a flawed or wounded mode. As their descendants, we all have inherited a flawed nature by being human like them. We are cleansed of original sin through the water of baptism by being regenerated in Christ, on which occasion the union of humanity with divinity is restored and we are saved from sin and death, albeit our flawed human nature.

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... Yet the Marriage of the Lamb is more than mere Baptism, for by it, we are but newborn babes still in need of milk, and incapable of taking solid nourishment... 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... And in this is our partaking of Eternal Life on this earth... Life of the Saints... So I think the Orthodox would say that the only real Union of Humanity with Divinity in the Body of Christ is to be found in the Mystery of the Marriage of the Lamb in the perfected human being in Christ...

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 Catholics don't believe that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, but that we are conceived and born guilty by association. His personal sin isn't our sin, but by nature we do in fact sin just like he did. We are deprived of the original justice and sanctity simply by having the predisposition or potential to disobey God.

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...

In other words, we are morally imperfect by nature. Our will is prone to deviate from the direction God gave for it to follow. Thus only Christ was able to restore the equity of justice between God and man, since in his humanity he was morally perfect, unlike Adam (man). It wasn't simply because he never actually sinned, but that he wasn't predisposed to sin. Pride and concupiscence had no hold on Jesus.

We hold that he 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...

Hence, the EO don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because for them it is unnecessary.

We hold it 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...

According to them, Mary wasn't even guilty by association, though subject to inherit a flawed nature like everyone else. She was cleansed of original sin the first instant she conceived Jesus, as we are cleansed when we are baptized and our human nature is united with Christ's divine nature.

Yet She was filled with Grace PRIOR to Her conceiving Him... So yours is, I think, a secondary or tertiary teaching of Orthodoxy regarding the effect on Her of Christ existing in Her womb for 9 months...

If Mary hadn't committed any personal sins before she conceived Jesus, it must be because her will was always aligned with the will of God by the help of His grace since she was born, albeit a flawed nature. (Luke 1:28, 30). However, the dogma of the IC holds that God preserved Mary from contracting the stain of original sin, since she was subject to inheriting it like everyone else. In view of the foreseen merits of Christ, she was justified and sanctified the moment God created her soul and freed her from inheriting a flawed nature. Hence, she was truly born in a state of innocence by not having a predisposition to sin in the first place.

Therein lies the rub, because that makes her utterly unlike ALL the rest of humanity, and Christ did not heal any human nature other than the one He took from Her...

Pride and concupiscence were not part of the fabric of her being.

She overcame them early in her life...

We aren't sinful by actually sinning through the abuse of our free will, but by nature the first instant we are conceived.

Another dogmatic difference between us...

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..."

Human beings are in fact morally imperfect by nature, unlike God and the God-Man, We don't sin merely by acting in poor judgment, but rather by our human constitution. As I see it, without the IC, there can be no new Eve who totally resembles the new Adam in their shared humanity. The angel Gabriel told Mary that the child she will conceive shall be holy. It is because we are "conceived in sin and born in guilt" (Psalm 51:5) that baptism is necessary.

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...

Arsenios

 

[prodromos]

From what I understand, the Eastern Orthodox believe, as Catholics do, that God originally created man (Adam) perfect with free will and gave him a direction to follow in keeping with His will.

God did not create Adam perfect, but rather with the ability to mature into perfection. Adam and Eve were in a sense like children, and needed to grow in maturity through patience and obedience.

 

[Arsenios]

God did not create Adam perfect, but rather with the ability to mature into perfection. Adam and Eve were in a sense like children, and needed to grow in maturity through patience and obedience.

Good point, although I should think that JA merely meant that God created Adam and Eve without sin, and that the issue of their then immaturity, and hence their NEED to be obedient as the children that they in fact were, was not a part of his thinking. Obviously, as immature, they were NOT fit to handle eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil without dying... That consumption (of the fruit without death) only comes with those who are mature in Christ, and first did come with Christ Himself, and is manifest in some of the wonder-working Confessors of the Faith of Christ, and certainly not in all Christians... Navigating sins unto the healing of the souls of sinners is only for the very mature in the faith...

Maturity, eg perfection, in the Faith of Christ is an attainment that not many reach, yet was taught by Paul in the passage he wrote on how those called to be Apostles just have to be about the most wretched men on earth, appointed, as it were to death, a spectacle to men and angels, etc... The Apostolic Calling I should think is the highest in the Christian Faith, involving, as it were, ALL the Gifts of the Spirit, and not just some of them...

Adam, as created, needed maturing... He was NOT created perfect - eg mature...

And of our Baptism into Christ, Paul writes that as a child, (eg just Baptized and thus Newly Illumined) we are no different from a slave, though we are Lords of all (creation)... So we have to master ourselves before we function as co-heirs with Christ... And there is no guarantee of maturation - It is voluntary and willful...

And did I mention painful?

When we use the same words with our Latin friends, those words so often mean different things...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Pope Honorius was expected to declare something definitive as universal pastor of the Church. His silence was misconstrued as being tacit approval. But he never embraced and taught Monothelitism. Moreover, this heresy formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629.

http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-honorius-i



Justinus Angelus

Follow or lead, he permitted heresy from Rome.

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
-wiki-

But hey, don't feel bad, this continues with their teaching the myth of EV.

 

[patricius79]

The themes of the early Church had little to do with the imposition of Church authority, and everything to do with voluntary conversion and obedience... The Apostolic Commission was for the discipling of the Nations, and was not for the Apostles to go forth as having their authority over people...

It is Rome's preoccupation with her own imagined AUTHORITY over outside local Churches other than herself that created this schism in the first place... The Church disciples obedience to the Commandments of Christ... It does not disciple submission to Church authority... Christ is the Author of the authority of the Church... And this authority is His, and just as He writes to the 7 Churches in Revelation, it is He alone Who retains or takes away the Lampstand of any Church...

The Hierarchy of the various Churches is not authority over the people they serve, but is instead a solemn obedience to the commandment of Christ that they disciple the faithful in the commandments of Christ. No hierarch is authorized to invent new doctrines and impose them on Christians... This Faith was given once, for all, to the Apostles, and lacks nothing for our Salvation...



That is because Rome was the secular center of power in the Roman Empire in those early years, and because the Church at Rome was the most heavily persecuted...



Do you know that the Latin Communion is the ONLY one of ALL the Apostolic Churches that believes this? NO OTHER Apostolic Church shares the Latin Church's belief in this matter, and the Reformation specifically singled out the authority of Scripture as their ANTIDOTE for the poison of belief in Papal Power and Authority of all the Body of Christ... Which misuse of Holy Writ (as a weapon to attack a miscreant hierarch) accounts for their dispersal into endless doctrinal variations, each one it's own (quasi-Papal) Self-Authority, where each person is singularly responsible for the formulation of his or her own personal theological belief system...



The unity of the collegial system of the Orthodox Churches proves Papal Authoritarianism not to be necessary... Our only WEAPON is the simple action of witholding Communion from a Church that strays outside of Her Ekklesiastical boundaries... And this, of course, is the Communion the Latins desire from us...

I don't think we are going to convince each other. I believe that the Church is built upon St. Rock and His Successors, who have servant authority in the Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy is very abstract to me because where I live there are many Catholic churches but only one Eastern Orthodox Church which is about 30 minutes from me. I spoke with the priest there and he told me to read Meyendorff's the Primacy of Peter. I read it, but didn't find that it swayed me toward Eastern Orthodoxy or that it was something that would change my life. I respect the Eastern Orthodox, but I am very moved by the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially in regard to the New Eve, our Lady.

We call it the darkening of the nous, for in this life we are living, as the Psalmist writes, "In the Valley of the SHADOW of Death..." We are devoid of the Divine Life which Adam had, and which Christ as the second Adam regained and then surpassed for us... Deprivation of holiness is but one CONSEQUENCE of being born dead to Life in God...

What I'm hearing is that you are saying that we are all born "devoid of Divine Life" which Adam had"? That sounds rather like the Catholic Church's doctrine of Original Sin to me.

The other matter regarding the Immaculate Conception with Mary being born without the stain of the Original Sin, which stain is death, is that by being so born, she would be radically other that we are,

By being born in union with Divine Life, I think she would be more of what we are, so that she could be our perfect spiritual Mother.

and because Christ renewed the human nature He received from Her, IF she was exempted from the human nature that all the rest of humanity share together EXCEPT Her, THEN Christ did not heal OUR human nature, but only healed the IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED HUMAN NATURE OF MARIAM... And thus by that theory, we are all lost except Her...

IF She is exempted from the consequences of Adam's Sin,
And IF we are NOT so exempted...
THEN Christ did not redeem US...

JustinAngel would be able to understand and articulate much better than I. But I would say that just as the New Adam can receive human human nature without being devoid of Divine Life or sinning, so too can--by the New Adam's grace--the New Eve, the Mother of God.

Another question I have is regarding the unity of the Eastern Orthodox... I know the Eastern Orthodox say they are united doctrinally, but how can I know this? For example, some of the Eastern Orthodox I've spoken with say that the New Eve sinned, and others say she did not. Where is the definitive EO teaching regarding these matters related to our Lady and Mother?

 

[patricius79]

Follow or lead, he permitted heresy from Rome.

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
-wiki-

But hey, don't feel bad, this continues with their teaching the myth of EV.

Assuming that Pope Honorius was a heretic, what do you think this proves? It seems to me that the Vicars of Christ in general have a rather stellar record of orthodoxy, judging by the arguments against them. As far as the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, why do you believe this is a myth?

 

[Standing Up]

Assuming that Pope Honorius was a heretic, what do you think this proves? It seems to me that the Vicars of Christ in general have a rather stellar record of orthodoxy, judging by the arguments against them. As far as the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, why do you believe this is a myth?

Someone made the point every other tribe (EO, P, etc), but mine (RC), had fallen away one time or another. Such is not true. And as you ask, so what? Do we have it right today?

It's either true or a myth. We don't need to rehash.

 

[Arsenios]

JustinAngel would be able to understand and articulate much better than I. But I would say that just as the New Adam can receive human human nature without being devoid of Divine Life or sinning, so too can--by the New Adam's grace--the New Eve, the Mother of God.

Another question I have is regarding the unity of the Eastern Orthodox... I know the Eastern Orthodox say they are united doctrinally, but how can I know this? For example, some of the Eastern Orthodox I've spoken with say that the New Eve sinned, and others say she did not. Where is the definitive EO teaching regarding these matters related to our Lady and Mother?

Someone made the point every other tribe (EO, P, etc), but mine (RC), had fallen away one time or another. Such is not true. And as you ask, so what? Do we have it right today?

It's either true or a myth. We don't need to rehash.

Standing Up, are you a Roman Catholic?

Is YOURS really the RC Church??

I mean, ya coulda fooled me, I tell ya!

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Standing Up, are you a Roman Catholic?

Is YOURS really the RC Church??

I mean, ya coulda fooled me, I tell ya!

Arsenios

Everyone believes theirs is the church and everyone else comes up short. Hope that clarifies.