Immaculate conception of Mary?

[prodromos]

Pure pious conjecture.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests-and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.

This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always. "But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should ; For. every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."
†

The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with-which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximae, antiquissimae, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient-every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries-(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.
In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world. How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true--thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city--but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation. It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops. It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to
be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of Necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it.
We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it--we can add many others to this already conclusive proof. If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going--whether together or separately.
In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne's edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: "All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”
Greek Text: ke pántes i presvíteri martiróvsin, i katá tin asían Ioánni to Tov Kiríon Mathití simvevlikótes.
Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt."
In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy's house," etc.
In Greek: Sinelthónton de aftón epí to aftó pará to ptoleméo
The Latin translator renders this "Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum."
The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus's works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words simvénin pros tín ton Roméon Eklisían. And he pretends that simvénin pros tiná is the same thing as simvénin tiní.
Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word simvénin. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use simvénin, but simvevlikótes, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of sinelthóntes, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire.
In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with.. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?
Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.

Abbe Guettée, The Papacy.

†
We must quote the text of St. Irenaeus, that it may be compared with our translation, “Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelsirum enumerate successiones; maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per suecessiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hane enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoe est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata eat ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Traditio."

 

[Standing Up]

The Ecumenical council at Nicea in the year 325 (I think) is when the Church officially decreed the Biblical canon for the Church. There were quite a few writings produced by various Christian sects, some heretical but claiming Apostolic authorship.

IIRC, there were 50 bibles of Constantine, but no one knows the contents. There's also no list of the canon from Nicea.

But doesn't matter whether it's 300 years or 400 years or 1600 years later, I don't believe the apostles were that naïve not to "write it down". See Romans 10, specifically 10:11.

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting tradition you have there, not one I see much support for in history, unless you have something to enlighten us in that regard?

There's snippets in NT like when Paul was in jail asking for the parchments. Polycarp's letter quotes or alludes to all 27 books of the NT. And there's always Rom. 10:8 (assuming you know Moses wrote and why).

 

[Arsenios]

In both the East and West, this question is purely a matter of theological speculation. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae III, q. 1, a. 3) follows St. Augustine in stating that the Divine Word would not have become incarnate had Adam not sinned: "“Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come" ( De Verbo Apost. 8, 2). However, the Angelic Doctor qualifies his statement with this: “And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.” St. Albert the Great (Aquinas' teacher) believed that the Divine Logos would have become man even if Adam hadn't sinned: "I believe that the Son of God would have become man even if there had been no sin…Nevertheless, on this subject I say nothing in a definitive manner; but I believe that what I said is more in harmony with the piety of faith” (III In Sententiarum d. 20, a.4). Still, he was humble enough to own that this was a matter for the Magisterium to definitively resolve. The Church Doctors St. Francis de Sales and St. Lawrence of Brandisi believed likewise. Here's food for thought: If the unconditional incarnation of Christ is correctly believed, then the creation of the Mother of God is also an event not occasioned by sin.

"What if Adam hadn't sinned?" is for sure speculation, because he DID sin... But the Divinization of Man by his Enhypostatic Union with God Incarnate is the means by which man comes to be ABLE to partake of the Fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil without dying. Without that event transforming man from human being to 'enhypostatically united to God' human being, eg the Marriage of the Lamb, NO man CAN partake of both Good and evil and live. It is by becoming man that God Divinizes Man, and in the case of fallen Adam, Incarnate God destroyed the Death that Adam had transmitted to all his progeny by his disobedience to God.

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests-and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.

This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always. "But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should ; For. every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."
†

The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with-which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximae, antiquissimae, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient-every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries-(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.
In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world. How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true--thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city--but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation. It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops. It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to
be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of Necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it.
We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it--we can add many others to this already conclusive proof. If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going--whether together or separately.
In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne's edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: "All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”
Greek Text: ke pántes i presvíteri martiróvsin, i katá tin asían Ioánni to Tov Kiríon Mathití simvevlikótes.
Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt."
In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy's house," etc.
In Greek: Sinelthónton de aftón epí to aftó pará to ptoleméo
The Latin translator renders this "Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum."
The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus's works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words simvénin pros tín ton Roméon Eklisían. And he pretends that simvénin pros tiná is the same thing as simvénin tiní.
Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word simvénin. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use simvénin, but simvevlikótes, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of sinelthóntes, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire.
In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with.. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?
Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.

Abbe Guettée, The Papacy.

†
We must quote the text of St. Irenaeus, that it may be compared with our translation, “Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelsirum enumerate successiones; maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per suecessiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hane enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoe est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata eat ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Traditio."

True enough. A prime example is Polycarp who went to Rome correcting her on a number of points (some taken, some rejected) in the time of Anicetus, while Valentinus was flourishing under the Popes (see Eusebius, History, Book IV, 11).

 

[Arsenios]

"Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting."http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

Theosis is not a process...

It is a transformative event, an encounter with the Living God that transforms a person from what he was to what he becomes as a result of that event...

It is not an ongoing process - It can last from less that a second to several days. Nobody just "lives" in theosis...

Theosis is not an ASSUMPTION, as you intimate - It is a transformative encounter with God in a purified heart...

The participation is in the Divinity of God, but is in no way an entry into relations among the Holy Trinity, but with Christ in the Holy Spirit.

That event acts upon man in a way that is concordant with the person's state of repentance who is encountering God... The same Divine encounter to an unrepentant sinner becomes for him the Calling of God to purification of the heart [repentance], whereas to one purified in heart it becomes an event making him or her God-like... Sanctification...

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

"In

Eastern Orthodoxy deification (theosis) is a transformative process whose goal is likeness to or union with God. As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of katharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Orthodox teaching, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology)

Do the EO define the word process differently?

Orthodox wiki is not a good source -
Numbers alone indicate that less than one in ten thousand people experience theosis...
American converts often think that because they are now "Orthodox" they now "KNOW" what theosis IS...
And they write on wiki, and describe it as a process...
The process that leads to it is repentance, baptism, prayer, Life in Christ's Body, the Church, giving of alms, self denial, obedience to a Spiritual Father, fasting, poverty, chastity, and on and on - eg Living a repentant life of overcoming sin however it may manifest...

But theosis itself is the encounter with God that transforms the person divinizing that person in the Marriage of the Lamb...

It is an unspeakable Mystery...

It follows purification of the heart [repentance]...
And Illumination of the nous...
Which leads to enhanced purification of the heart...
Which leads to Union with God in a total and personal manner...

It is the bequeathal of Sainthood upon a penitant...

Read Romanides and Hierotheos if you want words about it...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Romans 5:12
The Greek text does no say "IN WHOM" but "THROUGH WHICH" [DEATH]...

The Latin text reads:

Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.

'It was through one man that guilt came into the world; and, since death came owing to guilt, death was handed on to all mankind by (through) one man. (All alike were guilty men

Well, IF you are right on the Latin [Jerome's?] Text, then the Latin Church has re-written the Bible...

KJV – Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned:

I will give you the wooden translation:
BYZ –
δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου
Through this just as through one man

η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν
sin into the kosmos entered

και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος
and through this sin Death (entered the kosmos)

και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους
also thus into all mankind

ο θανατος διηλθεν
Death passed through (into all mankind)

εφ ω
upon which (Death)

παντες ημαρτον
all (mankind) have sinned.

You will notice that the word GUILT is NOT in the Biblical text here at all...
Your Latin text has re-written the Biblical text to read GUILT instead of DEATH...

No WONDER we understand this differently!

I don't see what difference that makes in the larger context. 'Well then, one man commits a fault, and it brings condemnation upon all; one man makes amends, and it brings to all justification, that is, life. A multitude will become acceptable to God through one man’s obedience, just as a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became guilty. The law intervened, only to amplify our fault; but, as our fault was amplified, grace has been more amply bestowed than ever; that so, where guilt held its reign of death, justifying grace should reign instead, to bring us eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 5:18-19). All human beings are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned. The Gentiles aren't exempted either because they haven't received the Mosaic Law. 'For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel' (Romans 2:14-16).

All of which obfuscates the Biblical role of death in the matter of sin as Paul so clearly expressed it...

I'm unsure if I understand you correctly, but do you interpret the phrase “death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned" to mean that death spread to all people with the result all sinned? I've come across a few EO authors who interpret it this way. What they imply is that our mortality and fear of death compel us to sin. Like the old saying goes: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Our craving for transient pleasure obstructs the attainment of theosis. But this interpretation is problematic. By his transgression, Adam did not only transmit death to us, but also sin. The Pelagians, whom St. Augustine contended with, claimed that St. Paul meant only physical death was transmitted to us through Adam. However, if we consider the phrase "by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners" in v.19, then according to them the passage should read "many were made mortal" instead of sinners. I'm afraid sinner does not mean mortal; nor does sin mean death. Verse 12 corresponds with v.19. Adam has brought both sin and death to the human race - death being the consequence of sin.The phrase in v.12 should not be taken as resultative in force, but rather causative in force: death spread to all people because all sinned. Some infants do in fact die, because they certainly will sin without exception when they're mature enough. Heck, they aren't even old enough to know what death is, let alone sin. Original sin does not have the character of personal guilt (

reatus culpa); nor does it presuppose that we have lost the divinely created goodness of our human nature. But we are born guilty by association (reatus poena). Even though Adam brought death into the world, we are also responsible since we all sin.

Death did not spread, like butter, to all people... It 'passed through' - dia + elthein - The third dia in this passage, which is a study in them... We are, in terms of union with God, which IS Eternal Life, all born dead... THAT is our inheritance from Adam's transgression... It is because of this death into which we are born that all have sinned, because the Fruit is of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and in God there is NO evil at all, so that IF we know - Biblically - eg are 'one with' - BOTH Good AND Evil, then we are NOT in union with God, which is why the Gospel reads: "Be ye repenting, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (here and now)... We have, for our salvation, the task of repenting from the evil into which we are born in the death we have inherited, so as to make ourselves ready for union with God, Who is the Lover of Mankind...

We are born dead into good and evil -
We overcome evil by repentance -
We are accepted by God in the Marriage of the Lamb...

Purification of the Heart is the ever-present activity of the life of fallen man unto God...
Vigilance... Vigils... All Night Vigils often...
Ever going deeper and deeper in one's thirsted quest for God...
In prayer and fasting, hungering and thirsting after righteousness...
In lowliness of heart and transcending Love of God...

'Nuff!

Arsenios

 

[patricius79]

Pure pious conjecture.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)
.

I think that what St. Irenaeus, a Catholic Bishop in the 100s, says makes sense because there would have to be a perpetual ecclesiastical center which would preserve true doctrine and the unity of the faith regarding the Mother of God and all spiritual matters.

 

[patricius79]

it is not an "odd" reason
did anyone write about what happened at your Christmas party?
no?
but you know what happened
why is that?
because you were there

the ancient Churches understand these things because we were there
we are not relying on the musings of northern Europeans from the 15th Century, but rather on what was taught by the Apostles and those who learned from the Apostles

And the Bible calls Mary "the Mother of Jesus" and "Having-Been-Filled-With-Grace", which says as much about Our Lady as everything else the Church teaches.

 

[prodromos]

there would have to be a perpetual ecclesiastical center which would preserve true doctrine and the unity of the faith regarding the Mother of God and all spiritual matters.

Nonsense. Unity of the faith comes from communion with the Holy Spirit, who was promised to lead the Church into all truth. God is the centre of our faith, not some group of special bishops in a particular geographical location.

 

[Arsenios]

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.)

Actually, the entirety of Christianity is not in Communion with the Latin Church...

The Latin Communion is only in Communion with Herself...

She is in Communion with NONE of the other Apostolic Sees at all...

The EOC withdrew Communion from the Latins a thousand years ago...

The Coptic Church will not Commune Latins...

Neither will the Oriental Orthodox Churches...

Nor the Arminians...

Nor the Church in Cypress...

Rome went her own way with the false doctrine of the Filioque and their heretical doctrine of Papal rule of the Body of Christ...

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.

Jesus was never tempted by pride, nor by concupiscence, but did receive a fallen human body, soul and will from the Blessed Virgin, in which He renewed and elevated fallen human nature to its original state in the Garden, and then beyond that state by hypostatically conjoining it to Christ Himself... Better to say that the Person Christ IS acted to perfect and then conjoin the human nature with the Divine Nature in Himself...

So He did not have to overcome pride, but He elevated His Own human nature by not not acting from pride when His human nature and will would incline toward pride... He had two wills, you see, one Divine and one human, in order that the human will would be elevated in His singular Hypostasis...

In His human nature, He experienced and overcame all the temptations to sin that any and every human person has... He was just like us, except that He did not commit any sin... THAT is HOW He healed our damaged human nature in Himself... And now we in Him are elevated and can find healing...

Arsenios

 

[justcoolforyou]

So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.

No the church is more then just the breath of God she is the body of God as well...

 

[justinangel]

Irenaeus spoke thus of Rome because Rome was not in error at that time. Context is important when understanding the fathers. In our current situation Irenaeus himself would not agree that his saying here would apply to Rome any longer, because Rome herself has broke with Apostolic Tradition.

You're begging the question. I'm sure he believed, along with many other Church Fathers, that the church at Rome could never break from the Apostolic Tradition. That it has broken from it is a post-schismatic Eastern rationalization. May I remind you that historically it was the Eastern Patriarchates that broke from the Apostolic Tradition, and that orthodox bishops like Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria appealed to the Pope to help restore orthodoxy and a unity of faith in the East. It's a historical fact the early Church Fathers recognized that Peter is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." Since Peter was made the foundation of the Church, he held a special place or primacy among the apostles. This is clear in John 21:16: He (Jesus) said to him (Peter), "Feed my sheep." As you know, the Greek word for "feed" is boskó (βόσκω), which literally means "to feed". Peter is commissioned to feed the flock, which includes the other apostles, with the word of God. Figuratively, Peter is commissioned to shepherd or pasture the flock and tend to it with care. The Greek word for "tend" is poimaino which also means "rule." Spiritually nourishing, shepherding, and ruling all go hand in hand. Now the EO might object that poimaino only takes on the meaning of "rule" in the context of a king who rules. However, the deputy regent in the Davidic kingdom was a person who acted in the place of the ruling sovereign. The Davidic kingdom finds its fulfillment in the Kingdom of God (Luke 1:31-33). Peter was commissioned to act as our Lord's vicar or deputy regent on earth. He alone reveived the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which grants him the supreme power to bind and loose in Christ's physical absence (Matthew 16:18-19). He was appointed to be the visible head of Christ's one visible body on earth. One visible body requires a unity of faith, which Peter was called to preserve by ruling in Christ's stead as his deputy minister. His supreme office can only continue by succession until Christ returns at the end of this age.

Further, we read in Luke 22:32: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." In the original Greek, "to not fail" is eklipē (ἐκλίπῃ), meaning "to never cease." The original Greek word for "confirm" in the DRB is stērison (στήρισον), which means "to hold fast", "establish", "prop", and "support". Cyril of Alexandria did not act in his own name, but denounced Nestorius to Pope Celestine, since ancient custom, he said, persuaded him to bring the matter before the pope. It was Celestine who commissioned Cyril to present his own 12 propositions at the Council of Ephesus after he confirmed the orthodoxy of their content. "Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." (Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11). From Celestine's successor before the 'Robber Council of Ephesus' was convened by contumacious Eastern bishops: "The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" (Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch). The Church at this time, including the pope, rightly understood that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy of universal jurisdictional authority in matters pertaining to doctrine. The idea that the councils were superior to the pope is a post-schismatic EO invention. All the doctrinal decisions reached by the council fathers were certified by the pope before they finally became canons of the Church. If Rome had been in grave error at any time, under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome, then obviously Jesus' prayer to his heavenly Father was left unanswered. Please note that the Greek word for "infallibilty", according to James Likoudis (Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism), connotes "not failing". If all the bishops hold equal authority in establishing doctrine, and no final and definitive word rests with one visible head who has been singled out and appointed by Christ to safeguard the Apostolic faith, then who's to determine that the Council of Ephesus was right and the "Robber Council" was wrong? The EO position defies all logic. And I should add, the EO structure of autocephalous churches borders on the Protestant idea of the Church as legitimately consisting of autonomous, independent denominations whose visible heads do not answer to those of the other denominations.

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]”
St. Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect”
Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 3:1 [c.A.D. 110]

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father (pope=papa) his children, the brethren who are journeying”
Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."
Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342)

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us."
Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345)

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."
Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372)

"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons."
Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392)

"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth."
Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400)

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once."
Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417)

For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see."
Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420)

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery."
Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445)

Mindful, indeed, of all these things and considering them most attentively with particular joy in our heart, as soon as we, by the inscrutable design of Providence, had been raised to the sublime Chair of St. Peter -- in spite of our unworthiness -- and had begun to govern the universal Church, nothing have we had more at heart -- a heart which from our tenderest years has overflowed with devoted veneration and love for the most Blessed Virgin -- than to show forth her prerogatives in resplendent light.
Pope Pius lX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus: Preparation for the Definition of the Immaculate Conception (8 Dec.1854)



Justinius Angelus

 

[prodromos]

You're begging the question. I'm sure he believed, along with many other Church Fathers, that the church at Rome could never break from the Apostolic Tradition.

And thus Justin begs the question.

 

[justinangel]

Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests-and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.

"This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always. "But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should ; For. every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."
†

"The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with-which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximae, antiquissimae, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient-every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries-(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father."

"In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world. How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true--thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city--but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation. It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops. It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of Necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it."

"We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it--we can add many others to this already conclusive proof. If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going--whether together or separately.

"In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne's edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: "All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”
Greek Text: ke pántes i presvíteri martiróvsin, i katá tin asían Ioánni to Tov Kiríon Mathití simvevlikótes.
Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt."
In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy's house," etc.

In Greek: Sinelthónton de aftón epí to aftó pará to ptoleméo.
The Latin translator renders this "Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum."

"The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus's works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words simvénin pros tín ton Roméon Eklisían. And he pretends that simvénin pros tiná is the same thing as simvénin tiní. Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word simvénin. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use simvénin, but simvevlikótes, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of sinelthóntes, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire. In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with.. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found? Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.

Abbe Guettée, The Papacy.

"We must quote the text of St. Irenaeus, that it may be compared with our translation, “Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelsirum enumerate successiones; maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per suecessiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hane enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoe est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata eat ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Traditio."

Given the context in which Irenaeus is denouncing heretics and heretical doctrines, are we supposed to believe Guettee that “Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam” refers to the political authority of Rome rather than the ecclesial authority of the Church at Rome? Ireneaus isn't in the least concerned with Imperial politics or business. Guettee is "missing the mark". The entire context is doctrinal and theological. Irenaeus is certainly not embarking on any political and economic digression. This passage is his finishing touch in refuting heretics.

Staying on target, Irenaeus immediately goes on to outline the succession of the first popes and bases the truth of the faith in that succession:

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Against Heresies, lll.3.3)

With regard to “convenire,” which literally translates as “to come with” or “to come together” ( “to convene” in English), the translation “to agree with” (or “to resort to”) is perfectly acceptable and most appropriate given the theological and doctrinal context of the passage in question. It's certainly more reasonable, since Ireneaus isn't primarily concerned about travelling from place to place, albiet bishops did travel to Rome to discuss theological issues with the Apostolic See. The context is the refuting of heretics and the affirmation of true Christian doctrines which all Christians should universally believe. The figurative, spritual, and doctrinal sense of “coming together in one place” is agreement in a unified body of doctrines. Irenaeus may have had this verse at the back of his mind: 'I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10).

These Latin dictionaries support the translation of “convenire” in terms of agreement:

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/convenire
http://www.myetymology.com/latin/convenire.html
http://www.dizionario-latino.com/dizionario-latino-italiano.php?parola=convenio (concordare, essere d’accordo, accordarsi, si è d’accordo)

According to one Catholic author I've read, the following translation of “in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quæ est ab Apostolis Traditio” seems to be the most precise one: "…by which route always, by them who are from all parts, it is preserved, that which is from the Apostolic Tradition.”

In his Letter to the Romans, St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the church at Rome as 'having taught the other churches', not of others coming to Rome to teach the church there.

Will try to get back to you on Romans 5:12 as earliest as tomorrow.



Justinus Angelus

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

 

[justinangel]

And thus Justin begs the question.

Not at all. I've explained how Irenaeus couldn't possibly have presumed that the church at Rome, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, could have eventually broken from the Apostolic Tradition. The EO poster I addressed is simply arguing from what he has already concluded without providing any substantial evidence - that the Roman Church had broken from the Apostolic Tradition. Honestly, A, I wish you would carefully read everything I write instead of skimming through and splicing content for the sake of arguing. My last post wasn't that long, was it?



J.A.

 

[Arsenios]

Not at all. I've explained how Irenaeus couldn't possibly have presumed that the church at Rome, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, could have eventually broken from the Apostolic Tradition. The EO poster I addressed is simply arguing from what he has already concluded without providing any substantial evidence - that the Roman Church had broken from the Apostolic Tradition. Honestly, A, I wish you would carefully read everything I write instead of skimming through and splicing content for the sake of arguing. My last post wasn't that long, was it?



J.A.

Honestly, J., I did NOT write the post you are referring to here!



That said, I must say, that it was a tad long, mind you...

You suffer from what I call Scholastikidis...
And from your perspective, I should imagine that you would likely say that I suffer from Pithikidis...

The method of argument that piles up a mound of proofs, say 5 or 6, or 20 or 30, all cherry picked from "reputable and scholarly writings" in singular support of their own See's Authority over Christ - Christ's Body, I know, but still Christ - is, to my pithy-mentis, nothing but a pile of words... And indeed, it takes me back to Thomas' reverberational echolocution: "All that I have written is STRAW..."

Piles of words - I knew a woman who perfectly hated me for a long time, and would spare no opportunity to berate my every motivation at a level of decibels that would deafen a Protestant - And I told her repeatedly: "Talk softer, I can't hear you..."

Alas, to no avail...

She did get the help she needed...

But not from me...

As long as the Latin Communion insists on being Boss over Christ's Body,
it will not partake of the Communion of the Holy Orthodox Church...

Christ is the Head of our Communion...

Not the Popes and Patriarchs...
Not the self of persons at all...

Christ is our Head...

Not your Patriarch nor ours...

We sacrificed our selves and our children to the rule of the Turks rather than submit to that of your Latin Pope...

Perhaps that means little to you - A tragic error on our part...

If so, ask yourself how many Saints came from Ireland in the first millennium of the Christian Faith?
And then ask: "How many in the second?"

The answer is: Thousands upon thousands, and a handful...

Arsenios - Who actually did write this post!

 

[Standing Up]

You're begging the question. I'm sure he believed, along with many other Church Fathers, that the church at Rome could never break from the Apostolic Tradition.

Heaven's no. Irenaeus of course allows for it (or any) to fall away. He says, "in as much as".

 

[patricius79]

Not at all. I've explained how Irenaeus couldn't possibly have presumed that the church at Rome, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, could have eventually broken from the Apostolic Tradition. The EO poster I addressed is simply arguing from what he has already concluded without providing any substantial evidence - that the Roman Church had broken from the Apostolic Tradition. Honestly, A, I wish you would carefully read everything I write instead of skimming through and splicing content for the sake of arguing. My last post wasn't that long, was it?



J.A.

I agree that the Roman Church hasn't broken with Tradition. Rather, as St. Irenaeus makes clear, Rome is the standard for staying close to the Tradition of the Apostles. Irenaeus also calls Mary the "cause of our salvation", thus testifying to the Catholic Church's understanding that all graces come from the One Mediator, Christ, through Immaculate Mary.

 

[prodromos]

Honestly, A, I wish you would carefully read everything I write instead of skimming through and splicing content for the sake of arguing.

Justin once again begs the question.