One is in error, and I can prove it.

[Uphill Battle]

Looks like we're here anyway.
tulc(agree's thread isn't about Mary, but here we are)

per usual.

Point is, I didn't want to discuss the validity of the Marian Dogma itself.

 

[prodromos]

And when you say go to the Orthodox, I'm sure they would say it is Rome, not them.

He didin't. Both his recommendations are Catholics

 

[Uphill Battle]

He didin't. Both his recommendations are Catholics

The EO doesn't deny it either. You can go to NewMan99 (I think that's his handle) or the Theresa Little Flower and they can explain it to you fully.


why would I ask a Catholic regarding the EO position?

 

[chucklesgalore]

I think he was just making the point that anybody can call themselves orthodox. It's a meaningless word for the most part. Even if we take it to mean "an accepted position taken by a majority", that still has no bearing on whether or not the position is correct. A majority can just as easily be wrong as a minority.

 

[repentant]

"Now remind me here: the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born free of original sin, right?tulc (just trying to see if I remember this right)"

That's a different doctrine that some sects hold which claims that Mary never sinned throught her entire life.

No the immaculate conception is the RCC belief that Mary was born without the stain or should I say result of original sin. In other words, unlike us, she was BORN sinless. IC has nothing to do with her not sinning in life.

 

[repentant]

this is an epiphany?

The EO doesn't deny it either. You can go to NewMan99 (I think that's his handle) or the Theresa Little Flower and they can explain it to you fully.

Yes we deny the IC of Mary..

And TLF is NOT the person to go to to understand or learn EOC beliefs..she doesn't even know her own Catholic beliefs..

 

[vrunca]

Yes we deny the IC of Mary..

And TLF is NOT the person to go to to understand or learn EOC beliefs..she doesn't even know her own Catholic beliefs..

I bet TLF would know enough about her beautiful Catholic faith than to say a falicy like this:

No the immaculate conception is the RCC belief that Mary was born without the stain or should I say result of original sin. In other words, unlike us, she was BORN sinless. IC has nothing to do with her not sinning in life.

In fact if you would ask her, she could teach you a lot about faith in a very educated and loving manner, you would benefit to learn a lot from her.

Just so people don't get confused though, the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without sin, which in turn she was born without sin.

 

[repentant]

I bet TLF would know enough about her beautiful Catholic faith than to say a falicy like this:



In fact if you would ask her, she could teach you a lot about faith in a very educated and loving manner, you would benefit to learn a lot from her.

Just so people don't get confused though, the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without sin, which in turn she was born without sin.

I said the same thing you did..

And TLF, like I said, is not the one to go to to learn aout the EOC..I remember she made the claim that the RCC believed the 2 witnesses of Revelations was the OT and the NT, in which she was corrected by another RC, in which she still refused to deny her wrongs. She also tried to make the claim that in her skewed view of Orthodoxy, that our idea of Theosis, is what you call Purgatory...not even close.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

The EO doesn't deny it either. You can go to NewMan99 (I think that's his handle) or the Theresa Little Flower and they can explain it to you fully.


why would I ask a Catholic regarding the EO position?

Prodromos was trying to point out that the two posters Benedicta mentioned are Catholic - *not* Orthodox, so they're not the best people to ask about Orthodox theology.

We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary the Theotokos, because our understanding of Original Sin makes it completely unnecessary. Mary was born like the rest of us humans in every way - she was not given a special grace.

Mary

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Which I think is the point of the thread.....


There is a disagreement on a dogma between the CC and EO.


I think the point here is what that implies since both groups state they have the full deposit of faith and are inerrant in their teachings.


I'm not sure why staff moved this to the Mariology forum against the expressed statement of the opening post; it's not really about Mariology but about the issue of disagreement, on the highest level, between two historic groups both claiming the same deposit and same infallibility in teachings.


At least, that's how I read the opening post....




Thank you for the important discussion and for reading my $0.01...



Pax!


May God richly bless you and yours in Christ our Suffering Servant in this holy season of Lent.


- Josiah

 

[NewToLife]

I think the point here is what that implies since both groups state they have the full deposit of faith and are inerrant in their teachings.

It implies nothing beyond that both groups cannot be correct. It certainly does not logically follow that both are incorrect if that is what you are implying here though.

 

[Rick Otto]

Are they both correct re: the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Uphill Battle]

It implies nothing beyond that both groups cannot be correct. It certainly does not logically follow that both are incorrect if that is what you are implying here though.

right, it implies that one is definitely in error. And given the nature of the impossibility of deciphering which history is true, makes me wonder how we can trust either.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Checking In... Sorry I'm late.

I'll take the time to read all the posts at lunch.

Forgive me...

 

[NewToLife]

Ok, then NTL,...


Are they both correct re: the Immaculate Conception?

Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic dogma concerned so clearly we cannot both be correct as that would be a contradiction. I'm struggling to see the point of your question though as Orthodox do not hold that Catholic's are correct in this area and are usually quite open about that.

 

[NewToLife]

right, it implies that one is definitely in error. And given the nature of the impossibility of deciphering which history is true, makes me wonder how we can trust either.

If it is indeed impossible I guess that is an understandable position. Of course, if you actually havent bothered trying and are merely assuming this to be the case it's merely a statement that the truth isnt worth taking the trouble to establish.....

 

[Uphill Battle]

If it is indeed impossible I guess that is an understandable position. Of course, if you actually havent bothered trying and are merely assuming this to be the case it's merely a statement that the truth isnt worth taking the trouble to establish.....

I assume that you would assert that anyone whom hasn't chosen Orthodox hasn't really bothered?

 

[NewToLife]

I assume that you would assert that anyone whom hasn't chosen Orthodox hasn't really bothered?

Why do you imagine that? It's perfectly possible to be honestly mistaken, that doesn't imply that it's impossible to decipher which account of history is correct though. I'm merely pointing out that its a cop out to declare that both claims cannot be trusted because it's 'impossible' to decide between them if you have in fact made no comprehensive effort to investigate the truth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why do you imagine that? It's perfectly possible to be honestly mistaken, that doesn't imply that it's impossible to decipher which account of history is correct though. I'm merely pointing out that its a cop out to declare that both claims cannot be trusted because it's 'impossible' to decide between them if you have in fact made no comprehensive effort to investigate the truth.

fair enough. The more you look into it though, the more muddled the picture gets, frankly.

 

[tulc]

I'm still trying to figure out why this thread is in Mariology.
tulc("History is more or less bunk!"- Henry Ford)