• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Be more concerned with truth than eccumenism. If you abide in Truth (i.e, Catholic Doctrine) eccumenism will take care of itself.


RCC "ecumenism:" Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement.





.
 
Upvote 0

Tu Es Petrus

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2008
2,410
311
✟4,037.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
RCC "ecumenism:" Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Yes, I'm sure thats what the Pope tells the EO Patriarchs when he meets with them, "Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement."

Sheese
 
Upvote 0

Tu Es Petrus

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2008
2,410
311
✟4,037.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I'm sure thats what the Pope tells the EO Patriarchs when he meets with them, "Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement."

Sheese
Well, we don't actually come out and say it, but that's the gist of it...
No, it isn't, and shame on you for saying that. You do your Pontiff dishonor with that statement.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I'm sure thats what the Pope tells the EO Patriarchs when he meets with them, "Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement."

Sheese

Ever read your Catechism # 87? Ever read where the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone is infallible in matters of faith and morals? Since the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone CANNOT be wrong in those matters, and since the EO thinks it is at a few points, thus, are you saying that the Pope is telling the EO that the RCC CAN be wrong in matters of faith and morals? As far as I can tell, the RCC insists that ALL can (and certainly are) wrong in matters of faith and morals - except for ONE and only ONE: Wanna guess which one the RCC alone says CANNOT be wrong for it is INFALLIBLE in matters of faith and morals, when IT speaks, Jesus speaks?






.
 
Upvote 0

Tu Es Petrus

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2008
2,410
311
✟4,037.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Ever read your Catechism # 87? Ever read where the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone is infallible in matters of faith and morals?....

You're sidestepping. You said: "RCC "ecumenism:" Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement."
And I pointed out that this is not how eccumenical dialogue is conducted. So you totally won't even admit your error and are now on about something else.

Mudslinging is a poor substitute for discussion. You just fling mud, and when it doesn't stick you just fling more in the hopes that the next clod will stick.

The problem is, NONE of your mud EVER sticks. So try a different tact.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
You said: "RCC "ecumenism:" Just docilicly agree with me on everything, and we'll be in agreement."

Yes, and here's what the Catholic poster anoetos posted in reply:

anoetos said:
Well, we don't actually come out and say it, but that's the gist of it...


And I pointed out that this is not how eccumenical dialogue is conducted. [/quote
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,778
14,221
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,424,688.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A consequence of the fall was our nature being subject to death and it was this nature which Christ took with Him to the grave then raised to new life through His glorious resurrection. If the nature which Christ took to the grave was pre-fall then nothing was healed.

John
 
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

Your point is moot since even if Christ is pre lapsus Adam still his human nature is not perfect. Man was created in God's image and the possibility of likeness with free will to fall...thus he fell. Also in order for Christ to "assume" our humanity he had to assume our fallen nature St. Damascus said "whatever is assumed was saved" the fathers are clear that he "assumed" our humanity. To try to be legalistic what is that humanity is silly since humanity was created with the possibility to sin. What is different with Christ is that he did not sin OUR OF CHOICE not out of divinized humanity... That would create a dogmatic error and will not make him 100% human. He assumed our nature in all its fulness and condition and He died... Death being the sign of human fall and corruption, and then he was raised, raising thus all humanity with his Glorious Resurection.
 
Upvote 0

Musa80

Veteran
Feb 12, 2008
1,474
242
Fort Worth, TX
✟25,191.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married

Which we all seem to agree on. The question (mine) that spawned this part of the conversation was how the Orthodox equate the IC, the removal of the stain of Original Sin, from the BVM and by extension Christ, with the negation of the bolded statement above. Put plainly, the ability to commit sin is not exclusive to post-fall humanity. It was obviously always there or there would have been no fall. Linking the IC with the ability to commit sin is an error.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
When Adam sinned (and did not repent) his "contingent" condition was shown. As creation, his existence was entirely reliant on his Creator. He turned from life by turning away from God (life itself) and thus his ability to relate to God and man was compromised. The result of Adam's sin was death. No longer holy, he cannot remain in the Garden. The "Ancestral Sin" is mortality and the resulting fallen world. Sin is not ineluctable for the post-fall man, but in the condition of mortality and the falleness of the world, more likely.

Mary, like Noah, was "well pleasing" to God. As there are others in the OT and NT who are considered "righteous" and "well pleasing", it is exhibited that sin is choice and turning from God.
 
Reactions: seashale76
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The ability comes from knowing the truth about God... it is simple Christ knows the "truth" about the Fahter. He is one person and as a person he was fully God and fully man. The best example in that sense is Theotokos. She lived a life in chastity and refrained from sinning why? Because she "experienced" true life in Christ and extension in God... To put it in plain english (and english is not my mother tongue ) Christ who knew the truth about God as He was His father did not "missed the mark" (amartano=to miss the mark). We miss the mark cause our faith in God gets weak... we loose hope and we sin... If you follow that notion you will see it all over the scriptures. The israelites loosing hope while Moses was in the mount and they ...sined. Theotokos, saints, prophets who were revealed the truth were so "close" to God that they saw the Hope they saw that God was there so in that hope for their "immortality" with God they failed to sin... Hope that explains a bit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Musa80

Veteran
Feb 12, 2008
1,474
242
Fort Worth, TX
✟25,191.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married

Very well said, and I do agree with you on these points. For me though, I have no issue with this viewpoint and the Immaculate Conception both being true.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The immaculata is a concept totally foreign to me and what it does it justifies "the clean slate" theory and exempts someone from "original stain" ... If we connect it with predestination that Adam and Eve were predestined to sin... then Chirst was born "immaculately" through Theotokos so technically he could not sin thus predestined to no sinning... So this way his sinlenssness is guaranted while our sinfullness is also given... The problem with this theology is that Theotokos is left mid air .... between heaven and earth... She has "more grace" not to sin thus free will is disabled in her?.... creates a problem with christian anthropology and the nature of christ in extension... My thought : too much analysing the mystery of God and his revelation we fall into adding human conepts that is not our business to add...
 
Upvote 0

Rdr Iakovos

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2004
5,081
691
62
Funkytown
✟8,010.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Here's what confuses me, Jack- what in these writings 1. supports IC or 2. Conflicts with my assertions?

Obviously, as an EO Christian, I am/ we are informed by the ECFs. That does not, of course, mean that everything ever written by an ECF is the 'word of God.' What shall we make of Chrysostom's description of Jews, or Origen's Universalism?

Returning to point: The IC is an unnecessary, late, and frankly, unbiblical invention. We acknowledge that She was spotless/righteous- but, as has been said, so were many OT Saints- proving our assertion that Augustinian inherited sin, and more precisely, Calvin's Utter Depravity are utter falsehood.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.