We call her Blessed, what do you call her?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sorry, that does not follow.

Why would a person with a fallen human nature not be in need of a saviour?

 

[prodromos]

Why would a person with a fallen human nature not be in need of a saviour?

Because it was immediately healed in Him

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because it was immediately healed in Him

But if it needed to be healed then was he healed by some work of God? Did he need saviour.

 

[prodromos]

But if it needed to be healed then was he healed by some work of God? Did he need saviour.

He is God. Honestly, your line of questioning makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

He is God. Honestly, your line of questioning makes absolutely no sense.

Okay, I tried

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Here is the CCC material on the immaculate conception

---

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135​

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143​

---

132 LG 56.
133 Lk 1:28.
134 Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
136 LG 53, 56.
137 Cf. Eph 1:3-4.
138 LG 56.
139 Lk 1:28-38; cf. Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
143 LC 56; St. Epiphanius, Panarion 2, 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408

 

[prodromos]

Here is the CCC material on the immaculate conception

---

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135​

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143​

---

132 LG 56.
133 Lk 1:28.
134 Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
136 LG 53, 56.
137 Cf. Eph 1:3-4.
138 LG 56.
139 Lk 1:28-38; cf. Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
143 LC 56; St. Epiphanius, Panarion 2, 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408

This makes Eastern Catholics 2nd class citizens, as their Mariology is in line with Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Ceallaigh]

This makes Eastern Catholics 2nd class citizens, as their Mariology is in line with Eastern Orthodox.

Isn't that also the case in the declaration that the RCC is the one and only true church?

 

[prodromos]

Isn't that also the case in the declaration that the RCC is the one and only true church?

Regarding Eastern Catholics? I don't see how.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Regarding Eastern Catholics? I don't see how.

Haven't the EO and RCC been separate churches since the great schism of 1054? I though that's why I've read EO members saying "I'm not a catholic".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This makes Eastern Catholics 2nd class citizens, as their Mariology is in line with Eastern Orthodox.

I do not think so, Eastern Catholics have the same Catechism, it is The Catechism of the Catholic Church not the Catechism of the Latin Rites.

 

[prodromos]

Haven't the EO and RCC been separate churches since the great schism of 1054? I though that's why I've read EO members saying "I'm not a catholic".

Eastern Orthodox are not Eastern Catholics. Eastern Catholics are the various non Latin rite Churches in communion with Rome. They make up about half of 1% of the Catholic Church, the other 99% being Latin rite.

 

[prodromos]

I do not think so, Eastern Catholics have the same Catechism, it is The Catechism of the Catholic Church not the Catechism of the Latin Rites.

You need to better educate yourself then. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the same beliefs as the Eastern Orthodox Church, they just happen to be in communion with Rome and any theological differences get swept under that rug. It does make Eastern Catholics somewhat schizophrenic, which many of them readily admit, and it is one of the reasons a number have become Orthodox as they find it an impossible fence to sit on.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You need to better educate yourself then. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the same beliefs as the Eastern Orthodox Church, they just happen to be in communion with Rome and any theological differences get swept under that rug. It does make Eastern Catholics somewhat schizophrenic, which many of them readily admit, and it is one of the reasons a number have become Orthodox as they find it an impossible fence to sit on.

Once again, your statements are in error. Eastern Catholics have the same Pope, the same dogmas, and the same faith as their Western brethren.

 

[prodromos]

Once again, your statements are in error. Eastern Catholics have the same Pope, the same dogmas, and the same faith as their Western brethren.

It is you who is in error.

 

[The Liturgist]

The "perfect" bit is where Lutherans would draw the line. Despite the traditions of the ECFs we can't accept the "Immaculate Conception".

Only St. Augustine’s approach to hamartiology would require the immaculate conception. If you use the Latin father preferred by the Orthodox as their source of anti-Pelagian soteriology, St. John Cassian, his hamartiology, sometimes called “ancestral sin” to differentiate it from the Augustinian model, although I dislike this because it has the effect of implying an ancient controversy that did not exist; rather, the Roman, Greek and Syrian fathers initially all used the hamartiology of St. John Cassian. Later, after the Chalcedonian schism and as the Great Schism loomed, and Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology started to diverge, the Roman church embraced St. Augustine to such an extent that he became the Early Church Father par excellence, and indeed Martin Luther was an Augustinian friar. However, the use of the hamartiology of John Cassian does not break anything, since you still have original sin, it is simply not transmitted like a venereal disease, so no special immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is required, and thus our Lord remains fully consubstantial with us.

I would surprised if at least some in the Byzantine Catholic Churches, given the increased dialogue between them and some of the Eastern Orthodox churches, have not, since Vatican II, switched over to the model of St. John Cassian. By the way, St. John Cassian is still a saint in the Roman Catholic Church - he was for a time one of the most prominent Latin Fathers, along with St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Isidore of Seville and St. Vincent of Lerins, and of course St. Jerome, all of whom were more prominent than St. Augustine until at least the eighth century.

I think what happened is an influential group of Benedictine monasteries, perhaps the Cluniac monasteries, although this is just a guess, because of the breadth and elegance of St. Augustine’s work, much of which is truly excellent, such as his works on the Trinity, the Sacraments, The City of God, and his Confessions, adopted his writings with a certain preference and began to favor his view of original sin over that of St. John Cassian. Then other monasteries switched over as a matter of convenience, because St. Augustine covers so much, if you were to want to find one Latin Church Father who wrote about the broadest range of topics well, it would probably be St. Augustine, or St. Augustine and St. Ambrose together (the two are connected in that according to tradition, which I am inclined to believe, St. Ambrose baptized St. Augustine after he was moved by the Holy Spirit, through the prayers of his mother and other persons, to abandon the Persian Gnostic heresy of Manichaenism and convert to the true Christian faith rather than the imposter that was the religion of Mani, one of the early false Christs in the tradition of SImon Magus and Montanus, but not the last (see Muhammed, Emanuel Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi, Bahu’allah, various Hindu fakirs including the recently notorious character of the Bhagwan Rajneesh). This was a miraculous occasion. it is also said, and I believe, that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose co-wrote Te Deum Laudamus; if that is not the case, then St. Ambrose probably wrote it, as he was a prolific hymnographer, being the first Latin Father to introduced the antiphonal singing predominant in the Eastern churches, famously at a vigil in 386 to prevent one of his basilicas from being turned over to the Arians.

At any rate, due to the economy of this, St. Augustine basically became the Early Church Father most widely read in the West, a position he still holds today, even though historically he had not been that well known. Also, it should be stressed that despite his inferior model concerning hamartiology, this does not make St. Augustine an inferior Church Father, on the contrary, his writings are excellent and edifying, with a few exceptions, for example, this, and his opinions on the status of unbaptized infants, etc, which I find a bit disagreeable, but on the whole, I like his work, and no church father is perfect. Also he and St. John Cassian were allies, as they were both leading the effort to suppress the Pelagian heresy, the nonsensical idea that we can save ourselves without the aid of the Holy Spirit. And amusingly, St. Augustine nicknamed Pelagian “Brito” due to his origins in the province of Brittania (although he was not English, per se, as the invasion of Brittania by the Angles was about a century away). I find this amusing in the context of Fritos chips, which I dislike (the only potato chips I like are Ruffles for dipping, and dill pickle-flavored chips, which are popular in the Southwestern US and have a refreshing flavor, but all potato chips burn my mouth and make me thirsty; it is not a coincidence that the major manufacturers of them were acquired by the major soft drink producers).

 

[The Liturgist]

Once again, your statements are in error. Eastern Catholics have the same Pope, the same dogmas, and the same faith as their Western brethren.

St. Gregory Palamas is venerated in the Byzantine-Rite Catholic Churches but not in the Latin churches, and his theology of the uncreated energies of God directly contradicts the Scholastic theology found in Thomas Aquinas of uncreated grace. In the Byzantine Catholic Churches, just like the Eastern Orthodox churches, at least since the Second Vatican Council, the second Sunday in Lent is the feast day of St. Gregory Palamas. Likewise, the Byzantine Catholic liturgy is generally compliant with Eastern Orthodox canon law such as the Quinisext Council in Trullo, which the Latin Church famously rejected.

Indeed lately several Eastern Catholic bishops ranging from Ruthenian Greek Catholics to the Patriarchs of the Melkites and Chaldeans have pushed for unification with their respective Eastern counterparts, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, expressing a view that any inconsistencies, for example, the understanding of the role of the Pope, could be resolved. However this eagerness is not reciprocated; the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East wrote an eloquent letter to the Chaldean Patriarch expressing their desire to not reunify in such a manner that would cause them to lose their historic autocephaly (ecclesiastical independence) and find themselves inadvertently having become subordinate to the Pope of Rome.

Also it should be stressed that the Pope of Rome is not the Patriarch of the Eastern churches; historically, until 2006, one of his titles was Patriarchate of the West, as he was in charge of all Western Rite Catholics, but his powers concerning the Eastern Catholic churches are less clearly defined; at a minimum, the Pope no longer routinely exercises his authority over most of the Eastern Catholic churches except when it comes to the selection of new Patriarchs for them.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the filioque is erroneous if inserted into the Nicene Creed in the Greek language, and many Byzantine Rite Catholic churches omit the Filioque, even those which do not speak Greek (which are the majority; the actual Greek Catholic church is one of the smaller ones).

 

[dzheremi]

Why are we talking about the Immaculate Conception now? I feel like I missed something since this thread was reopened.

I hope it's clear to our Protestant friends that belief in St. Mary's ever-virginity and all-holiness does not necessitate anything like belief in the IC, as millions upon millions of Christians (including myself) agree with the former as a matter of Orthodox Mariology, while disagreeing with the latter because of how it messes with various aspects of the faith, perhaps most seriously our understanding of the incarnation (as what does it say of the humanity assumed by our Lord from her if she's so unlike the rest of us in humanity from her conception?).

 

[The Liturgist]

Haven't the EO and RCC been separate churches since the great schism of 1054? I though that's why I've read EO members saying "I'm not a catholic".

@Ordinary Christian I edited this post out of respect for you.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox church regards itself as both Roman and Catholic, Roman, since it was the Church of New Rome, and Catholic, but Eastern Catholic is used as a courtesy to refer to the Eastern sui juris churches, which used to be called Uniates, but this word is now regarded as deeply offensive by many Eastern Catholics. We have one former Eastern Catholic member at the moment who is active, @Light of the East and we have had others in the past, I think @Anhelyna might still be active, I have seen some of her posts.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why are we talking about the Immaculate Conception now? I feel like I missed something since this thread was reopened.

I hope it's clear to our Protestant friends that belief in St. Mary's ever-virginity and all-holiness does not necessitate anything like belief in the IC, as millions upon millions of Christians (including myself) agree with the former as a matter of Orthodox Mariology, while disagreeing with the latter because of how it messes with various aspects of the faith, perhaps most seriously our understanding of the incarnation (as what does it say of the humanity assumed by our Lord from her if she so unlike the rest of us in humanity from her conception?).

Someone brought it up, I have no idea, and frankly I wish they hadn’t, since this is one of the issues that needs to be resolved between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics for reunion to occur, and there is a major problem in that this doctrine was pronounced by Pope Pius IX ex Cathedra following Vatican I and therefore enjoys the protections of Papal Infallibility, but since we also reject that, these two doctrines are like two giant obstacles on the path to reunion and the way through reunion is to find a way around both of them that does not involve compromising Orthodox doctrine. Because obviously, we cannot accept doctrinal compromise in the interests of reunification with Rome; Rome was largely responsible for both of the schisms, both with the Oriental Orthodox in 451 and with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054, but insofar as the Eastern Orthodox were already turning a blind eye to serious divergence on the part of the Roman Catholic Church prior to being unexpectedly excommunicated when a Papal legate slapped a writ of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during the Liturgy of Preparation, and then fled the city, outrunning some deacons sent to implore him to return and discuss the matter, for example, the use of the filioque and other points of growing doctrinal divergence, since that has happened, the Orthodox people have proven themselves unwilling to compromise on any substantial issues of doctrine, even at the very great expense of Turkocratia.

But there is in my opinion an obvious solution and that is simply to restrict the divergent doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church to the Western Patriarchate and articulate theological explanations for them, wherein the Eastern church doctrines would be regarded as authoritative and only an Orthodox interpretation of Western doctrines would be permitted, of the sort we see in books like An Orthodox Reading of Thomas Aquinas, and separately to make all of the Eastern Catholic churches autocephalous, and encourage them to reunify with their Orthodox counterparts where both sides will it and where there is not a historical/cultural divergence with any animosity (for example the schism and cultural departure between the Syriac Orthodox and Maronites) or the lack of an analogous Orthodox church (for example, the Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church, and so on).

One dreadful fear I have is that there will be a schism in the Roman Catholic church that results in a liberal anti-Pope who might well control the Vatican and most of the real estate; and because of this, which has become an alarming possibility in recent months, due to possible capitulation on homosexuality, I feel that all discussions of reunion except with the Eastern Catholics are premature. I also hope that a Ukrainian Greek Catholic cardinal or another Byzantine Catholic cardinal becomes the next Pope as they are unlikely to tolerate the direction the church is moving in, with a view exceptions (for example, the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch is an ardent admirer of Pope Francis and stopped wearing the beautiful ancient headgear associated with his office, the Shash, which is related to the headgear worn by Syriac Orthodox bishops in Iraq, the Kossita, and also the Shashta, worn by clergy of the Assyrian Church of the East; I would describe it as kind of a hybrid of the two).