Council of Moscow 1666 approved Book saying: "Mary was exempt from Original Sin"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Website
marianapostolate.com
Dear Friends, the 4 or 5 matters on which Catholics and Orthodox Christians are generally not yet in full agreement are typically stated as being, (1) Original Sin, (2) Immaculate Conception (3) Purgatory, and (4) Filioque. Since we just discussed the first, this thread is to explore if there is a possibility of consensus on the second of these important matters.

Also, it is evident the second depends on the first. For e.g. we have some Orthodox Bishops and Theologians who say the Mariological Piety of the Byzantine Church and other Eastern Churches may well have led Orthodox Christians to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, if only Eastern Christendom shared the Western understanding of original sin. But today Catholic and Orthodox Theologians are increasingly in agreement on Original Sin, as it is presented, for e.g. in the CCC for the Catholics, and the Council of Jerusalem for the Orthodox. That can be more fully discussed in the other thread. Now, if we are in agreement on Original Sin, the question before for us for academic or theological discussion is, "Was the Most Pure Theotokos, Full of Grace, free from Original Sin"?

I. A Theology Journal reviews recent research by Eastern Catholic Priest Rev. Fr. Christian Kappes (font italicized and some capitalization added), "Thanks to the correct interpretation of the Greek roots of the doctrine in Nazianzus and Damascene, the East consistently viewed the prepurification at the Annunciation as a positive purity—not a removal of concupiscence, but a superaddition of grace that prepared the Theotokos for the incarnation.  Her sinlessness from birth, conversely, is designated under expressions like “All-Holy,” “Ever-Blameless,” and “All-Immaculate.”  The evidence of this Eastern Tradition is an unbroken theological and liturgical transmission of this idea well beyond John Damascene’s time ... Along with this historical revelation, Kappes proves that the first philosophically robust rejection of the immaculate conception among the Orthodox appears in the sixteenth century, and is completely saturated with Thomistic argumentation.  Historically speaking, the Immaculate Conception now appears more Orthodox than it is Roman Catholic."https://hortulus-journal.com/journal/volume-13-number-1-2017/cuff/

St. John Damascene had said: "Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!"

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who is also cited by Fr. Kappes and in that Theology Journal article, had said: "Many Saints appeared before Thee [the Blessed Mother], but none was filled with grace as Thou… No one has been purified in advance as Thou hast been ... Thou dost surpass all that is most excellent in man, as well as all the gifts which have been bestowed by God upon all others."

II. Now, let us consider the historical stance of the Russian Orthodox Church in particular on the Immaculate Conception. Eastern Orthodox Priest and Theologian Rev. Father Lev Gillet documents for us, from https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-3/ that "Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin “theory of the epiklesis” (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”. (12)"
So, doesn't this show (1) Original Sin was taken for granted in the Russian Church? And (2) Mary was exempt from it, from the Moment of Her Conception?

III. Finally, Orthodox Priest and Theologian Rev. Father Laurent Cleenewerck, in his book, His Broken Body, informs us of this: "6. Liturgical Expressions: The Eastern Tradition has always considered the Conception of the Theotokos to be a miraculous event. Joachim and Anna, elderly and barren were given by the power of God's blessings on account of their prayers. The Orthodox Churches celebrate Her Nativity on the 8th of September, but the Feast of Mary's Conception was advanced to 9th December. If the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is to be applied to this issue, it seems that Orthodox Hymnography presents Mary as Truly Panagia (All-Holy) entirely free from sin and stain ("Immaculate") from the point of Her Conception. The Liturgical Texts for December 9th exclaim,

...The Unique All-Immaculate [i.e. Mary] is today made manifest to the Just by the Angel. He who announced the Conception of the All-Immaculate Virgin gave our human race news of great joy. The prelude of God's Grace falls today on humanity in the Conception of the All-Immaculate" The reference cited by Rev. Father Cleenewerck here (this is on pg 411 of the book) is "From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the Feast; from the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same Feast; from the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon" for your kind reference.

Thoughts on all of this, dear Friends? Let us all jointly in Christian Fraternity prayerfully study these matters together, for if we do, we have every reason to believe and hope that the happy day when the Churches of East and West will be re-united once more, in Truth and in Love, draws very close now.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,409
Reaction score
28
Points
48
Age
28
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
I and III - it has been said there many times, that understanding of these therms are different between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Actually, it seems, some of heresies like immaculate conception have appeared in the West because of the wrong understanding of the Eastern liturgical and theological texts (plus lack of knowledge of Greek and Semitic languages) and seeing them in light of e.g Augustinian theology.

II - it's not a secret that Russian Church is the most latinised Orthodox Church as it goes for theology, mentality, spirituality, icons (or rather paintings), chants etc. The time of metropolita Peter Mohila was also special for latinisations.
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
883
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Xavier:
1.  Who is Stephen Gavorsky?
2.  Can you please cite the work in which he "taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology" as you claim.
3.  Also please provide the exact quote from his work.

Thanks.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Website
marianapostolate.com
Dear Dominika, it's possible there was Latin influence, I don't know, but the thing is - many Latins at that time denied the Immaculate Conception! That in fact is the thrust of Fr. Christian Kappes's argument - Father says Abp. Mark of Ephesus of the Orthodox Church taught the Immaculate Conception while Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas, of the Latin Church, had denied it. The Dominicans also usually opposed it, although the Franciscans argued in favor of it. Fr. Kappes says that the Byzantine and other Eastern contribution to this discussion has historically been overlooked by much of the existing scholarship. Another argument made by such Priests is that, historically speaking, Prelates who were quite opposed to Latin ideas were ones who favored the Immaculate Conception - here, even Patriarch Photius has been cited, which seems almost inconceivable unless there was some Byzantine Tradition within the Eastern Church that expressed a similar idea in terms of Byzantine Theology. It is true that different words in different languages are translated and understood in different ways by different people, which adds to the overall difficulty in studying the matter. Orthodox Priest Rev. Fr. A.F. Kimel, Dominika, says this "[Fr.] Kappes notes that when Rufinus translated the Nativity oration into Latin in the late 4th century, he rendered the Greek word Prokathartheisa by the Latin word Immaculata." https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/11/14/mary-prokathartheisa-and-the-immaculate-conception/ Our Lady is called Prokathartheisa by the Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers translated that as Immaculata. So do you think, She can be called Immaculata? Or was Rufinus mistaken? One of the difficulties is that this requires experts in both Greek and Latin.

I believe Father is talking about Tyrannius Rufinus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannius_Rufinus "Tyrannius Rufinus, also called Rufinus of Aquileia (Rufinus Aquileiensis) or Rufinus of Concordia (344/345–411), was a monk, historian, and theologian. He is best known as a translator of Greek patristic material into Latin — especially the work of Origen." Rufinus also authored a famous commentary on the Apostles' Creed.

You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.

Hi Irene, I'm not sure actually about exact citations. I'll try to find them for you. Fr. Lev Gillet, the Orthodox Priest mentioned, who wrote the article, published it in "Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159." so I'm sure it would have been checked for sources before publication. I wish Fr. Gillet was here for us to ask Father about it. But if you see the last part of that same para, on the Council of Moscow 1666, I believe that Council is well known: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Moscow_Sobor_of_1666%E2%80%931667

It's about that Council, mentioned in the OP topic, that Father says "The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”. It's true that other matters, like Liturgical Practices, and Icons representing God the Father etc were being considered in the Synod. But if the Immaculate Conception was disputed, wouldn't it have caused a lot of confrontation with the Synod, with opposing views being discussed? More research needs to be done to say for sure, I think; but first impression seems to be that the book was uncontroversial.

Your thoughts? God Bless.
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
883
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Xavier said:
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.

Hi Irene, I'm not sure actually about exact citations. I'll try to find them for you. Fr. Lev Gillet, the Orthodox Priest mentioned, who wrote the article, published it in "Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159." so I'm sure it would have been checked for sources before publication. I wish Fr. Gillet was here for us to ask Father about it. But if you see the last part of that same para, on the Council of Moscow 1666, I believe that Council is well known: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Moscow_Sobor_of_1666%E2%80%931667

It's about that Council, mentioned in the OP topic, that Father says "The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”. It's true that other matters, like Liturgical Practices, and Icons representing God the Father etc were being considered in the Synod. But if the Immaculate Conception was disputed, wouldn't it have caused a lot of confrontation with the Synod, with opposing views being discussed? More research needs to be done to say for sure, I think; but first impression seems to be that the book was uncontroversial.

Your thoughts? God Bless.
My thoughts are as others too have said that you can't just make claims without supporting documentation from primary sources to support or verify your claims. 
In articles (secondary sources) I have read on the Moscow Sobor of 1666 I do not remember any discussions of the Roman Catholic concept of the Immaculate Conception:  You said:
. But if the Immaculate Conception was disputed, wouldn't it have caused a lot of confrontation with the Synod, with opposing views being discussed?
.  Are you saying that because the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos was not discussed that means that Russian Orthodox believed in it?  To me that doesn't make any sense. What makes more sense to me is that there is no discussion of the Immaculate Conception in the proceedings of the Moscow Sobor of 1666 because it never came up.

The documents/ proceedings of the Moscow Sobor of 1666 were printed in Church Slavonic.  I though one of our Orthodoxnet members cited the online website for this council in another discussion and am looking for it.
Meanwhile I am going through this  article looking for web links to the documents of the council:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80.

Also where in Simeon Polotsky work does he outline his agreement with the Roman Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception?
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Cool story, bro.

The idea of consensus is not that some Orthodox people some time in history believed something.

Keep throwing that spaghetti at the walls, but you're not going to turn anyone here into a Latin.
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
883
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Agabus said:
Cool story, bro.

The idea of consensus is not that some Orthodox people some time in history believed something.

Keep throwing that spaghetti at the walls, but you're not going to turn anyone here into a Latin.
Exactly-thanks you said it so much better than I ever could.  I tend to be too verbose.

But back to Simeon Polostky.

Yes, his essay or treatise "The Rod" which  is in the style of Catholic scholastic rhetoric was printed at the end of 1667 by recommendation of the Tsar & Council.  But Xavier what you didn't mention  is that a few years later the book was condemned for its Catholic heresies.    The footnote for that fact is: #13 .    Православная энциклопедия Большой Московский собор 1666—1677 гг.

http://www.pravenc.ru/text/149721.html

Thanks to my priest for fishing this out.
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
883
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Forgot the link to Simeon Polosky:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Website
marianapostolate.com
Agabus said:
The idea of consensus is not that some Orthodox people some time in history believed something.
Agabus, here on this Orthodox site, https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/09/the-immaculate-conception-and-orthodox.html you will see four great Orthodox authorities express opinions that come very close to the Immaculate Conception, in terms of Eastern Theology, "First of all - the patriarch Photius. In his first homily, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous ... she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation - therefore - from the moment of her conception ...

St. Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies ... states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin"

Also cited are Patriarch George Scholarios and Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of the Byzantine Church, beside some others. Please see the link on that. Also, what do you make of Orthodox Priest Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's citation of Byzantine Liturgy on Dec. 9th. It says Mary was the Unique All-Immaculate in Her Conception. That's fairly plain, isn't it? Our Latin Fathers say "Full of Grace" means without sin.

Btw, no one wants "to turn anyone here into a Latin". Eastern Orthodox Christians should preserve their own Tradition and the development of Eastern Theology should progress in terms used and explained by the Eastern Fathers and the Eastern Liturgies. But for us Catholics, it's a virtual article of Faith that Eastern Tradition and Western Tradition will always be complementary and not contradictory. Pope St. John Paul II famously said on this, "In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern Tradition." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/immaculate-conception-defined-by-pius-ix-8040

St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Fulgentius are three Latin Saints who explain it like this - (I) St. Ambrose: "a Virgin not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (II) St. Augustine: "We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of Her birth, for this reason, that that condition is dissolved by the grace of Her new birth." and (III) St. Fulgentius: "By these words [Hail, Full of Grace], the angel shows that She [Mary] was altogether excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing." Do you believe we Latins have deviated from the Tradition of our Latin Fathers, or of any Eastern Fathers? If so, can you please cite a few of those Fathers, either Eastern or Western?

Irene, as you know, I can't read Russian, so I'm not completely familiar with the events and the history, and can't understand the footnote you cited. So please bear with me as I continue to research the question, and if you have any information in English, please share with all of us, so all of us can deepen our understanding of where our differences lie.

On Simon Polotsk, you said: "Yes, his essay or treatise "The Rod" which  is in the style of Catholic scholastic rhetoric was printed at the end of 1667 by recommendation of the Tsar & Council.  But Xavier what you didn't mention  is that a few years later the book was condemned for its Catholic heresies." Well, I didn't know that. Can you please tell me who condemned him? Was it a Council or an individual? Anyway, I'll leave that point since I need to study it more myself to know about it.

Can you please explain your opinion on point # III in the OP, do you consider there's a translation issue there also? Thanks.

God Bless, All.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,409
Reaction score
28
Points
48
Age
28
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Xavier said:
Dear Friends, the 4 or 5 matters on which Catholics and Orthodox Christians are generally not yet in full agreement are typically stated as being, (1) Original Sin, (2) Immaculate Conception (3) Purgatory, and (4) Filioque. Since we just discussed the first, this thread is to explore if there is a possibility of consensus on the second of these important matters.
Since Catholic=Orthodox, we agree on everything.
As for the Vatican, "yet" stands where "never" should.

She died. So she was subject to ancestral sin. Period.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
If you believe in the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos.
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
IreneOlinyk said:
Xavier:
1.  Who is Stephen Gavorsky?
2.  Can you please cite the work in which he "taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology" as you claim.
3.  Also please provide the exact quote from his work.

Thanks.
I studied Russian history at the undergraduate & graduate level and i don't know who Stephen Gavorsky is.  When I googled his name all that comes is this same quote that Xavier produced which is reproduced on all sorts of catholic Forums.  This is a real mystery maybe Xavier will be kind enough to provide an answer.
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Dominika said:
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
I would agree with Dominika: you have to know various languages for research.  Also Xavier who continue to post very large blocks of quotes from other people's Catholic blogs as verification.  You can't prove your case by huge quotes from someone's personal blog. You have to consult real scholars who do have the language background, degrees from accredited academic institutions plus direct quotes from Church documents.
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
IreneOlinyk said:
Agabus said:
Cool story, bro.

The idea of consensus is not that some Orthodox people some time in history believed something.

Keep throwing that spaghetti at the walls, but you're not going to turn anyone here into a Latin.
Exactly-thanks you said it so much better than I ever could.  I tend to be too verbose.

But back to Simeon Polostky.

Yes, his essay or treatise "The Rod" which  is in the style of Catholic scholastic rhetoric was printed at the end of 1667 by recommendation of the Tsar & Council.  But Xavier what you didn't mention  is that a few years later the book was condemned for its Catholic heresies.    The footnote for that fact is: #13 .    Православная энциклопедия Большой Московский собор 1666—1677 гг.

http://www.pravenc.ru/text/149721.html

Thanks to my priest for fishing this out.
Thanks Irene.  By the way Simeon Polotsky (1629 –  1680)  has the surname Polotsky because he came originally from Polotsk in Belarus which was a city connected with the Catholic saint Josephat of Polotsk (1580 – 1623) the Eastern-rite bishop who persecuted the Orthodox in Belarus. 
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Xavier said:
A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life.
What is a "confraternity?"  Sorry I know about brotherhoods but have not encountered this other term in my studies.  Maybe if you give me the original Russian or Church Slavonic word that would help me.
Are you claiming this was an Orthodox group?  Polotsk, Belarus which was Eastern Rite Catholic and no longer Orthodox in 1651 and was part of the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth.  There was a well known  Jesuit College in Polotsk that existed from established in 1580  to 1820.  By the way just for your interest there was a church named Храм Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии Church of the Immaculate Conception of Mary)in Smolensk but it was a Catholic Church not an Orthodox Church.  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_de_l%27Immacul%C3%A9e-Conception_de_Smolensk
It came up with I tried google Immaculate Conception of Mary in Russian.


 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,182
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

No matter how many times you say it, we still don't.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,182
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Maybe he meant this man?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Yavorsky
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Warned
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,238
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Dominika said:
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
Xavier is not worth your time engaging.

He's either a troll that believes he has an intellectual supremacy over any traditional Christian and is only doing this to pleasure his own ego, or he is a delusional, sad little gremlin who is only posting this to perpetuate this delusion that he's some kind of next level Aquinas, despite the fact that he's probably not even capable of reading much less understanding Aquinas.



I mean, as soon as you dismantle his argument, he either pretends you've never even brought up the argument or he attacks your motive as one who hates God. Trust me, on another forum, everytime I've dismantled a claim of his, which we are both a part of, he resorts to juvenile name-calling, and he's called me a Blasphemer, a hater of Christ, a hater of the Virgin Mary, a damned apostate, one who hates the Immaculate Conception, and one who repeatedly pierces Jesus's heart. He then re-opens threads that's he's posted before which people stopped engaging with because he's clearly disingenuous. He's posted at least 10 threads on this other forum dismantling Sedevacantism and how much of a failure it is, such that even my brutal honesty has sympathy among the Sedes of that site.

He also maliciously, not ignorantly, consciously (because I've called him out on it and he admits it defensively) uses a definition-change fallacy to prove his point. One thread, he intentionally started to conflate "Co-Redemptrix" with "Mediatrix of All-Graces," which I called him out for, and then he said I was a heretic because the two mean the same thing.

He does this with Byzantine texts as well. Whenever the word "Pure," "Stainless," "Grace," or "Sinless" is used in a text - ding ding ding! That means Immaculate Conception and nothing you will say will prove otherwise, even if he unintentionally shoots himself in the foot by quoting a Western father that identified "stainless" as referring to her virginity.

Engaging with Xavier is like engaging with a demon. A demon wants you damned, and no amount of logic or articulation will change that stance of his. Xavier is here for one reason and one reason alone, to destroy Orthodoxy, and nothing you say, even if you systematically rebuke Catholicism on every single point (were such a thing possible), will change his goal.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Eamonomae said:
Dominika said:
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
Xavier is not worth your time engaging.

He lives in a fantasy world where yes means time and up means black.

He posts these from a place of genuine pride, believing himself to be some kind of perfect next-level Aquinas, despite not ascending anywhere close to the level of St. Patrick.
Well that’s unfair.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Warned
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,238
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Wandile said:
Eamonomae said:
Dominika said:
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
Xavier is not worth your time engaging.

He lives in a fantasy world where yes means time and up means black.

He posts these from a place of genuine pride, believing himself to be some kind of perfect next-level Aquinas, despite not ascending anywhere close to the level of St. Patrick.
Well that’s unfair.
I've modified my post. He's an active member on a Trad Cat forum I'm also a member of and he's a malicious, toxic user who shows a level of false generosity here that you wouldn't believe.

He actually started a thread on that site - and I can link it to you - starting a poll begging for better moderation to censor anti-Catholic opinions. Despite the fact that he promotes condemned apparitions repeatedly.

He's also claimed that those who deny Fatima are blasphemers of the Virgin Mary.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Eamonomae said:
Wandile said:
Eamonomae said:
Dominika said:
Xavier said:
Dear Dominika (...)
You're right, I don't know the other languages, like Syrian, Slavic etc which you've mentioned in the past. I know Latin, and I'm studying Greek. It'll be hard to know all the languages. But I'm always open to studying them, or hearing from and being taught by those who know them.
I don't have enough time to reply detaily, so in short: in langauges, in every area, but especially in theology, you have to know not oly literal meaning of certain word, but its background, etymology, WAY of understanding, the context of the text it's used in and so on. That's the reason that even Roman Catholics knowing e.g Syriac, Koine or Arabic may read wrongly Orthodox/Eastern texts.
Xavier is not worth your time engaging.

He lives in a fantasy world where yes means time and up means black.

He posts these from a place of genuine pride, believing himself to be some kind of perfect next-level Aquinas, despite not ascending anywhere close to the level of St. Patrick.
Well that’s unfair.
I've modified my post. He's an active member on a Trad Cat forum I'm also a member of and he's a malicious, toxic user who shows a level of false generosity here that you wouldn't believe.

He actually started a thread on that site - and I can link it to you - starting a poll begging for better moderation to censor anti-Catholic opinions. Despite the fact that he promotes condemned apparitions repeatedly.

He's also claimed that those who deny Fatima are blasphemers of the Virgin Mary.
Nothing wrong with traditional Catholicism. Is this forum OnePeterFive or fish eaters?

What you’ve described there is not malicious and toxic at all. Instead of focusing on Xavier we should all spend our time focusing on ourselves. If you don’t like his posts, ignore him.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Warned
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,238
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Suscipedomine.com

Here's some select quotations with links from the site, which I encourage you to read completely, but boldened some highlights.

"Naz and Non, you have a Catholic spirit. Just re-read all the many sources I cited to see what the Church teaches, and how Awkward Customer is denying it, whereas Live doesn't even care what the Catholic Church teaches, as he is Orthodox, and denies the Immaculate Conception. Of course, I believe, what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on private revelations; ask Live if he believes what is taught in that same Catechism on the Immaculate Conception. The reference to non-Christian religions and sects clearly refers e.g. to Islamism and Mormonism, it has nothing at all to do Our Lady of Fatima and the Wonderful Devotion to the Immaculate Heart She established, which is a Hallmark of Catholic Piety. And no ABC, Dellery is not a troll, but a brilliant man; I've read his posts and they are nothing as what you claim. You are the troll. Please understand, Non Nobis, why these people hate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - it proves it is the Orthodox who are in error and need to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Recall that Fatima is Heavenly Confirmation of the Immaculate Conception just as is Lourdes and that Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception are the First of Five Major Blasphemies for which the All-Immaculate Virgin showed us Her Wounded and Pierced Heart and asked us to Make Reparation on the First Five Saturdays. https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/the-five-first-saturdays-devotion.html"

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.msg490827#msg490827

_

"They hate me, Non Nobis, because I promote the Catholic Faith on OrthodoxChristianity.net and other places, on the Immaculate Conception and other matters. You saw that Live's another accusation against me is that I want, and am praying for working for, Patriarch Bartholomew to return to the Catholic Church above - well, what Roman Catholic who loves the Faith would not pray and work for that?"
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.msg490827#msg490827

_

"Not at all. What did Our Lady of Lourdes do? She confirmed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady of Fatima also confirmed the same Dogma - one reason Old Catholics and Orthodox, many of whom deny that Dogma, oppose Her Apparitions - and went even a Step Further: on the First Saturdays She asked for Reparation against Blasphemies of Her Immaculate Conception. Already something the devil wouldn't do."

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.msg491167#msg491167

_

"Live, I know very well what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is precisely what I am defending here, in the face of opposition, from those who do not understand, or those who do not believe in the Catholic. I already said I completely believe in what is taught in the Catechism, and let me say again, I fully agree with the Catechism's explanation on it. It's you who are rejecting all the Popes from Pope Benedict XIV to Pope Pius XII at least who taught us to accept what the Catholic Church approves on pious faith, to increase devotion; and therefore not to doubt Fatima, but to believe it and to promote it, so that millions of souls can be saved, as St. Maximillian showed, with his wonderful Militia Immaculata, and apostolic actions. The salvation of some 300 Million Orthodox Christians, and the safe and speedy return of Russia and the separated Churches to the obedience of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter in Rome, could very well depend on an authentic Catholic and "Maximillianian" response to Our Lady of Fatima. That's why it's so important, because souls are precious to Jesus Christ and His Immaculate Mother. And it so greatly advances the devotion, piety, holiness of the Catholic Faithful and confirms them in the Faith."

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.msg490918#msg490918

_

"So, firstly, she disregards the Pope. Secondly, the supposed distinction is meaningless, because divine and supernatural actually mean the same thing, and are used by the Church interchangeably. But what AC means, as she has said before, is that they were diabolical.

And that claim is itself diabolical. Almighty God punished severely by sending 15,000 devils into a poor, blaspheming heretic, who blasphemed Our Lady and the Miraculous Manifestation of Her Rosary, as we read of in the life of St. Dominic, also repeated by St. Montfort. Question 1: How do you explain that, Awkward Customer, if supposedly he did not sin? No, he sinned against Catholic Piety, and therefore He was severely punished by Almighty God; and only delivered when Thousands of Catholics said the Rosary for him.

I. God takes such things very, very seriously, when millions of souls could be saved by action, and are lost by inaction - much, much more than people today understand. So tell me, AC, Question 2: do you also think you can just reject the Rosary, the Sacred Heart etc? You don't care what the Popes say anyway, as your rejection of what Pope Benedict XIV has said shows, so it doesn't matter how many more I cite to you. But Pope Pius XII said "The time for doubting Fatima is past", and gave a marvelous prophesy in 1933, based on the words of Our Lady of Fatima, that has led to him being hailed as a Prophet himself, because so amazing are the manifestly fulfilled words of the Holy Father based on Our Lady of Fatima: "Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the Tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

...

II. Enemies and Haters of the Roman Catholic Church deny all this, just as they deny that the Roman Catholic Church defeated Communism. The full and complete extirpation and uprooting of the Communist terrorist heresy will come when the Complete Consecration is done, including the uprooting of abortionism, evolutionism, secularism and other errors promoted by the Communists.

Also, Awkward Customer, just think carefully why you are on the same side with self-professed deniers of the Immaculate Conception. That should wake you up if you still want to be woken up. You are not fighting man but you are fighting God, as the Pharisees did when they attributed clearly divine and supernatural works to diabolical and evil spirits, which Our Lord said was blasphemy of His Holy Spirit.

Study the history of the Immaculate Conception Dogma and its tragic denial in Russia, and you'll see Our Lady of Fatima is a Heavenly Intervention in favor of the Catholic Church designed by God for the purpose of bringing Russia back to belief in the Immaculate Conception, devotion to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of our Mother Mary, and thereby back to the Roman Catholic Church.

...

As a Knight of the Immaculata consecrated to Her in the Missio Immaculata, along with millions of others, I for one will not stand idly by  nor treat with frigid indifference when heretics pierce Her Immaculate Heart by sinning mortally and denying Her Immaculate Conception, or when bad Catholics, disregarding what the Popes, Saints and Doctors have taught, do not give the human assent of pious faith spoken by St. Alphonsus and St. Montfort, but instead with rash temerity and self-willed idiocy dare to call the Heavenly Manifestations of the Immaculate Virgin diabolical - which is what Anti-Catholics and Protestants etc also do to both the Holy Rosary and the Immaculate Heart. Yes, if you call the Rosary or Devotion to the Immaculate Heart, or the fully approved Supernatural Signs associated with them to be "diabolical", then yes you are a bad Catholic, and are publicly sinning against Catholic Piety. If you deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you are a faithless heretic publicly sinning against Catholic Faith."

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23211.msg490637#msg490637

_

"I think even I underestimated just how much some of you haters of the Catholic Church fear the happy prospect of Catholic-Orthodox Re-Union. You not only hate the Catholic Church, you fear to the utmost that She may triumph over modern secularism and its related errors. The Re-Union of Christendom, as the CE stated, is feared only by the enemies of Christ; it is loved and desired by all who are His disciples, who love His Kingdom.

The original article was also from an Orthodox site. It's laughable how some are you filled with hate in response to it. The OP was in every way respectful of Patriarch Bartholomew. So why do you respond so viscerally and with such utter vitriol? Satan must be utterly terrifed, even more than I thought, at the glorious prospect of Orthodox Christians returning to the Catholic Church. You anti-Catholics can do as Satan wills; we Catholics will do as God Wills."


https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23222.msg489915#msg489915

_


"Yeah, thanks for all your taunts and your insults. When you blasphemously and impiously claimed "God is a monster" like a hater of Almighty God, rather than respond in kindness as I did, I should have responded with proportionate severity to your immeasurable wickedness in thus abusing and slandering Infinite Goodness. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23006.0  Say anything you like about me, I don't care; I only care about the Common Good of Christendom, and the Good even of the Orthodox Church, which would be so greatly advanced by Re-Union with the Catholic Church, and the Salvation of Millions of Souls that would ensue from it.

You attribute and project your own disordered thinking to others, owing to your cognitive dissonance. Anyone who even attempts to disprove Christianity, rather than humbly believing the Word of the Lord, which is Divine Truth, is already a heretic. It's you who take delight in calling the Lord Jesus a liar and calling Almighty God a monster. Most of us here on Suscipe Domine are well past such an immature stage. Nestorius only proves he was a heretic, and Pope St. Celestine and Patriarch St. Cyril were heroes of the Faith, nothing more; the Catholic Church has decreed, "6. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505"

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23222.msg489861#msg489861

_

"You give no indication of having done anything like that yourself. But simply in your anti-Catholic fury, latch on to anything you think you can use against the Papacy. After enlisting all the Popes of the first two Christian centuries, Protestant Historian Philip Schaff, a reasonable, balanced, fair and eminent historian, openly admits, "It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church)""


https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23161.msg489222#msg489222
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Warned
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,238
Reaction score
1
Points
38
So to recap,

1. Xavier is only on this site to convert Orthodox people to Catholicism
2. The Orthodox are blasphemers for denying the Immaculate Conception (which makes St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard also blasphemers, but okay)
3. Not even Satan himself would stoop so low as the Orthodox do in denying the Immaculate Conception.
4. If you are hostile to Catholic Orthodox re-union, you are following the will of Satan. Anyone who wants Catholic and Orthodox re-union is following God's will.
5. If you doubt God, and question His omnibenevolence, you are a damned heretic and blasphemer.
6. If you don't pray the Rosary or venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are a heretic which denies the Roman Church's dogmatic Revelation.
7. Anyone who disagrees with Roman Catholicism hates the Catholic Church, and hates God.


I can post more if you want. Just today as a matter of fact he said that authority of Mary via apparition supersedes that of the Pope, and he also posts ridiculously offensive polemical articles like New Advent's biography of St. Photius or claiming that Patriarch Bartholomew's statement that Catholics and Orthodox are no different is definitive proof that everyone wants Holy Unia.


If you, Wandile, think that these posts are by the Holy Spirit, then what a sad cult you belong to.

But I know that Trad Cats can be much better than this, and be much less prideful and mature. I've seen it in my own life.


And let it be for the record that I don't hate Catholicism. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. John of the Cross, St. John Henry Newman, St. Aloysius, St. Clare, and St. Therese Lisieux are people which shed light on God's Grace that must be present there. Most Orthodox fail to come anywhere close to these people, with the exception of Orthodox canonized Saints.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
I don’t believe these posts are from The Holy Spirit, but they are not toxic or malicious. The fathers and many saints have spoken the same of those who deny Catholic truths. There’s hardly anything I see there that’s problematic that hasn’t been written by a saint before about those who opposes divine faith. Maybe overzealous but not malicious or toxic.

It’s a fact many call catholic apparitions the product of prelest and demonic activity. You see it on this board all the time. If the apparitions are indeed from God, then everything Xavier said is true. If they aren’t, then Xavier is just wrong and zealous about an error.

Like I said if you don’t like what he says, just ignore him. Simple as that. You don’t need to go on a tirade to prove how bad a person he is and how virtuous you are. Remember Our Lord’s of casting stones. Just focus on your own salvation.

Now to your points :

1) Yes I think that’s clear.
2) St Thomas etc aren’t blasphemers as the teaching was not dogma back then and all these saints submitted their opinion to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church.
3) If Immaculate Conception is true then what Xavier said is true as even the devils believe in God and tremble.
4) Union is desired by God as he prayed for it whole on earth. Anyone who opposes Christian unity works against God himself who through his Son prayed for unity of Christians.
5) Depends from where doubt arises. If it’s sincere pious doubt ind worse to seek truth then no. If it’s pride then yes.
6) Not so sure about this one.
7) I think this is an unfair representation of what he said.


Finally I know you don’t hate Catholicism. God bless you.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Website
marianapostolate.com
Wow. Where to begin? All this started when I had to respond to the claim "God is a Monster" https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23006.0

This is what I said to Eamonomae: "God is not a monster - that's a monstrous and deeply offensive claim. He is Our Loving Father. He became Man for love of us, as we're going to celebrate soon on ChristMas, He died for love of us on Calvary, He gave us, in His Sacrament of Infinite Love, the Holy Eucharist, the eternal pledge to be with us forever. He offers Himself in Redeeming Sacrifice for our sins at every Mass. How many reasons to thank Him for all that He has done! ... Anyway, I understand you're going through a Faith Crisis. We'll pray for you. In the meanwhile, Hope you like this rendition of "Adeste Fideles" (O Come All Ye Faithful)"

I know very well this person doesn't represent Orthodoxy in claiming "The Bible itself is littered with contradictions" and "can we all agree that God is a psychopathic monster? So what, despite being Omniscient and therefore knowing what all physical phenomena feels like as it pertains to everything, He actually suffered for a small period of time. Why should this monster be worthy of our worship?" - Orthodox Christianity totally rejects all those false claims, and affirms with Catholics that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that Almighty God is All-Good and Perfect Love, and wholly deserving of our worship. That was what I was defending.

This was his personal faith struggle he was going through. I responded as reasonably and mildly as possible. If you think I was harsh, have a look at the next responses. I've always said it's one thing to say "I'm going through a faith struggle. Please help/counsel me". That's one thing and then attacking God Almighty as a monster, as he did there, is something else altogether. Even then, I didn't respond in kind, but rather told him I understood he was going through a Faith Crisis and that we would pray for him at SD. That's all.

Secondly, about Patriarch Bartholomew. Again, it was he who claimed Patriarch Bartholomew disproved Christianity's claims and made a comparison to Nestorius; claiming I would think Christianity's claims were disproved by Nestorius if I lived in the fourth or fifth century. I said, absolutely not, no such thing - even to talk in such a way suggests one still has doubts about Jesus as God and Christianity as the only Truth. I said Nestorius only proved he was a heretic, and that Pope St. Celestine and Patriarch St. Cyril were heroes of the Faith.

Thirdly, on the Catholic Teaching on Apparitions in general. Now, first of all, whatever the Catholic Church's position on that, it is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this forum, Orthodox Christianity, or Orthodoxy's belief on the right Orthodox attitude toward Orthodox Apparitions. That was an internal Catholic discussion on what is the authentic Catholic attitude toward Catholic Apparitions. I cited many Catholic Saints like St. Alphonsus, St. Louis Montfort and Popes like Pope Benedict XIV explaining my belief. That's all. I said - for a Catholic to totally condemn an Apparition of the Blessed Mother, after he or she knows it is from God, and, what is more, to call it diabolical, after the Catholic Church has declared it supernatural - is wrong. Eamonomae totally wrests and twists what was said with all kinds of false accusations against me.

That post of his was also littered with profanities. I don't want to repeat the profanities, but you can check it out. I asked for the profanities to be removed. Eamonomae has despised me since then.

If I responded to someone who goes so far as to say terribly blasphemous things about God being a monster unworthy of worship and the Bible being full of contradictions - which both Catholicism and Orthodoxy reject, and which was his own opinion at the time, rejecting both - like that above, in such a mild manne does anyone really think Catholic Norms on Catholic Apparitions are an issue here? Catholic Norms I will prove from Catholic Authorities. That's all. And that's why I cited Pope Benedict XIV and other Popes. Polemics against apparitions really aren't related to the topic either.

I will get back to the discussion and answering the other questions posed to me subsequently when I have time.
 

isxodnik

High Elder
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
794
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
RF
Eamonomae said:
And let it be for the record that I don't hate Catholicism. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. John of the Cross, St. John Henry Newman, St. Aloysius, St. Clare, and St. Therese Lisieux are people which shed light on God's Grace that must be present there. Most Orthodox fail to come anywhere close to these people
And this is great happiness! A Saint is a person who is United with God. Calling the enemies of God - Catholics - saints, as well as comparing Orthodox saints with them, you are close to blasphemy.
For example, Saint Ignatius says: "like Malpas, Francis d'asiz and other Latin ascetics, who are recognized as saints in the his interior, achieved the strongest demonic prelest in hermithood."
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
37
Thread locked pending moderator review.  --Ainnir
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top