Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Cosmos

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
The foundation of the Roman Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary was herself conceived without Original Sin by her mother, even though her mother biologically conceived and birthed Mary in the usual manner. Orthodoxy has always viewed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as totally unnecessary and theologically troublesome. The primary problem that Orthodoxy perceives is the theological implication that God is not Omnipotent, but is in fact limited in the scope of His Divine Manifestation.

This is to say that since all things are possible for an Omnipotent God, the Miracle of the Divine Incarnation does not require Mary to be conceived without sin, but depends solely on the Will of God to Personally enter into human history in order to lead mankind back to Himself through the vehicle of whomever He chooses and however He chooses to do so.

If the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a prerequisite for her to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, and thus also a prerequisite for God's subsequent Divine Incarnation as Our Lord, Jesus, then the Unlimited Perfection and Omnipotence of God was essentially restricted and made limited by Mary's material and spiritual imperfection, which is absurd, is it not?

+Cosmos
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Cosmos,

Cosmos said:
The foundation of the Roman Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary was herself conceived without Original Sin by her mother, even though her mother biologically conceived and birthed Mary in the usual manner.
Not true.  The teaching does not say she was conceived without Original Sin by her mother.  It simply says she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin at the moment of her conception, the stain being the spiritual consequences of original sin.  And yes, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches believe that Mary was not conceived in sin  - that is, she was not conceived in lust.

Orthodoxy has always viewed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as totally unnecessary and theologically troublesome.
Thank you.  At least you are being honest, unlike brother Isa, who has repeatedly stated that the teaching is definitely a heresy.

The primary problem that Orthodoxy perceives is the theological implication that God is not Omnipotent, but is in fact limited in the scope of His Divine Manifestation.  This is to say that since all things are possible for an Omnipotent God, the Miracle of the Divine Incarnation does not require Mary to be conceived without sin, but depends solely on the Will of God to Personally enter into human history in order to lead mankind back to Himself through the vehicle of whomever He chooses and however He chooses to do so.

If the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a prerequisite for her to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, and thus also a prerequisite for God's subsequent Divine Incarnation as Our Lord, Jesus, then the Unlimited Perfection and Omnipotence of God was essentially restricted and made limited by Mary's material and spiritual imperfection, which is absurd, is it not?
Wow!  That IS a new one! :)  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  Your argument is known as a reductio ad absurdum.  It is generally recognized  as an invalid form of argumentation where one tries to convince someone of a certain proposition by simply assuming something is false (without actually proving it is false) and trying to prove from that assumption that it contradicts something that is true.  Here you have not even challenged the Truth of the teaching on the IC, yet you claim it contradicts the Omnipotence of God.  You have not even proven it actually does contradict the Omnipotence of God.  For your argument to be valid, you have to prove to us that the Immaculate Conception is NOT how God chose to involve himself in his Creation in that manner.  But who are you to attempt to know the depths of God on the matter?  There are not a few fathers in the early Church, common to OO, EO and CC, and even Fathers NOT in common to each Tradition, who attest that the salvation of the world began with the creation of Mary.  Some fathers use the terms "the first adoption for our salvation." Others yet state that the kingdom of God was established at the first instanct of Mary's existence in the world.  Very hyperbolic language, but it nevertheless demonstrates your assumption is false.

I've heard of philosophers opine, "could not God have saved the world any other way but by killing his Son?"  Your speculations are basically of the same order.  You can speculate, but I seriously doubt you can get away with saying that such mere speculation is the BASIS for Orthodoxy's "problems" with the teaching.

It is best for those who do not believe in the dogma to avoid trying to prognosticate the purposes and ways of God.  Just stick to the matter of the teaching itself - then again, if you do that, I'm convinced you will not find anything objectionable about it.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
And, as I've many times stated, the dogma does not say that Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.  
Right, so do we understand that it is official Catholic teaching that:

1.. Mary was NOT preserved from original sin

2.. Mary was preserved only from the STAIN of original sin

3.. It is therefore authentic Catholic doctrine to say that Mary was not preserved from original sin.

Marduk, Marduk!  I don't know what Catholic academy you have studied at but I think you would be skirting the edges of heresy.

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
I have never ever claimed to be EO. 
You claim to be Orthodox.

In your previous message you say that

1.  I [Irish Hermit] am Orthodox not in communion with Rome
2.  You are Orthodox in comunion with Rome.

So you are claiming some sort of equivalence with me who am EO.

Or do you now deny what you were saying?  Do you have one definition of Orthodox for me and a quite different one for you?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ialmisry said:
Irish Hermit said:
But here you are, on an Orthodox Forum. claiming that you are Orthodox.  Lucky you, that the Moderators here who do not follow the dictatorial policy on CAF which compels the Orthodox to deny who we are.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, Father. Marduk usually tries to seperate us EO from the OOs as far as possible
These are Marduk's word in message #190 where he draws an equivalence between me (who am EO) and himself...

Marduk:   "All we need to understand as Orthodox Christians (you, not in communion with Rome, and me in communion with Rome)"
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear Father Ambrose,

We have to distinguish between the CC/OO understanding of original sin on the one hand, and the EO understanding of original sin on the other.  The EO have an EXCESSIVE attachment of the concept of physical death to your doctrine of ancestral sin.  Whenever you speak of ancestral sin, you can mostly (if not only) think in terms of the consequence of physical death.  If one has physical death, then one has ancestral sin.

OO and Catholics, on the other hand, have a more nuanced understanding that equally takes into account the spiritual as well as the physical consequences of original sin.  I find it easier to speak to OO on this matter than EO.  But to answer your question:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
And, as I've many times stated, the dogma does not say that Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.  
Right, so do we understand that it is official Catholic teaching that:

1.. Mary was NOT preserved from original sin

2.. Mary was preserved only from the STAIN of original sin

3.. It is therefore authentic Catholic doctrine to say that Mary was not preserved from original sin.
Being able to properly distinguish between the spiritual and physical consequences of original sin, I, as a Catholic and Oriental, believe that:
1) Mary was NOT preserved from the physical/tactile consequences of original sin.  This would indeed be tantamount to an Eastern Christian (Catholic or Orthodox) saying that Mary was not preserved from ancestral sin, since you can mostly (if not only) think in terms of the physical/tactile consequences.

2) Mary was preserved only from the STAIN of original sin. This is true, and this is all that the dogma teaches.

3) Since I do not think ONLY in terms of physical consequences, I absolutely anathemize the statement that "Mary was not preserved from original sin."  If I admitted that, knowing that the term "original sin" refers to BOTH the physical AND spiritual consequences, then I would admittedly be in error and in heresy.
HOWEVER, an Eastern Catholic (not an Oriental Catholic like myself), IMO, who might think of ancestral sin ONLY in terms of physical death, would not be in error or in heresy if he or she says that Mary was not preserved from ancestral sin.  Eastern Catholics who would make that statement, however, should always be prepared to explain that all the statement means to an Eastern Catholic is that Mary was not preserved from the physical/tactile consequences of original sin.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Dear Father Ambrose,

We have to distinguish between the CC/OO understanding of original sin on the one hand, and the EO understanding of original sin on the other.  The EO have an EXCESSIVE attachment of the concept of physical death to your doctrine of ancestral sin.  Whenever you speak of ancestral sin, you can mostly (if not only) think in terms of the consequence of physical death.  If one has physical death, then one has ancestral sin.

OO and Catholics, on the other hand, have a more nuanced understanding that equally takes into account the spiritual as well as the physical consequences of original sin.  I find it easier to speak to OO on this matter than EO.  But to answer your question:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
And, as I've many times stated, the dogma does not say that Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin.  
Right, so do we understand that it is official Catholic teaching that:

1.. Mary was NOT preserved from original sin

2.. Mary was preserved only from the STAIN of original sin

3.. It is therefore authentic Catholic doctrine to say that Mary was not preserved from original sin.
Being able to properly distinguish between the spiritual and physical consequences of original sin, I, as a Catholic and Oriental, believe that:
1) Mary was NOT preserved from the physical/tactile consequences of original sin.  This would indeed be tantamount to an Eastern Christian (Catholic or Orthodox) saying that Mary was not preserved from ancestral sin, since you can mostly (if not only) think in terms of the physical/tactile consequences.

2) Mary was preserved only from the STAIN of original sin. This is true, and this is all that the dogma teaches.

3) Since I do not think ONLY in terms of physical consequences, I absolutely anathemize the statement that "Mary was not preserved from original sin."  If I admitted that, knowing that the term "original sin" refers to BOTH the physical AND spiritual consequences, then I would admittedly be in error and in heresy.
HOWEVER, an Eastern Catholic (not an Oriental Catholic like myself), IMO, who might think of ancestral sin ONLY in terms of physical death, would not be in error or in heresy if he or she says that Mary was not preserved from ancestral sin.  Eastern Catholics who would make that statement, however, should always be prepared to explain that all the statement means to an Eastern Catholic is that Mary was not preserved from the physical/tactile consequences of original sin.
Thank you for clarifying that, Marduk.  The complexities of Catholic theolgy have progressed since my time.  I did not know that the Immaculate Conception was only a partial Immaculate Conception, not liberating her totally from original sin.  Thanks for explaining.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pardon me for breathing, but I would be happy to provide the full liturgical texts for the Orthodox vigils (the festal vespers and matins) for the feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entry into the Temple of the Mother of God, and the Annunciation. As I have stated previously (perhaps ad nauseam for some), the liturgical texts represent the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church. In other words, they are what is read, said and sung in every Orthodox church, irrespective of ethnicity or geographic location; i.e. they represent the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church, delivered to, and believed by, ALL Orthodox Christians.

Any takers for my offer?
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dearest Father Ambrose,

I humbly, humbly, humbly, humbly, humbly, humbly, humbly (to infinity) ask for your forgiveness.  I accused you of malice and bearing false witness when you were being genuine in your questions.  The sin of lack of understanding and charity was my own.  I shall do much penance.  

Earlier, you had stated something to the effect that at least you were actually trying to address the topic, unlike brother Isa, and I had originally intended to thank you for that.  But when you kept asking and asking about matters that I felt I had sufficiently answered, I, in my lack of understanding and wisdom, perceived your questions to be mere attacks, and failed to express my appreciation.  I'd like to express that appreciation now, though it is certainly not enough reparation for the insult I hurled at you.  You have been a model of patience in the face of my lack of understanding.

Irish Hermit said:
Thank you for clarifying that, Marduk.  The complexities of Catholic theolgy have progressed since my time.  I did not know that the Immaculate Conception was only a partial Immaculate Conception, not liberating her totally from original sin.  Thanks for explaining.
Humbly,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Pardon me for breathing, but I would be happy to provide the full liturgical texts for the Orthodox vigils (the festal vespers and matins) for the feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entry into the Temple of the Mother of God, and the Annunciation. As I have stated previously (perhaps ad nauseam for some), the liturgical texts represent the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church. In other words, they are what is read, said and sung in every Orthodox church, irrespective of ethnicity or geographic location; i.e. they represent the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church, delivered to, and believed by, ALL Orthodox Christians.

Any takers for my offer?
I think there is a Liturgy section in this website(?) Perhaps you can post it there for our perusal, and just provide a link to us here in this thread? I would like to check them out.  Do you have the liturgical text for the Feast of the Conception of St. Hannah?  Do the EO have a Feast for Sts. Eliakim and Hannah?  I would be interested in those too, if possible.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Do the EO have a Feast for Sts. Eliakim and Hannah? 
The Ethiopian Orthodox celebrate the feast of Ss. Eliakim and Hannah on the 11th of every month?  Are you able to access their texts?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
LBK said:
Pardon me for breathing, but I would be happy to provide the full liturgical texts for the Orthodox vigils (the festal vespers and matins) for the feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entry into the Temple of the Mother of God, and the Annunciation. As I have stated previously (perhaps ad nauseam for some), the liturgical texts represent the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church. In other words, they are what is read, said and sung in every Orthodox church, irrespective of ethnicity or geographic location; i.e. they represent the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church, delivered to, and believed by, ALL Orthodox Christians.

Any takers for my offer?
YES.

I was just looking at the parish copy of "Byzantine Worship" put out by the Melkites.  There was nothing in Hapgood (no suprise there).  Found a lot on St. Anne's barrenness, but nothing on the Theotokos' "immaculate conception."

The intro did say something about the soul of the Holy Theotokos.  Maybe that is where Mardukm got his ideas about the IC involving only her soul, as, as I posted, he didn't get them from the "Apostolic Constitutions."
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dearest Father Ambrose

Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Do the EO have a Feast for Sts. Eliakim and Hannah? 
The Ethiopian Orthodox celebrate the feast of Ss. Eliakim and Hannah on the 11th of every month?   Are you able to access their texts?
I've only heard about it from the Ethiopian Orthodox I've spoken to.  The ones I've spoken to about the IC seem to have no problem with it at all, and they always talk about Sts. Hannah and Eliakim very highly in that regard.  I know they have the Feast, but don't have the text.  Do you have access to it?  I've also read in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia that the Greeks have the Feast.  I'm not sure if, by that, they mean the EO in general, or only the Greek Orthodox.  Maybe the OP has the texts for that Feast in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Humbly,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Isa,

ialmisry said:
The intro did say something about the soul of the Holy Theotokos.  Maybe that is where Mardukm got his ideas about the IC involving only her soul, as, as I posted, he didn't get them from the "Apostolic Constitutions."
I was actually apprised of the fact from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (1917). When I first started looking into the CC, I was informed that the best unofficial Catholic source of info on the CC was the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. So I bought a copy of it.  The NewAdvent site does not have the original text.  And the idea that the dogma only refers to her spiritual conception is not that obvious according to its format.  Here is the text from the 1917 Encyclopedia:

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception of her parents.  Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis, carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect on her soul.

I think the Eastern Catholics are probably more knowledgeable of this fact than the run-of-the-mill Latin Catholic (if that text you mentioned is any indication).  There's probably a lot of inadequate, if not downright bad, catechesis going on in the Latin Church.  That would be the main reason that there is even an immortalist camp in Latin Catholicism. 

Interestingly, Latin Catholic proponents of the IC in the Middle Ages revived an ancient (though defunct) tradition from the Eastern Church that St. Mary was conceived by St. Anne without the "knowledge of man," and the Pope at the time specifically condemned the notion (not sure if it was called a heresy).

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,832
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Mardukm said:
I think there is a Liturgy section in this website(?) Perhaps you can post it there for our perusal, and just provide a link to us here in this thread? I would like to check them out.  Do you have the liturgical text for the Feast of the Conception of St. Hannah?  Do the EO have a Feast for Sts. Eliakim and Hannah?  I would be interested in those too, if possible.
There is only three conception feasts in the EO tradition I am aware of: the Conception of the Virgin Mary by Anna; the Conception of John by Elizabeth; and the Conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
  All we need to understand as Orthodox Christians (you, not in communion with Rome, and me in communion with Rome)
On Catholic Answers Forum it is an offence punishable by expulsion from the Forum for any Orthodox to use the term "Catholic" of himself or his Church.  Several Orthodox have been banned for doing it.

But here you are, on an Orthodox Forum. claiming that you are Orthodox.  Lucky you, that the Moderators here who do not follow the dictatorial policy on CAF which compels the Orthodox to deny who we are.

My last post on CAF was occasioned by this:

"The Orthodox are at sixes and sevens at the moment, and trying to discern if they have a place here. The theological determination that we are not permitted to call ourselves Catholics on the Forum has already caused consternation and I have had two messages on the topic. I referred them to their parish priests to ask him if they may continue to participate without sinning. I shall have to make the same determination in my own case."

and prior to that:

"There is no doubt that it *is* now difficult for us Orthodox to participate without the danger of denying our faith. For the purpose of this Forum the Moderator has made the decision that we are defined as non-Catholics and she has affirmed this decision several times.

This puts us in a bind since at the Liturgy and at morning prayers we proclaim that we are members of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

I am not sure how far and under what circumstances we can deny that without denying Christ and His Church. And does our participation here constitute such a denial? We need a couple of theologians (not me!) to decide on this.

Therese, I am not questioning your right to decide the running of the Forum. That's a given. I am just wondering whether Orthodox can participate here without sinning against their own self-understanding."


http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2936265#post2936265
This is on topic... ::) not.
Take it up with Marduk.  Marduk introduced into this thread the claim that he is just as much an Orthodox Christian as I am.  When he speaks with EOs he claims to be the same as us.  When he speaks with Copts he claims to be the same as them.  I find that he is using terminology dishonestly and it needs to pointed out.
You are the one who made it an issue when this was not what the thread was about at all.
 

Cosmos

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
The linked articles below may provide some additional theological perspective on this subject from an Orthodox point of view:

http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/61/22/

http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2006/immaculate.htm

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-4/

+Cosmos
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Cosmos said:
The linked articles below may provide some additional theological perspective on this subject from an Orthodox point of view:

http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/61/22/

http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2006/immaculate.htm

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-4/
Dear Cosmos,

Thanks for these links but I want to note that the second article is NOT from an Orthodox point of view.  The author is a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and like nearly all members of these Churches he displays the typical confusion and ambiguity over the Roman Catholic dogmas which do not sit easily with what the Greek Catholics have inherited from their Orthodox past.

 

yeshua

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brother Marduk, you are continually asking the Eastern Orthodox to not dictate to you or any other Catholic what the Catholic Church believes. I do not know how you can not honestly expect others to tolerate you telling them what their church believes and that their Fathers are not as knowledgeable as you on theological matters.

I would advise that you bear this in mind when trying to elucidate the Catholic faith, for while you certainly do help some of your fellow Eastern Catholics understand your perspective, you push away a good many, not to mention the apparent rifts it does to EO/OO/CC relations as in this foray. You are no longer Coptic Orthodox, you are Coptic Catholic, and the fact that you believe there is no difference between the two outside of who is venerated on the diptychs does not give you credence to speak for the total sum of your previous church, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, or the Oriental Christian community---not to mention denying the actual members of those churches and the EO the same capacity in speaking about your Church.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear brother Yeshua,

yeshua said:
Brother Marduk, you are continually asking the Eastern Orthodox to not dictate to you or any other Catholic what the Catholic Church believes. I do not know how you can not honestly expect others to tolerate you telling them what their church believes and that their Fathers are not as knowledgeable as you on theological matters.

I would advise that you bear this in mind when trying to elucidate the Catholic faith, for while you certainly do help some of your fellow Eastern Catholics understand your perspective, you push away a good many, not to mention the apparent rifts it does to EO/OO/CC relations as in this foray. You are no longer Coptic Orthodox, you are Coptic Catholic, and the fact that you believe there is no difference between the two outside of who is venerated on the diptychs does not give you credence to speak for the total sum of your previous church, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, or the Oriental Christian community---not to mention denying the actual members of those churches and the EO the same capacity in speaking about your Church.
I have NEVER spoken FOR anyone except myself, if you want to go over all the posts again.  I have only ever pointed out what IS in our Tradition, and how it is AMENABLE to the Faith of Catholicism (as regards this issue, at least).  And I have pointed out several times that I am NOT here to try to persuade ANYONE to ACCEPT the teaching.  That is a HUGE difference from someone calling my belief a HERESY.  I am only proposing matters for people's consideration and explicitly asking people to SUSPEND JUDGMENT, while others have explicitly made a DEFINITE judgment on my beliefs.  Please try to understand the difference.

As for my identity as an Orthodox Christian, I already explained to my fellow Copt what that means TO ME - namely, the reality of the early Church when we were all united.  He didn't seem to have a problem with my self-understanding, so I don't know why you, who have never been a formal member of the Orthodox Church (I use "formal" concisely, because I know you are Orthodox in spirit), should.  And you're right, I don't see a difference.  And that is probably because I did not grow up in the Catholic Church where the Eastern and Oriental members have had historic problems with Latinization.  Whereas it is of great concern to you to distinguish yourself from the Latins because of your lifetime experience, I have come into the Catholic Church relatively recently, and at a time when the Eastern and Oriental Churches have, IMO, gained much respect.  And since Latinization has never been my overarching concern - where the need for differentiation is preening - I think that has freed up my mental and emotional energies to be able to focus on similarities instead.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Top