Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
That the sermon in on the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple (not the Conception of St. Anne) should have told you something.
Yes, it told me that St. Palamas believed in the IC.
Too bad St. Gregory didn't tell you, or anyone, that.

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
So should have this:
Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death. Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13: , immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.
Why is it so difficult for some EO to understand the difference between a state that is OF AND BY GRACE, and one that is due to self-sufficiency? 
No problem at all, but what does that have to do with your point?


 And why is it so hard for some EO to take a CONTEXTUAL reading of a text, instead of little snippets.  You do that a lot, if not all the time.
I would paste more of the context, but since St. Gregory expounds quite a bit on the paragraph above, there is the question of length. But for example, between your prooftext "unsulied nature" below and the paragraph quoted above:

Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death.
How many times does St. Gregory have to spell it out for you?

Here is a passage from the Sermon which you have selectively missed:
BY GOD HIMSELF, the Mother of God was proclaimed and given to them as a child, so that from such virtuous parents the all-virtuous child would be raised. So in this manner, chastity joined with prayer came to fruition by producing the Mother of virginity
You tell us here how, if it is BY GOD, how can it be not OF GRACE?
Since I got my sons by God, as do the rest of us, I don't see how you are reading the IC into that.  I don't know where you got your kids from. Mine are good, but I can telll you that they weren't immaculately conceived.  Someone just quoted Chesterton the other day on original sin being the only dogma you can prove.

Are we to conclude that Isaac was immaculately conceived?  The Prophet Samuel?  Samson?...


Besides, in his Sermon on the Feast of the Dormition, St. Palamas explicitly tells us that the spiritual prerogatives of Mary are OF GRACE:
Actually, if Her soul, which was a habitation of God's grace, is borne up to heaven, forsaking the mundane, as becomes clear from many examples, and as we believe, how could that body which received within itself the Only-Begotten and Pre-eternal Son of God, the inexhaustible source of grace, and also showed forth His Body by giving birth to Him, not be carried up from earth to Heaven?
You are really stretching the "full of grace" clause.  And another problem for you Manichean IC "prerogatives."

In any case, permit me to point out another section of the Sermon:
And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked" (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies?
I would love to get a Sermon by St. Palamas on the Feast of the Conception, as he obviously considered it very important.  That would probably settle the matter once and for all (as far as St. Palamas is concerned).  Does anyone here have it?
Does anyone know it exists?

It never was a major feast day, unlike her birth and entry into the Temple.

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
It is first incumbent on proponents of the IC to first show that St. Palamas believed it.  Because it's not in this sermon.
Here it is for the contextually-challenged:
I'll take that challenge of your little snippet.

Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of HER OWN UNSULLIED NATURE, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us…”Tell me, what else could the word “UNsullied nature” mean?
Not sullied by actual sin.  Like it means when we say "Most Pure," "Spotless," and anyother number of like epithets applied to her in the services of the Church.  More below on this snippet.

Also:“So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect.
Did God “choose” her at the Annunciation?  Obviously not, so she must have possessed her “unsullied Nature” before that time.

Did God “choose” her when she was 10 years old?  Obviously not, because St. Palamas says she was already sanctified before then.

Did God “choose” her when she entered the Temple?  Obviously not, because not only does St. Palamas say that she was chosen from Eternity, but also that she was ALREADY sanctified when she entered the Temple.
They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age

I have read interpretations that say that God sanctified her from Eternity, but I don’t agree.
Why not?  That's the logical conclusion of this illogical syllogism.

If you are going to read the IC into St. Gregory, you are going to have to be consistent.  And conclude that from Seth to the Theotokos, that they were all IC'd.

Someone can’t be sanctified unless that person comes into existence.
Nor by redeemed by a redemption not yet sacrificed.  That's why the righteous had to wait in Hades.  If the Theotokos had died before her Son, she would have been awaiting Him there (if she was IC'd, she would have gone to Heaven alive)

Rather, she was sanctified from the moment of her existence, sanctified for the very purpose, as St. Palamas states, of having the “unsullied nature” from whom Jesus himself would derive his own spotless nature.
You repeat that phrase "unsullied nature" although St. Gregory Palamas does not, but skip over his "Except for God, there is no one who is without sin" that he does repeat, and expound on.

Understand that the dogma of the IC does not even go this far.  The dogma does not dogmatize this matter of which St. Palamas speaks – that is, the “WHY” of the matter - but only dogmatizes the mere fact that she had, in Palamas’ words, an “unsullied nature.”
It also doesn't deal with the issue, as St. Gregory does, of "Except for God, there is no one who is without sin."

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
2) St. Palamas states that Mary was sinless by nature.
Where?
Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of HER OWN UNSULLIED NATURE, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us…

and again:

But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature, Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required.
Let's continue the quote:
Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.
If the Theotokos was IC'd, there remains nothing left for purification. "Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God."

Note that he does not say that the Virgin Mary was purified (which begs the question of when she herself was purified).  Rather, he says that the NATURE was purified.  Our nature was purified, according to St. Palamas, by the creation of a woman who was “UNSULLIED” in her nature.
Your interpretation has a problem with Scripture (He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us) and exposes why the IC is Pelagian.

Note also that this is BY GRACE, not that Mary was in and of herself sufficient to have an unsullied nature.
Yes, from all eternity according to you logic.  Those promoting the semi-incarnation of the Blessed Virgin will appreciate the argument.

Finally, note also that a purified nature is not identical to a glorified (i.e., divinized) nature.  Mary’s body was not glorified until her Dormition/Assumption (actually, many – not all- Fathers say her body was glorified at the Annunciation).  Though our nature was purified in Mary, it was only in Christ that it was glorified (i.e., actually transformed).
If we are to apply your logic to St. Gregory, it would seem not:
Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk. They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age, ... She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her. In Her manner She showed that She was not so much presented into the Temple, but that She Herself entered into the service of God of her own accord, as if she had wings, striving towards this sacred and divine love. She considered it desirable and fitting that she should enter into the Temple and dwell in the Holy of Holies.

Therefore, the High Priest, seeing that this child, more than anyone else, had divine grace within Her, wished to set Her within the Holy of Holies. He convinced everyone present to welcome this, since God had advanced it and approved it. Through His angel, God assisted the Virgin and sent Her mystical food, with which She was strengthened in nature, while in body She was brought to maturity and was made purer and more exalted than the angels, having the Heavenly spirits as servants. She was led into the Holy of Holies not just once, but was accepted by God to dwell there with Him during Her youth, so that through Her, the Heavenly Abodes might be opened and given for an eternal habitation to those who believe in Her miraculous birthgiving.

So it is, and this is why She, from the beginning of time, was chosen from among the chosen. She Who is manifest as the Holy of Holies, Who has a body even purer than the spirits purified by virtue, is capable of receiving ... the Hypostatic Word of the Unoriginate Father. Today the Ever-Virgin Mary, like a Treasure of God, is stored in the Holy of Holies, so that in due time, (as it later came to pass) She would serve for the enrichment of, and an ornament for, all the world. Therefore, Christ God also glorifies His Mother, both before birth, and also after birth.
Once again, I ask why it is so difficult for some EO to take contextual readings of things, but are so habitual about taking only taking little snippets from the sources.
Watch out for that log.

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
3) St. Palamas, like St. Proclus of Constantinople in the fifth century, makes an intimate and causal connection between Mary's sinlessness and Jesus' own.  This is pretty interesting because not even the Catholic dogma of the IC admits that much (though many indeed contend that the dogma of the IC at least implies it).
Where's that here?
Therefore, the coeternal and identical Image of goodness, Preeternal, transcending all being, He Who is the preexisting and good Word of the Father, moved by His unutterable love for mankind and compassion for us, put on our image, that He might reclaim for Himself our nature which had been dragged down to uttermost Hades, so as to renew this corrupted nature and raise it to the heights of Heaven. FOR THIS PURPOSE, He had to assume a flesh that was BOTH NEW AND OURS, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves.
Interesting: how do you deny that He sanctified from all eternity?  Your snippets repeat that, wheras they don't repeat "unsullied."

Answered above.

And again:
Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvellous way. But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature,Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required.
And again, answered above.

Once again, I ask why it is so difficult for some EO to take contextual readings of things, but are so habitual about taking only little snippets from the sources.
Stashko, a log smiley anywhere?

Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Btw,
She Who is manifest as the Holy of Holies, Who has a body even purer than the spirits purified by virtue seems to contradict your Manichean views of the IC.
Hahaha!  You’ll have to explain that one for everyone here.  I said that Grace is required by the Virgin Mary.  How is that Manichean?  You are creative, but not a very good apologist.
You're confusing Pelagianism (which the IC is) and Manicheasm.  Manichean refers to your novel approach of limiting the IC to her spirit and not her body, although your sources, including this one, repeatedly refer to her body.  Quite some blinders, do they come with the log?

BTW, here’s another IC quote from an EO Saint:
The constraints of infertility were destroyed -- prayer, upright manner of life, these rendered them fruitful; the childless begat a Child, and the childless woman was made an happy mother. Thus the IMMACULATE FRUITION issuing forth from the womb occurred from an infertile mother, and then the parents, in the first blossoming of Her growth brought Her to the temple and dedicated Her to God.
Archbishop St. Andrew of Crete
I'd comment, but can you give any context to your little snippet?

Btw, fruitfulness begins at conception, not birth, in case anyone is going to argue that this passage refers only to an immaculate birth.
Again, context?

I wish I had more time to give more quotes from the numerous EO saints who expressed belief in the IC.
I've already accounted for these "proof texts," that no one dreamed were IC until 1853.

Here’s a discussion by Alexander Roman
someone in submission to the Vatican

on the IC, commenting on its historic acceptance in certain circles of Orthodoxy.
However, even before this theological position was proclaimed as a binding dogma on all Catholics by Rome, there was strong, local devotion to it throughout the Catholic world centuries before.
The article goes on to document Latinization and infestation of Orthodoxy by heretical Western Theology:

The Immaculate Conception also came to be reverenced in Orthodox countries, especially during the height of the Baroque period in the Kyivan Church and also by Greeks, as Father John Meyendorff has shown.

The Ukrainian Saint Demetrius of Rostov, for example, belonged to an Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception (for which he was called before an Orthodox Synod to give account).

St Demetrius and others of his day prayed the rosary, recited the Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary and even the Psalter of the Mother of God composed by St Bonaventure. His “Easternized” prayer in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God survives in many Orthodox prayerbooks today as the “Tale of the Five Prayers!”
Btw, Bonaventure denied the IC, calling it "that foreign doctrine."

The Kyivan Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception likewise took the bloody vow and produced Western-style depictions of Our Lady of Grace and their invocation was, “Most Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” This was a play on the “Panaghia” or “All-Holy” invocation to the Virgin Mary that is a refrain in so many liturgical services (“All Holy Theotokos, save us!”)Despite the acceptance of this doctrine in certain Orthodox circles, the fact remains that the doctrine itself was not acceptable to the Eastern Churches. Very often, Roman Catholic commentators have attacked Orthodoxy for refusing to accept this doctrine for, otherwise, this must mean that Orthodox Christians believe the unspeakable – that the Mother of God was conceived in and contracted Original Sin . . .

The crux of the matter here lies, however, not in a disagreement over Mary’s total sinlessness and holiness from her Conception.

In fact, the East does indeed affirm Mary’s All-holiness in its liturgical tradition. The liturgical celebration, and that from early times, of the Conception of St Anne ALREADY means that the Mother of God was a saint at her Conception and was sanctified by the Spirit as the Temple of the Most Holy Trinity – only feasts of saints may be celebrated, after all!

(The same holds true for John the Baptist, whose Conception is ALSO celebrated in the calendar of the Orthodox Church.)
I guess St. John was ICed too then.


http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/holymother.htm
Interesting for a site called "Ukrainian Orthodoxy," its team has:

Dr. Alexander Roman [alex@unicorne.org], an erudite and prolific
member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church has contributed a large number of
articles which are on this site.
Lastly, I would like to repeat an earlier request: Does anyone have a link to a sermon by an Eastern Father on the Feast of the Conception prior to the 19th century?  The only one I could find online was a 14th century sermon from the English Church by John Mirk (the English Church was the first one in the Western Patriarchate to accept the Eastern Feast of the Conception) which gives its miraculous circumstances, as well as a vision by someone from Mary that her Conception should be honored.
I'd be curious if there is one after the 19th century.  It's never been a major feast day.  Telling.

And when is the Vatican going to square its dependence on "visions" with the Lord's words "Only an evil and perverse generation seeks a sign"?
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Mickey said:
Second Chance said:
these particular verses are plain and simple and hardly require further elucidation, which you have not done either. You simply dismiss them out of hand. Let me ask you brother what have you got against the Word of God that you seemingly prefer the words of men (saintly and learned but men nevertheless)?
Thank you second chance. I enjoy your posts.  :)
Thank you Mickey. I enjoy your posts too. :)
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
Dear Marduk, Christ is Risen!

I tried very hard to explain my views to you but it is clear that I am not successful. I really don't care if this communications problem lies with me, you or both. I do not enjoy becoming frustrated and thus must quit talking with you.

Blessings,
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
ialmisry said:
You are really stretching the "full of grace" clause.  And another problem for your Manichean IC "prerogatives."
LOL! He seems to "stretch" everything in an effort to justify his odd views.  He has been thoroughly refuted on this forum.  Now he is on "that other forum" attempting to further his bad theology with the same arguments.  ::)

At least he has a captive audience over there!  :laugh:
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Mickey said:
Now he is on "that other forum" attempting to further his bad theology with the same arguments.  ::)
What is this "other forum"?
The forum were most all the orthodox were Banned from C A F......
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
I wonder why everyone is so upset about the fact that the East once taught the IC.  ???
I have said it before, and it was ingnored. Perhaps I was not clear enough.....PROVE IT
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
I wonder why everyone is so upset about the fact that the East once taught the IC.  ???
I have said it before, and it was ingnored. Perhaps I was not clear enough.....PROVE IT
My fellow Catholic already has.
LOL.  Winston Smith?
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Prove:transitive verb
1archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b: to test the worth or quality of ; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c: to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b: to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4: to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>
intransitive verb
: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox, and don't say the whole thread, I'm about done reading Mardukm thesis posts.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mickey said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
Oh, I know. And now they are just going to play the "yes we did, no you didn't game". Pathetic.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
Actually no. EO apologetics on this matter have been demonstrated to be incredibly shallow and wanting. Mardukm was not firmly rebutted but I saw many EOs on this thread pefrom exigetical accrobatics to explain things away. In nothing else, you have strenghted my conviction that the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) is the true Church. You guys did the same thing for me in the Purgatory thread. Thank you all for that.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Mickey said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
Oh, I know. And now they are just going to play the "yes we did, no you didn't game". Pathetic.
Hey, what a coincidence. Its the same pathetic game you are playing.  ;D
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Actually no. EO apologetics on this matter have been demonstrated to be incredibly shallow and wanting. Mardukm was not firmly rebutted but I saw many EOs on this thread pefrom exigetical accrobatics to explain things away. In nothing else, you have strenghted my conviction that the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) is the true Church. You guys did the same thing for me in the Purgatory thread. Thank you all for that.
Perhaps you could reply to what I posted in the Purgatory thread then?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
Actually no. EO apologetics on this matter have been demonstrated to be incredibly shallow and wanting. Mardukm was not firmly rebutted but I saw many EOs on this thread pefrom exigetical accrobatics to explain things away. In nothing else, you have strenghted my conviction that the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) is the true Church. You guys did the same thing for me in the Purgatory thread. Thank you all for that.
Perhaps you could reply to what I posted in the Purgatory thread then?
i haven't been in that thread in a while. Can you provide a link to what you posted?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
Mickey said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
Actually no. EO apologetics on this matter have been demonstrated to be incredibly shallow and wanting. Mardukm was not firmly rebutted but I saw many EOs on this thread pefrom exigetical accrobatics to explain things away. In nothing else, you have strenghted my conviction that the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) is the true Church. You guys did the same thing for me in the Purgatory thread. Thank you all for that.
So we made you believe what you believed anyway.  Quite a feat.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
Mickey said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Please show me one place in this thread where a point made by the Catholics was not firmly rebutted by the Orthodox
Do not be upset Nicholas.  Papist knows that the RC doctrine of IC was thoroughly refuted here. He is in a state of denial.  :laugh:
Actually no. EO apologetics on this matter have been demonstrated to be incredibly shallow and wanting. Mardukm was not firmly rebutted but I saw many EOs on this thread pefrom exigetical accrobatics to explain things away. In nothing else, you have strenghted my conviction that the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) is the true Church. You guys did the same thing for me in the Purgatory thread. Thank you all for that.
So we made you believe what you believed anyway.  Quite a feat.
You confirmed what I believe with your EO apologetics, demonstrating how bad EO apologetics really are.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
You confirmed what I believe with your EO apologetics, demonstrating how bad EO apologetics really are.
Yawn.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ignatius said:
Mickey said:
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception proclaimed by the Roman Catholics in 1854 is rejected by the Orthodox Church, but without in any way detracting from the dignity of the Mother of God. In fact, according the Fathers, the inheritance from Adam consists not in a personal responsibility of all men for original sin, but simply in the inheritance of the consequences of that sin: death, corruption and the passions ... Hence the Orthodox have no difficulty in recognizing that the Mother of God was heir, like us, of the consequences of Adam's sin - Christ alone was exempt -but at the same time pure and without personal sin, for she freely kept herself from all attraction for the world and for the passions, and she voluntarily co-operated in God's purpose by obeying His will with docility: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," she replied to the Angel Gabriel (LK. 1:38).
(The Synaxarion, Vol. II, p. 361)
Grace and Peace Mickey,

But with regards to the Doctrine of Original Sin, it would appear Dogmatized by the Councils (both at the regional synod level and also by two Ecumenical Councils. In my inquiry into 'modern' Orthodoxy I find weird inconsistencies with the Councils and their own Theologians which really concerned me and ultimately kept me from further inquiry.

The Councils on Original Sin:

Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.

These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and 'must not to be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.'
That's true.  But since they say nothing about "original guilt," what is your point?  The canons describe ancestral sin like genetic defect.  No more.

Teachings of an Orthodox Theologian:

Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the 'orthodox' teaching of "Original Sin"...

In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical
one, the shibboleth "modern Orthodox" gives you away: you are reading "guilt," for whatever precommitment (Diocese of Richmond), into the Fathers where they do not speak of it.  And they speak of it quite concretely, not vaguely: it is a disease, a condition.  Not a sentence.

way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Even if we look to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius we find comparing our original state of grace in immortality with a new state in death needing 'rebirth' to renew. I simply don't find the "modern" Orthodox apologetic in history and that really concerns me because they appear to have emphasized the Cappadocian Fathers over the consensus of the whole faith in order to present an alternative to historic Catholic Theology.
You mean medieval Latin theology?

That fact that Fathers speak of a regeneration, as you rightly quote St. Athanasius, and not justification should clue you in. They speak of sin as an infirmity, bondage.

Now I don't pretend to think that everything in the Catholic Church is as it has always been
of course not: with the "development of doctrine" dogma, not even the Vatican claims that anymore.

... but I do get the feeling that "modern" Orthodoxy has artificially contrived distinctions in order to appeal to modern sentiment concerning these teachings (particularly that of modern liberal protestant views concerning the need for Baptism etc.).
That "feeling" is called "projection."

ignatius said:
Mickey said:
ignatius said:
...all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sinThe First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian


I am sorry. I am not understanding your dilemma clearly.  But I am not a very learned man--so perhaps someone else can help you.


Sure. The point I'm trying to make is that this notion of a separation between guilt and consequences of Original Sin doesn't appear to be found in the early Church Councils and even with St. Symeon The New Theologian. This bothers me a great deal because I see it argued so often among Orthodox Apologists. Once I thought I could convert to Orthodoxy and hold to the teachings of St. Symeon but that doesn't seem to be the case. I stand in an awkward 'no man's land' between the East and the West but maybe I am coming to terms with it.


St. Symeon doesn't say anything about guilt-if he did, it would be "The Ancestral Sin and Our Justification."  Since he doesn't, why do you?

A simple solution to your claim is in Genesis: God does not say "If you eat the fruit, I will kill you."  He says "If you eat the fruit, you will die."

I can't remember, but I believe it was St. Basil, who deal with the issue of juridical satisfaction by asking who needed to be satisfied, who had to be paid off.  Not the devil, not hell.
 

soufliotiki

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
You confirmed what I believe with your EO apologetics, demonstrating how bad EO apologetics really are.
Apology for "butting in", I was skimming through this thread and I wanted to say to Papist that just because you do not feel appeased by the responses of the EO posters that does not automatically demonstrate, or prove, that the entire field of EO apologetics are "bad" ... this comment simply "demonstrates" that "you" are "emotionally" attached to your point of view ... and your point of view does not demonstrate or prove that EO apologetics are right or wrong in any case!

The reality is, in any debate, there can only be one answer ... so - someone IS wrong and someone IS right; either the Catholics or the Orthodox ... the Holy Spirit has demonstrated what that truth is ... perhaps the answer lies therein and not through human rationalisation and waffle ...

?
 

Cosmos

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Dear ialmisry:

The book length format used in many of your posts makes them really hard to read, and tends to detract from the content, IMO, probably causing some readers to simply skim through them or ignore reading them in their entirety.  :(

Please consider breaking them up into several shorter posts for easier reading. Thanks.  :)

+Cosmos
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Cosmos said:
Dear ialmisry:

The book length format used in many of your posts makes them really hard to read, and tends to detract from the content, IMO, probably causing some readers to simply skim through them or ignore reading them in their entirety.  :(

Please consider breaking them up into several shorter posts for easier reading. Thanks.  :)

+Cosmos
I disagree. His posts are always to the point and enjoyable to read.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
soufliotiki said:
Papist said:
You confirmed what I believe with your EO apologetics, demonstrating how bad EO apologetics really are.
Apology for "butting in", I was skimming through this thread and I wanted to say to Papist that just because you do not feel appeased by the responses of the EO posters that does not automatically demonstrate, or prove, that the entire field of EO apologetics are "bad" ... this comment simply "demonstrates" that "you" are "emotionally" attached to your point of view ... and your point of view does not demonstrate or prove that EO apologetics are right or wrong in any case!

The reality is, in any debate, there can only be one answer ... so - someone IS wrong and someone IS right; either the Catholics or the Orthodox ... the Holy Spirit has demonstrated what that truth is ... perhaps the answer lies therein and not through human rationalisation and waffle ...

?
Actually it has nothing to do with "emotional attachments" as Catholics are the one's who believe in "Fides et Ratio" whereas EO's tend more towards faith alone as an approach to the faith, viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mickey said:
Cosmos said:
Dear ialmisry:

The book length format used in many of your posts makes them really hard to read, and tends to detract from the content, IMO, probably causing some readers to simply skim through them or ignore reading them in their entirety.  :(

Please consider breaking them up into several shorter posts for easier reading. Thanks.  :)

+Cosmos
I disagree. His posts are always to the point and enjoyable to read.
thanks, but I am trying to be more bite size (e.g. on the thread on the Holy Cross statement).
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
                                                                                    -Papist  :D
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
I know nothing of that.

St John's words are wise--rely on faith.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
                                                                                    -Papist  :D
Well you are wrong, at least in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are hyper-rational, which is why they don't accept the Trinity, etc.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
                                                                                    -Papist  :D
Well you are wrong, at least in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are hyper-rational, which is why they don't accept the Trinity, etc.
I disagree. Their inability to understand reason is why they don't understand why the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
                                                                                    -Papist  :D
Well you are wrong, at least in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are hyper-rational, which is why they don't accept the Trinity, etc.
I disagree. Their inability to understand reason is why they don't understand why the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational.
So you can understand all there is to know of the Trinity? It is a logical mind bend, of which we will not ultimately know the answer to. This is why the JWs reject it. It doesn't make sense to the logical mind.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Papist said:
I disagree. Their inability to understand reason is why they don't understand why the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational.
LOL! Sort of like Rome's hyper reasoning leading to doctrines such as infallibility/supremacy.  :laugh:
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mickey said:
Papist said:
I disagree. Their inability to understand reason is why they don't understand why the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational.
LOL! Sort of like Rome's hyper reasoning leading to doctrines such as infallibility/supremacy.  :laugh:
Uhhhh.... No.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Papist said:
Mickey said:
Papist said:
viewing human reasoning as dangerous.
"Some, who seek out everything by reasoning, turn aside from the faith; but reasoning produces shipwreck, while faith is as a safe ship. For where there is no faith, there is no knowledge; when anything springs from our reasonings, it is not [true] knowledge."

St John Chrysostomos
And some who don't use reason end up as Jehovah's witnesses or Pentacostals.
                                                                                    -Papist  :D
Well you are wrong, at least in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are hyper-rational, which is why they don't accept the Trinity, etc.
I disagree. Their inability to understand reason is why they don't understand why the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational.
So you can understand all there is to know of the Trinity? It is a logical mind bend, of which we will not ultimately know the answer to. This is why the JWs reject it. It doesn't make sense to the logical mind.
Not what I said at all. But I can understand why the Trinity is not irrational. This does not mean that I understand all that there is to know about the Trinity. Read my signature.
 
Top