Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Yes, you claim this often: any thing to substantiate the claim?
Aren't you aware of the object of infallibility?  FAITH AND MORALS.  It does not include ecclesiastical censures, or matters of discipline, or matters of pracitce, or sports, or science, etc. ,etc.

If you want to discuss the Christological Agreements between the OOC and the CC, then start another thread.

Blessings
Hmmm.  In our theology Christological statements and anathemas based on them are matters of Faith.
More correctly, Christological statements are matters of Faith.  Anathemas on PERSONS are not matters of faith, but are ecclesiastical censures.  Your own lack of distinction on the matter is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.  This distinction is the reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council was able to contradict the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the matter of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, without damage to the THEOLOGICAL and DOCTRINAL authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

So Nestorianism is OK, huh?
Strict Nestorianism (that does not admit the divine and human hypostasis) is a heresy.  The Church will anathematize a person if she believes that certain person adhered to that teaching.  But if it is later determined that the person does not actually hold to that belief, the anathema on that person is lifted, though the heresy itself will always be a heresy.

Blessings
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.

And what did the Fourth Council say about Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas that was contradicted by the Fifth?  Except that, for instance, Theodoret paid lip service to the Third Council at the Fourth, and was exposed at the Fifth.

As for the Orientals, you know, the ones in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Pope, we have several agreements.
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

On a more important agreement:
Does a Catholic or a Protestant (Lutheran) have to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church to be able to marry in the Orthodox Church?

A Catholic or a Protestant of any denomination (not just Lutheran) has to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox faith. The Coptic Church has recognized the holy Mystery of Baptism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara). In addition, we have recently made an agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept each other's Baptism. One is baptized according to the faith of the Church he/she is joining. Since the Protestant do not believe in the same doctrines we believe in, (Infant baptism, Holy Sacraments, the position of St. Mary and her perpetual virginity, icons, candles, etc.) their baptism is not recognized in our Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1109&catid=45

Does the Coptic Orthodox Church consider Chaldean Catholic Baptism valid?

The Chaldean Catholic Church is affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church accepting the dogmas of the Catholic faith and the Pope of Rome as the supreme head of the church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic such as the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the purgatory, the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, etc. When one is baptized in a certain denomination he/she is baptized according to the faith of that particular Church, vowing to accept and embrace all her dogmas. Consequently, a person baptized in the Chaldean Catholic Church does not hold the same faith as one baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore, his/her baptism is invalid in the Coptic Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1108&catid=45
 

Mardukm

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

deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.
A council does not DEFINE a deposition.  ??? ??? ???

And what did the Fourth Council say about Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas that was contradicted by the Fifth?  Except that, for instance, Theodoret paid lip service to the Third Council at the Fourth, and was exposed at the Fifth.
Yes, the Fifth Council adjudged that the fourth Council was deceived, but the fact that a Council can be deceived on what a person believes demonstrates without a doubt that judgments of PERSONS (as opposed to judgments on DOCTRINE) are not guided by the Holy Spirit and are not "matters of Faith."

As for the Orientals, you know, the ones in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Pope, we have several agreements.
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php.
So have these commissions been accepted by the Synods of any of the Churches?  The Christological Agreements with the Catholic Church have.

In the past, you have taken glee in pointing out that the many Agreements that the Catholic Church have had with the Orthodox on other matters on the Theological Commission level have not been accepted by the Synods of the different Churches.  Why should not your link to this website not be regarded in the same manner?  They are certainly advancing the way to unity between the OO and EO, but the same can be said with the OO and CC and EO and CC.

On a more important agreement:...
Ummm... these are not formal Agreements.  Besides, the rejection of Catholic Baptism is only a recent development in the COC (20th century - after all, the COC approached [i.e., made the initial advances] the CC for formal reunion 3 times in the past).  I have hope this situation will change, as well as the situation among all the Churches.

Blessings
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
A little too dualistic.  Death, illness, sorrow are the effects of original sin.  It is rather odd that she would be preserved from the stain of original sin but suffer its effects.  Is that what you are claiming?
What would be wrong with such a claim? The same is the case with the Word.
Was the Theotokos assuming human nature?  Was she by nature/essence sinless? Did she suffer for our sake, and not her own?
I don't see the relevance of these questions. Do you recognize that the Word was preserved from the ancestral curse and sin entirely but was likewise subject to passion?
No, He was not perserved.  Rather, the hypostasis of the Son was immune by His nature and essence from it.  Unless you go with the semi-incarnation of the Theotokos, she was not.
I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to say here. Was the Son exempt from the inheriting of the ancestral curse because of the power of His divinity or did He actually inherit it?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).
Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.
I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
I accept that the Council of Chalcedon does not contradict the FAITH of the OO regarding the Natures of Christ (which every OO Patriarch has asserted in the many Common Christological Statements made by the various individual OO Churches with the Catholic Church).
Where have any of the OO representatives expressed that the Council of Chalcedon in no way contradicted the OO faith?

Mardukm said:
I am a miaphysite Catholic, and nothing in Catholicism contradicts my Faith as a miaphysite (though indeed there may be merely differences in terminologies and theological expressions, which OO hierarchs admit).
My main concern is not the numbering of the natures. This may be the first topic that most people look to when glancing over this topic, but it winds up not being the most substantial. I know that Miaphysitism is potentially compatible with RCism and EOy. Have you read the 6 Anathemas of Pope Dioscorus against the Council of Chalcedon, though? There are much more substantial criticisms. How can an OO accept the ratification of Ibas of Edessa's letter to Maris the Persian? How can an OO accept the Tome of Leo which appears to apply agency to the two natures?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
A little too dualistic.  Death, illness, sorrow are the effects of original sin.  It is rather odd that she would be preserved from the stain of original sin but suffer its effects.  Is that what you are claiming?
What would be wrong with such a claim? The same is the case with the Word.
Was the Theotokos assuming human nature?  Was she by nature/essence sinless? Did she suffer for our sake, and not her own?
I don't see the relevance of these questions. Do you recognize that the Word was preserved from the ancestral curse and sin entirely but was likewise subject to passion?
I think brother deusveritasest is pointing out that the origin of Mary is quite different from that of Jesus (i.e. her nature was not different from ours, and she was sinless by GRACE, not by Nature - unlike Christ), which would refute the idea that Mary's IC somehow takes anything away from the UTTERLY UNIQUE conception of Jesus.

Blessings
Mmmmm, that's not quite what I was getting at. "Ialmisry" was trying to suggest that it is ridiculous to consider that Mary was preserved from original sin given that she suffered its effects or consequences. My point was that it can't be as ridiculous as he is making it sound if the Word likewise is considered to have not inherited original sin and yet inherited its consequences (death, disease, passion, etc.).
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
is probably one of the reasons the EOC as a whole has not been able to come to any Christological Agreements with the OOC.
You should look into this topic more. The EOC and OOC have generated even more promising Christological Agreements than even the OOC and RCC.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
This distinction is the reason the Fifth Ecumenical Council was able to contradict the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the matter of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, without damage to the THEOLOGICAL and DOCTRINAL authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
You are aware that it is more than simply the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas that there is dissonance between the Council of Chalcedon and the Second Council of Constantinople, right?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Marc Hanna said:
I think we need to take a real look at perspective here.  When referring to Mary in the past tense we may refer to her as All-holy even if there was a time when she was not, just as Paul was not a saint when he persecuted the church and consented to Stephen's murder.  Furthermore, to be born in sin and to sin are two entirely different things, just as one can be tempted by the acts of another but not allow that temptation to become manifest as a sin within oneself, eg, Christ's 40 days in the desert where He was tempted by Satan but did not Himself commit a sinful act of being tempted in that He desired that which He was being tempted with.  Mary could have inherited corruption and still conducted herself her entire life without committing sin and be free from the stain of sin.

Papist, I like the quotes which you provided, they give us much reference to the venerability of our mother, but without the modern interpretations I don't see how they conclusively result in immaculate conception.
Of course I am going to have to disgree but we will start with agreeing. First, I agree that Paul, once a sinner, was made holy later. The same is true of Sts. Peter, Gregory, Seraphim, etc. ect. ect. But none of them is all Holy. What is the difference between them and our All Holy Mother? As, st. Ephraim says, that was not even a stain of any sin in her. Thus not even original sin could have touched her. Otherwise she be just another Holy one like the rest of the saints. Instead, she is the "All Holy", "All Immaculate", "All Pure". I think the IC is implicit in these titles and in what the Fathers have said, as I explained above.
Of course I do not begrudge those who disagree with me.
And this is why some EO believe that Mary never personally sinned. This is the pivotal difference.
Personally, I don't think these titles themselves are proof-positive of the IC.  I would rather look to Fathers (such as St. Ephraim) who compared the holiness of Mary to the holiness of Jesus or statements that say that there was NEVER any stain or spot of sin on her (like St. Jakub of Sarug), or those who EXPLICITLY state that Mary was created or formed without stain (such as St. Germanus of Constantinople).

Blessings
These are compatible with the perspective that Mary inherited the ancestral curse (which doesn't necessitate a "stain" or "blemish") and was completely without personal sin. You don't have to go so far as the IC to account for these.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.
The First Council of Ephesus had no new definition. It ratified the Second and Third Epistles of Cyril to Nestorius, condemned Nestorius' epistles, deposed Nestorius, and established certain canons. The only Definition for Ephesus was the Nicene creed.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I accept that the Council of Chalcedon does not contradict the FAITH of the OO regarding the Natures of Christ (which every OO Patriarch has asserted in the many Common Christological Statements made by the various individual OO Churches with the Catholic Church).
Where have any of the OO representatives expressed that the Council of Chalcedon in no way contradicted the OO faith?
At least one OO bishop and noted theologian has stated strongly that Chalcedon is heretical.

Let us look at a talk given at the third consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians in Geneva in 1970 by Fr. Paul Verghese and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1971.

This talk is also printed in Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, under the name of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, the name Fr. Verghese took when he was consecrated a metropolitan. The author, a theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India and past President of the WCC, states that:


"Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration.

"The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us ."



 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
Dear brother deusveritasest,

deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
To me, and seemingly to other EO, the language of "stain" and "blemish" implies an actual moral and spiritual mark on the soul resulting from sin. Most EO confess to not believe that the ancestral curse has any such "stain" or "blemish" attached to it. That's why referring to our inheritance as "sin" is slightly misleading, and referring to the "ancestral curse" is more common in the Eastern Church Fathers. We do recognize it as a breach of communion with God, a loss of sanctifying grace, a loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a loss of total holiness, and a "spiritual death". A "stain" or "blemish" only develops when the person commits a personal sin. Further, I don't know that most EO would agree with the idea of "loss of justice" as you put it. It would seem that an infant has committed no evil in the sight of God, and that thus there is no reason he/she should be regarded as lacking in justice. Guilt only comes when sin has actually been committed. Thus Baptism does reverse the ancestral curse by infusing the infant with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, restoring them to holiness and grace. But there is not yet any actual sin, guilt, stain, or blemish that need be washed away.

What makes you think that the OO teach otherwise?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I accept that the Council of Chalcedon does not contradict the FAITH of the OO regarding the Natures of Christ (which every OO Patriarch has asserted in the many Common Christological Statements made by the various individual OO Churches with the Catholic Church).
Where have any of the OO representatives expressed that the Council of Chalcedon in no way contradicted the OO faith?
At least one OO bishop and noted theologian has stated strongly that Chalcedon is heretical.

Let us look at a talk given at the third consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians in Geneva in 1970 by Fr. Paul Verghese and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1971.

This talk is also printed in Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, under the name of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, the name Fr. Verghese took when he was consecrated a metropolitan. The author, a theologian of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India and past President of the WCC, states that:


"Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration.

"The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us ."
I'm not at all surprised that there are some OO representatives that have condemned Chalcedon, even though our Coptic friend may not want to hear this. I was wondering if there even was anything contra, i.e. if any OO representatives actually approved Chalcedon as a whole. I don't think this is the case, though Marduk seems to.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
I'm not at all surprised that there are some OO representatives that have condemned Chalcedon, even though our Coptic friend may not want to hear this. I was wondering if there even was anything contra, i.e. if any OO representatives actually approved Chalcedon as a whole. I don't think this is the case, though Marduk seems to.
All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.  Can you please reread my posts to verify?  Thanks.

As regards the quote from Father Ambrose, my response is - "naturally."  Note the date of the quote - 1971.  These differences have been worked out officially since 1971 between each OO Church and the Catholic Church.  Each Church recognizes that the difference in theological language does not necessarily equate to a difference in Faith.  Seriously, though, I don't think we should hijack this thread on this matter.  ;D

I hope to give you a response to the rest of your posts within 2 days.  Thanks for your patience.

Blessings
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mardukm said:
All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.
What I meant was approve of the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon as a whole. This you appear to do. I was questioning whether there is a single OO bishop that has done so, on the other hand. OO have historically raised objections to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Tome of Leo, and also the Letter of Ibas of Edessa, all approved by the Council. I seriously doubt any OO bishop has accepted all three of these documents, if even one of them.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
[
As regards the quote from Father Ambrose, my response is - "naturally."  Note the date of the quote - 1971. 
Note that the date of publication of "Does Chalcedon Divide of Unite?" is 1981 and Mar Gregorios (Paul Verghese) is one of the editors.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1723513
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
All I have time to say right now is that I do not approve of Chalcedon as a whole, and I never said I did.
What I meant was approve of the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon as a whole. This you appear to do. I was questioning whether there is a single OO bishop that has done so, on the other hand. OO have historically raised objections to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Tome of Leo, and also the Letter of Ibas of Edessa, all approved by the Council. I seriously doubt any OO bishop has accepted all three of these documents, if even one of them.
The letter of Ibas was denounced at the Fifth Ecumenical.  That's all I'll say right now.  If the mod is reading this, perhaps he will split off the past several posts to a new thread entitled "Christological Agreements regarding Chalcedon" because I really don't want to hijack this thread.  I will respond more fully in a new thread if it is started.

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
Dear brother deusveritasest,

deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
To me, and seemingly to other EO, the language of "stain" and "blemish" implies an actual moral and spiritual mark on the soul resulting from sin. Most EO confess to not believe that the ancestral curse has any such "stain" or "blemish" attached to it. That's why referring to our inheritance as "sin" is slightly misleading, and referring to the "ancestral curse" is more common in the Eastern Church Fathers. We do recognize it as a breach of communion with God, a loss of sanctifying grace, a loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a loss of total holiness, and a "spiritual death". A "stain" or "blemish" only develops when the person commits a personal sin. Further, I don't know that most EO would agree with the idea of "loss of justice" as you put it. It would seem that an infant has committed no evil in the sight of God, and that thus there is no reason he/she should be regarded as lacking in justice. Guilt only comes when sin has actually been committed. Thus Baptism does reverse the ancestral curse by infusing the infant with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, restoring them to holiness and grace. But there is not yet any actual sin, guilt, stain, or blemish that need be washed away.

What makes you think that the OO teach otherwise?
Since EO (I can't be sure if this is a general EO teaching or the opinions of a segment of the EOC) don't believe that there is no "stain"/"blemish," naturally they don't believe anything is being washed away (as brother Alex has explicitly asserted).  AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.  You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.  Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division? I am also aware that the "loss of Justice" is not something many of the EO here would agree to.  That doesn't bother me.  I would rather remain faithful to my Coptic heritage on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Since EO (I can't be sure if this is a general EO teaching or the opinions of a segment of the EOC) don't believe that there is no "stain"/"blemish," naturally they don't believe anything is being washed away
More than any other Christian Church, the Orthodox have embodied their Faith in their liturgical expression.

I invite you to read through the Service of Baptism and Chrismation to get a grasp of our belief.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/baptism_e.htm
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Since EO (I can't be sure if this is a general EO teaching or the opinions of a segment of the EOC) don't believe that there is no "stain"/"blemish," naturally they don't believe anything is being washed away
More than any other Christian Church, the Orthodox have embodied their Faith in their liturgical expression.

I invite you to read through the Service of Baptism and Chrismation to get a grasp of our belief.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/baptism_e.htm
Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Since I mentioned brother Alex, I thought it was clear that when I stated "they don't believe anything is being washed away," I meant in respect to infant baptism.  The OOC's teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism, part of the reason the OO baptize infants.  The EO, apparently (I'm still not sure), don't believe anything is being washed away at the Baptism of infants.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).
Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.
I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
Mardukm is one of those who fancies himself "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
I I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).
I am not sure why your translation was necessary.

You could have remained Coptic Orthodox and Rome would still have quite happily given you communion in Catholic churches, thereby allowing you to be in communion with Rome and the Pope.

What was the reason for translating?  It placed you in the sad position of unnecessarily cutting off your communion with the Coptic Orthodox.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
And are you not aware that Tradition states that a white dove entered St. Anna when Mary was conceived? 
Is that how St. Anne conceived?  The quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit, the "Uncreated Immaculate Conception?"

Is said dove mentioned in the services of the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne?  I don't recall it. It's not in the Proto-evangelion of James, which forms the source of the texts of the Feast.  Where is it?
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).
Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.
I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.

Blessings
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Marc Hanna said:
I think we need to take a real look at perspective here.  When referring to Mary in the past tense we may refer to her as All-holy even if there was a time when she was not, just as Paul was not a saint when he persecuted the church and consented to Stephen's murder.  Furthermore, to be born in sin and to sin are two entirely different things, just as one can be tempted by the acts of another but not allow that temptation to become manifest as a sin within oneself, eg, Christ's 40 days in the desert where He was tempted by Satan but did not Himself commit a sinful act of being tempted in that He desired that which He was being tempted with.  Mary could have inherited corruption and still conducted herself her entire life without committing sin and be free from the stain of sin.

Papist, I like the quotes which you provided, they give us much reference to the venerability of our mother, but without the modern interpretations I don't see how they conclusively result in immaculate conception.
Of course I am going to have to disgree but we will start with agreeing. First, I agree that Paul, once a sinner, was made holy later. The same is true of Sts. Peter, Gregory, Seraphim, etc. ect. ect. But none of them is all Holy. What is the difference between them and our All Holy Mother? As, st. Ephraim says, that was not even a stain of any sin in her. Thus not even original sin could have touched her. Otherwise she be just another Holy one like the rest of the saints. Instead, she is the "All Holy", "All Immaculate", "All Pure". I think the IC is implicit in these titles and in what the Fathers have said, as I explained above.
Of course I do not begrudge those who disagree with me.
And this is why some EO believe that Mary never personally sinned. This is the pivotal difference.
Personally, I don't think these titles themselves are proof-positive of the IC.  I would rather look to Fathers (such as St. Ephraim) who compared the holiness of Mary to the holiness of Jesus or statements that say that there was NEVER any stain or spot of sin on her (like St. Jakub of Sarug), or those who EXPLICITLY state that Mary was created or formed without stain (such as St. Germanus of Constantinople).

Blessings
You would be talking about this?
Mardukm said:
St. Jacob of Sarug actually sits on the fence.  In one place, he states that Mary was free from the sentence of Adam and Eve at the annunciation, yet in another place, he states, “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier…if ANY STAIN had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”  Of course, for St. Jacob to state that God selected her based on her soul not having any stain means that Mary must have been “stainless” even BEFORE the Annunciation.  To me, the only legitimate interpretation possible is that St. Jacob believed that she received Graces to have a stainless soul BEFORE the Annunciation, while believing that the Grace she received at the Annunciation was a different kind of Grace.  For surely the Grace for Mary to be OVERSHADOWED by the FULL divinity must be of an entirely different order than the Graces received at Baptism by which creatures are cleansed of the stain of all sin.  In any case, St. Jacob certainly cannot be used to make any sort of DEFINITE statement against the teaching of the IC.
It would seem that if St. Jacob believed as you claimed, that the IC was NOT "a singular grace and privilege granted," as your Pope Pius claimed, but a right earned by her.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Dear brother deusveritasest,

deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
Oh?
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
ChristusDominus said:
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I myself am an OO in communion with the bishop of Rome (a Coptic catholic, translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy almost 4 years ago).
Do you accept the Council of Chalcedon?
He is in complete union with Rome, he has to.
I don't see how he's legitimately OO then.
He's a Coptic Catholic
"Coptic Catholic" is no more OO than "Ukrainian Catholic" is EO.
I believe I am as OO in communion with Rome as Sts. Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were.
All of whom fell asleep before Chalcedon, and didn't, and do not, commune with heretics.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Dear brother deusveritasest,

deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
Funny you should claim yet again this imagined affinity between the Vatican and the Oriental Orthodox as against the latter and the rest of the Orthodox.
ialmisry said:
On a more important agreement:
Does a Catholic or a Protestant (Lutheran) have to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church to be able to marry in the Orthodox Church?

A Catholic or a Protestant of any denomination (not just Lutheran) has to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox faith. The Coptic Church has recognized the holy Mystery of Baptism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara). In addition, we have recently made an agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept each other's Baptism. One is baptized according to the faith of the Church he/she is joining. Since the Protestant do not believe in the same doctrines we believe in, (Infant baptism, Holy Sacraments, the position of St. Mary and her perpetual virginity, icons, candles, etc.) their baptism is not recognized in our Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1109&catid=45

Does the Coptic Orthodox Church consider Chaldean Catholic Baptism valid?

The Chaldean Catholic Church is affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church accepting the dogmas of the Catholic faith and the Pope of Rome as the supreme head of the church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic such as the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the purgatory, the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, etc. When one is baptized in a certain denomination he/she is baptized according to the faith of that particular Church, vowing to accept and embrace all her dogmas. Consequently, a person baptized in the Chaldean Catholic Church does not hold the same faith as one baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore, his/her baptism is invalid in the Coptic Church.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1108&catid=45
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
As for the Orientals, you know, the ones in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Pope, we have several agreements.
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php.
So have these commissions been accepted by the Synods of any of the Churches?  The Christological Agreements with the Catholic Church have.

In the past, you have taken glee in pointing out that the many Agreements that the Catholic Church have had with the Orthodox on other matters on the Theological Commission level have not been accepted by the Synods of the different Churches.  Why should not your link to this website not be regarded in the same manner?  They are certainly advancing the way to unity between the OO and EO, but the same can be said with the OO and CC and EO and CC.

On a more important agreement:...
Ummm... these are not formal Agreements.  Besides, the rejection of Catholic Baptism is only a recent development in the COC (20th century - after all, the COC approached [i.e., made the initial advances] the CC for formal reunion 3 times in the past).  I have hope this situation will change, as well as the situation among all the Churches.

Blessings
One Faith, One Lord, One baptism.  May not be a formal Agreement, but it is ratified in Heaven.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Oh?
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm
[/quote]
So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.

Sigh!  I would simply avoid your pointless arguments if only that there might be a possibility you might actually mislead someone by them.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
[So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.
HUH?!  Earlier you told us that concupiscence IS a stain...

Marduk:  "Since it was at the moment of her conception, it also means that the Grace (that we normally receive at Baptism) was preventive, instead of ameliorative.  This means she had no spiritual stain, including the stain of concupiscence. However, all the physical consequences still remained (death, infirmity, sickness, sorrow, etc) - just like us when we receive baptism."

And Papist agrees with you that concupiscense is a stain...

"Original sin or concupiscence/the privation of Grace, is the stain left in us by the fall of man. Yet Mary is free even from this because she is free of every stain of sin."

Amazing the rapidity with which Catholic theology is evolving - last week it was a stain, this week it isn't!  ;D

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
[So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.
HUH?!   Earlier you told us that concupiscence IS a stain...

Marduk:  "Since it was at the moment of her conception, it also means that the Grace (that we normally receive at Baptism) was preventive, instead of ameliorative.  This means she had no spiritual stain, including the stain of concupiscence. However, all the physical consequences still remained (death, infirmity, sickness, sorrow, etc) - just like us when we receive baptism."
Oh, sorry about that.  I go back and forth between here and CAF, and I did so when I wrote that.  At CAF, I wrote that since the effects of concupiscence are spiritual (i.e., sinning), and the "stain" refers to the spiritual effects of Original Sin, concupiscence can conceivably be included in the definition of the "stain of Original Sin."  As you can see, I was not intending to absolutely define concupiscence per se as "stain," but only in view of its effects (not in view of concupiscence itself).  I think I jumped back here to this Forum when I had written that at CAF, and miscommunicated.  Sorry. I take full responsibility for my error.

Humbly,
Marduk
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Oh?
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm
So? What's your point?  It doesn't say that concupiscence is a stain, nor that it is sin  -  exactly what I said.

Sigh!  I would simply avoid your pointless arguments if only that there might be a possibility you might actually mislead someone by them.
since Father has already responded, I'll just add:

My great grandparents were baptized by the Vatican.  Since they were washed clean of Original Sin at their baptism, like the Theotokos, then how did they transmit it when they conceived my grandmother?  Why did she have to be baptized? (she was baptized by the Vatican too)  How did she transmit it to my aunt (also baptized by the Vatican:she apostacized but came back)? In that case perhaps we can blame my Lutheran grandfather.

If the IC is so important to explain how the Lord has not captive to original sin, why didn't it work on my ancestors?

And that is the problem with the IC: so much complication that solves nothing, explains nothing, enlightens nothing, preserves nothing.  Instead it promotes the heresies of Maximillian Kolbe, Dr. Mark Miravalle and the rest of the Vox populi crowd.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
The problem is that the Definition of the Third Ecumenical Council is the deposition of Nestorius.
A council does not DEFINE a deposition.  ??? ??? ???

And what did the Fourth Council say about Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas that was contradicted by the Fifth?  Except that, for instance, Theodoret paid lip service to the Third Council at the Fourth, and was exposed at the Fifth.
Yes, the Fifth Council adjudged that the fourth Council was deceived, but the fact that a Council can be deceived on what a person believes demonstrates without a doubt that judgments of PERSONS (as opposed to judgments on DOCTRINE) are not guided by the Holy Spirit and are not "matters of Faith."
Decree of the Council Against Nestorius.

(Found in all the Concilia in Greek with Latin Versions.)

As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς, κ.τ.λ.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.
The words for which I have given the original Greek, are not mentioned by Canon Bright in his Article on St. Cyril in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography; nor by Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of Ephesus in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.  They do not appear in Canon Robertson’s History of the Church.  219And strangest of all, Dean Milman cites the sentence in English in the text and in Greek in a note but in each case omits all mention of the letter of the Pope, marking however in the Greek that there is an omission.  (Lat. Chr., Bk. II., Chap. III.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html

Btw, the Fathers were "compelled" because since Nestorius didn't show up, they had to accept Pope Celestine's accusations as admitted by Nestorius, besides their own examination of his works and the condemnation by Pope St. Cyril.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
I accept that the Council of Chalcedon does not contradict the FAITH of the OO regarding the Natures of Christ (which every OO Patriarch has asserted in the many Common Christological Statements made by the various individual OO Churches with the Catholic Church).
Where have any of the OO representatives expressed that the Council of Chalcedon in no way contradicted the OO faith?

Mardukm said:
I am a miaphysite Catholic, and nothing in Catholicism contradicts my Faith as a miaphysite (though indeed there may be merely differences in terminologies and theological expressions, which OO hierarchs admit).
My main concern is not the numbering of the natures. This may be the first topic that most people look to when glancing over this topic, but it winds up not being the most substantial. I know that Miaphysitism is potentially compatible with RCism and EOy. Have you read the 6 Anathemas of Pope Dioscorus against the Council of Chalcedon, though? There are much more substantial criticisms. How can an OO accept the ratification of Ibas of Edessa's letter to Maris the Persian?
The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret’s writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.  They examined whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon.  So much was admitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius, had been received by the holy Council.  Some contended that his person only was spared; others that his letter also was approved.  Thus inquiry was made at the fifth Council how the writings on the Faith were wont to be approved in former Councils.  The Acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth.  Then the holy Council declared:  “It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them.  For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.”  But the Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved.  So, then, it is certain from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it, that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils not simply, nor without inquiry.  The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas’s letter.  They compare the letter with the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon.  Which done, the holy Council declared—“The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right Faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.”  All the Bishops cried out, “We all say this; the letter is heretical.”  Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council, that our holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, and that on matter of Faith, to be orthodox or heretical, according to the same procedure, after legitimate cognizance, the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html?highlight=ibas#highlight

How can an OO accept the Tome of Leo which appears to apply agency to the two natures?
By realizing that it doesn't apply agency to the two natures.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Saint Joseph, the Immaculatus, Never Sinned.  

He, like his spouse, was cleansed of original sin not at his physical conception but at his spiritual conception.

In private revelations to Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil, the Virgin Mary appeared under the title of Our Lady of America, the Immaculate Virgin. On some occasions, Saint Joseph also appeared, and he spoke to her, saying:

“It is true my daughter, that immediately after my conception, I was, through the future merits of Jesus and because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father, cleansed from the stain of original sin.”

http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/joseph-never-sinned.htm
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
deusveritasest said:
ialmisry said:
A little too dualistic.  Death, illness, sorrow are the effects of original sin.  It is rather odd that she would be preserved from the stain of original sin but suffer its effects.  Is that what you are claiming?
What would be wrong with such a claim? The same is the case with the Word.
Was the Theotokos assuming human nature?  Was she by nature/essence sinless? Did she suffer for our sake, and not her own?
I don't see the relevance of these questions. Do you recognize that the Word was preserved from the ancestral curse and sin entirely but was likewise subject to passion?
I think brother deusveritasest is pointing out that the origin of Mary is quite different from that of Jesus (i.e. her nature was not different from ours, and she was sinless by GRACE, not by Nature - unlike Christ), which would refute the idea that Mary's IC somehow takes anything away from the UTTERLY UNIQUE conception of Jesus.

Blessings
Mmmmm, that's not quite what I was getting at. "Ialmisry" was trying to suggest that it is ridiculous to consider that Mary was preserved from original sin given that she suffered its effects or consequences. My point was that it can't be as ridiculous as he is making it sound if the Word likewise is considered to have not inherited original sin and yet inherited its consequences (death, disease, passion, etc.).
II Corinthians 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Because there is no "stains" or blemishes in Mary, there cannot even be the stain or blemish of concupisence which is the result of Orignial Sin. Thus she cannot even have original sin.
Now, I know that we have all been washed of Original Sin in baptism but we do have the effects of original sin still lingering, namely concupiscence.
However, because Mary had no stain, she could not even have this effect, so she did not have the cause. Thus, se was free of Original sin.
I do not agree that concupiscence is a "stain" or "blemish". It is rather a result of a lack of holiness. But the only thing that actually causes "stain" or "blemish" is the actual committing of sin. Thus I do not think Mary being without stain or blemish is incompatible with the theologumenon that Mary was born with the ancestral curse yet resisted ever committing personal sin and was later purified of the ancestral curse by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
I agree with you that concupisence is not a "stain" or "blemish."  The term "stain" or "blemish" or "filth" or some such other descriptive word has to do with sin itself and the lack of holiness concurrent with sin.  I think brother Papist would admit he misspoke because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not sin.  The "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" of Original Sin consists of the loss of Original Holiness and Original Justice that accompanies every person born, NOT "concupiscence," as well as the direct result of actual sin.  This is why the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that Original Sin is washed away at Baptism (unlike, it seems, some of our Eastern brethren).  By that statement, we mean that the "stain"/"blemish"/"filth" that consists of a lack of Original Holiness/Justice resulting from Original Sin and Actual sin is really and truly removed by Baptism.  At Baptism, we regain our Original Holiness and Justice before God.

Blessings
To me, and seemingly to other EO, the language of "stain" and "blemish" implies an actual moral and spiritual mark on the soul resulting from sin. Most EO confess to not believe that the ancestral curse has any such "stain" or "blemish" attached to it. That's why referring to our inheritance as "sin" is slightly misleading, and referring to the "ancestral curse" is more common in the Eastern Church Fathers. We do recognize it as a breach of communion with God, a loss of sanctifying grace, a loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a loss of total holiness, and a "spiritual death". A "stain" or "blemish" only develops when the person commits a personal sin. Further, I don't know that most EO would agree with the idea of "loss of justice" as you put it.


It comes up with the issue of guilt that the West has been focused on for quite some time.

It would seem that an infant has committed no evil in the sight of God, and that thus there is no reason he/she should be regarded as lacking in justice. Guilt only comes when sin has actually been committed. Thus Baptism does reverse the ancestral curse by infusing the infant with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, restoring them to holiness and grace. But there is not yet any actual sin, guilt, stain, or blemish that need be washed away.

What makes you think that the OO teach otherwise?


It fits his agenda.
 
Top