Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
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
Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
ialmisry said:
Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.
??  I never heard that even speculated about as a dogma, and I've been RC all my life.  I've always been told that Sts. Joachim and Anna conceived Mary in "the normal fashion" (as we used to say back in the pre-sexual revolution days  ;) ).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
theistgal said:
ialmisry said:
Aren't these the same people promoting the dogma that Saint Anne conceived the Virgin without intercourse?  Some other unintended (?) consequence of the IC's proclomation.
??  I never heard that even speculated about as a dogma, and I've been RC all my life.  I've always been told that Sts. Joachim and Anna conceived Mary in "the normal fashion" (as we used to say back in the pre-sexual revolution days  ;) ).
It's been around a while: the reason why icons of the birth of the Theotokos show her parents embracing, to refute the idea.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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 (as brother Alex has explicitly asserted).
I would be willingly to say that the "ancestral curse" is being washed away.

Mardukm said:
AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.
But what do they mean by that? Do they think that infants are guilty and thus that their guilt is being washed away? Do they believe that infants have a moral/spiritual "stain", "blemish", or "mark" on the soul (which is the result of guilt even if the guilt is for some reason not present) that is being washed away? Or do they, like us, understand that the ancestral curse is a lack of holiness, a breach of communion with God, and a loss of grace and full goodness and that this is what is being washed away? I would be inclined to think the latter, seeing as how the former notions are understood to be of Western origin and that the OO generally agree with the EO on matters where the EO differ from the RC.

Mardukm said:
You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.
Is it? Or is it rather a substantial negative mark on the soul? "Stains" are not just a lack of something. If you really mean what the EO mean by the ancestral curse then you're using really poor language to describe it.

Mardukm said:
Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division?
Or perhaps you are using Latin terminologies without actually believing the original meanings behind them and rather sticking to the substance of your previous OO beliefs. That would be my guess...

Mardukm said:
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.
Well, it's not the matter of the concept in general. Of course those who have committed personal sin are no longer justified. It is the matter of the nature of the ancestral curse, and thus the status of infants that is debated. Are you confident that the Copts believe that guilt is inherent to the ancestral curse and that thus infants are born guilty?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry 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.
Mardukm is one of those who fancies himself "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
That's fine so long as one means that Roman Catholicism is the real orthodoxy, in contrast to Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Otherwise such a notion is rubbish.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
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.
Would he have been permitted by the COC to take communion in RC churches?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.

Blessings
That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?
 

Mardukm

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

First of all, I want to thank you for your questions.  They are very refreshingly honest and relevant, unlike the senseless nitpickiness of some others.
deusveritasest 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 (as brother Alex has explicitly asserted).
I would be willingly to say that the "ancestral curse" is being washed away.
We are in agreement on this point then.

Mardukm said:
AFAIK, every OOC teaches that the Original Sin is washed away by Baptism, unlike our EO brethren here.
But what do they mean by that? Do they think that infants are guilty and thus that their guilt is being washed away? Do they believe that infants have a moral/spiritual "stain", "blemish", or "mark" on the soul (which is the result of guilt even if the guilt is for some reason not present) that is being washed away? Or do they, like us, understand that the ancestral curse is a lack of holiness, a breach of communion with God, and a loss of grace and full goodness and that this is what is being washed away? I would be inclined to think the latter, seeing as how the former notions are understood to be of Western origin and that the OO generally agree with the EO on matters where the EO differ from the RC.
It depends on what one thinks "guilt" represents in the Catholic understanding as far as Original Sin is concerned.  If one thinks it is the guilt of Adam himself, that would be a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding (and that is the usual misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching non-Catholic polemicists like to promote - not saying you yourself are a polemicist for I sense a genuine query in your statement instead of an accusatory tone). One can acquire this though an open-minded reading of the Catholic Church's dogmatic statements on Original Sin. First. consider the usual understanding/definition of "guilt."  Guilt is a moral obligation to make up for something that is lacking in view of God's justice.  Second, consider that each human being inherits from Adam a lack of holiness/perfection that is the blemish on our nature and short of the holiness/perfection that God requires.  Third, and this is the most important - THOUGH AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS MENTION THE GUILT OF ORIGINAL SIN, THERE ARE NONE THAT CLAIM THAT GUILT IS INHERITED.  It is the imaginative divisive mind of anti-Catholics that have created a caricature of the Catholic teaching by claiming that the CC teaches that guilt is inherited (thereby wrongly assuming that we inherit Adam's OWN guilt).  What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that we inherit "sin" from Adam.  This "sin" is specifically defined by the Catholic Church as spiritual death (i.e., the state of separation from God).  We are each responsible for the recovery of this lost holiness - i.e., the moral obligation to make up for something lacking in view of God's justice - i.e., guilt. That is where the concept of guilt comes in.  It is NOT an "inherited" guilt.  The "guilt" comes from the reality of my OWN inherent lack of holiness, which I am responsible for -- NOT for the sin that Adam himself committed (which is the lie that anti-Catholics like to perpetuate).  To repeat, there is no such thing as "INHERITED guilt" in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In the minds of some, this will probably lead to a discussion on limbo.  Let me just say right now that limbo is merely a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church, and I am not obligated as a Catholic to accept it, and in fact do not accept it.

Mardukm said:
You say that you recognize the "loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of indwelling..."  That is exactly what the "stain"/"blemish" is.
Is it? Or is it rather a substantial negative mark on the soul? "Stains" are not just a lack of something. If you really mean what the EO mean by the ancestral curse then you're using really poor language to describe it.
I don't know how EO define it.  But that is the way I understand "stain" as a Catholic.  Imagine the soul of Adam before the Fall, a soul shining with holiness through Grace.  After Adam sinned, he lost the Grace, and there is no longer any shine on the soul.  From the perspective of a person on the outside looking at Adam's soul, it can be seen as something covering the "light" (a blemish or stain on the soul), but it is really just that the light (i.e., the Grace) was lost.  I can't conceive of a difference between your "substantive negative mark on the soul" and my understanding that it is the loss of Original holiness and justice.  Baptism brings that "light" back to the soul, or (from the perspective of another) removes the blemish.  Whichever language you use, the reality is the same thing.  Despite different theological expressions, the FAITH remains the same.  I really don't see a difference between "stain" and "loss of..."  I am not about arguing over words, so you'll forgive me if I don't see your point here.

Mardukm said:
Perhaps it is only a matter of terminology, and not something that should be a cause for division?
Or perhaps you are using Latin terminologies without actually believing the original meanings behind them and rather sticking to the substance of your previous OO beliefs. That would be my guess...
That's very possible too.  As a Catholic, my Oriental viewpoint on the matter is completely valid, so I don't see any reason for changing it.  Do you?

Mardukm said:
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.
Well, it's not the matter of the concept in general. Of course those who have committed personal sin are no longer justified. It is the matter of the nature of the ancestral curse, and thus the status of infants that is debated. Are you confident that the Copts believe that guilt is inherent to the ancestral curse and that thus infants are born guilty?
As stated, there is no such thing as "INHERITED guilt" in Catholicism.  That concept is a NON-Catholic invention to try to disparage the Catholic teaching.  We don't inherit guilt from Adam.  What we inherit are loss of Original Holiness and Justice, physical death and corruption, and concupiscence.  Our guilt comes not from inheritance, but from the reality of these circumstances in each new, individual person, a reality which falls short of the holiness/perfection that God requires.

As far as the "guilt of infants," it's a mystery to me what happens to unbaptized infants.  I don't believe in limbo, and the Catholic Church teaches that if they are saved, they are saved in some way known only to God.  At the very least, I know the Catholic Church does not teach that these children are damned.

Thank you for the questions.

Blessings,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
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.

Blessings
That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?
Are they not claimed by OO to be faithful to the OO Tradition?  Yet they were in communion with Rome.  Besides I never claim to be OO PERIOD.  I always clarify it with "in communion with Rome."  In the same way, EO sometimes use the word "Catholic" in their title.  Does this mean they are in communion with Rome, since that is what the word "Catholic" means TODAY?  No.  Obviously, EO who use the nomenclature do so to hearken back to the reality extant in the first millenium.  Likewise, Eastern and Oriental Catholics who use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are hearkening minds back to the reality of the first millenium.  That is all.

Blessings
 

Jimmy

Sr. Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
The idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is not meant to bring us back to the first millenium.  It is simply an expression of the faith as Archbishop Zhogby and the Melkite synod saw it.  They said they believe the same as the Orthodox but they are in communion with Rome.  That is all it means.
 

Mardukm

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

Jimmy said:
The idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is not meant to bring us back to the first millenium.  It is simply an expression of the faith as Archbishop Zhogby and the Melkite synod saw it.  They said they believe the same as the Orthodox but they are in communion with Rome.  That is all it means.
You have been Catholic far longer than I have, so I will defer to your understanding (though I'll admit that in the back of my mind, I will always think of it in the ideal terms of the first millenium.  ;D )

Blessings
 

ialmisry

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

Blessings
That doesn't mean anything. All three are likewise claimed as Saints of the RCC. Why do you attach "OO" to these figures?
Are they not claimed by OO to be faithful to the OO Tradition?  Yet they were in communion with Rome.  Besides I never claim to be OO PERIOD. 
Just claim to speak for them, in particular this affinity between the Vatican and the Orientals as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox that you allege.

I always clarify it with "in communion with Rome." 
No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

In the same way, EO sometimes use the word "Catholic" in their title. 
We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.

Does this mean they are in communion with Rome,
We are in communion with Popes SS Leo, Gregory and the rest of the Orthodox successors in St. Peter's younger see.


since that is what the word "Catholic" means TODAY? 
Only in the West.  In Egypt, for instance, "kaathuuliikii" is the word you are talking about, "jaami'i" is what we say in the Creed (the original and Ecumenical Creed of the "One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church"), and what we are.  Similar in Romanian "catolica" versus "saborneasca" etc.  Unfortunately, since Latin took the Greek term, Greek doesn't have a distinction (except to prefix franko-)


No.  Obviously, EO who use the nomenclature do so to hearken back to the reality extant in the first millenium. 
No, they continue the reality of the first two milleniums into the third.

Likewise, Eastern and Oriental Catholics who use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are hearkening minds back to the reality of the first millenium.
I don't recall the communion with the Vatican EVER using Orthodox as a title of their church.


  That is all.
That's enough.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
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.
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.
And the word "orthodox" is in the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to describe the Church according to the Ecumenical Councils.  So based on this, your objection means nothing.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval. 
For those who like sources...

Agreed Official Statements of the Orientals on Christology with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Agreed_Official_Statements_on_Christology_with_the_Catholic_and_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
deusveritasest said:
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.
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?

Blessings
Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
No Orthodox are in communion with Benedict XVI.

We have always used the word "Catholic," ever since our Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch's first use describing his Church with a Church of the (now) Patriarchate of Constantinople.  After all, it's a Greek term.
And the word "orthodox" is in the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to describe the Church according to the Ecumenical Councils.  So based on this, your objection means nothing.
Next you will be claiming that the title Pope for the Primate of Alexandria is "the shared patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."  The title that Patriarch bore to ALL the Ecumenical Councils. (Rome didn't get take it until the latter ones).

But wait-the EO Patriarch has the title Pope, the OO Patriarch has the title Pope, but none of the three primates the Vatican has set up for Alexandria are allowed the title Pope, the denial not from the Faithful of Alexandria, but the Vatican.

Never mind.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?
Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.
Yes, you make a good point.  No Catholic can marry a Coptic Christian unless he or she is first baptized by the Coptic priest.  This sits uneasily with Marduk's frequent claim of the relationship between these two Churches.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
While the Christological Agreements between the EOC and OOC are on the Theological Commission level, the Christological Agreements between the OOC and CC have already obtained Synodal approval.  How much more "promising" can it get?
Accepting their baptism, which the Orthodox Copts, those in communion with the Pope of Alexandria, do for us but not for you.  Not even, it seems, your "particular sui juris" church.
Yes, you make a good point.  No Catholic can marry a Coptic Christian unless he or she is first baptized by the Coptic priest.   This sits uneasily with Marduk's frequent claim of the relationship between these two Churches.
As I said, this is only a recent practice of the COC, and not its Traditional position.  I have hope that it will change. And the Syriac Orthodox officially accepts Catholic Baptism.  And the Armenians unofficially do so (as well, I think, as the EOC baptism) So what's your point?  It shows we are all moving towards unity and understanding.  My main point for evincing the similarity of the OO and the CC is to inspire EO not to be hypocritical with their condemnations of the Catholic Church, for much of what certain EO UNTHINKINGLY criticize about the Catholic Church is also a criticism of OO teaching.  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
That's his personal opinion, not a synodal statement.  ::)
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.
But they are all in communion with the Pope of Alexandria and you are not.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.
The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.

You will remember that it came on the heels of the statement from Pope Shenouda that none but the baptized (Orthodox faith, triple immersion) can go to heaven.

Mar Bishoy, the Patriarch's right-hand man,  qualified that a couple of months later by pointing out that Catholics and Protestants cannot be saved.

There was a bit of a firestorm from the Catholics in Egypt and even demands in newspapers by the Catholic Patriarch that the Coptic Church deny that Catholics go to hell.

There was no reaction at all from Pope Shenouda.   The sermon of Mar Bishoy was sold on tape in all the cathedrals and churches of the Coptic Patriarchate.   Very popular.  Not one bishop was against it.


This has taken us off topic. We ought to drop it.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
The ancient Roman Canon has always prayed: "...et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus." (and all orthodox who keep the catholic and apostolic faith.)  So the Catholic Church has never relinquished the title orthodox, just as the Orthodox Church has never relinquished the title catholic.

The title Pope was used by all bishops in the West at first and was gradually restricted to the Bishop of Rome there.  The Bishop of Rome was always first among the patriarchs regardless of the titles or honorifics used by the others.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Mardukm

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

Just one more comment:

Irish Hermit said:
The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.
I've only met one CO who agrees with that statement - he was a convert to CO from the EO, which might be telling. Otherwise, I've never met a Coptic Orthodox who agrees with the statement of HB Bishoy since it was not a synodal statement.  It would be interesting to hear from CO on the matter here.  I know there are CO at CopticHymns (it's a CO website, if you didn't know) who don't agree with the statement at all.

Humbly,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.
But they are all in communion with the Pope of Alexandria and you are not.
Ummm.. Mar Bishoy is not the Pope of Alexandria. ;)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Deacon Lance said:
The ancient Roman Canon has always prayed: "...et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus." (and all orthodox who keep the catholic and apostolic faith.)  So the Catholic Church has never relinquished the title orthodox, just as the Orthodox Church has never relinquished the title catholic.
I was referring to the autonymic title.


The title Pope was used by all bishops in the West at first and was gradually restricted to the Bishop of Rome there.  The Bishop of Rome was always first among the patriarchs regardless of the titles or honorifics used by the others.

Fr. Deacon Lance
But it seems the Vatican's church is not big enough for two Popes, let alone (if you count all his primates appointed for Alexandria) four.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Just one more comment:

Irish Hermit said:
The Coptic Orthodox would seem to believe it.
I've only met one CO who agrees with that statement - he was a convert to CO from the EO, which might be telling. Otherwise, I've never met a Coptic Orthodox who agrees with the statement of HB Bishoy since it was not a synodal statement.  It would be interesting to hear from CO on the matter here.  I know there are CO at CopticHymns (it's a CO website, if you didn't know) who don't agree with the statement at all.

Humbly,
Marduk
Then you are not looking hard enough, because I've known plenty of Copts who agree with it.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
  My statements are meant to promote unity, unlike certain EO here whose statements are meant to sow discord among apostolic Christians.

And there is the statement of Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, that Catholics cannot be saved!!  This has not been repudiated or corrected by the Coptic Church despite demands for such from the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria.  Again, that would seem to undermine Marduk's claim of mutual recognition.
Well, the statement of Mar Bishoy that Catholics (including you I presume) are going to hell certainly sows more discord between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics than any statement made here ever could!!
Yes, it is divisive, especially as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy does not admit that.
But they are all in communion with the Pope of Alexandria and you are not.
Ummm.. Mar Bishoy is not the Pope of Alexandria. ;)
I'm aware of that. And you are aware (as Fr. Ambrose has pointed it out) that Mar Bishoy is also in communion with the Pope of Alexandria.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
I've only met one CO who agrees with that statement - he was a convert to CO from the EO, which might be telling.
Telling in what way?  I know of no Eastern Orthodox Church which teaches that Catholics go to hell.

Otherwise, I've never met a Coptic Orthodox who agrees with the statement of HB Bishoy since it was not a synodal statement.
How many disagree with the papal statemnmt from Pope Shenouda that all the unbaptized (correct faith and triple immersion) go to hell?  That includes Catholics and Mar Bishop was only explicating the words of Pope Shenouda. 

I don't think we need to hear from the CO here.  The Pope has spoken.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OK, back to the topic.  :police:

ialmisry said:
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.
No.  The right earned by her was the Grace she received at the Annunciation.  St. Jakub is clear on that.  What I am pointing out is that St. Jakub asserts that Mary had Grace even BEFORE the Annunciation - i.e., the Grace to be stainless.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Care to admit or deny Kolbe and Miravalle?
I finally read that exceprt from Miravalle.  Some of it is pretty extreme, IMO - especially the statement of quasi-incarnation of the HS.  A lot of it, though, are statements I have read from EO Saints such as Palamas - such as Mary being a channel of all manner of Graces.  I wouldn't make too much out of the personal views of theologians and saints.  I don't know why you would either (though your slightly different ecclesiology which permits laypeople to judge her bishops might have something to do with it). 

In any case, as often stated, if non-Catholics want to discuss or even critique Catholicism, then do so according to Catholic Magisterial teachings.  Don't go around quoting individual theologians and Saints as if they represent what the Catholic Church actually proposes for her faithful to believe.  That is just being downright dishonest.

Blessings
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
In any case, as often stated, if non-Catholics want to discuss or even critique Catholicism, then do so according to Catholic Magisterial teachings.  Don't go around quoting individual theologians and Saints as if they represent what the Catholic Church actually proposes for her faithful to believe.  That is just being downright dishonest.
Marduk does have a point here, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith throught the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.  Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we appraoch the faith the hard way.  I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  Sans a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of the sacred Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

The amazingly superficial way in which the traditional teaching of purgatory as a place and a state was changed by Pope John Paul in a couple of lunchtime homilies is a case in point.  In a few minutes while people are munching on their sandwiches the Pope does away with the traditional teaching.  The Catholic world applauds this.

But it was merely an opinion of Pope John Paul.  There was no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.  There is no reason why the next generation of Catholics cannot revert to the older teaching. 

 

Mardukm

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

Good effort.  I do appreciate it.  But permit me to offer some corrections.

Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
In any case, as often stated, if non-Catholics want to discuss or even critique Catholicism, then do so according to Catholic Magisterial teachings.  Don't go around quoting individual theologians and Saints as if they represent what the Catholic Church actually proposes for her faithful to believe.  That is just being downright dishonest.
Marduk does have a point here, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith throught the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.
It is also the Catholic teaching that bishops, priests, and laity are guardians of the Church's Tradition.  It's just that we place a heavier emphasis on the bishops as our GOD-APPOINTED TEACHERS than you do.  Short of a great scandal to the public at large, the laity would not get involved in judging the teaching proposed by her bishops.  It's not that the laity do not play a role in defending the Faith.  It's that we are faithful to the Scriptural and patristic exhortations of obedience to our bishops.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.
Not exactly true.  Not all Tradition that has not been defined is theologoumena.  The thing which you as an EO might not relate with is that when the Catholic Magisterium judges whether or not a teaching is to be dogmatized, it must look to the Sources from the ENTIRE Church East, West, and Orient (i.e., as far as common Fathers are concerned).  We don't restrict ourselves to the East, unlike yourselves here for the most part.  As a prime example, let's take the limbo theologoumenon.  This was a teaching basically confined to the Latin Church (just like the purgatorial fire belief).  Our Magisterium recognizes that, and realizes that it can't very well propose these things as teachings for the ENTIRE Church to believe, because there is no UNIVERSAL testimony to these beliefs from Sacred Tradition (though there may indeed be restricted local testimony).  At best, EO apologists can claim that limbo was a Tradition in the LATIN Church.  It would be utterly DISHONEST for an EO apologist to claim that this was a Tradition of the ENTIRE Catholic Church, and then make some pointless argument that the Catholic Church as a whole has changed her dogma.  So the problem is not that Catholics can't believe something as de fide even though it is not defined.  The problem is that certain EO can't appreciate the Catholic mindset of the Catholic Church - many of you think parochially (it's EITHER East OR West).  The Catholic Church does not think in those parochial terms, but rather in truly Catholic (i.e., universal) paradigms.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we appraoch the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  Sans a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.
All you have to do is distinguish between what is truly Catholic, on the one hand, and what is limited to the Latin Church, or any other particular Church, on the other.  If you are not sure, just ask first, so you can't be charged with dishonesty.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of the sacred Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.
You probabaly have.  But the basic error in your presentation is that you think in parochial terms (thinking the Catholic Church is ONLY the Latins, and the Orthodox Church is anything not Western).  Thus, you imagine that what only the Latins taught is some kind of irreformible Tradition within the Catholic Church AS A WHOLE.

The amazingly superficial way in which the traditional teaching of purgatory as a place and a state was changed by Pope John Paul in a couple of lunchtime homilies is a case in point.   In a few minutes while people are munching on their sandwiches the Pope does away with the traditional teaching.  The Catholic world applauds this.
What is superficial is your understanding of the word "Catholic" as being limited only to what the Latins have Traditionally taught.  That was also the problem of many Latins when they first came in contact with the East and Orient after many centuries of the Great Schism.  Ironic how you and other EO have adopted the parochial mindset that the Latins discarded.  When the Latins had that parochial mindset, it was detrimental to the Church; the effect is no different now that you and other EO have adopted it.

Besides, both ideas of Purgatory being a place OR state has always been around in the Latin Church.  It's nothing new.

But it was merely an opinion of Pope John Paul. There was no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.  There is no reason why the next generation of Catholics cannot revert to the older teaching.
Perhaps the greater public exposure of Eastern and Oriental Catholics will help in the matter.


[/quote]
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Mardukm said:
All you have to do is distinguish between what is truly Catholic, on the one hand, and what is limited to the Latin Church, or any other particular Church, on the other.
I thought that all Catholic "rites" had to submit to the teaching of Rome?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
All you have to do is distinguish between what is truly Catholic, on the one hand, and what is limited to the Latin Church, or any other particular Church, on the other.  If you are not sure, just ask first, so you can't be charged with dishonesty.
What is dishonest is your constant assertion that the faith of the Latin Church is not binding on all Catholics of whatever Rite.
 
Top