Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mickey said:
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?
I'm only aware that to be the case for ex cathedra statements.  And I'm not aware of any ex cathedra statements (i.e., a definition, on faith or morals, intended for the entire Church to believe, promulgated publicly) regarding Limbo or purgatorial fire.

Blessings
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
...the faith of the Latin Church is not binding on all Catholics of whatever Rite.
:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

I wonder if you'll find any Eastern or Oriental Catholic agree to that statement.  Or even any of our Latin brethren here.

In any case, I'll agree if you can differentiate between theological expressions/terminologies, on the one hand, from the FAITH of the Church, on the other.  For it is indeed true that every Catholic Church, no matter what Tradition or Rite, shares one and the same FAITH.  In that case, it would be just as valid to say that the Faith of my Coptic Catholic Church, or the Faith of the Syriac Catholic Church, etc., is binding on all Catholics of whatever Rite.  But the FAITH (which is universal and orthodox) is to be differentiated from local theologoumena or beliefs or disciplines or practices or personal devotions or spiritual piety.
 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Irish Hermit said:
What is dishonest is your constant assertion that the faith of the Latin Church is not binding on all Catholics of whatever Rite.
Yes. When I was in the Byzantine Catholic Church, I was consistently informed by clergy and laity that the East had alternate understandings of doctrines such as IC and purgatory.  One clergy even told me that they are under the Pope---but not really.  It was all very confusing for me at the time. Markudm seems to say the same thing.
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mickey said:
Irish Hermit said:
What is dishonest is your constant assertion that the faith of the Latin Church is not binding on all Catholics of whatever Rite.
Yes. When I was in the Byzantine Catholic Church, I was consistently informed by clergy and laity that the East had alternate understandings of doctrines such as IC and purgatory.  One clergy even told me that they are under the Pope---but not really.  It was all very confusing for me at the time. Markudm seems to say the same thing.
Yes, I think we are saying the same thing.  Except that for me, it's not confusing.  Maybe it's because I did not grow up Catholic, being surrounded by Latins?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Mardukm said:
Dan-Romania said:
Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Jetavan said:
Mardukm said:
Dan-Romania said:
Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?
I believe it to be a grave error to attempt to 'map' one traditions doctrines over another. I also believe it is gross to argue Theological Propositions of one's own preferences over another. Each must stand or fall on their own within the interior context of it's practitioners. We will know them by their fruit, nothing more nothing less. Catholic Contemplatives and Orthodox Hesychasts of both Traditions share something, not because they believe the exact same doctrines (though I would argue they do end up with doctrines that point in a similar direction), but because they share and experience the same Spirit. The objectivity within their subjectivity transcends all particular subjectivity and even individuality. They share a longing for reunion with God, and I believe the spiritual means to attain it be it labeled Theosis or Beatific Vision they are subjectively the same teaching but they point to the same objective truth.

Spiritual experience or Divine Encounter is the great equalizer, allowing young and old alike to experience the perfect serenity of perfect oneness in innocence. The Christian Mystic takes to heart what Joel prophesied ( and what St. Peter repeated in Acts 2:14-18):

And it shall come to pass afterwords, that I will pour my spirit on all flesh; your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit (Joel 2:28-29).

This is not only speaking of an event in the past, but a reoccurring happening within the hearts of all men who seek Him even today, right now within you and me. We need to get back to the real work of the Spirit within our own Traditions and secure the clarity provided within our practices so that we find no need to disparage one another. Unity is not born from division but through it's cessation. The Truth of our Faith is not found in the dualing propositions of our two Traditions but in the transcendence of our carnal nature.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.
The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.
Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.
I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  :D The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.
Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.
Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108?  Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary.  It is the past tense.  It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense.  It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.


"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.
Who said I was responding to just this note?  On this forum you have asserted the submissive lickspittle line over and over again and often with no nuance at all.  And now you demand that impute nuance to your messages?...all of them?  

Do you think only the nuanced ones have an impact?

Perhaps you do.

You'd be in error if you do.

M.
As you know Lumen Gentium demands that you give assent of mind and will to not just the Pope's formally stated infallible declarations but even to his more mundane ones.  That's breeding a race of lickspittles alright.  Thank God that most Catholics laugh at these claims from the Pontiff.


"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”  
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.  

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.
The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.
Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.
I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  :D The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.
Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.
Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108?  Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary.  It is the past tense.  It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense.  It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.


"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.
Who said I was responding to just this note?  On this forum you have asserted the submissive lickspittle line over and over again and often with no nuance at all.  And now you demand that impute nuance to your messages?...all of them?  

Do you think only the nuanced ones have an impact?

Perhaps you do.

You'd be in error if you do.

M.
As you know Lumen Gentium demands that you give assent of mind and will to not just the Pope's formally stated infallible declarations but even to his more mundane ones.  That's breeding a race of lickspittles alright.  Thank God that most Catholics laugh at these claims from the Pontiff.


"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”  
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.  

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
I'll give you the quick and dirty as it was given to me from my spiritual father when I asked him to be my spiritual father and he said that in order to truly lead me, I had to learn to follow and that means, he said to me: 

"When I tell you something, rather than looking at it and first telling me that it is impossible, stupid or just plain wrong, take a few weeks or months and think about it in terms of how it can be correct.  IF after a few weeks or months you can find absolutely NOTHING about it that is right in ANY way, come back to me and we'll talk about it.  But you MUST make a good faith effort of intellect and will to see how what I say is true."

Any spiritual father who does not say that to his child or children is not a father but a dupe.

I don't ever want a dupe in the papal office.

You drag bottom trying to make the Catholic Church as ugly as possible...to other Catholics.

There's a name for that kind of behavior.

Blessings,

Mary
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.
The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.
Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.
I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  :D The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.
Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.
Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108?  Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary.  It is the past tense.  It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense.  It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.


"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.
Who said I was responding to just this note?  On this forum you have asserted the submissive lickspittle line over and over again and often with no nuance at all.  And now you demand that impute nuance to your messages?...all of them? 

Do you think only the nuanced ones have an impact?

Perhaps you do.

You'd be in error if you do.

M.
As you know Lumen Gentium demands that you give assent of mind and will to not just the Pope's formally stated infallible declarations but even to his more mundane ones.  That's breeding a race of lickspittles alright.  Thank God that most Catholics laugh at these claims from the Pontiff.


"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” 
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
I'll give you the quick and dirty as it was given to me from my spiritual father when I asked him to be my spiritual father and he said that in order to truly lead me, I had to learn to follow and that means, he said to me: 

"When I tell you something, rather than looking at it and first telling me that it is impossible, stupid or just plain wrong, take a few weeks or months and think about it in terms of how it can be correct.  IF after a few weeks or months you can find absolutely NOTHING about it that is right in ANY way, come back to me and we'll talk about it.  But you MUST make a good faith effort of intellect and will to see how what I say is true."

Any spiritual father who does not say that to his child or children is not a father but a dupe.

I don't ever want a dupe in the papal office.

You drag bottom trying to make the Catholic Church as ugly as possible...to other Catholics.

There's a name for that kind of behavior.
I quote Lumen Gentium and you find it disturbing.  It seems to me, after reading your many posts on the forum,  that there is a confusion in your own mind between the type of Catholicism which you would like to exist and the Catholicism which is expounded in magisterial documents.
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I think the topic of the Pope's visit to Crprus was brought up on this thread.  THia article just came  out today:
23 May 2010
Pantocrator Monastery (Melissohori, Greece)
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/visit_pope-cyprus.en.aspx

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol Speaks Out on the Upcoming Visit of the Pope of Rome to Cyprus

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol… confessor of the Orthodox Faith. Eis polla, eti despota!
In an interview published today, 23 May 2010, in the Cypriot newspaper Phileleftheros, Metropolitan Athanasios distanced himself from the Archbishop’s decision to host the Pope in Cyprus. The following are excerpts from the interview:
For us Orthodox, the Pope is a heretic, outside of the Church, and, hence, not even a bishop…
He [the Pope] has been outside of the Church for ten centuries now, he is not a canonical bishop, and he has no relation whatsoever to the reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is one thing to receive him as a canonical bishop and quite another to speak to him as [being] a heterodox in order to reveal to him the truth of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition…
Dialogue is not a bad thing when it is carried out based on correct presuppositions. However, it is wrong to say to these people that we recognise them as a Church, that we recognise the Pope as a Bishop, as our brother in Christ in the priesthood and in [the] faith. I cannot accept this, because we are lying [when we say this], since all of the Holy Fathers teach exactly the opposite. Papism is a heresy and the source of many other heresies that trouble the entire world today. A contemporary Saint of the Church, St Justin Popović, said that there have been three tragic falls in the history of the human race:
• of the first-formed Adam
• of the disciple of Christ, Judas
• of the Pope, who, when he was the first Bishop of the Church, fell from the apostolic faith
[He] was cut off from the canonical Church, and he lured away a host of people with him. God is one and the Church of God is one, and that is why we say in the Symbol of Faith [that we believe] ‘in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’. This is the Orthodox Church, there do not exist many Churches…
When I say to the other that it doesn’t matter that you are Catholic and that we all belong to the same Church, I am playing with him [or mocking him], since all of the Holy Fathers teach that the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ is one…
The Orthodox Church preserves the faith of the Apostles and the experience of the prophets unshakeable up until our own days. The Papists, unfortunately, from the time when they were cut off from the Church, added many heretical dogmas to their [confession of] faith, changed the Symbol of Faith [the Nicene Creed], and, above all, elevated the Pope to the level of being the eminent and unique representative of God on earth…
When you add things to the Symbol of Faith that the Holy Fathers did not write, and many other false teachings, this is heresy. This is the reality of things…
******

Phileleftheros
How does the Orthodox Church encounter/deal with heretics?
Metropolitan Athanasios
With much love. We love the Pope, we love the papists just as we love every person; we do not despise them, we do not reject them as persons, but we do not accept [their] heresy, we do not accept the false teachings, we do not accept [their] delusions. Because we love them we must tell them the truth.
Phileleftheros
Do you think that dialogue can produce results?
Metropolitan Athanasios
It can, if we do it properly and base it on the right presuppositions. Unfortunately, as it is carried out today, it does not produce results, and that is why they have carried on discussions for so many years without coming to any conclusions.
Frankly, and above all, I disagree with the coming of the Pope to Cyprus, and I say with my whole soul that the Pope is a heretic, he is not a bishop, he is not an Orthodox Christian, and this is what the Holy Fathers say. If I am wrong, I am ready to be corrected, but based on the Holy Fathers, not based on the mindset of globalisation. Just because I disagree does not mean that I am being disorderly and am outside the Church [as some have claimed].
The Pope always speaks in a formal manner, he says things which are customary [to his position], as he will say now that he will come to Cyprus, but he will do nothing of essence, because he is not the leader of the Church, but a political person, who cannot come into conflict with the political establishment and system. Did the Pope ever speak up for the Orthodox Church? … However, I am not going back [to a distant past]. The reasons I am reacting today are purely theological. When I was consecrated a bishop, I pledged to preserve the Orthodox Faith.
Phileleftheros
The Pope said that he wants to make a pilgrimage following the footsteps of the Apostle Paul.
Metropolitan Athanasios
With the exception that the Apostle Paul didn’t travel using a bulletproof car which cost 500,000 euros (19.584 million Roubles 627,700 USD 433,364 UK Pounds), which, I read, the Cypriot government bought for the Pope to travel around Cyprus for the two days he will be here. I was personally quite scandalised by this news and said that a bulletproof car does not fit the Vicar of Christ. For the people to have to pay such a price in the midst of an economic crisis…
Phileleftheros
The announcement from the representatives of the Pope says that he is coming to Cyprus in order to promote human and Christian values and principles, and that he wants to walk in the steps of the Apostle Paul and in a spirit of the brotherhood meet the Orthodox Church with a good disposition.
Metropolitan Athanasios
I do not doubt his good will… may it be that this is the case. May it be that he resembles the Apostle Paul and that he encounters the riches of the Orthodox Church. We pray that he return to the Orthodox Church and becomes once again an Orthodox Bishop as he was before the schism. This alone is the proper path to unity.
Phileleftheros
What do you think is the hidden agenda?
Metropolitan Athanasios
The Vatican does not take steps thoughtlessly or naïvely. Every tour of each Pope has as its aim to present him as the worldwide leader of Christianity. At this point, however, he is neither a canonical Bishop, nor Orthodox, such that he is in no place to present himself as having the first place among bishops.
Phileleftheros
Are there hidden political interests at stake here?
Metropolitan Athanasios
I don’t know; I don’t think that we [the Cypriot people] have anything to gain politically from the visit of the Pope… only a lot of expenses and great upheaval in the consciences of the faithful.
Phileleftheros
The Archbishop said that all those who disagree would place themselves outside the Church.
Metropolitan Athanasios
I am not aware of the Archbishop’s statements, but I don’t think that whoever disagrees with the coming of the Pope places himself outside the Church. I disagree, I say it boldly and frankly, and I am not outside the Church.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
I quote Lumen Gentium and you find it disturbing.   It seems to me, after reading your many posts on the forum,  that there is a confusion in your own mind between the type of Catholicism which you would like to exist and the Catholicism which is expounded in magisterial documents.
Lument Gentium is not disturbing to me and I explained that its meaning is entirely reasoned and reasonable.  You aren't going to drag bottom to tell me that it means something other are you?:


When I asked him to be my spiritual father, he said that in order to truly lead me, I had to learn to follow and that means, he said to me:  

"When I tell you something, rather than looking at it and first telling me that it is impossible, stupid or just plain wrong, take a few weeks or months and think about it in terms of how it can be correct.  IF after a few weeks or months you can find absolutely NOTHING about it that is right in ANY way, come back to me and we'll talk about it.  But you MUST make a good faith effort of intellect and will to see how what I say is true."

Any spiritual father who does not say that to his child or children is not a father but a dupe.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Eadmer

Precentor of Canterbury and historian, born 1064 (?); died 1124 (?). Brought up at Christ Church ab infantiâ, he became after St. Anselm's consecration, in 1079, his intimate companion. After Anselm's death his chief occupation was writing. He had made notes of the saint's doings and discourses and of the affairs in which he had been engaged, and from these he compiled his chief works, the "Historia Novorum" and the Vita S. Anselmi" (ed. M. Rule, 1884, in Rolls Series). Eadmer's "Opuscula" comprise verses of Sts. Dunstan and Edward, the lives of Sts. Wilfrid, Odo, Dunstan, Oswald, Bregwin (printed in Wharton, Anglia Sancta). Of his theological works the most noteworthy is the "De conceptione Sanctae Mariae", a tract of much importance for the development of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (see Thurston's ed., Freiburg, 1904, and "The Month", July and August, 1904, for the discussion of the date of his death). In 1121 he was elected to the See of St. Andrews, but by refusing to be ordained except by the Archbishop of York, he put an insuperable bar to his own promotion.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Mardukm said:
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.
Lord willing, I'll review your quotes, if any, from St. Gregory to review this comparison.

Mardukm said:
  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).
Yes, we do not accept Unam Sanctam. I thought you claimed you did not either.
JLatimer said:
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.
Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.
Humbly,
Marduk
How is this not ex cathedra?
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins;...Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said:....For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Wow, Your Holiness, that's some really interesting scriptural interpretation there...

Freakin' scary
JLatimer said:
I guess that settles the anathematizing the pope thread. What's weird is that it implies the pope can err; it's just that you can't do anything about it if he does lol
I'm aware in your slightly different ecclesiology, your supreme pontiff is answerable to some vague church
Mardukm said:
militantsparrow said:
What would happen today if the Pope was determined to be a heretic?
According to St. Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, we would be bound as Catholics to oppose and correct him.
[/quote]
but you never tell us how that is possible-Interesting that you make too much out of the personal views of that theologian and saint (he's also interesting on Honorius and infallibility). The Vatican however has made its pope unanswerable to anyone but God. In the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Ortodox Church, yes, we all are responsible to keep her Faith as pure as we received it, from the catecumen to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

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.
We've tried that citing, papal bulls, "apostolic constitutions," the CCC, and other sources with your church's nihil obstat and imprematur.  But in return we mostly get your interpretation, without any authoritative source to back it up.
ialmisry said:
Mardukm said:
ialmisry said:
St. Bernard...Ditto...Ditto...
Like I said:
No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.
They simply pulled the rug under your claims of "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" even in the bosom of the Vatican.  What more is necessary?  Explaining that problem away doesn't prop it back up.  In particular as you still haven't shown how your novel slant on the IC, that it only involves the soul of the Theotokos, contradicting your MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, jives with your "ensoulment" excuse for the Latin opposition to the IC.
Mardukm said:
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.
We have already dealt with this:
ialmisry said:
The problem Marduk is that your modernist catechism (modernist in the sense that it is new, and in a different spirit from the thousand+ before) is contradicted by a whole paper trail of imprimature and nihil obstant, papal bulls, and other VATICAN SOURCES.

Many of us, unlike you, were raised and taught by the Vatican.  So we know first hand what the Vatican puts out for her followers.  Yes, she has mended her ways in many ways the last half century (also gone wayward in some ways too).  But we have over 10 centuries of experience with the Vatican, so let's just see how those new ways take.
I might be answering more posts here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30017.0.html
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
Indeed, this is contradictory. Concupiscence is a result of our absence of God within us and a product of our own desires and pride. How can all that is good be filled with a contradictory will to reject himself?
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Papist said:
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
What is your definition of concupiscence? I understand it as a tendency towards "a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience."

or this:

"concupiscence refers to what they [christians] understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Ortho_cat said:
Papist said:
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
What is your definition of concupiscence? I understand it as a tendency towards "a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience."

or this:

"concupiscence refers to what they [christians] understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence
Concupiscence resides in the gnomic will, which Christ did not assume, as it is the wound itself, as opposed to the natural will, which was assumed and healed.  Christ assumed the tissue, but not the cancer.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Ortho_cat said:
Papist said:
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
What is your definition of concupiscence? I understand it as a tendency towards "a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience."

or this:

"concupiscence refers to what they [christians] understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence
Concupiscence resides in the gnomic will, which Christ did not assume, as it is the wound itself, as opposed to the natural will, which was assumed and healed.  Christ assumed the tissue, but not the cancer.
Well stated Isa. We are actually in agreement for a change.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Ortho_cat said:
Papist said:
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
What is your definition of concupiscence? I understand it as a tendency towards "a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience."

or this:

"concupiscence refers to what they [christians] understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence
Concupiscence resides in the gnomic will, which Christ did not assume, as it is the wound itself, as opposed to the natural will, which was assumed and healed.  Christ assumed the tissue, but not the cancer.
Well stated Isa. We are actually in agreement for a change.
I was thinking the samething, but still ":eek:".
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Azurestone said:
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Ortho_cat said:
Papist said:
Ortho_cat said:
So according to Orthodox theology, Jesus had concupiscence, correct?

"What has not been assumed cannot be healed..."
How can one assume that which is the lack of something? It's like receiving a void.
What is your definition of concupiscence? I understand it as a tendency towards "a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience."

or this:

"concupiscence refers to what they [christians] understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence
Concupiscence resides in the gnomic will, which Christ did not assume, as it is the wound itself, as opposed to the natural will, which was assumed and healed.  Christ assumed the tissue, but not the cancer.
Well stated Isa. We are actually in agreement for a change.
I was thinking the samething, but still ":eek:".
It's not the first time
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28972.msg481528/topicseen.html#msg481528
I hope it won't be the last.
 
Top