Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

I haven’t been posting a whole lot in this thread, but …

There was no need to exempt Adam and Eve from Original Sin, since it didn’t yet exist when they were created. (I can’t really say “when they were conceived”.) Naturally, they were free of Original Sin, until they sinned.

Fair enough. What about the other guys? Why not Isaac? God favored Abraham, and they were old and barren like Joachim and Anna.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, in modern polemics against the IC some sounf fully pelagian.

Only if one misunderstands proper dyothelite teaching on human freedom (that is, the anthropology of St. Maximus the Confessor and the Sixth Ecumenical Council), and pushes a form of anti-pelagianism which is monothelitic and monophysitic in its anthropology.

But tradition testifies to a purification before the incarnation.

Both are found within the tradition.

 

[dvdjs]

Both are found within the tradition.

So we agree that tradition testifies to a purification before the incarnation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So we agree that tradition testifies to a purification before the incarnation.

No, the tradition speaks of many different theories, from Gregory Palamas speculating that the seed of Joachim was immaculate to the Cappadocians teaching that the Virgin was purified at the time Annunciation. The problem, however, is that we do not understand the idea of purity being mentioned in the same way you attempt to interpret it, that is to say, we do not interpret it as meaning that the stain of original sin (or deprivation of sanctifying grace, however you wish to put it) was washed away at the moment of conception (an oddly specific claim considering that it never appears in the commonly cited Eastern proof-texts). In fact, the idea of some effect of original sin (referencing here the stain of original sin), which is other than either death or the subsequent fracturing of the nous and the turning of the faculties of the nous away from God and towards material things (the passions, which come as a result of mortality), is absent from the theology of those who are often quoted in support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (such at St. Photius).

 

[GaryTaylor]

So I guess Noah was also immaculately concieved.
Genesis 6:8
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Noah wasn’t mentioned as Mother of the Lord.

Oh, did you even bother to read the entire Chapter 1 of Jeremiah to know that this verse refers to Jeremiah?

Its a good indication of just how little you read of what others post. I mentioned it when I posted it

I thought it was only Protestants who isolate verses from their context

No idea what your talking about apparently you have issues not only with Gods Incarnation but with Catholics and Protestants. Did you say your in agreement “now” that God is outside of time? Or is this another no response to which you assuredly can continue the foolishness on the next thread?

 

[GaryTaylor]

To say that Jesus couldn’t be in the womb of that ‘contaminated by sin’ is to deny the power of Grace

Good point, good path to avoid.

And correctly understanding Grace. Its not what God couldn’t do, its what man by large refuses to do, which is to cooperate with the Grace he exists alone by. And as we see from Genesis onward.

Its the same with Baptism and Communion. Grace is restored by Baptism and by Communion to the redemption of the Cross from which it is linked. We have a responsibility to maintain the virtue of Grace or it is lost. Either way with Baptism or Reconciliation

What can we say about Mary and Grace? We all have free-will to reject God. Course to say one cannot reject God is to suggest there is no free-will. When can we say Mary ever exercised her free-will to oppose Grace? It doesn’t exist from tradition.

I suppose one can suggest in the strictest sense of the words that Light and Dark and Good and evil are diametrically opposed, polar opposite. Yet we have seen evil take good hostage and good redeem. So there is interaction of the two in the soul no different than Dawn and Dusk. However, one becomes light or dark by cooperation in what cannot be obtained by any means but by the gift of Grace.

This Full of Grace with Mary. Which is unique in its Biblical understanding of the Greek language. We must concede this is un wavering cooperation with Gods Grace. We must also concede this is factual by Marys yes thus a renewed commitment to Marys Savior which then came through her cooperation/intersession our Savior.

We must also conclude intersession in prayer and belief is indeed factual.

What we cannot agree on is “when” the communion with Grace occurred with Mary. Its self evident at the Incarnation. Yet this doesn’t consider that God already knew the sequence of events which were to transpire. He knew of Judas, Peter. Paul. Jeremiah, and the Cross to come, etc. He knew of Adam and Eve, and He knew of Mary then also, for He created Her.

Thus its also a futile path to suggest what God could not do in regards to the law He established, in regards to the IC?

So to say, God “had” to be subjected to the judgment “He” imposed post fall. it is also to deny the power of Grace?

 

[jimmy]

Actually the idea is to affirm the power of Grace.

The Patristic sense was that the ark that contained the uncontainable, the human that gave birth to divine essence had to be pure. I suppose one could argue this point, but I am not sure why bother to haggle with the Fathers over this.

The IC says that this purification occurred through the power of grace.

It denies the power of Grace. If God can’t inhabit a sinful and contaminated person, neither can his Grace. Josie has imposed a rule that creates a gap between man and God, that is uncrossable from either side.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary inherited Original Sin like the rest of us. But she was more perfectly redeemed and saved at her conception.

Mary is full of grace and as such, in her humanity, she wills not to sin.

Just as the Lord was placed in the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Jerusalem, where only the High Priest could enter once a year, the Lord Jesus Christ was placed in the pure tabernacle of the womb of the Blessed Mother where there was no sin in which He was to be sustained in life.

Mary is especially formed by the Heavenly Father, chosen by Him to be the mother of Jesus, where Jesus received His humanity. How could He receive His humanity from a man? Then the Heavenly Father may as well created Him in a desert and have Him walk out to do His ministry.

But instead to demonstrate that Christ was truly the Son of God, Christ was to be born of Woman, the Woman chosen by God.

Mary was not conceived in two linear states – sin followed by grace.

Mary’s special nature was that she was simultaneously conceived and sanctified at her conception because she was chosen by the Heavenly Father and infused with grace.

 

[dvdjs]

It denies the power of Grace. If God can’t inhabit a sinful and contaminated person, neither can his Grace. Josie has imposed a rule that creates a gap between man and God, that is uncrossable from either side.

The idea was not what God is capable of, but what a human being could bear. The idea is to purify the ark so that she could bear God.

 

[dvdjs]

No, the tradition speaks of many different theories, from Gregory Palamas speculating that the seed of Joachim was immaculate to the Cappadocians teaching that the Virgin was purified at the time Annunciation. The problem, however, is that we do not understand the idea of purity being mentioned in the same way you attempt to interpret it, that is to say, we do not interpret it as meaning that the stain of original sin (or deprivation of sanctifying grace, however you wish to put it) was washed away at the moment of conception (an oddly specific claim considering that it never appears in the commonly cited Eastern proof-texts). In fact, the idea of some effect of original sin (referencing here the stain of original sin), which is other than either death or the subsequent fracturing of the nous and the turning of the faculties of the nous away from God and towards material things (the passions, which come as a result of mortality), is absent from the theology of those who are often quoted in support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (such at St. Photius).

Actually we agree on purification, but there is quibbling about the moment.

 

[CompSciGuy]

My point is that Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are not the same. Telling people that they are getting Orthodoxy in the Eastern Catholic Church is misleading them. You think you are preventing them from becoming Orthodox, but it is a more sure fire way that they become Orthodox. Because they go to the Eastern Catholic Church and find out what they are looking for is not there, so where else do they go to but the Orthodox Church.

By Orthodox, in contrast to Eastern Catholic, Orthodox can be defined by “lacking communion with the pope.” From my studies and experience, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic are virtually the same in practice and nearly the same in doctrine. When an Orthodox objects strongly to this statement, I find that when discussing it further with them they typically have a chip on their shoulder, or are stuck in the mud. Try not to forget that we were once all united.

A Catholic who has an appreciation for Eastern Christianity and its spirituality would benefit tremendously from attending an Eastern Catholic church. This is why it makes perfect sense for other members in the forum to point them to one.

 

[Mickey]

Mary inherited Original Sin like the rest of us. But she was more perfectly redeemed and saved at her conception.

More perfectly redeemed?

she wills not to sin.

Yes. She is the greatest ascetic…our great example.

 

[jimmy]

By Orthodox, in contrast to Eastern Catholic, Orthodox can be defined by “lacking communion with the pope.” From my studies and experience, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic are virtually the same in practice and nearly the same in doctrine. When an Orthodox objects strongly to this statement, I find that when discussing it further with them they typically have a chip on their shoulder, or are stuck in the mud. Try not to forget that we were once all united.

A Catholic who has an appreciation for Eastern Christianity and its spirituality would benefit tremendously from attending an Eastern Catholic church. This is why it makes perfect sense for other members in the forum to point them to one.

Eastern Catholics are caught between a rock and a hard place. They don’t know where they stand on half the issues because they are unsure what is expected of them. You ask one eastern Catholic what he thinks of the IC and he will tell you it is a dogma of the faith. Another might tell you it is a western idea that doesn’t make sense according to eastern ways of thinking, but it is true according to the roman approach. You ask a third, and he might openly reject it. Are we just Catholics who like incense or is there a legitimate basis for our traditions? Many Catholics view us as just an eccentric bunch who like incense and icons and other exotic and eccentric things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

By Orthodox, in contrast to Eastern Catholic, Orthodox can be defined by “lacking communion with the pope.” From my studies and experience, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic are virtually the same in practice and nearly the same in doctrine. When an Orthodox objects strongly to this statement, I find that when discussing it further with them they typically have a chip on their shoulder, or are stuck in the mud. Try not to forget that we were once all united.

A Catholic who has an appreciation for Eastern Christianity and its spirituality would benefit tremendously from attending an Eastern Catholic church. This is why it makes perfect sense for other members in the forum to point them to one.

People only accuse the Orthodox for having a chip on their shoulder because of their firm belief in their faith. It seems that people expect us to just roll over and accept anything others teach because they think they are right. Thats not how it works. Our refusal to accept such definition is from our firm belief on the truth. It is not about arrogance or whatever. Just because we don’t accept your definition, it doesn’t mean we’re crazy.

And no, ECs are not like the Orthodox. There is more to the faith than just the externals. I do not see how ECs and Orthodox have the same faith when the ECs believe in Pastor Aeternus, that the Filioque is okay, and all other things the RCs believe in that are contrary to what the Orthodox believe in. If the ECs believe that East and West are compatible, and the Orthodox don’t, how can they be believing in the same thing?

 

[dvdjs]

You ask one eastern Catholic what he thinks of the IC and he will tell you it is a dogma of the faith. Another might tell you it is a western idea that doesn’t make sense according to eastern ways of thinking, but it is true according to the roman approach. You ask a third, and he might openly reject it.

LOL. That is not really different that comparing Metropolitan Kallistos, versus Fr Romanides on the IC. Completely Orthodox. Moreover, I suspect that to most ECs, whose lives are rooted in practice rather than theologizing, such discussions are academic. And to most EOs, too.

 

[jimmy]

LOL. That is not really different that comparing Metropolitan Kallistos, versus Fr Romanides on the IC. Completely Orthodox. Moreover, I suspect that to most ECs, whose lives are rooted in practice rather than theologizing, such discussions are academic. And to most EOs, too.

So does that mean all three positions are perfectly legitimate within Catholicism?

 

[ConstantineTG]

LOL. That is not really different that comparing Metropolitan Kallistos, versus Fr Romanides on the IC. Completely Orthodox. Moreover, I suspect that to most ECs, whose lives are rooted in practice rather than theologizing, such discussions are academic. And to most EOs, too.

Before you start proclaiming that every word out of his mouth is true Orthodox doctrine, think again. I told you this already before, there is no concept of infallibility in Orthodoxy. No matter how good one theologian is, they can still make mistakes. Also, there is that possibility that you are just misinterpreting what he was saying and just took whatever suits you and assumed that is all he ever said. That is par for the course around this place.

 

[dvdjs]

So does that mean all three positions are perfectly legitimate within Catholicism?

No. Obviously, the Romanides fringe is out. But the overalp would still be very high.

 

[dvdjs]

Before you start proclaiming that every word out of his mouth is true Orthodox doctrine, think again. I told you this already before, there is no concept of infallibility in Orthodoxy. No matter how good one theologian is, they can still make mistakes. Also, there is that possibility that you are just misinterpreting what he was saying and just took whatever suits you and assumed that is all he ever said. That is par for the course around this place.

I made no such proclamation. However, he is an Orthodox Metropolitan and his views have not been called into question by his Synod. If you criticize the trueness of his Orthodoxy, on whatever basis, that is your prerogative.

 

[jimmy]

I never read romanides. I have a vague recollection that bishop Ware thought the IC was acceptable. I assume Romanides opposed it.