Dual Unity?

[Chaldean_Rite]

She was no more or less sinful at birth than you were.

:nope:
Wrong!!
:nope:

Go to Genesis 3:15, we read that the Lord (understood as the Father) tells the serpent “I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”. Here I am quoting from the RSV Catholic Edition. Other translations read “She shall crush your head you will bruise her heel”. The distinction between he (Jesus) and she (Mary) is of no consequence whatsoever due to the enmity between the woman the serpent (the devil). This is the only enmity that God establishes down the ages. This enmity is total, complete and fierce. Where the woman is, there can be no serpent, and where the serpent is, the woman is not.

If therefore, the serpent, the devil who is lie and the father of lie, who brought sin into the world, if he is in complete total and full opposition with the woman, it must be that the woman has ever had any dealing with him. If she did this enmity would not be completely established. Hence, one has to logically conclude that Mary was never under sin.

Since this prophetic message was given at the dawn of time, thousands and thousands of years before Mary was born, we conclude that Mary was in God’s mind from the beginning, and as so, when he created her, he fulfilled the prophecy He established in time by creating her spotless. Mary is therefore immaculately conceived.

---

“Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary,” ~ St.Irenaeus (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21).

 

[Nicholas82]

Ha, this shows you don’t even understand what *contra_ception *is!

Ha!
con·tra·cep·tion –noun. the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

One only goes through the trouble of planning and charting so as to have sex when one is least likely to concieve in hopes of having intercourse that does not result in pregnancy. Seems like a “technique” to me. That’s just fine though because techniques like the rhythm method are “open” to the possibility of life? Inasmuch as one practices techniques like the rhythm method in hopes of having one’s cake and eating it too, knowing they are not foolproof, I would go so far as to say people using condoms and birth controll generally know that these methods of dodging conception are not fool proof either. So basically the greater the chance of unhoped-for conception the holier?

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I don’t know of any beliefs taught by Holy Orthodoxy which are condemned by the Papacy, not one.

Yes, but what about Catholic beleifs whic are condemened by the orthodox… There are quite a few.

None of the things taught by the Orthodox church are actually alien to your own church.

All one need do to see that is pick up any Byzantine Catholic catechism. The entire catalog of Orthodox beliefs will be found there, including the so-called “Palamite” theology.

I know. That is not the problem. The Catholic Church does not deny the beliefs or practiced of Eastern Christians. The problem is many Eastern Christians deny the beleifs and practices of Western Christians.

And they pray the same prayers in the liturgy, even holding the same notion of how sacraments function! (For instance, they teach that the priest is the sacramental minister of marriage, not the couple.) Ah…but what kind of unity? Would you know it when you saw it?

Would you like it? I am convinced that when Orthodox speak of church unity it does not match what Papal Catholics think of when they speak of church unity.

So we can all be for church unity, but what is that really?

Personally, my opinion is thus: were i pope, i would call a meeting of the ancient Heptarchy (plus Moscow) to discuss the future and the possibility of reunion. I would like to see the Eastern Churches re-unified with Rome along pretty mucht he same lines as the Eastern Catholic churches were. And i would like very much to make the Patriarchs ( or archbishops, or whatever the title of the prelate is in each church) of the Easter Churches Cardinals, permanently. Thats is my ideal model of reunification. But it probably won’t happen. So, in the mean time, i trust that the Holy Spirit is working in the best way towards the best end.

 

[Nicholas82]

If therefore, the serpent, the devil who is lie and the father of lie, who brought sin into the world, if he is in complete total and full opposition with the woman, it must be that the woman has ever had any dealing with him. If she did this enmity would not be completely established. Hence, one has to logically conclude that Mary was never under sin.QUOTE]

First off this statement “…it must be that the woman has ever had any dealing with him. If she did this enmity would not be completely established.” doesn’t hold up. There can certainly be enmity between myself and persons that I have had dealings with. In fact, this is often where any feelings of enmity I have ever had have come from, through dealings with another. So were my feelings of enmity not therefore “completely established”? That seems quite like a matter of opinion. So your logical proof is shot right there.

That is not to say that the Virgin Mary ever logically therefore had any ‘dealings’ with Satan, just that your conclusion doesn’t logically hold up.

Furthermore, what does “under sin” mean? I know I can committ a sin, but what exactly puts me “under sin”? Maybe I could be considered to be “under sin” in that I bear the consequences of Adam’s sin, namely death and a propensity toward sin as well as good, but that’s not a personal sin. I could also have rejected sin and remained spotless all my life, as did the Virgin Mary. Unfortunately I did not live up to her shining example. To say that the Blessed Virgin could not have sinned would be to make her divine. She was a human being, she could have sinned, however she did not. As human beings we suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but that does not make us therefor guilty of a personal sin. If Adam’s sin is not a personal sin, but a sin for which we simply experience the consequences thereof, there is no need for the Blessed Virgin to be born without original sin, as simply experiencing the consequences of Adam’s sin makes her no less pure, and not in need of being born “without” or “not under” anything. Adam’s sin is something we experience the effects of, not something we are born with or guilty of.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, but what about Catholic beleifs whic are condemened by the orthodox… There are quite a few.

Not too many, but they are very serious.

In any case Holy Orthodoxy does not teach any heresy, it has added nothing. If this theology was good enough to save souls in the year 1000AD, it was also good enough to save souls in the year 1100AD and good enough for us today.

I know. That is not the problem. The Catholic Church does not deny the beliefs or practiced of Eastern Christians. The problem is many Eastern Christians deny the beleifs and practices of Western Christians.

Yes, some of them. That is your problem, and that is why the major thrust of every proposal from the west and dialog with Orthodox is to try and get the Orthodox to accept Latin theological constructs.

Orthodox are not going for it. Your church invented them, and only your church can correct the problem. Orthodox cannot do anything but wait, we are not going to try and take over your church by force or anything like that…we will just wait and pray.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Not too many, but they are very serious.

In any case Holy Orthodoxy does not teach any heresy, it has added nothing. If this theology was good enough to save souls in the year 1000AD, it was also good enough to save souls in the year 1100AD and good enough for us today.

Roman Catholicism does not wholly disagree with you. The Orthodox Churches are not viewed as being heretical, they are viewed as being schismatic. The are completely valid churches with valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession. And Eastern Catholics continue the exact same beleifs and practices as the eastern orthodox, with the addition that they are in communion with the Pope, therefore healing the schism

These eastern catholics understand that Roman Catholicism has not added anything to the faith, either. Yes, your understanding of some aspects of our Catholic faith has deepened, leading to newer and richer forms of celebrating it, but we have not added any dogma which was not believed by the early fathers of the church, from far, far, before the Great Schism, as their many writings prove.

What “additions” are you accusing the Roman Church of, because I believe I can address them and deomnstrate that they are not, in fact, additions if you would give me the chance (perhaps a PM if it would distract too much from the original topic).

Yes, some of them. That is your problem, and that is why the major thrust of every proposal from the west and dialog with Orthodox is to try and get the Orthodox to accept Latin theological constructs.

No, it is a problem for all of us, because for an entire millenium, Christs One True Church has been in schism.

Furthermore, i do not believe Latin theological constructs need to be “accepted” so much as understood. The Schism was partially caused and has so long endured because of a failure to communicate and understand. Our churches have finally begun communication, and the fruits are evident.

Orthodox are not going for it. Your church invented them, and only your church can correct the problem. Orthodox cannot do anything but wait, we are not going to try and take over your church by force or anything like that…we will just wait and pray.

This, i feel, is a horrible way to approach the problem. The Great Schism was not the fault of one church or the other; it was the result of a horrible mixture of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and the mixing of secular politics with Church authority. Byzantine politics played a major part in the Schism; without the political aspects, the churches may have been able to handle the other differences of practice (as they had been doing for the many many years that such differences existed, without major schism, before 1054). Both Catholic and Orthodox need to understand that neither Church caused or perpetrated the schism, but rather that both churches were the victims of a highly unfortunate cultural and political mess, which we CAN and, by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, will overcome.

 

[Hesychios]

… Your church invented them, and only your church can correct the problem. Orthodox cannot do anything but wait, we are not going to try and take over your church by force or anything like that…we will just wait and pray.

Let me make my position perfectly clear.

I know that there was a lot of miscommunication and confusion a long time ago, like you say an “unfortunate cultural and political mess, which we CAN and, by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, will overcome.” and we are all responsible in one way or another.

But that is the past.

If the Latin Catholic church could return to the theology it taught way back in 1054AD we probably would be very close to reconciled by now. Your church has added formal dogmas since then, and is very proud of that. It is also very proud of the ability to add more, and excited about the possibility of adding more particular dogmatic pronouncements, one seems to be in the pipeline right now with plenty of noise being made over it.

So I say again "Your church invented them, and only your church can correct the problem. "

Sorry if you don’t like it. That is the Orthodox position and you deserve to hear it straight, no offense intended whatever.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Let me make my position perfectly clear.

I know that there was a lot of miscommunication and confusion a long time ago, like you say an “unfortunate cultural and political mess, which we CAN and, by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, will overcome.” and we are all responsible in one way or another.

Good. I’m glad we can agree and approach this from the same starting point.

If the Latin Catholic church could return to the theology it taught way back in 1054AD we probably would be very close to reconciled by now. Your church has added formal dogmas since then, and is very proud of that. It is also very proud of the ability to add more, and excited about the possibility of adding more particular dogmatic pronouncements, one seems to be in the pipeline right now with plenty of noise being made over it.

When you make accusations such as that, you should be specific. You lack of specificity damages your argument. It also is rather insulting to the Catholic faith, because we do not believe at all that we have added anything to the faith. Also, we strongly believe that it is impossible for us to add anything to the faith. The Original deposit of faith, given to the apostles, continues, unchanged and unblemished, through their successor bishops in the Catholic Church, just as it does in the Orthodox Church.

Your accusation that we have “added” dogma since then falls vicitm to the same misunderstanding that most protestants labor under: that proclaiming dogma means proclaiming new dogma. That is not at all true. Let us look at the Assumption of Mary, a recent dogmatic proclamation, and one which has caused some tension with the Orthodox Church. Just because it was proclaimed recently does not mean it was “added.” In fact, the Assumption of Mary was always held to be true, and was part of our tradition. It was only necessary for it to be proclaimed as dogma when certain groups of heretics began to challenge it. Throughout history, dogmas have only been declared ( and councils called) when they NEEDED to be because they were being challenegd. Up utntil that point they did not neet to be formally declared because everyone accepted them.

As i said before, please list some specific dogmas you believe we added, and i will prove, using the writings of early fathers of the Church, many of them eastern, that such beliefs were indeed held by the early, united Church.

We have added nothing.

Sorry if you don’t like it. That is the Catholic position and you deserve to hear it straight.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Belgian,

We have added nothing.

Sorry if you don’t like it. That is the Catholic position and you deserve to hear it straight.

Theological opinion does not a dogma make, sorry, it does not work for us. If you want to learn more about Holy Orthodoxy and what we think of your theological assertions you can go to the library of your choice and start reading.

I am not really interested in discussing this subject in the manner of debate with you here, as you must know much ink has already been spilled on the subject. If you want to run in circles over this subject I am not the man for you, go check into another forum and start a thread.

I stated the Orthodox position to make it clear to you and any other interested parties who may read this thread. The Orthodox position is not up for debate, I cannot change it and neither can you. You can address it as it stands or deny it as you please, but it’s not going away. You will eventually have to deal with that reality.

Pax et Bonum
Michael

 

[bobzills]

Sorry if you don’t like it. That is the Orthodox position and you deserve to hear it straight, no offense intended whatever.

Sorry if you don’t like it. That is the Catholic position and you deserve to hear it straight.

I seem to be hearing an echo?
It does sometimes appear like the two Churches are pretty far apart, but then when we hear a report about a possible dual unity, we end up scratching our heads and asking ourselves as to how this would be accomplished? Perhaps an application of a theological uncertainty principle would be in order?

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I seem to be hearing an echo?

Yes, indeed. I was sarcastically repeating his words to show that i don’t take well to his mocking and derision.

Hello Belgian,
Theological opinion does not a dogma make, sorry, it does not work for us. If you want to learn more about Holy Orthodoxy and what we think of your theological assertions you can go to the library of your choice and start reading.

I don’t take kindly at all to your veiled assertion that I am stupid. And dont even try to come back and insist you didn’t mean that. Your dissmisiveness of my intelligence is insulting. I know a great deal about Orthodoxy. How could i, a traditional catholic, not? We share half of our history and traditions, and share the same faith, even though you seemed to be closed off to our attempts to explain it. I have attended Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox Church, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and have spoken with the priest there about the issues of Catholic-Orthodox reunion.

I am not really interested in discussing this subject in the manner of debate with you here, as you must know much ink has already been spilled on the subject. If you want to run in circles over this subject I am not the man for you, go check into another forum and start a thread.

If you do not wish to discuss it, then fine. I have invited you to PM me if you woudl rather do it that way. And i have to say, its not really a debate since you continually refuse to list any specifics you have issues with, instead preferring to spew generalizations, as if you actually couldnt find something to complain about despite all of your posturing. I should only hope that here, on a catholic forum, you would be more polite to us, who are supposed to be your brothers in faith.

I stated the Orthodox position to make it clear to you and any other interested parties who may read this thread. The Orthodox position is not up for debate, I cannot change it and neither can you. You can address it as it stands or deny it as you please, but it’s not going away. You will eventually have to deal with that reality.
Michael

And likewise i stated the Catholic position, which will not change, and never has. You will have to deal with that, also. I am not attempting to debate any tenet of the Orthodox faith with you. I do not believe it needs debating; I, and the Catholic Church, accept the Orthodox faith. It is not us who will have to “deal with” orthodox beliefs, or who will have to accomodate you. We hare more than willing to accomodate the Orthodox Church. Unlike you, who expects the Roman Church to come crawling back to the orthodox communion, tail between its legs, begging for forgiveness. We know without a doubt that we have no reason to do that. And we do not ask that of you. You can ask any of your Eastern Catholic brothers if you do not believe me. We are not looking you to lose your faith. We are merely asking the Orthodox to stop belittling ours. After that, there is little problem.

Good day.

 

[bobzills]

And likewise i stated the Catholic position, which will not change, and never has.

The problem here is that the EO say that Catholics have added to what was taught in 1054, whereas Catholics say that they have not. However, consider just one item in discussion, which is the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. Is it true that St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception as it is taught today?

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, indeed. I was sarcastically repeating his words to show that i don’t take well to his mocking and derision.

I do not mock you.

I don’t take kindly at all to your veiled assertion that I am stupid.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I do invite you and all others who read this to do any independent research you may wish, from any reputable source of your own choosing. Don’t take my word for it.

If you do not wish to discuss it, then fine.

My purpose was to clearly lay out the Orthodox position, I have done that. Like I said, it is not up for debate. If you want to debate these things there are other places for that, someone will take you up on it, I feel certain.

Unlike you, who expects the Roman Church to come crawling back to the orthodox communion, tail between its legs, begging for forgiveness.

I never said that. I don’t know who did.

You can ask any of your Eastern Catholic brothers if you do not believe me. We are not looking you to lose your faith. We are merely asking the Orthodox to stop belittling ours. After that, there is little problem.

Good day.

I do not belittle anything, I simply lay out the Orthodox position on Latin Catholic theological additions since the Great East-West schism. To tie this back into the main focus of this thread, that is the specific reason why Eastern Catholics are not usually free to commune in Holy Orthodoxy, because they accept the Latin theological constructs and/or commune Latin Catholics. Orthodoxy doesn’t really have a problem with the core theology of Byzantine-rite Catholics, their native spirituality nor their understanding of the sacraments. It’s all about the Latin theology they have become accommodated with in one way or another. I am sorry that it hurts your feelings, that was not my intent.

If such a scheme as dual communion for Byzantine rite Catholics of some Particular Churches were to be attempted, these thorny issues will need to be addressed, you might as well accept the fact that this is how Holy Orthodoxy sees these issues, even if you disagree.

It is what it is, I cannot do anything about that.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

The problem here is that the EO say that Catholics have added to what was taught in 1054, whereas Catholics say that they have not. However, consider just one item in discussion, which is the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. Is it true that St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception as it is taught today?

St. Thomas Aquinas believed:

1. as the Catholic Church, that the grace of the Immaculate Conception applied to the SOUL of the Virgin Mary - i.e., the spiritual conception of Mary was Immaculate;
2. that the physical conception of Mary was NOT Immaculate.
3. that the physical conception of Mary temporally occurred BEFORE her spiritual conception.
4. that when the spiritual conception occurred, it purified her physical form.

During St, Thomas Aquinas’ time, the Church thought that the physical and spiritual conceptions occurred as two separate instances, distinct in time, the physical conception occuring first.

Today (and for about two centuries), the Catholic Church understands that the spiritual and physical conceptions of a person, though distinguishable, occur SIMULTANEOUSLY.

There is little difference between St. Thomas’ belief and the dogma of the IC. The difference between them is not one of dogmatic import - i.e., WHEN the two distinct conceptions occur in relation to each other.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[invocation]

before we go very far off track from the original topic, has anyone been able to confirm that the Patriarch actually said this? i would settle for a transcript of the interview.

the statement seems out of keeping with what he has said before, doesn’t it?

all i can find so far is one news report on 16 june that has spread across the internet and through the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox communities like wildfire.

But did it really happen? We are a wk along now and i have seen no confirmation (on the other hand, there have been no statements of outraged denial from the Patriarch either…)

 

[invocation]

well i see we aren’t bursting forth with sources…and i still haven’t found any explicit confirmation either…

ran across this today though, in which the Patriarch does say some things that at least sound consistent with the earlier supposed-statements, even if this speech doesn’t go as far. notice that it took place in a focolari context. i wonder if that was the context in which the earlier statements took place as well?

asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12591&size=A

“Reflecting, I ask myself”, Bartholomew continued, “where we have come from and how far we have come now. And I tell you, we do not have the right to stop or to turn back. Benedict’s visit to Constantinople built a bridge between the two worlds, and our meeting in Naples again confirmed the importance of this bridge. We are preparing to go to Rome to celebrate together the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, but even more important will be our meeting in October in Rome, to speak together at the synod of bishops. We must move forward toward our one Lord, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit”.

in the peace of Christ.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**St. Thomas Aquinas believed:

1. as the Catholic Church, that the grace of the Immaculate Conception applied to the SOUL of the Virgin Mary - i.e., the spiritual conception of Mary was Immaculate;
2. that the physical conception of Mary was NOT Immaculate.
3. that the physical conception of Mary temporally occurred BEFORE her spiritual conception.
4. that when the spiritual conception occurred, it purified her physical form.**

**One thing that needs to be made clear. “Immaculate Conception” is NOT the same thing as “Virgin Birth,” though a lot of uneducated people (mostly pop-evangelical polemicists) confuse them.

No one in the West or East ever taught that the physical body of the Virgin Mary was formed other than by the laws of nature.

Indeed, there is a Byzantine Icon showing Ss Joachim and Anna kissing beside a bed, with an empty cradle in the corner of their room.**

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I do invite you and all others who read this to do any independent research you may wish, from any reputable source of your own choosing. Don’t take my word for it. My purpose was to clearly lay out the Orthodox position, I have done that. Like I said, it is not up for debate. If you want to debate these things there are other places for that, someone will take you up on it, I feel certain.

I don’t feel that you did clearly explain your position. What I would like from you, either through your own explanation or through a provided link or book of some sort, is an explanation of how Catholic “additions” differ from the faith of the Eastern Orthodox.

We Catholics truly believe that we have not added anything to the deposit of faith. You must understand that when speaking with us. We believe that there is NO conflict between the dogma of the Assumption of Mary and the Dormition of the Theotokos. We believe, as the Orthodox often say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we just have a different way of putting it left over from our attempt to fight the Arian heresy of the barbarian invaled of the Western Roman Empire. We also have a deep respect for the rites and cultures of the East, demonstrated by the presence of our Eastern Catholic Churches today, our shared iconographic heritage (remember it was the Pope of Rome who defended iconography against the iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine Emporer and his Patriarch of Constantinople). We believe the Orthodox to be guilty of no heresy; we are merely out of full communion.

Please, explain to me how these “additions” we have made are contary to the original faith. I believe that at a Roman Catholic forum, the burden of proof is, reasonably, on you.**

 

[Hesychios]

before we go very far off track from the original topic, has anyone been able to confirm that the Patriarch actually said this? i would settle for a transcript of the interview.

the statement seems out of keeping with what he has said before, doesn’t it?

all i can find so far is one news report on 16 june that has spread across the internet and through the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox communities like wildfire.

But did it really happen? We are a wk along now and i have seen no confirmation (on the other hand, there have been no statements of outraged denial from the Patriarch either…)

REPLY

PRESS RELEASE

With respect to the recently published articles reporting that allegedly His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes that it is possible for the Greek Catholics (Uniates) to have a “double union”, in other words, full communion with Rome as well as with Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate refutes this inaccurate statement and affirms it was never made. The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.

At the Patriarchate, the 5th of July 2008
From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod

Официальное Заявление

Относительно недавних публикаций о том, что, якобы, Его Всесвятейшество Вселенский Патриарх г.г. Варфоломей считает возможным «двойное единство» так называемых греко-католиков (униатов), т.е. их полное общение, как с Римом, так и с Константинополем, Вселенская Патриархия опровергает их, так как это недостоверно и никогда не было высказано, и повторяет свою позицию о том, что полное единство в вере является предпосылкой для таинственного общения.

В Патриархии, 5-ого июля 2008
Секретариат Святого и Священного Синода

http://www.ec-patr.org/img/barth.jpg

 

[bobzills]

The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.

This seems to be the RC position also, since Cardinal Ratzinger turned down the Zoghby initiative.
Of course we have a general idea, but it is not made precisely clear what is meant by full union in faith.I recall a case where a Greek Catholic parish went over completely to Eastern Orthodoxy, and there didn;t seem to be much trouble in accomplishing this.