N
Nine_Two
Guest
Then shall we declare this behind us and declare peace?
Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I never said anything contrary to that. Infact I wrote about such miracles in our church. It is the looking for signs that is the issue, not the existence of them.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Great, and thats all well and fine. Not Biblical, how one “thinks” is irrelevant. Where does the East see it this way, Canon? Bible? ECFs?
Actual Sin has nothing to do with anything, its never stops. “We confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” Per Trent, Bible, and History.
And in the West we use ROMANs. theology is based on Bible St Paul. - “As by one mans sin entered the world and death by sin” This continues through TRENT till today.
Where is you theory is the Bible?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The tradition is already in this thread, so yea you would be wrong. The Commemoration of Mary dates to 5-AD or “mneme” Greek which is the festival in Her honor, then to Italy and Poland then to English Church with the IC feast etc. Its above.
Patristic Quotes? Please spare us the rhetoric, thats what we are looking for with the EO theology of Adams Sin, do you have one? Post 184 suggests otherwise and does St Paul in the Bible then or couse St Irenaeus further elaborates on St Paul.
Don’t need to supply Patristic support to anything “you” do since there is absolutely none on this entire thread to support the view of Othrodox Ancestrial Sin, I hear its in Canon I would like to read can you supply them? All I’ve heard is loosey goosey analogys which connect to absolutely nothing Patristic, Biblical, Ecumenical or Traditional except your Church.
Thats seems to be the point we are at.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Those are not my theories, but the teaching of the Church Fathers from the early Church and passed on to the monks and bishops and priests and theologians of contemporary times until today. Eastern theology is also heavily based on St. Paul’s writings, as well as everything else we find in the New Testament.
I laid out the different views of East and West not to say one is right and the other is wrong. I am showing the difference in understanding so you and others would know where the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are coming from. Especially the Eastern Catholics like myself, we never see the differences as contradictory, but rather complimentary. I don’t know what your tirade is all about and why you all of a sudden got so defensive about what I said. What is wrong in what I said?
D
dcointin
Guest
Gary - I was asking questions, not making statements. You really need to reel in the attacks and focus on the issues.The tradition is already in this thread, so yea you would be wrong. The Commemoration of Mary dates to 5-AD or “mneme” Greek which is the festival in Her honor, then to Italy and Poland then to English Church with the IC feast etc. Its above.
Patristic Quotes? Please spare us the rhetoric, thats what we are looking for with the EO theology of Adams Sin, do you have one? Post 184 suggests otherwise and does St Paul in the Bible then or couse St Irenaeus further elaborates on St Paul.
Don’t need to supply Patristic support to anything “you” do since there is absolutely none on this entire thread to support the view of Othrodox Ancestrial Sin, I hear its in Canon I would like to read can you supply them? All I’ve heard is loosey goosey analogys which connect to absolutely nothing Patristic, Biblical, Ecumenical or Traditional except your Church.
Thats seems to be the point we are at.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
I thought these questions were answered on post #172 so why are we still aguing
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Is this binding on all believers to believe as doctrine?
.
This has nothing to do with the definition of the Assumption, nor does it conflict with the doctrine of the assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven. This Dormition is not binding on all the faithful. The belief that Mary is in heaven body, and soul is binding on all believers. Our liturgies confirm this tradition practiced by All the Catholic Faithful.
The assumption of Mary into heaven is a biblical revelation and was believed in long before the incarnation. The following scriptures attest to Mary’s fiat that surpasses the faith of Enoch and Elijah dare I say Moses also.
Hebrews 11: 5 By faith **Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and “he was found no more because God had taken him.” Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. **
2Kings 1: 1** When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind**, he and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. 9 When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask for whatever I may do for you, before I am taken from you.” Elisha answered, “May I receive a double portion of your spirit.” 10 “You have asked something that is not easy,” he replied. **“Still, if you see me taken up from you, your wish will be granted; otherwise not.” 11 As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. **
Dirt is older than any of these. That does not matter. What matters is what is practiced by tradition and what is believed in faith from what is binding on all believers, which sacred scripture reveals and teaches.
Sure first century author John the revelator reveals Mary in heaven body and soul crowned with 12 stars. Revelation 12:1
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Wow, that is a very Protestant-like Roman Catholic approach.
Protestant: “If it isn’t in the Bible, we won’t believe it”
Roman Catholic: “If it isn’t defined de fide, we won’t believe it”
Earlier in this thread you are defending apparitions which are not binding as doctrine, yet you defend it and adhere to it. So if this is not doctrinal, you won’t believe it? Can you remind me again what are the 3 pillars of Catholic faith? Because it seems you adhere to at least one of them (Magisterium) and quite possibly the other as I’ve seen you quote passages from the Bible (Scripture) but what is that one thing you seem to be dismissing here?
This has nothing to do with the definition of the Assumption, nor does it conflict with the doctrine of the assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven. This Dormition is not binding on all the faithful. The belief that Mary is in heaven body, and soul is binding on all believers. Our liturgies confirm this tradition practiced by All the Catholic Faithful.
You’re trying to make a connection where there are none. Look, I believe that the Theotokos is assumed into heaven body and soul, but I will admit it a stretch to compare that to Enoch and Elijah. Those verses you quote say nothing about Mary. You can make that same conjecture on any other person in history if you wish.
You are right, what matters is what is practiced by tradition. And the oldest tradition is that of the Dormition.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Wrong, the Catholic Church defines apostolic doctrine to be binding on all believers. We are at liberty to have devotions, pilgrimage, believing in Church approved apparations both biblical recorded and historically revealed.
I wish you Orthodox quit misrepresenting my Catholic faith. What you mistakenly state “we won’t believe” is far from the Truth. Our devotions and prayer life attest to them. You have totally missed what a Roman Catholic believes to be binding and what is not binding.
Would it be accurate to call your mistaken assumption to be a known practice of protestantism which alludes to falsifying what Roman Catholic believes?
I have not revealed here what I believe as far as apparitions and what is binding. What I have been correcting Orthodoxy from, is the misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine compared to what is worthy of belief.
What the Church “labels” as worthy of belief, the Church does not bind all believers too. What is apostolic doctrine, to be in good standing with the Church, one accepts these revealed teachings in faith.
Apparently you confused the two of what is doctrine and what is worthy of belief. What is worthy of belief is not binding on the faithful.
Remember doctrine that is binding on the faithful protects the faithful from entering heresy or error. What is worthy of belief does not carry with it the weight of the Church binding and loosing of doctrine.
I was comparing Mary’s faith from her fiat which exceeds the faith of Enoch’s, Elijahs and Moses faith. Yet by their faith, it is attested that the assumption of Enoch and Elijah into heaven is biblical a revelation. The Assumption of Mary into heaven is not something new that believers never believed in. The Assumption is a biblical revelation that God has done for Enoch and Elija.
Thus the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary into heaven body and soul, is not something new that God has already revealed before Mary’s assumption. And if God can assume Enoch and Elijah from their faith, how much more can God do for His Mother when Mary’s faith exceeds that of Enoch and Elijah?
Correction the oldest Tradition practiced in Catholic history is the Liturgy never Dormition. The Catholic liturgy places the blessed Virgin Mary in heaven body and soul. The doctrine of the Assumption confirms this Sacred Tradition practiced from the Catholic Liturgies long before the Word Dormition was invented.
Besides I have not revealed here whether or not I believe Mary died a mortal death or not. Whether I do or don’t never places my faith in doubt, nor contradicts our Sacred Tradition, and the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which keeps me in good standing with my Catholic faith. Because how Mary’s passing from this life into heaven, is never defined definitively as binding upon all believers.
We are liberty to speculate and or accept known Catholic “opinions”. The same holds true as to St.Joseph station in life and the parents of Mary etc…
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And I’m asking questions also, an the issue’s are the focus. However…
If we are to assume the counter arguement is correct, which is “all mankind” including St Mary is born without sin, which we again seem to have turned to. Then another set of issues arrise.
Then St Mary needed Christ as Redeemer more than anyone, not on account of the sin that was present from Adam then, but the sin that would have been present if Her Son had not preserved Her through Grace from the preservation of actual sin.
What nature had not given to Her then, the GRACE of God had to accomplished in Her, there can be no doubt through this theology. It was in Her case then, that Her restoration by Grace was not an act to supply what had been lost, but then an act of increasing what St Mary already had, which is Grace…in fact Full of Grace. For no matter how we view this, Sin had to enter the equation, be it actual or original. So its one of two ways with Sin in this fallen world.
Of couse this would be IMHO in account of whats being descibed in Eastern Theory here. For there can be no doubt we all were not in the same state of Grace as St Mary. So we must conclude Grace by God is bestowed at some point upon St Mary thus Full of Grace and the Annunciation/Incarnation.
Even at this point then Bl. Duns Scotus postion comes even more relevant in Eastern thinking. For here would be the breakdown then.
1] St Mary is Immaculately Conceived.[which IMHO seems the most fitting]
2] St Mary would have been preserved within the instant of Her conception of Her Son Jesus Christ.
3] Or last but not least St Mary could have been preserved at some point inbetween the actual Incarnation/Conception of St Mary.
But to me whats obvious regardless isn’t how we view “Original Sin” is then, actual sin, at the point of consciousness in the fallen world thus the redemption by Christ. For we can’t dismiss the fact St Mary wasn’t Baptised, for they followed the Jewish Laws, thus Baptism bought into action by St Elisabeths Son, John the Baptist with water then Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit isn’t in the equation. Thus still here is Full of Grace, Annunciation/Incarnation.
Thus actual sin either existed in Her or it didn’t, but from logic it stands to reason that St Mary could not and was not in any state of sin at Christs birth. In fact I don’t believe its possible by the hypostatic union/Incarnation,m or does any teaching in Apostolic Church history coincide with this. [which is why I asked for the Eastern Teaching]
Thus the “why” to the questions I ask. For it seems through logic and reason another set of issues arrise no matter how we view Original/Ancestrial Sin.
D
dcointin
Guest
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a mortal source … So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal questions and answers, 6).
“Human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin … Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions” (On Romans 5.18).
“Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a mortal source … So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal questions and answers, 6).
“Human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin … Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions” (On Romans 5.18).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds Catholic to me, or early Apostolic Church with respect to however its viewed. Obviously different posters here have a different theological point of view to this. Do all the EO churchs adhere to this or hows that work?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
,
Ditto here;
From reading all the other conflicting views on the first Adams original sin, this one agrees with my Catholic understanding.
D
dcointin
Guest
Absolutely. I chose these quotations because it demonstrates two things. One, that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, and two, that we inherit corruption of our nature. I completely agree with Catholics that original sin consists of the following:
- loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
- corruption of our nature, not a total depravity as in some protestant churches, but a corruption of our free will and inclination toward sin
- suffering, disease, and ultimately death
Would you agree with this so far?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Wrong? Its you who is acting that way. Or is it if it fits your argument, then it doesn’t need to be dogmatized. But if its against your point then its dismissed as not having been dogmatized.
Lets have a mature discussion here. Let us discuss the topic on hand rather than your trying to win an argument. My understanding is the goal here is mutual understanding of what the other side believes. It seems that your goal is to win an argument, rather than to learn and discuss.
I never said all Roman Catholics believe that way, I just said you did.
And I’m not “you Orthodox”. I am Ukrainian Catholic.
Oh and by the way, I was a Roman Catholic for 33 years and a Catechist at that. I know what Roman Catholics believe. And by your arguments, its not what and how Roman Catholics believe. I am not calling out Roman Catholicism in general here, I’m call you out personally for misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.
Well you did support the apparitions, yet dismiss the Tomb of Mary as something not “de fide”. Apparitions are not “de fide”, so how do you choose which one to believe and which one not to believe?
There is something called “Lex orandi, Lex credendi”. Don’t forget that the Dormition is a Great Feast in the East and has been professed as part of the faith through the Propers of the Liturgies of the Feast (Vespers, Matins, Divine Liturgy). Therefore it is what the Church believes. It is not something we read in our spare time and go onto internet forums and claim we believe without basis. We don’t make this stuff up or randomly look at some teachings in the past and them make it into something it is not. We pray in our Liturgies that Mary died, resurrected by Christ, and is assumed into heaven. It is not the way of the East to dogmatize things the way the West has done, but lacking canonical documents does not make our profession of faith any less. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Our law of prayer in our Liturgies is our law of faith, therefore through the Tropars we profess conclusively that this is our belief. And this is not outside of the Catholic Church, this is what the Eastern Catholics, at least those of the Byzantine Rite, profess as well together with the Eastern Orthodox.
As I stated above, it is binding to the faithful because or lex orandi, lex credendi. Otherwise, do you think our Liturgy is just a lie?
Its not about something new or old, but what Mary really is in our lives and in our faith. Enoch and Elijah was never meant to be what the people on earth were expecting in their lives. Especially Elijah, he was always set apart as someone special, they were expecting him to come back and proclaim the Messiah. Mary is someone given to us not to be someone different from us, but someone who we should follow as our model. This is why we see nothing different in Mary’s conception, and that while her death is not the violent death we will all experience, she nevertheless died and then was resurrected, because that is what Christ’s salvation brings to all of us. She was first, ahead of everyone else because she is the Mother of God. But her life is not something that is beyond our own lives, but rather a model of what our life can achieve if we follow her footsteps of humility and total submission to God’s will.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Its not about faith but rather the fulfillment of God’s plan for salvation. Jesus died to conquer death and resurrected and ascended into heaven. That is the path Jesus laid for us, that is why He had to take our flesh. Enoch and Elijah did not have this at their time, Mary had. That is the difference.
I suggest if you want to engage in a debate it to understand first what you are debating against. The Dormition came out of the East first long before it was adopted in the West. And the entire tradition of the Dormition says that Mary died, was resurrected by Christ, and assumed into heaven. Assumption is not a separate belief from the Dormition, it is part of it. You are implying here that you think that the Dormition is just about the death of Mary, correct? Then you are wrong. What significance is the death that it should be a Great Feast if she was not resurrected and assumed into heaven by her Son?
As I said, lex orandi, lex credendi. It has been prayed from the early Church that she did.
And I said earlier, why is something we pray clearly in our Liturgy be something subject to opinion? You mean if I believe Mary didn’t die, then what I pray in the Troparion and Kontakion every August 15 is just a lie?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
**Split thread created:
Can the Orthodox define what “Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is”? **
Can the Orthodox define what “Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is”? **
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yes you are very wrong in holding to such opinions.
The Church does not base her doctrine on patristic writings. She believes on what was handed down to her both written from scripture, the Oral and practiced Traditions of the apostles handed down by their apostolic successors.
Tradition from the liturgy which predates any patristic writings has always believed in Mary’s assumption into heaven. Patristic writings do not need to write what the Church has always believed. Patristic writings can support, protect, defend the assumption of Mary. But these ECF’s never had too, because the Assumption was already part of Sacred Tradition in practice from the liturgies, and never came under attack.
The Assumption of Mary is not new. It becomes doctrine, defined and defended by the apostolic successors when Man began to believe God does not intervene with man, when man makes himself a god.
If you base your faith from patristic writings you are living your faith all wrong. Because even these at times did not get it right. Beginning with Peter.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Before you continue with your false pretensions of me and my Catholic faith, let me clarify what you dont understand, and what this discussion is about.
- The Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul, does not define how Mary, died, or if Mary died. The doctrine only reveals at the completion of her life on earth was “Completed”, there is nothing here about how Mary died or even if she did die. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul period.
- Your faith small “t” tradition includes Mary died and was assumed into heaven body and soul. Great for you, I am happy for you
- But don’t force any of your small “t” traditions upon our “T” sacred Traditions. Do you know the difference between small “t” traditions and capital “T” Traditions? Don’t force me to be Ukrain and I won’t force you to be Latin.
- Allow me to be clear here, The doctrine of the assumption alone does not dictate to me that Mary died is binding upon me. I am at liberty to believe Mary died, or Leave my faith suspended to the will of God.
- I am not saying that because you believe Mary died and then assumed into heaven is wrong, nor do I contest your faith from your liturgical “traditions”. I simply corrected you that the doctrine of the Assumption does not state Mary ever died.
- You make the false claim that my Catholic faith is not Roman Catholic? Yet you your self proclaim that you were once Roman Catholic?
Peace be with you
- Status