Five Cardinals Petition Rome

[Hesychios]

Some in the Oriental Communion feel same about all those “extra councils” that you and I believe in including Chalecedon.

You know, they could possibly have a valid point.

Let’s take Chalcedon for starters.

Neither party denies the Divinity of Christ (and each still maintains a fervent belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist!). Why the hell were they at loggerheads? In these times we are seeing some scholars, including recent Popes (I think) who are of the opinion that it was all a mistake, and that the two parties were not really that far apart except that they had no common expressions to enunciate the ideas due to their cultural and liguistic frames.

What a tragedy.

It demonstrates that the human capacity to encompass the Divine is very limited, and we are to a great extent wrong to try. This may be another reflection of the Hebrew idea that the Divine Name should not be uttered, and no image of God should be attempted. These are all ways of limiting the awesome True Nature, in a sense compressing Him in order to wrap our minds around the concept of GOD. It is foolish for creatures to actually attempt this, it is hubris to believe we can.

Some are of the opinion that we can never actually see God as He is, because it would destroy us. To understand beyond what we are given would then be quite impossible.

I think a good case can be made that every dogma we articulate, no matter how detailed or well thought out…is ultimately an analogy.

Michael

 

[justasking4]

A is a truth revealed by God is a truth revealed by God–proclaiming something as a dogma doesn’t make it a truth revealed by God, but confirms it as such. The charism of infallibility given to the Church as a whole and the Roman Pontiff particularly is not for giving new truths, but for confirming those which have been handed down, both explicitly and implicitly.

We can’t say “enough with the Marian dogmas” or “enough with dogmas for a while” because these truths are always truths and it is the solemn duty of the Pope and the bishops in union with him to confirm the truth whenever it is necessary to do so. If there is a debate over whether a particular point is actually true or not, as some say there is in this case, then a papal definition confirming or condemning the point would be a good idea to settle the matter.

The truths being discussed in the OP can be found amongst the ECFs, especially those of the East (Ephrem, Germanus, Sophronius, John Damascene, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.) but also many doctors of the West (Alphonsus Liguori, Bernard, Robert Bellarmine, etc.–in fact, St. Alphonsus’ book “Glories of Mary” is good because he sites a great multitude of Fathers to make his points.)

They have also been taught consistently by Popes and especially by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium) and Pope John Paul II (Redemptoris Mater).

The problem is that the Scriptures and those who knew her best never come close to speaking like this about her.

 

[rtconstant]

You know, they could possibly have a valid point.

Let’s take Chalcedon for starters.

Neither party denies the Divinity of Christ (and each still maintains a fervent belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist!). Why the hell were they at loggerheads? In these times we are seeing some scholars, including recent Popes (I think) who are of the opinion that it was all a mistake, and that the two parties were not really that far apart except that they had no common expressions to enunciate the ideas due to their cultural and liguistic frames.

What a tragedy.

It demonstrates that the human capacity to encompass the Divine is very limited, and we are to a great extent wrong to try. This may be another reflection of the Hebrew idea that the Divine Name should not be uttered, and no image of God should be attempted. These are all ways of limiting the awesome True Nature, in a sense compressing Him in order to wrap our minds around the concept of GOD. It is foolish for creatures to actually attempt this, it is hubris to believe we can.

Some are of the opinion that we can never actually see God as He is, because it would destroy us. To understand beyond what we are given would then be quite impossible.

I think a good case can be made that every dogma we articulate, no matter how detailed or well thought out…is ultimately an analogy.

Michael

I think I agree. Dogma really should be kept to what is necessary for salvation. Dogma should clarify the essentials of the Christian life, not confuse it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vocatio if Eve was the bride of Adam then you are implying Mary is the bride of Jesus as the new Adam and Eve.

**Excellent - someone’s noticed. Very very very very very very very bad idea - people already think that the Spirit is the Father of Christ; for things to be even worse confused by the absurdity that Jesus married His mother, is the last thing we need. **​

This is impossible because we know the bride of Jesus is HIS church. Just as Adam brought sin into the world through all his descendants with Eve, the new Adam (Jesus) will cleanse his bride (the church) from sin by HIS blood and take us back to the garden of eden to live with GOD dwelling among us. That’s heaven!!

PEACE

**In addition to which it all sounds impossibly incestuous People do really need to be much more careful with their bridal/maternal/sibling imagery, otherwise, in 1000 years’ time, people are going to be saying, in all innocence, that the CC had no objection to marriages between the closest of relatives. **​

**Missing from all this silliness is the contrast between the first Adam & the last - which seems a rather perverse omission, when it’s there in St. Paul. The rest are the ideas of uninspired men; yet they get the attention, which seems rather bizarre. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You know, they could possibly have a valid point.

Let’s take Chalcedon for starters.

Neither party denies the Divinity of Christ (and each still maintains a fervent belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist!). Why the hell were they at loggerheads? In these times we are seeing some scholars, including recent Popes (I think) who are of the opinion that it was all a mistake, and that the two parties were not really that far apart except that they had no common expressions to enunciate the ideas due to their cultural and liguistic frames.

What a tragedy.

##** And look at what it** implies.** If that is the case - which it is - then it absolutely demolishes, ruins, destroys, & leaves not one stone another of the claim that the Church is infallible. There is no case whatever for not looking at this disaster with total honesty, & if that upsets herds of sacred cows, then so be it. ****The Orthodox & the Vatican deceive only themselves by prancing around in their nakedness making baseless claims to infallibility which the rest of the world can see have no content. Ignorant peasants can be frightened like children - so it’s no wonder the delusions of the Churches, which were partly self-delusions, lasted so long. ****If Church can make such gigantic blunders - what possible reason can there be to take them at their own valuation ? **

It demonstrates that the human capacity to encompass the Divine is very limited, and we are to a great extent wrong to try. This may be another reflection of the Hebrew idea that the Divine Name should not be uttered, and no image of God should be attempted. These are all ways of limiting the awesome True Nature, in a sense compressing Him in order to wrap our minds around the concept of GOD. It is foolish for creatures to actually attempt this, it is hubris to believe we can.

Some are of the opinion that we can never actually see God as He is, because it would destroy us. To understand beyond what we are given would then be quite impossible.

I think a good case can be made that every dogma we articulate, no matter how detailed or well thought out…is ultimately an analogy.

Michael

****​

**IMO, the rot set in when the dogmatic model of teaching was adopted. It would have been much healthier if the Church had had a common body of doctrine, but had avoided dogmatising any of it. There is a vast difference between believing, & believing because if you don’t you’ll be slung out; the latter is faith under the lash, not faith at all. **
**These miseries come from from ecclesiastical pride & folly - they are alien to anything St. Paul knew. **

 

[cothrige]

Vocatio if Eve was the bride of Adam then you are implying Mary is the bride of Jesus as the new Adam and Eve.

However, Mary has been called the New Eve for ages. St. Iraneaus of Lyons called her by that title I believe. Pope Pius XII did also in Munificentissimus Deus, and in so doing cited the ancient nature of the title:

“We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.”

Patrick

 

[guanophore]

IMO, the rot set in when the dogmatic model of teaching was adopted. It would have been much healthier if the Church had had a common body of doctrine, but had avoided dogmatising any of it. There is a vast difference between believing, & believing because if you don’t you’ll be slung out; the latter is faith under the lash, not faith at all. These miseries come from from ecclesiastical pride & folly - they are alien to anything St. Paul knew.

I think this is not the case. In fact, we can see in Paul’s letters the formulation for dogmatic pronouncements, and anathema. These were used from Apostolic times to the present. It was necessary to dogmatize to speak against error. All of the dogmatic prounouncements have this quality. Are you saying that you don’t agree with the Creeds, and the other pronouncements of the Council of Nicea?

 

[Rocky]

**Excellent - someone’s noticed. Very very very very very very very bad idea - people already think that the Spirit is the Father of Christ; for things to be even worse confused by the absurdity that Jesus married His mother, is the last thing we need. **​

**In addition to which it all sounds impossibly incestuous People do really need to be much more careful with their bridal/maternal/sibling imagery, otherwise, in 1000 years’ time, people are going to be saying, in all innocence, that the CC had no objection to marriages between the closest of relatives. **​

**Missing from all this silliness is the contrast between the first Adam & the last - which seems a rather perverse omission, when it’s there in St. Paul. The rest are the ideas of uninspired men; yet they get the attention, which seems rather bizarre. **

When the Church is spoken of as the Bride of Christ, are we only speaking of the collective and not of the individual? Our pastor from the pulpit has taught that he himself is a Bride of Christ, as well as each one of us no matter our vocational state of life (ordained, married, single). So if we take this definition, Mary most definitely is a Bride of Christ and also the very first Bride of Christ. If the term is confusing, then more teaching needs to be done—not less.