M
Madaglan
Guest
I’m going to bed… I’ll answer more tomorrow after work if I have time.
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Unless you believe we are born perfect, I do not understand your question.
We inherit a lack of holiness from our first parents. Simple answer yes or no? Now, do we or do we not have a moral obligation to make up for that lack of holiness?
Yes. Baptism removes ALL guilt. You really did not know that? Once we are baptized, ALL guilt, including the guilt of original sin is removed. But because of concupisence, it is not expected that we will never sin – so the answer to your last question is that our moral obligation remains. Our moral obligation is towards the perfection that God demands. Theosis/divinization/sanctification is a lifelong journey and obligation. Does that answer your question?
If one is baptized and then dies immediately afterwards, has one achieved perfection? The answer is only theologoumenon. If one is a baby, I assume the answer is yes. If one is an adult, I think the answer is no
Blessings,
Marduk
R
ralphinal
Guest
Sort of.
Eve, for some portion of her life, had never sinned. At the instant she came inot being, she had not sinned and was not under Original Sin. She very well could have gone on without sinning.
As the New Eve, Mary was born without originial sin and never sinned. Unlike Eve, she chose the path of obediance, making her the true representation of “Woman” and “Mother of all Men,” the New Eve.
Does that help?
H
Harpazo
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Could a Catholic explain to me how the IC doesn’t take away the Theotokos’ free will? I am curious as I am inquiring Orthodoxy and I am trying my hardest to look at both views with an open mind. Did not some of the Catholic Church’s greatest Saints deny this dogma, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Not trying to stir up the pot, just merely questioning.
In Christ,
Andrew
Could a Catholic explain to me how the IC doesn’t take away the Theotokos’ free will? I am curious as I am inquiring Orthodoxy and I am trying my hardest to look at both views with an open mind. Did not some of the Catholic Church’s greatest Saints deny this dogma, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Not trying to stir up the pot, just merely questioning.
In Christ,
Andrew
R
ralphinal
Guest
Going backwards, some of the saints denied it because they did not understand that a soul was infused at instant of conception. Some held to the concept of the quickening.Glory to Jesus Christ!
Could a Catholic explain to me how the IC doesn’t take away the Theotokos’ free will? I am curious as I am inquiring Orthodoxy and I am trying my hardest to look at both views with an open mind. Did not some of the Catholic Church’s greatest Saints deny this dogma, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Not trying to stir up the pot, just merely questioning.
In Christ,
Andrew
As far as the free will goes, it is my understanding of the IC that what was ulimately missing was concupiscince, the natural drifting from God that humans suffer unless acted upon by choice of will and sacramental grace. IN other words, if left to our own, even without temptation, we would get lax in our relationship with God. We may not sin at first, but we would stop praying or something like that. The Theotokos would not have that condition. That does not mean that she could not say “no” when told by the Angel of God’s plan for her. Nor does it mean that she would never be tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. It just means that he heart stayed focused on God even when she was not forcing it to.
M
mardukm
Guest
Brother, this is an APOLOGETICS website. If you are not stirring the pot,you can’t partake of the meal.Glory to Jesus Christ!
Could a Catholic explain to me how the IC doesn’t take away the Theotokos’ free will? I am curious as I am inquiring Orthodoxy and I am trying my hardest to look at both views with an open mind. Did not some of the Catholic Church’s greatest Saints deny this dogma, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Not trying to stir up the pot, just merely questioning.
I wrestled with this very issue before I became Catholic. The question to me was, “If Mary CANNOT sin, then doesn’t that take away her free will? And if she has no free will, doesn’t that mean she wasn’t fully human? And if she wasn’t fully human, doesn’t that mean Christ did not truly inherit our nature?”
To me the answer lay in the early Church’s (e.g., St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, etc.) comparison of Mary with Eve (as discussed in earlier posts). Brother Xian is also considering Orthodoxy (according to his bio), and he posed a very good question. He asked (in post#35), “If the early Fathers likened Mary as the new Eve, isn’t it logical that there must be some similarity between them?” I responded that the similarity lay in the very fact that both of them were the first women of the Creation (Mary, of the New Creation), and as such, both were created by God in an immaculate state (i.e., free of original sin).
Understanding this, it suddenly dawned on me (this occurred during my swim across the Tiber - i.e., while I was still Orthodox) that while Eve did not have original sin, she nevertheless had the free will to disobey God. CONCLUSIVELY, the state of immaculateness (i.e., no original sin) cannot possibly equate to a lack of free will.
Problem solved - for me, anyway.
Does that answer your questions any?
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. What do you think of my post#30?
M
Mickey
Guest
Hi Andrew. Glory forever!
The Orthodox Church has a great and beautiful veneration for the Panagia. She is our greatest example of how to live a Christian life in all humility as we strive to fight the passions and increase the virtues. The Theotokos shows us this holy example, and like you and I, she was born with original sin.
Yes.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Adam and Eve clearly had free will and were equally clearly not inheritors, in any sense at all, of the sin of Adam. So what’s the problem?Glory to Jesus Christ!
Could a Catholic explain to me how the IC doesn’t take away the Theotokos’ free will? I am curious as I am inquiring Orthodoxy and I am trying my hardest to look at both views with an open mind. Did not some of the Catholic Church’s greatest Saints deny this dogma, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Not trying to stir up the pot, just merely questioning.
In Christ,
Andrew
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
Don’t get me wrong- as I’ve already stated, the “immaculate creation” comparison makes sense. However, the “Eve sinned, Mary didn’t, therefore they are both similar” aspect doesn’t.
How does that make Mary the Mother of all Men?
New Eve is one of those “lesser” matters, IMHO, but it’s still interesting to discuss.
M
mardukm
Guest
Yes and no. As brother Ralph has indicated, in the Middle Ages, people thought that the spiritual conception of a person (i.e., ensoulment) occurred at a different and later time than the physical conception. They believed that Mary was purified at her spiritual conception, not her physical conception. So Mary became immaculate (freed from original sin) at a later time than her physical conception. Gradually, the Church understood that the spiritual conception actually occurs AT THE SAME MOMENT as the physical conception. At the time of the proclamation of the dogma of the IC, this latter understanding was already current. What the Medieval Saints believed, what the Catholic Church has always believed, and what the Catholic Church teaches in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that the dogma refers to the SPIRITUAL CONCEPTION of Mary, NOT her physical conception. It is purely accidental (i.e., in the philosophical sense) that when the dogma of the IC states “from the first moment of her conception,” it is referring to the first moment of her physical conception. We can say this now because we believe that the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment) occurs at the SAME MOMENT as the physical conception. But the teaching actually refers to the SPIRITUAL conception of Mary, and that has been the consistent belief in the Church, the same belief held by St. Aquinas and St. Bernard.
Also, permit me to point out that, since the dogma of the IC refers to her spiritual conception, not her physical conception, it means Mary was just like us. She had a natural, unglorified body that was subject to corruption, aged and died. It is a non-Catholic misunderstanding of the dogma that causes them to claim that the dogma somehow makes Mary different from us.
Seirously think about it. Do you deny that Jesus was fully human just because he was God and was immaculate? So how is it possible that Mary, just because she was immaculate, and not even God, could be less human than Jesus who went through everything that we as humans went through - pain, suffering, trials, tribulations, etc., etc.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Obviously Adam cannot inherit the sin of Adam.
M
Mickey
Guest
Add the fact that she was born with original sin like you and I----then you can say she was just like us.
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
It frankly isn’t worth defending with such contention and lack of unity among ECFs and Scripture.
If IC had the benefit of widespread Scriptural support and ECF proclamation like the Real Presence, I think it’'d be easier for Orthodox and other non-Catholic Christians to adhere to.
I’m still reading on all these diverse matters, so pardon me for lack of immense ecclesial logic
If IC had the benefit of widespread Scriptural support and ECF proclamation like the Real Presence, I think it’'d be easier for Orthodox and other non-Catholic Christians to adhere to.
I’m still reading on all these diverse matters, so pardon me for lack of immense ecclesial logic
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Harpazo,
Another thing I would pray you consider. The dogma of the IC states that Mary had no propensity to sin. But she was not thereby omniscient. It is still possible that, like Eve, who also had no propensity to sin, could be DECEIVED unto disobedience. Therein lies the truth that Mary truly exercised her free will to not sin. Mary is our model of perfect obedience to God. And since Mary had an unglorified human body just like us and subject to death, she had the same fears and concerns that Orthodox claim comes with the fear of death. However, she never let these fears and concerns lead her to doubt or lose Faith.
You need to understand that Mary did not know she was immaculate. Like I said earler, the dogma does not mean she is omniscient by any means. What we know is that because she was immaculate, she had an unbelievable amount of grace to RESIST sin, and obey God with all her heart mind and soul.
Indeed she was just like us, even in her immaculateness. Please don’t be led to believe otherwise.
Blessings,
Marduk
Another thing I would pray you consider. The dogma of the IC states that Mary had no propensity to sin. But she was not thereby omniscient. It is still possible that, like Eve, who also had no propensity to sin, could be DECEIVED unto disobedience. Therein lies the truth that Mary truly exercised her free will to not sin. Mary is our model of perfect obedience to God. And since Mary had an unglorified human body just like us and subject to death, she had the same fears and concerns that Orthodox claim comes with the fear of death. However, she never let these fears and concerns lead her to doubt or lose Faith.
You need to understand that Mary did not know she was immaculate. Like I said earler, the dogma does not mean she is omniscient by any means. What we know is that because she was immaculate, she had an unbelievable amount of grace to RESIST sin, and obey God with all her heart mind and soul.
Indeed she was just like us, even in her immaculateness. Please don’t be led to believe otherwise.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
You think she WASN’T just like us just because she had more grace to obey God? You think she WASN’T like us just because she obtained the grace of baptism before anyone else? St. John the Baptist obtained the grace of Baptism before everyone else, except Mary. I suppose he was “not like us” either? Her immaculate state was a matter of grace, brother. Nothing more.Add the fact that she was born with original sin like you and I----then you can say she was just like us.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
There’s exactly four places in Scripture that can be interpreted to support the Real Presence. There’s exactly four places in Scripture that can be interpreted to support the dogma of the IC. The dogma of the IC has just as much Scriptural support as the dogma of the Real Presence.
There’s numerous places in the Fathers wherein the Real Presence is explicit. There’s numerous places in the Fathers wherein the dogma of the IC is implicit, and several where it is explicit.
Blessings
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
Slight misunderstanding…I’m not casting doubt on the Real Presence; I’m stating that if the Immaculate Conception indeed was a doctrine since the beginning of Christianity, then it would have been as perfectly clear as the RP.
Then why did it take the Roman Catholic Church until 1854 to finally declare it dogma?
M
mardukm
Guest
So far, some have given reasons why they do not believe in the IC. Yet NO ONE has given any reasons why it is a heresy sufficient to be a cause for division.
I hope other EO’s will join in to explain the matter.
Blessings
I hope other EO’s will join in to explain the matter.
Blessings
R
ralphinal
Guest
Somehow, I thought about this while I was at lunch.
When she is described as the New Eve, it does not mean that she mirrors or acts like Eve. Nor does it mean that she replaces Eve. It means that she is the fulfilment of what Eve should have been. Just as the Church is the Fulfilment of the Old Covenant, and Jesus fulfilled the Law.
She became the Mother of all when Jesus gave her to John. AS the MOther of our Savior, she is our spiritual mother as well.
M
mardukm
Guest
Oh I didn’t think you were casting doubt on the Real Presence. All I was just saying that there is just as much evidence for one as there is the other. It is a matter of acceptance, I guess.
Why does it matter when it was declared dogma? Dogma is simply an authoritative declaration on a PREVIOUSLY existing belief. The Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not dogmatized until the Second Ecumenical Council. Does that mean anything at all? The doctrine on the two wills of Christ was not dogmatized until the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Does that mean anything at all? The doctrine on the veneration of images was not dogmatized until the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Does that mean anything at all? The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not dogmatized until the 12th (?) century. Does that mean anything at all? Why does WHEN a matter is dogmatized mean ANYthing at all, since dogmatization is simply an authoritative decree on a PREVIOUSLY existing doctrine?
Blessings
- Status