R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
Best answer I’ve seen- thank you sir
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Just kidding, brother.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Halfway there, but I am glad you’ve followed thus far.Obviously Adam cannot inherit the sin of Adam.
Not inheriting the sin of Adam, in every particular like Adam of Eve, did not foreclose on their having free will. That answers the question begged by Harpazo.
J
jonnyws
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that a heresy is ‘a species of infidelity in man who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas’
I suppose the EO would say that the Immaculate Conception warps the idea of original sin from being something that gives all people a pre-disposition towards sin to something that is passed down genetically and burned into us. In other words they have no need of the dogma because they do not see anyone has being born with the sin of Adam held against them and so Mary can be sinless by an abundance of grace rather than needing an Immaculate Conception.
So heresy number one:
- Changes the concept of original sin.
“Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. . . . If she would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ.”
Chapter CCXXXII bis. Thomas Aquinas, Compendio do Teologia
- Christs actions did not save all for one was already saved.
R
ralphinal
Guest
You are welcome. I am surprised I made sense.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother jonnyws,
Thank you for the response. I do appreciate it.
Blessings,
Marduk
Well, heresy #1 is just a straw man because that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.:clapping: There is no heresy in this respect.
The dogma already takes that into account. It specifically teaches that it was God who saved Mary by applying the merits of Christ’s Sacrifice to her. The Sacrifice itself was temporal, but the power of Christ’s Sacrifice is eternal. So no heresy there.
No, not good reasons, but misunderstandings.
Thank you for the response. I do appreciate it.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jimmy
Guest
Although I am not EO, I would say that they would say that it indicates a difference between the human nature of Christ and ours. The Greeks, like St. Maximus for example, stress that Christ took on the fallen nature of man. Christ was subject to the passions, corruption and death like every other man. The west on the other hand tends to say that Christ, unlike the rest of men, was concieved free of the sin of Adam. And the same thing is applied to Mary. It is said she was concieved as Eve was before the fall. A different sense of Christology might arise from this.
J
jimmy
Guest
The problem with this is that there is one conception and one nature of man, not two(body and soul). It was the whole man which Christ came to save, not simply the soul. And so you can’t simply say that it regards simply the ‘spiritual conception’. You have basically split the human nature of Christ into two natures as if sin could touch the flesh but not the soul. They are one nature.
They would continue to say it makes her different from us even if your distinction stood because she is no longer subject to the passions as they would say even of Christ. The east says that Christ took on the exact same fallen human nature(which includes both spiritual and material) that every other man has.
M
mardukm
Guest
If there were not two distinguishable conceptions, why do you even bother to distinguish the body from the soul? If they are not distinguishable, then you must conclude that when we die, the soul also dies. No, brother. It is wholly proper to distinguish their conceptions. This is not a new thing. We have inherited this understanding from the Fathers of the Middle Ages. Except back then, they understood the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment) to occur at a later time than the physical conception.
You see what you’re doing, right?
The Catholic Church teaches that the dogma of the IC refers specifically to the spiritual conception, thus preserving her natural human state.
Then YOU come along and say, “No it does not refer to her spiritual conception.” From this premise, which is not the Catholic teaching, but only what YOU assume it teaches, you conclude that Mary is not naturally human like us. And therefore you claim Orthodox reject it.
Brother, it should be obvious that if the Orthodox are rejecting anything, it is not the Catholic teaching, but a straw man version of it. Wouldn’t you agree?.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Volodymyr
Guest
ЧЕПУХА ВАША СОЛОМЕННОЕ ЧУЧЕЛО
Сomrade you have created Straw Man and I cannot understand why. So you now believe novelty of Immaculate Conception (IC to all who are in the know, I should guess) - but you have been bent
into all kind of absurdities to make others try to believe.
Human person has human nature not natural human state - this is some kind novelty expression. Human person is supposed to be body/soul/spirit together. Death has its stinger to separate body from soul only because of sin. This condition of human person is not intended original.
We do not have Medieval church fathers from whom inherit anything - these are Roman Catolic skolastic philosophes.
Immaculate Conception is a novelty created to explain what we cannot explain - but contradicts St. Paul’s assertion of sinlessness only of Jesus Christ, contradicts Angel Gavriil who say to Mary she has “acquired” blessing of God, and gives only mechanical, unavoidable explanation for Mary’s spotlessness. Such teaching makes less of her. In orthodox view, it took thousands of years for a line of David to produce such a devote daughter as Mary - this is how she acquires God’s favor at fullness of time. Otherwise - God could to make Eva’s daughter have Immaculate Conception and send second person Jesus Christ to save mankind without wasting so many generations.
Comrade - just because Bishop of Rome takes such a stand in regard to such a novelty - you have corrupted traditional understanding of original sin, Church fathers and Scripture to make it all seem to be true.
R
ralphinal
Guest
This does a good job of showing some of the issues with the IC that the EO have.
Y
YADA
Guest
Do you have the same problem with Jesus being a New Adam? … it is part and parcel of the equation … Adam sinned and turned away rom God … Jesus did not …
Eve is the “Mother of all living” …
Mary by her bearing the Christ Child is the “Mother of All Who Live in Christ” …
John stands for us at the Cross, representing the Christian Community, the Church, the Adopted Sons/Daughters, heirs of the Kingdom, children of Light …
“Behold thy Mother … Woman be hold thy Son”
M
mardukm
Guest
J
jimmy
Guest
mardukm, you are making a false distinction. There is one human nature. You can’t split it into the spiritual and the natural.
Second, you say that since this deals with Mary’s ‘spiritual conception’ that means there is no difference between her and every other human. You try to make this distinction and say that Mary had fallen flesh but not a fallen soul. Her soul was never touched by the sin of Adam. The fact is that since it deals with the human nature it means that she never had a fallen human nature so you are quite wrong to say it doesn’t make a difference between her and us.
Second, you say that since this deals with Mary’s ‘spiritual conception’ that means there is no difference between her and every other human. You try to make this distinction and say that Mary had fallen flesh but not a fallen soul. Her soul was never touched by the sin of Adam. The fact is that since it deals with the human nature it means that she never had a fallen human nature so you are quite wrong to say it doesn’t make a difference between her and us.
M
mardukm
Guest
Instead of making empty claims, why don’t you refute what I have already stated in response to you and brother Volodomyr’s argument. If the body and soul are melded to such an extent that you cannot distinguish their origin, why is it that the soul lives on while the body dies at death? Demonstrate to us that there is absolutely no distinction between the origin of the human body, on the one hand, and the origin of the human soul, on the other. Once, again, stop making empty claims, and refute or answer the previous two statements I just made.
But aside from the two, here’s another one that indicates the madness of your interpretation: If you make absolutely no distinction between the human soul and the human body, how is it possible that when our souls are sanctified at baptism, our bodies still die? Surely, since that is YOUR argument that the effects on one AUTOMATICALLY redounds to the other, as there is no distinction, please explain.
If Mary did NOT have an unglorified human body, YOU tell everyone here how it is that Mary aged and died. And please respond to the other statement: Since you claim there can be no distinction between the human soul and the human body, and that there is only human nature to speak of, YOU tell everyone here how it is that our bodies die and our souls live one. YOU tell everyone here how it is that when we obtain the grace of baptism (which is the same grace that Mary obtained, except earlier than anyone else), our bodies still die.
Finally, explain to us how it is that if we cannot distinguish the human soul from the human body (as indeed the dogma of the IC does), YOU tell us how it is that Jesus Christ was able to inherit our fallen human nature.
What you have to do, brother, is defend the consistency of the monstrous caricature of the dogma that you have made.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
Formosus
Guest
My understanding of the Orthodox Church’s teaching, is that they reject the Immaculate Conception for several reasons
Perhaps the origin of the Soul and Body are different, but only on one level. As the soul is created directly by God, and the body is created indirectly by God. To suggest that the body is the result of our natural parents only would be to suggest a sort of deistic clockmaker God.
- It was dogmatized by the the Pope. Some Orthodox ,I believe, are perfectly fine with accepting it as a theological opinion but not some belief necessary for salvation.
- It apparently is seen to contradict a council, I can’t recall which one. Not an ecumenical one , but one of the Eastern councils after the schism in the middle ages.
- It also seems to be at odds with the fact that theotokos died. If she had an unfallen human nature, it would seem that she could not die a natural death. Since death is a result of Sin and she never sinned in her life nor (according to the IC) be subject to the ancestral curse of Adam and Eve. She could not have died a natural death. This seems to be one of their main objections.
I don’t understand how that relates to body/soul distinctions. Christ had a human soul and a human body because those both make up a human person. He could not have had a human nature otherwise. Christ was able to take on the fallen human nature because the act of uniting of His humanity with His Divinity purified His human nature in the sense that we are upon receiving Baptism but even more so. He could be tempted but never sin and could die but only by His own choosing.
Perhaps the origin of the Soul and Body are different, but only on one level. As the soul is created directly by God, and the body is created indirectly by God. To suggest that the body is the result of our natural parents only would be to suggest a sort of deistic clockmaker God.
J
jimmy
Guest
It is the west that has the problem with Christ inheriting the fallen human nature. So they draw a distinction between the guilt of Original Sin and the effects of Original Sin. So now they can say that Christ inheritted the effects but not the Original Sin itself. You assert that the Original Sin couldn’t have touched the soul of Christ. The consequence is that Christ does not bear the fallen nature that the rest of man bears.
So your interpretation of Baptism is that it is only for the soul? Salvation is of the entire person. Baptism incorporates a person into the Church which is the body of Christ. Whether you are baptized or not you will be resurrected, some for salvation and some for eternal destruction.
How about this one for you, why do you continue to sin after baptism?
You are the one that needs to explain this considering your position in this arguement. You are the one that is arguing for the IC.
Second, I never said there was no distinction between the soul and the body. I said they are one nature and you can’t seperate them and speak of sin in relation to one of them but not the other. It is the human nature which is subject to sin, not only the body or the soul. I used the word ‘distinction’ in relation to your distinction between a spiritual conception and a natural conception. There is one human nature which includes body and soul.
First of all, you have just as much of an obligation to demonstrate that there is a difference of origin. Some of the fathers thought that the soul was a peice of the soul of your parents. But whether the soul is created at the time of conception or whether it is not is irrelevant. The fact is that the soul and the body are fused into one nature and you can’t speak of man as being either one of them. Man is a composite of body and soul and salvation is of the whole man. It is this one human nature - body and soul - which is subject to sin. You continue to argue otherwise though.
M
mardukm
Guest
That was my only point, brother - the fact that their origins can be distinguished, which in fact every commentary on the dogma I have read recognizes.
I think many people do not realize that the dogma of the IC, pure and simple is about grace. Mary had a superabundance of the grace that we ALL receive at baptism, except she received it BEFORE everyone else, even St. John the Baptist. All these arguments that the dogma somehow made her BODY incorruptible and thereby different from us is all nonsense. The grace of Baptism does not make OUR bodies incorruptible any more than it did Mary’s. And that superabundance of grace did not deprive her of free will thereby, and it is illogical to presume so. If that were so, then OUR free wills would also disappear upon baptism.
If Orthodox have a real objection about the actual dogma, then let them say so. All I have heard so far are objections to caricatures of the dogma.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jimmy
Guest
It is not only about her body. If her soul was protected and the original sin did not touch her soul then she is different from us whether she suffered death or not. The fact that she suffered death is only an added difficulty to the idea that she was protected from original sin. The assumption is that original sin adheres to the soul only and and the body only experiences the effects. So you are able to say that Mary was free from Original Sin because she was given a superabundance of Grace at the moment of conception but at the same time her body still dies. However the fathers never made this distinction. In Baptism, it is not simply your soul that is promised resurrection but your whole human person. You are burried with Christ that you may rise again with Him. It is not simply your soul, but your whole person which is saved through baptism.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother jimmy,
Unless I misunderstand you, I think I have answered all your questions in my post#78. Do you have any objections to my post#78. Do you want to start from there, or is there something in our post below that you feel is not covered by my post#78?
In effect, you are claiming that Mary is different from us simply because she received the grace of baptism before anyone else. Why does the Catholic side have to prove anything she is NOT claiming. Catholics are not claiming that Mary did NOT die; Catholics are not claiming that Mary’s body became incorruptible; Catholics are not claiming she was deprived of free will, etc.
Basically, what we have here is the EO accomodating the Protestant arguments against the apostolic doctrine of the grace of baptism. The EO are simply parroting the same arguments against the dogma of the IC that certain Protestants make against the apostolic doctrine of Baptism (yes, wonder of wonders, there are certain Protestant groups that deny the doctrine of original sin).
All the EO have done is replace the word “Baptism” with the words “Immaculate Conception” in the Protestant arguments. The answers are the same since the dogma of the IC is basically nothing more than the doctrine of Baptism applied to Mary at the moment of her conception.
If you still want to pursue this line of investigation into the matter, let me know. Otherwise, it would seem sufficient for you to read the early Church’s apologetics against the Pelagians (who denied the doctrine of original sin).
Marduk
Unless I misunderstand you, I think I have answered all your questions in my post#78. Do you have any objections to my post#78. Do you want to start from there, or is there something in our post below that you feel is not covered by my post#78?
In effect, you are claiming that Mary is different from us simply because she received the grace of baptism before anyone else. Why does the Catholic side have to prove anything she is NOT claiming. Catholics are not claiming that Mary did NOT die; Catholics are not claiming that Mary’s body became incorruptible; Catholics are not claiming she was deprived of free will, etc.
Basically, what we have here is the EO accomodating the Protestant arguments against the apostolic doctrine of the grace of baptism. The EO are simply parroting the same arguments against the dogma of the IC that certain Protestants make against the apostolic doctrine of Baptism (yes, wonder of wonders, there are certain Protestant groups that deny the doctrine of original sin).
- If Baptism wipes out the effects of original sin, then why do we still sin?
- If Baptism wipes out the effects of original sin, then why do we still die?
- If Baptism wipes out the efffects of original sin, then how can you say we still have free will?
All the EO have done is replace the word “Baptism” with the words “Immaculate Conception” in the Protestant arguments. The answers are the same since the dogma of the IC is basically nothing more than the doctrine of Baptism applied to Mary at the moment of her conception.
If you still want to pursue this line of investigation into the matter, let me know. Otherwise, it would seem sufficient for you to read the early Church’s apologetics against the Pelagians (who denied the doctrine of original sin).
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status