I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Hesychios]

I still don’t see what you see exactly as errors in Church teachings. You seem to have more of a problem with the heresy of believing that we can reach Heaven without God’s help being called Pelagianism than to recognize that the thing that came to be called Pelagianism is indeed a heresy, don’t you?

Your post doesn’t make any sense to me.

The accusation of Pelagianism came out of left field and has nothing to do with the discussion otherwise.

 

[josie_L]

1. Existed or not this not what you contended to, in you earlier post, here is what you wrote:

Catholics view the primacy of the successor to St. Peter, the bishop of Rome as divine in origin, ironically, it was Constantinople that attempted to politicize the primacy at the Council of Chalcedon.

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. T**his is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. **So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

1. my reply was very direct to your suggestion
2. Also it was from a very Valid sources “Washington Post” and the “Catholic News Agency” :

That the Vatican is politically independent does not mean, as you are suggesting, that the origins of the primacy are political in nature.

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ,** nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it”**

Damasus Pope, Decree of Damasus,3(A.D. 382), in JUR,I:406

 

[josie_L]

1. Now, whether the papacy existed befre or after, today the Vatican, on an official goverment levels, is recognized as “STATE” with Ambassadors and etc…

Please write a letter to the pope I’d like to know his reaction.

1), We are not discussing whether its creation is/was necessary or not, Please stay in the subject at hand

You do not determine how this argument will be settled, moreover, if you fail to put into historical context why the Vatican sought independence than you fail to adequately prove your point by leaving out a very important fact. Furthermore, your statements in light of the fact that it was in many ways (and in some instances still is) Orthodoxy that has been politicized is ironic, i.e., ever heard of the word “caesaropapism”?

2)The above is a shy submission from you that the Vatican is a “State”, In which you refuted yourself

And I stated that the Pope can exercise any decision as he sees it fit unhindered, including the decisions of confirming dicisions.

Catholics believe the pope is infallible in faith and morals so why should I worry myself over what you think about the Catholic Church?

Now please if you think that I am wrong, present us with a valid evidence and refute us.

I am not obliged to give you lessons concerning Catholic ecclesiology because quite frankly you won’t listen.

Again and again and… the subject at hand is not “IF some popes did …” But it is about what the Pope is capable of doing according to the Canon Law and doctrine of your church, SO, again this Irrelevant.

The pope could not overturn something that has already been dogmatically proclaimed, i.e., he is bound by Church teachings (I think history has proven thus far that no pope whether good or bad has done away with dogma. Moreover, you cannot speak of canon law when we believe that the authority derived from Peter through Christ resides in the bishops of Rome, i.e., it is by divine law that he rules.

However, to reply to your comment above, the answer is yes, all ORTHODOX Bishops throught out history were loyal to the (T)radition and the decrees of the Holy Church of GOD, and when they did not, they ceased to be ORTHODOX, such was the case with Nastorius( Patriarch of Constan.) or Honorius( Pope of Rome) or when the Papacy split from the Unity of the Holy Orthodox Faith of the Holy and true “catholic” Church of GOD.

The only bishop of Rome to be condemned was Pope Honorius and it was not because he was teaching heresy, i.e., he was condemned for being silent.

GOD forbid that we may argue against the DIVINE INSTITUTION of GOD, NOR do we argue against the Papacy (sort of speak) But we are standing as a witenesses to the truth that it was passed down to us ONCE and FOR ALL from the beginning.

Yes, it was passed down once and for all but it was not fully delineated, i.e., the deposit of faith has developed in order to combat heresies, for example, our understanding of the Trinity. Here is good explanation of development of Doctrine by Adrian Fortesque:

“Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. We come here to that question of the development of doctrine, of which much might be said. . . . That is to say, when a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence vague statements, harmless before controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretation.”

And then there is this:

St. Vincent of Lerins:

“Let the soul’s religion,” he says, imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, developes indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. Small are a baby’s limbs, a youth’s are larger, yet they are the same."

loool,hold on, is this “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” suggesting that the Orthodox and the Catholics teaching the I.C.??? and that the Orthodox are teaching the I.C. implicitly??? looool…sorry…but the absurdity of this is unrealistic.

This book is about Catholic dogma, i.e., the Catholic Church’s teachings.

to be continued. . . . .

 

[PeaceSerenity]

The first bishops of the church were equal. While they all considered the bishop of Rome to be the first in honor and respect, he was not given more power, nor considered superior to his brother bishops. Starting in the year 300, the bishops of Rome began pushing for more and more power/prominence and finally, in the year 1054, they kicked everyone else out of the church.

 

[Ignatios]

… which was suddenly made up by the Pope (as some EO claim).

I haven’t seen any Orthodox suggesting the above, on this thread at least, but that doesn’t mean that it is impossible.

… A private revelation was the claim.

It is you who suggested …----> “…The Church felt it necessary, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to end such debates.” (from post 252)- and I replied that this is a private revelation, since the it was the Pope who ended it “through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit(according to RC sources)” proclaiming it as dogma.

…And then you backpeddled and tried to pin it on St. Alphonsus when I showed that he believed and taught it many years before the dogma was even declared.

I think we are loosing eachothers here, somewhere, I believe that you presented St. Alphonsus to show that it was from the deposit of faith, and that is where I explained to you that the deposit of faith is the Apostolic Teaching, and that is your Saint was in the 17th century the I.C. surfaced around the 12th/13th century and the Apostolic Teaching was from the beginning of the Church. do the math.

…I don’t understand the EO’s idea of Immaculate.

the Immaculate in Orthodoxy is not an Idea it is an expression.

… Is there a teaching by the Fathers, or in Orthodoxy, in which Mary was subject to the devil?

subject to devil? “I think” that the devil “tries” to subject everybody and all, he even tried that with our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ when he took HIM to the mountain, and Christ prevailed over him.

But the Lady Theotokos had a free will she could have said NO but she said YES to GOD and she did so NOT because of some preserved soul for her, but willingly because she is Immaculate without the need for special conception…

…There have been Orthodox that have come on these boards and claimed that Mary (the ark of the new covenant) was a sinner and in fact sinned. But the Fathers and, your Liturgy even, call her spotless and immaculate. I really can’t understand the objection to the IC other then…uuuuugh…it’s CATHOLIC, so it MUST be bad and wrong.

So explain to me the Orthodox understanding.

The only father I know of that he taught the Theotokos sinned was St John Chrysostom, he actually implied that, when she was at the Cross.

well your request to explain, is not something that can be done in a few sentences I suggest to read about. the world is at the tip of your finger.

p.s. You didn’t offend me. I find your posts charitable, knowledgeable and thought provoking.

Thank you very much for your charity, I am no match though to yours GOD bless you for that. The knowledge, is the daughter of the desire to learn, I see you requested some knowledge about the Immaculate in Orthodoxy, well if you have the desire you will have the knowledge.
Thank you again for your kind words and may GOD bless you and keep you †††

 

[jam070406]

The first bishops of the church were equal. While they all considered the bishop of Rome to be the first in honor and respect, he was not given more power, nor considered superior to his brother bishops. Starting in the year 300, the bishops of Rome began pushing for more and more power/prominence and finally, in the year 1054, they kicked everyone else out of the church.

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem*

Myth #1: First Among Equals

The first myth is that the Pope of Rome used to be “First Among Equals” (and/or “Ecumenical Patriarch”) and then “placed himself over the other bishops, wanting to be Head of the Church.”

FACT: The Pope NEVER held the title “First Among Equals.” However, he DID posses the titles “Vicarius Christi” (Vicar of Christ, late 300’s), “Servus Sevorum Dei” (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400’s), and Yep, you guessed it, “Head of the Church” (late 400’s), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, any Orthodox who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.

As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600’s (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C. (calling it “haughty” and “unTraditional”) and the denials continued well into the 900’s (when Photius demanded to have it); and, after him, Michael Cerularius which was fuel to the fire re: the Great Schism.

Myth #2: Five Patriarchs with Equal Authority

The 2nd myth goes like this: “There used to be 5 Patriarchs, all with equal authority. Then, the Pope of Rome broke off from the Church, whereas the other 4 remained.”

Now, this again, is not only revisionism, but out-and-out Greek bigotry. As stated, it makes it seem like there were 4 independent Patriarchs at the time who freely refused to stick with Rome in 1054. However, once one bothers to read the history, that’s not the case at all.

In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites – Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.

So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split – Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren’t even the the legitimate bishops! But, the “Greek invaders” as the Copts and Syrians saw them.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

 

[searn77]

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem*

Myth #1: First Among Equals

The first myth is that the Pope of Rome used to be “First Among Equals” (and/or “Ecumenical Patriarch”) and then “placed himself over the other bishops, wanting to be Head of the Church.”

FACT: The Pope NEVER held the title “First Among Equals.” However, he DID posses the titles “Vicarius Christi” (Vicar of Christ, late 300’s), “Servus Sevorum Dei” (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400’s), and Yep, you guessed it, “Head of the Church” (late 400’s), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, any Orthodox who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.

As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600’s (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C. (calling it “haughty” and “unTraditional”) and the denials continued well into the 900’s (when Photius demanded to have it); and, after him, Michael Cerularius which was fuel to the fire re: the Great Schism.

Myth #2: Five Patriarchs with Equal Authority

The 2nd myth goes like this: “There used to be 5 Patriarchs, all with equal authority. Then, the Pope of Rome broke off from the Church, whereas the other 4 remained.”

Now, this again, is not only revisionism, but out-and-out Greek bigotry. As stated, it makes it seem like there were 4 independent Patriarchs at the time who freely refused to stick with Rome in 1054. However, once one bothers to read the history, that’s not the case at all.

In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites – Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.

So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split – Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren’t even the the legitimate bishops! But, the “Greek invaders” as the Copts and Syrians saw them.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

I’m pretty sure the Patriarch of Jerusalem never followed the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. In fact, I think the Council of Chalcedon raised the bishop of Jerusalem to the level of Patriarch.

 

[jam070406]

It is you who suggested …----> “…The Church felt it necessary, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to end such debates.” (from post 252)- and I replied that this is a private revelation, since the it was the Pope who ended it “through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit(according to RC sources)” proclaiming it as dogma.

Perhaps I didn’t explain it well. The Pope didn’t receive a private revelation of some new doctrine. It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[PeaceSerenity]

The idea of papal supremacy depends on the supremacy of Peter. In the Jesus’ words nothing is said about the supremacy of the Apostle Peter or in general about his relationship to the other apostles. Christ is speaking about the founding of the Church. But the Church is founded not on Peter alone.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:20), the Apostle Paul, addressing the Christians, says: “[Ye] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”

First Epistle to the Corinthians (3:10-11), the Apostle Paul, speaking about the creation of Christ’s Church, expresses it thus: “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no may lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

In the Apocalypse says: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14).

And let me return to my previous argument, the pope was always considered first in honor, not first in power. He was given more deference, but not more. The teaching on the infallibility of the pope, which was completely unknown to the ancient, undivided Church, appeared in the Middle Ages. They are also definitely not infallible since Pope Benedict VIII inserted the filioque into the Symbol of Faith while Pope Sixtus V rejected it (can they both be infallible?)…

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios I comment here for a visiting posters clarification; what is bolded from your personal opinion of the Immaculate conception is never a Catholic Teaching but your own opinionated false interpretation of the Immaculate conception. I only ask if your going to interpret the Catholic defined doctrine of the Immaculate conception do it right not falsely. Orthodoxy objects to the Pope publicly defending and defining the (“Immaculate Conception” ) this One Holy Catholic Apostolic faith in the blessed Virgin Mary. I take it you don’t speak for all Orthodox Catholic church’s here on this topic?

Why not present us with the RCC’s teaching about the I.C. and proove what I said or my"personal opinion of the Immaculate conception is never a Catholic Teaching but your own opinionated false interpretation of the Immaculate conception" is wrong through presenting an evidence instead of saying ramblingly that “MY OPINION” is wrong.

I understand our mindsets and differing of languages can be an obstacle here, but I think we both understand respect and reverence for our blessed Mother here without comical gestures on a topic of Mary when raised here.

One of the reasons that I don’t like to discuss with you, is that you understand things wrong, and then I have to explain to you, so you can give me another answer that it needs to be explained or Irrelevant or no base to it.
Besides my English is not all that good either, we make a bad couple my freind

Besides the first protoevangelium declares Mary to be seperated from the sin of the serpent, The prophet Isaiah prophecised that Mary gives birth to Jesus without pains, which is a curse to child bearing woman from original sin.

The RCC believe, that the women in the revelation to be Mary, read below :

Revelation 12:1,2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

The Immaculate conception is in the bible, but one needs eyes to see

cannot depend on your eyes, because lots of plays goes on before your eyes, the devil is a great deceiver and very smart.

…and ears to hear what the Spirit says from antiquity,

1. you must test the Spirit that is whatSt Paul tells you.
2. besides how can you trust what you hear?

pride will always blind one from seeing “Truth”, besides Jesus revealed all these scriptures to his apostles.

Amen and the Apostles taught all this to “ALL” the Churches, all over the world from Jerusalem to Antioch to Alexandria and then to Rome, the question would be if it was an Apostolic Teaching, how come we do not see the I.C. being taught in Jerusalem??? or in Antioch??? or in Alexandria??? NOT even in all the RCC for about 600 years before they claimed it as a dogma ( the I.C. had been only about 150+years)

16
To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.

Isaiah 66:7 **Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child.8 ****Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? …9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. **
I responded to all this above

10
Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,

what is this has to do with the I.C.

The Immaculate conception is in the bible, How can “Immanuel” be born from a sinful body?

you must understand !!! the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is about the "CONCEPTION " of the Theotokos by her Mother Saint Ann.
besides you must understand that we the Orthodox do not say that CHRIST was born from sinful body.

Now, I answered you, out of courtesy, but from here on, if I am going to explain things to you or if you post things without having a principals or foundation to your discussion I will not answer any more, so choose your words wisely not emotionaly, and try to establish a foundation to your Idea or discussion.
GOD bless you abundantly †††

 

[Wesley7]

God bless you on your journey.

 

[jam070406]

Amen and the Apostles taught all this to “ALL” the Churches, all over the world from Jerusalem to Antioch to Alexandria and then to Rome, the question would be if it was an Apostolic Teaching, how come we do not see the I.C. being taught in Jerusalem??? or in Antioch??? or in Alexandria??? NOT even in all the RCC for about 600 years before they claimed it as a dogma ( the I.C. had been only about 150+years)

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Most of these quotes only say that the Virgin Mary was pure, not that her conception was any different from that of any other human. She was pure and sinless by choice, there is no scriptural evidence that her conception was abnormal (other than the age of her parents). There is zero scriptural support and none of the passages below that might even be interpreted as preaching IC were written before the year 450. It was not an original Christian teaching.

 

[algebra]

But now, it seems to me that they arent suffering from the corruption that we are.

Satan attacks the body of Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

Arguments as to just what Church constitutes “Christ’s Church” aside, it is perhaps a bit too obvious (but still good to remember) that Orthodox and Catholic Christians are equal in their capacity for personal sin, whether we’re talking about popes or patriarchs or laity. I mean…you’re not perfect, so why would you require a church made up of individuals like you to be before you can join it? That’s a recipe for indecision…something I know quite well personally…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Why not present us with the RCC’s teaching about the I.C. and proove what I said or my"personal opinion of the Immaculate conception is never a Catholic Teaching but your own opinionated false interpretation of the Immaculate conception

" is wrong through presenting an evidence instead of saying ramblingly that “MY OPINION” is wrong.

Here is your own teaching of the Immaculate conception;

Originally Posted by Ignatios
Allow me to express it for you the " IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" this guy seems to be speaking about the sinlessness of the Mother of GOD, those are two diffrent points.
When the Orthodox speaks about the Sinlessness of the Lady THEOTOKOS, this does not mean that She was IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED.
And when the RCC speaks about the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, they are speaking about that GOD at the very moment of her conception in her Mother womb by Her father, GOD infused a soul that was preserved for her before she had another regular human or unpreserved soul gets in her conception instead… AY YAY YAY … and you people say that THIS IS IN THE BIBLE !!! In a way, I feel sorry for the Protestants that they had to put up with all this…

 

[jam070406]

And let me return to my previous argument, the pope was always considered first in honor, not first in power. He was given more deference, but not more.

Refer to post #384. St. Methodius disagrees with you.

 

[jam070406]

Most of these quotes only say that the Virgin Mary was pure, not that her conception was any different from that of any other human. She was pure and sinless by choice, there is no scriptural evidence that her conception was abnormal (other than the age of her parents). There is zero scriptural support and none of the passages below that might even be interpreted as preaching IC were written before the year 450. It was not an original Christian teaching.

Can you provide quotes from Early Church Fathers that claim the concept of an immaculate conception is not conceivable or that it is beyond belief?

Or that it is fact an error and/or condemned heresy?

 

[Mickey]

Can you provide quotes from Early Church Fathers that claim the concept of an immaculate conception is not conceivable or that it is beyond belief?

LOL. You will find no such quotes because no such doctrine existed in the time of the early Church fathers. How can they say that no such concept exists when the concept did not exist. :whacky:

The doctrine is a 19th century innovation of Rome.

 

[jam070406]

LOL. You will find no such quotes because no such doctrine existed in the time of the early Church fathers. How can they say that no such concept exists when the concept did not exist. :whacky:

The doctrine is a 19th century innovation of Rome.

I said, “the concept”
Can you provide quotes condemning the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately?