I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Mickey]

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

And I said: How can you provide quotes codemning a concept that did not exist?

 

[jam070406]

And I said: How can you provide quotes codemning a concept that did not exist?

LOL! Even your Orthodox brother is honest enough to admit that this idea appeared as early as the 400’s. If not even early, that’s about 600 years prior to the Great Schism. So surely this “error” must have been condemned somewhere, by someone. A council, synod, an authoritative document addressing the Faithful perhaps? Can you provide something please? Thanks.

 

[Mickey]

LOL! Even your Orthodox brother is honest enough to admit that this idea appeared as early as the 400’s.

I suppose that might be possible around that time from a Western minded father–was it Blessed Augustine?

But when you said ECF, I was thinking 100’s, 200’s, or 300’s.

Who is the Father that you are referring to from the 400’s—and what did he say?

I apologize if I missed it–I have not been following this thread very closely.
It keeps mutating.

 

[jam070406]

I suppose that might be possible around that time from a Western minded father–was it Blessed Augustine?

But when you said ECF, I was thinking 100’s, 200’s, or 300’s.

Who is the Father that you are referring to from the 400’s—and what did he say?

I apologize if I missed it–I have not been following this thread very closely.
It keeps mutating.

I assume he was referring to Augustine?

 

[Ignatios]

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.

I understand that the RCs sees the bishop of Rome as such, this the second time you say this and the second time your respond is irrelevant to what the contention is, just a reminder, the contention is whether the Vatican today is looked at on the govermental level as a Political State or NOT. BUT you, by keep responding to something else is a clear evidence that you cannot deffend your claim, Because if you could’ve you would’ve.

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

loooool I dare you to post the reffrence to the above Title, i.e. the supposedly “St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)”.

I doesn’t exist, it is another flawed, and I saw that you have a whole mess of them (4or 5 pages of so-called patristics) loool.

But allow me to give you the chance to deffend your honorable quotes and your honorable Catholic sources that you get them from, and IF you find “a” reffrrence to it I bit you wouldn’t want to post, Now let us see if you are going to answer directly to this OR are you going to try to avoid it by going of to something else as you have shown the way you debate many times earlier.

P.S. if you cannot find the reffrence to it, please inform us of such, I will be watching for this so is many I bit you, I know you wont let us down …

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

the highlighted words, contradicts your first statement, and since you admit indirectly that “the Vatican is politically independent” thus, you refuted yourself,…Jeeeee, this is not fair, half of the times it is you who is refuting yourself, loool.

 

[Mickey]

I assume he was referring to Augustine?

Where? When? What’s the quote?

 

[Lapell]

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.

Ahem… allow me to disagree, Mickey. Here is why: The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was defined in 1950 by Pope XII (and the collegium of the bishops), right? Does it mean the notion… (or “concept”, as you call it) of the Assumption if Mary never exist prior to 1950? No. How would you then explain the fact that France, Haiti and some other country had Our Lady of Assumption as their patroness some centuries earlier?

 

[Mickey]

Ahem… allow me to disagree, Mickey. Here is why: The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was defined in 1950 by Pope XII (and the collegium of the bishops), right? Does it mean the notion… (or “concept”, as you call it) of the Assumption if Mary never exist prior to 1950? No. How would you then explain the fact that France, Haiti and some other country had Our Lady of Assumption as their patroness some centuries earlier?

Agreed. The doctrine was “approved” in 1950–but the ultramontanists were pushing for it long before that.

 

[Lapell]

And, Mickey, why should you make fun of the fact that only the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God made man? It had never happened to anyone before, and won’t happen to anyone else after. (Though Through our Baptism and Confirmation we are made able somehow to “give birth” to Jesus in other people’s lives, spiritually speaking that is!)

 

[Lapell]

Agreed. The doctrine was “approved” in 1950–but the ultramontanists were pushing for it long before that.

Ultramontanists? Only them? Were they the ones who declared Our Lady of Assumption patroness of France, Haiti, and a few other European countries as well centuries ago, hmm?

 

[jam070406]

Surely an error with the magnitude of preventing communion and seen as a barrier to unity for modern Orthodox, as the concept of the IC is, must have been officially condemned somewhere in early Church History/sacred Tradition?

 

[Mickey]

Surely an error with the magnitude of preventing communion and seen as a barrier to unity for modern Orthodox, as the concept of the IC is, must have been officially condemned somewhere in early Church History/sacred Tradition?

It’s absence should tell you volumes.

 

[Mickey]

Ultramontanists? Only them?

Uh…since ultramontanist is pretty much a synonym for Roman Catholic, I would say…yes.

 

[jam070406]

It’s absence should tell you volumes.

No… it doesn’t. I’ve shown quotes from Fathers, from the Liturgy etc. I can show many more that refer to her also as pure, Holy, immaculate, the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant etc.
Some have stated the this doesn’t prove the IC. I can contend that it doesn’t disprove it either. There was always the belief that she was pure and sinless. Now if you can show an official condemantion of those that believed she was that way from conception then you may have an argument. Otherwise, your claims of “error” or “innovation” have absolutely no basis in authority and are nothing but opinons fostering ill will and helping to hinder unity.

 

[SSTeacher]

Yes, beware of them polemical goals.

I remember (Sir) Geoff Hurst scored a hat–trick in the 1966 World Cup final.

Nostalgically,
Mick

 

[Ignatios]

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

uumm…And tell him that Josie L believes that the Vatican is not a sovereign State and doesn’t have a ligtimate Ambassadors…and that it is not recognized by the united nations as such.

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”?

I simply asked you to stick to the subject, I did not suggest on you how to settle the arguement!!! loool…
or is this another way of response to divert the discussion?

I would’ve failed if I was discussing the reason why the Vatican became a State, but I wasn’t, the subject at hand is the Vatican an independent State and is it recognized as such?

caesaropapism was a failure in the Eastern Roman Empire and it couldn’t change the Faith, besides the Emperor had the power to elect the Patriarch but also there was no Emperor without the blessing of the Patriarch, also the emperors when tried to enforce some non-Orthodox belief on the Church there was a war at time lasted for a hundred years, in the russian case they threw the Emperor out, now in the East lasted for about 500 years in Russia far less than that, but in the West it took diffrent name ( Papacy) and it lasted up untill now and it was able to add to the Faith

ummm… bottoned up mouth and spining eyes. of course you cannot answer it because your claims are baseless.

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

If you really do not worry then why answer at all, BUT that is not it, what it is, is that you can’t answer it.

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

But your problem is, that I did not ask you for a lesson, I simply asked you to present us with an evidence which you have proved that you don’t have any prove, simply because your claims are baseless.

Besides, by now you have demonstrated that the only thing you are good at is “copy and paste” your (4 or 5 pages of flawed so-called Patristics) that you can’t even give a VALID reffrence to them.

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.

Canon Law IS what tells everyone of such authority if it existed, even in your modern RCC canon law they had codified the authority of the Pope, in order to cut off any way for wrong supposition according to your church’s doctrine.

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.

WRONG !!! this is flately untrue RCs propaganda, and if anyone would bother reading the E.Cs. it would become obvious that Pope Honorius WAS HERETIC BECAUSE HE TAUGHT HERESY. Period. would you like to go down this road with me?

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:

Are you for real. and who is Adrian Fortescue?
Adrian Fortescue (1874-1923) was a Roman Catholic priest.
Appealing to a 20th century RC preist??? to explain the deposit of faith??? looool
this does not even worth the time to bother with.

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."

The above is 1000% Orthodox, since it is eviden that St vincent explanation of the “develepement” is the same as that of the Orthodox Church, actually the Orthodox Church explains the infancy (early Church) of the Church and the maturity of the Church, in the same very way, that it remained one and the same, the same way that a man would look at his picture when he was child, BUT in the case of the RCC it grew beyond recognition we find it now a days instead of the same limb grew, that it grew extra limbs and it grew extra legs and that it also grew extra head.

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

It doesn’t take a Rocket scientist to figure out that this a Catholic teachings !!! especially when we see now that the figement of the minds of the RCs started to take shapes on their writting too. loool how sad.

to be continued. . . . .

Please do.

 

[Ignatios]

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.

right on:thumbsup:

 

[Hesychios]

Are you for real. and who is Adrian Fortescue?

He was a notorius anti-Eastern Christian bigot whose writings have poisoned the minds of generations of Roman Catholics.

Appealing to a 20th century RC priest??? to explain the deposit of faith???

The concept of development (evolution of understanding) of doctrine depends upon some Anglican converts of recent history (19th century) who had a need to explain their conversions to the English Protestant world they had been a part of and continued to interact with.

In a sense, they could not actually deny that the Latin Catholic church did add to, or change, interpretations of it’s received Apostolic beliefs (a major criticism also leveled by the 16th century Latin Catholic reformers who shattered the western church), the evidence for the changes was just too strong, so they described it as “development” to mitigate the impact.

There are different ways to view these phenomena. The idea that the understanding of essential Truths can change over time (and even potentially return to earlier interpretations) is one worth exploring, I think.

It is also worth discussing what the value of this concept may be to the Christian community, for example: how does it save people? … And whether or not there is actually some tangible benefit to those believers who are born later enough (in time) to know of the changes.

The subject deserves a thread of it’s own, one such thread is here, a very log and rambling but frank discussion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear 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.

Brother James gave you four quotes from Fathers before A.D.450. (there’s actually more than 4, but I, personally, only count 4 of those quotes as actually directly supporting the IC, and not merely implying it).

Here’s some more from St. Gregory the Wonderworker from the 3rd century:

Meekly, then, did grace make election of the pure Virgin Mary alone of all the generations. For she proved herself prudent truly in all things; neither has any woman been born like her in all generations.

For since the holy Virgin, in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of irtues, and lived a life more excellent than man’s common standard; therefore the Word that cometh from God the Father thought it meet to assume the flesh and endue the perfect man from her…
Here, St. Gregory says that even before she became Theotokos, she was “in possession of the incorruptible citizenship.”

Since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honorable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other; and though has a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold, however fine, and a womb such as the object which Ezekiel saw…

Though there are a few Fathers that seem to deny the IC, there is waaaaay more testimony to the IC than otherwise among the Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Here’s some more from St. Gregory the Wonderworker from the 3rd century:

Yes. You have attempted to spin St Gregory in the past. These are beautifully poetic words about the Panaghia—but not even close to supporting the IC.