I am considering the Orthodox Church

[PeaceSerenity]

Btw, which jurisdiction are you?

Antiochian, it says up top in my little profile blurb (what is that thing called?)

 

[jam070406]

Antiochian, it says up top in my little profile blurb (what is that thing called?)

:doh2:

 

[wynd]

Cool, but it is not error nor ever condemned as error. And as an Orthodox it is perfectly acceptable to believe it as Truth, as Mr. Ware affirms.

As I understand it, the issue isn’t with the Immaculate Conception but with the underlying concepts of sin and death that are the issue. Thus, to an Orthodox Christian the Roman dogma of the IC is not so much heretical as it is unnecessary (much like, say, defining that the Theotokos has a soul – of course she does, just like every other human). This is how I have been taught to understand Met. Kallistos’ comment. Hopefully other more knowledgeable Orthodox could clarify.

 

[josie_L]

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.

That was not our argument, that is, you were implying that just because the Vatican (the location wherein the pope resides) is politically independent this somehow means that the papacy or rather the office of Peter administered through the bishops of Rome is political, this is a fallacy. The ORIGINS of the papacy are divinely instituted (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-19). Moreover, my discourse with Hesychios (which started all this) was about his erroneous arguments against papal supremacy, i.e…, the pope cannot willy-nilly deprive bishops of their God-given authority (as was delineated in Vatican I) nor contradict or change the deposit of faith. It is useless to argue as he was because we believe the bishops of Rome are the successor to the rock upon which the Church would be built, and that because of this their faith will never fail (Luke 22:31).

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.

Well, I would have to say that my copying and pasting is much better than your ability to write and/or comprehend English, moreover would you please point out which of the 20 or so quotes I provided are not actually patristic? It would benefit us all to know.

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.

You still don’t get it do you Ignatios the privileges, customs, and charisms associated with the bishops of Romes as Head of the Church are due to God because of what Jesus said, and subsequently bestowed on Peter, i.e., canon law merely formalizes it.

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?

NO HE DIDN’T

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.

What he said stands true and is evidenced by history, moreover it is in line with what St. Vincent of Lerins said, i.e., development of Doctrine is not a figment of RC imagination.

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.

Just wondering but how has Orthodoxy grown since the schism?

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.

Your arrogance knows no bounds Ignatios.

 

[josie_L]

No need to explain it to me. I already know the RC apologetics on this.

The Holy Orthodox Church does not believe the “IC doctrine” is from Sacred Scripture. We do not believe it is from Sacred Tradition. We do not see it in the great Councils of the Church.

Please Mickey, just listen for a second if you will to my explanation. I want you to see these scripture quotes:

Romans 5: 18-19

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Romans 6: 1-7

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

"If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin."

Now what sin are we freed from? Moreover, scripture also implies that our sinful nature (St. Paul speaks of our sinful nature in several places, i.e., Romans, Ephesians . . ) is generated through the sin of one man by descent (to his posterity), i.e., at conception (wherein we acquire our human/sinful nature):

Psalm 51: 5

“For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.”

or Job 14:4 (according to the Vulgate):

“Who can make him clean that is conceived unclean?”

According to St. Augustine “original sin” is not an invention of the Church but rather is upheld by Church tradition “It is not I who have invented original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from of old, but thou, who deniest it, thou art without a doubt a new heretic” (referring to a Pelagian bishop named Julian of Eclanum) in De nupt. et. concup. II 12, 25. In “Contra Julianum” he quotes “St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John of Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching.” Moreover, Pelagianism was condemned at numerous synods, i.e., Carthage 411, 416, 418, council of Milevis 416, and at the Third General Council of Ephesus 431. Also, the practice of infant baptism affirms the existence of original sin (for what sin are we remitting when dealing with infants?).

Now having said all this: do you believe that the blessed Mother could possess a sinful (human) nature being that she was FULL of GRACE and sinless?

 

[Mickey]

Please Mickey, just listen for a second if you will to my explanation. I want you to see these scripture quotes:

None of these verses supports the odd 1950 doctrine of IC.

According to St. Augustine “original sin” is not an invention of the Church but rather is upheld by Church tradition

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church does not adhere to Augustine’s view of OS.

Now having said all this: do you believe that the blessed Mother could possess a sinful (human) nature being that she was FULL of GRACE and sinless?

Indeed. She was borne with, and possessed a sinful human nature. She was human like you and I. That is the beauty of it. Through her own free will–she chose not to sin. She practiced virtue. She overcame the passions. The Panaghia is our great example. She is not the great exception as the RC’s try to prove. Scripture and Tradition does not support your view.

 

[Mickey]

Just wondering but how has Orthodoxy grown since the schism?

By refusing to adopt doctrinal innovations.

 

[jam070406]

She was borne with, and possessed a sinful human nature. She was human like you and I.

She was a slave to the devil!?

What about those sins you confess to have done knowingly and unknowingly?

 

[Mickey]

I haven’t found the essence/energies distinction in Sacred Scripture or the Councils of the Church either.

Well, well, well. Perhaps you should re-read the passages regarding the Transfiguration.

Nevertheless, I have never heard that the theology regarding essence/ energy and the uncreated light was elevated to doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

Please demonstrate to us how the lines I highlighted are “merely” poetic.

Demonstrate? Ha! Read the quotes! There is no IC doctrine here. Perhaps you are reading it into the quotes—but it is very obvious that it is not there. How do I demonstrate a negative?

If you can give a similar appraisal of brother James’ quotes, that would also be appreciated.

Which quote?

 

[jam070406]

I thought Orthodox believed that humans were inherently good? And that it was the fall that causes us to be sinful. So in refuting Augustine, you revert back to his understanding that humans are born with a sinful nature, caused by OS, that needs to be cleansed by Baptism.
In other words she must have been born Immaculate and then remained Immaculate. Otherwise she was born sinful and then somehow became Immaculate by her own doing.

 

[jam070406]

She is not the great exception as the RC’s try to prove.

Jesus said, without me you can do nothing. I’m really trying to rap my brain around your understanding. The Church teaches that we, including Mary, need God’s grace. Just that she was given it at conception and we are given it at our re-birth.
I would assume anyone that loves Christ would desire not to sin. But, you claim she didn’t sin by her own doing. If anything… you make her an exception, you make her some sort of super human that could do something that is impossible for other humans.

 

[jam070406]

Not only that, you make it sound dangerously close to saying we can work our way to Heaven.

 

[Mickey]

Not only that, you make it sound dangerously close to saying we can work our way to Heaven.

Huh? You sound like a protestant!!!
You know very well that we cooperate with God’s grace. Our Lady cooperated with God’s grace toward theosis.

 

[Mickey]

she was given it at conception

And there is where we differ.

 

[jam070406]

Huh? You sound like a protestant!!!

Stop it! :frighten:

 

[Harpazo]

She was a slave to the devil!?

What about those sins you confess to have done knowingly and unknowingly?

I suggest reading The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God by St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco. It’s an excellent exposition on the Orthodox view of proper veneration to the Mother of God and he shows how the Immaculate Conception is not compatible with the Orthodox Christian Faith.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Jesus said, without me you can do nothing. I’m really trying to rap my brain around your understanding. The Church teaches that we, including Mary, need God’s grace. Just that she was given it at conception and we are given it at our re-birth.
I would assume anyone that loves Christ would desire not to sin. But, you claim she didn’t sin by her own doing. If anything… you make her an exception, you make her some sort of super human that could do something that is impossible for other humans.

“I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. If, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of light-mindedness.” Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistle 174

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

Ooo…that’s gotta sting…a saint and “Doctor of the Church”, and he rejects what the RC sees as immutable, infallibly proclaimed dogma! :doh2:

 

[Holly3278]

Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church commits the grave sin of schism. The entire Orthodox Church committed the grave sin of schism back in the 11th or 10th century when the Great Schism occurred.