Immaculate Conception

[Ignatius33]

Hello all. I’m probably a little late to this game, but I thought I would chime in here too, for what it’s worth, since I’ve discussed this issue on two other threads here recently. As a former Evangelical Protestant, I struggled with this RC belief, which I eventually came to accept as the truth. In a discussion on another thread with an Evangelical, mainly about the development of doctrine (which Catholics regard as an ever-deepening understanding or unpacking of the original deposit of faith by the Church, not “new” revelation), the topic of the Immaculate Conception kept coming up. Since I’m too lazy to rewrite or paraphrase what I wrote there, I’m just going to cut and paste a relevant portion of the discussion, for your consideration…

I’d like to return to the topic of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, if you’re still interested. You still seem to think that the RC Church dangerously relies on (Church Father) CF outliers in holding to this doctrine (though I have to disagree with the characterization of Augustine as an outlier or “penumbra”). Using the sentence token vs proposition framework, I’d like to try to make the case (albeit, an abridged one) for the RC position that the Immaculate Conception is formally implicit in the deposit of faith.

First, there are a number of sentence tokens, in both Scripture and Tradition, that potentially bear on the Immaculate Conception:

1. Mary was the “New Eve” (Apostolic Tradition)
2. Mary was “all holy” (Apostolic Tradition)
3. Mary was “full of grace” (Lk. 1:28)
4. Enmity between Satan and “the woman,” i.e., Mary (Gn. 3:15; Jn. 19:26-27; Rev. 12)
5. Mary would be “pierced by a sword” (Lk. 2:35)
6. Mary rejoiced in “God her savior” (Lk. 1:46)
7. “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23)
8. Death came to “all” through Adam, “inasmuch as all sinned” (Rom. 5:12)

Second, some CFs wrote, as propositional matter, that Mary sinned at least once:

1. Origen attributed the sin of doubt to Mary. Most of the Eastern fathers who denied Mary’s sinlessness are indebted to Origen, and often follow him uncritically in this opinion.
2. St. Basil appears to have followed Origen in this opinion.
3. Ditto for St. Gregory of Nyssa.
4. Ditto for St. Cyril of Alexandria.
5. St. John Chrysostom, independently of the aforementioned four CFs, interprets the scene at the wedding feast of Cana as an instance where Jesus rebukes his mother for the sin of vainglory.

On the other hand, a number of CFs maintained (or at least intimated) the proposition that Mary was sinless. To name a few:

1. St. Hippolytus referred to Mary as the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Ontt. In illud, Dominus pascit me), and called her “the spotless and God-bearing Mary” (Discourse on the End of the World [217 AD]).
2. St. Ephraim sang: “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; for there is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (The Nisibene Hymns [ca. 361 AD]) and further described Mary as “most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (Precationes ad Deiparam).
3. St. Athanasius: “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 [Ark of the New] 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. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you” (quoted in L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church [1999]).
4. St. Ambrose: “Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118 [inter 387-388 AD]).
5. St. Augustine: “We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin” (On Nature and Grace 42 [415 AD]).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Clearly, there was not a unanimous opinion among the CFs on Mary’s sinlessness. But as a matter of logic and common sense, one side must be right and the other wrong, despite the lack of unanimity. Either she was sinless (as maintained by some CFs) or she wasn’t (as suggested by others). Neither side can point to a “consensus view” to decide the issue (and, unsurprisingly, many CFs didn’t address the question one way or the other at all). Do you see my point here? Deniers of Mary’s sinlessness, relying on Tradition, have no unanimity to support their position. Mary’s “sinfulness” is not a unanimous opinion of the CFs (far from it), nor does the Bible contain a verse explicitly stating that “Mary sinned.” In other words, the notion that Mary sinned also fails a wooden application of St. Vincent’s famous maxim (“quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus”), if that maxim is taken too literally and is not balanced with his explicit acknowledgement that doctrine does in fact develop through the Church’s ever-deepening understanding of divine revelation (Notebooks 54 "But perhaps someone is saying: ‘Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?’ Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion”]). People who rely on conflicts between CFs on a given point employ a double standard in their reasoning (Protestant apologists, in particular, seem to do this, even using this “conflict methodology” to dismiss such a core belief of the CFs as the Real Presence in the Eucharist – a conclusion both RCs and EOs would agree is absolutely ludicrous).

Yet, over the centuries, culminating in Duns Scotus’ “anticipatory redemption” breakthrough realization in the Middle Ages (meaning that someone can be redeemed if, by a special act of God, that person is preserved from sinning altogether), the Church came to understand that Mary was sinless and that she was immaculately conceived (i.e., preserved from the stain of Original Sin in the first instance of her conception, meaning that God “saved” her through the Christ’s redemption in an anticipatory manner). Ultimately, the Church infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception to be de fide in 1854. In doing so, the Church decided, once and for all, which CFs were right (e.g., Ephraim, Augustine) and which were wrong (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom). Indeed, there is much in both Scripture and Tradition to support the Church’s realization; I can only briefly touch on three such items here:

1. The idea that Mary was the “New Eve” is undoubtedly an Apostolic Tradition, the analogy having been made by such early CFs as St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (In fact, the Gospel of John itself hints that Mary was the New Eve by identifying Mary with “the woman” in Gen. 3:15 – see Jn. 2:5-11; Jn. 19:26-27; see also Rev. 12, suggesting that the Apostle John himself was most likely the source of this Apostolic Tradition). The title “New Eve” calls attention to Mary’s cooperation in our redemption. Now, this role as Second Eve in the history of our redemption would seem to fit awkwardly with the hypothesis that Mary was a sinner. How could she fulfill her lofty office of leading the opposition to the devil if she had been herself at one time a slave of the devil, a sinner? Furthermore, we know that the Second Adam, Jesus, was free from sin. By analogical extension, therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of Mary as enjoying this privilege as well. The Genesis text speaks of a mutual enmity between the devil and the Second Eve, an enmity which is shared by Christ, the “seed.” Obviously in the case of Christ the enmity is perfect, which it would not be if he had ever sinned. Couldn’t this same reasoning be applied to Mary? Finally, it would be unfitting if Second Eve, who as the antitype of the First Eve surpasses her in excellence, should herself have an origin that was less perfect than the First Eve. But Eve, from the first moment of her existence, was free from Original Sin, and so it seems reasonable to infer that Mary also would enjoy this privilege. Indeed, the Old Testament “types” are always surpassed by their New Testament fulfillments, meaning that while Eve later fell into sin, Mary didn’t.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. In accordance with Luke 1:28, where the Archangel Gabriel hails Mary as “full of grace,” Mary’s unparalleled level of sanctity, achieved by grace, is a constant theme in the writings of the CFs. Origen himself seemed to attribute a special sanctity to Mary in saying that even she must have had at least some fault for which Christ had atoned (as I will explain shortly, Origen’s view that Mary sinned was predicated purely on an incorrect exegesis of Scripture, the same error made by Protestants today who deny Mary’s sinlessness). Her title as the Panagia – the “all-holy one” – was widely accepted by the Eastern Church and was apparently acknowledged even by Origen. In a vision, St. Gregory the Wonderworker in the third century sees the Apostle John say to Mary that he wants to please her in all things because she is the one closest to his heart. Apparently, some Christians at this time were giving Mary a status even above the Beloved Disciple, John. The ancient Greek prayer, Sub tuum praesidium, calls Mary the one who is “alone pure and blessed.” St. Athanasius holds out Mary as a worthy example of holiness that Christians should consciously imitate, and says that Mary is greater than the cherubim and seraphim. St. Ephraim and St. Ambrose explicitly wrote that she was sinless. St. Epiphanius stated that Mary “remained stainless” and “never did any wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [377 AD]). St. Cyril of Jerusalem held Mary out as an example of chastity worthy of imitation. St. Gregory Nazianzen stated that Mary underwent a special purification by grace in preparation for her role in the Incarnation, a statement that, at least according to positive substance, anticipates the Immaculate Conception. St. Jerome repeatedly calls Mary “holy,” even going so far as to say she was so pure she merited the privilege of becoming the Mother of God. St. Augustine taught the same thing. St. Cyril of Alexandria remarked that Mary was a “venerable treasure of the whole world.” What is striking about all of this is that even those CFs who denied that Mary was sinless still give evidence of a Tradition exalting her for her unparalleled sanctity. She is a model of imitation, an exemplar of virtue, the all-holy one, stainless, pure, and greater than angels. These attributions are precisely what we would expect to find if the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness had been formally-implicitly revealed by the Apostles. We might say that while the notion of her unparalleled sanctity was realized, its import had not yet been fully grasped. Recall in this connection the words of St. Vincent: “Let posterity welcome . . . what antiquity venerated without understanding” (Notebooks 53).

Furthermore, it is simply false to suggest that the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Lk. 1:28 as “full of grace” was the historical cause of the medieval view that Mary was the distributor (mediatrix) of grace, a claim made by Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath. The idea that Mary mediated grace to the Christian faithful is ancient. Eastern Christians prayed to her at least in the 4th century and very possibly the 3rd, if we are to accept the 3rd century dating of the (Greek, not Latin) prayer, Sub tuum praesidium. Moreover, the theological articulation of the view that Mary was mediatrix of grace arose in the East (again, not the Latin West) after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. It is not clear who first applied the term “mediatrix” to Mary, but it is clear that it originated in the East; proposals include Ephraim, Romanos the Singer, Basile of Seleucia, Andrew of Crete or Germanus of Constantinople. Eventually, this Eastern theology made its way to the West, being popularized by men like Peter Damien and Bernard of Clairvaux. To suggest, then, that this view of Mary arose on the basis of the Latin Vulgate, which was not even used by the Eastern CFs, is positively false. It is a myth perpetuated by Protestant scholars with very little, if any, historical basis. The Vulgate had very little if anything to do with the “elevation” of Mary in the West.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. There is a parallel between Mary and the Church (and “the woman” in Genesis 3/Revelation 12 can be viewed as an image of both Mary and the Church; there is no need to introduce a false dichotomy in those passages, as if “the woman” could refer only to one to the exclusion of the other). For the CFs, the Church was constantly called a “mother” and “virgin” bride of Christ. It did not take long before this paradoxical state of virginal motherhood was linked to mariology, since Mary was another famous Virgin and Mother. St. Clement of Alexandria drew a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the Church, as if the two are associated closely in his mind (Paed. 1:6). Later, St. Ephraim would write: “We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name” (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church pg. 115). St. Epiphanius also taught that Mary was a symbol of the Church. St. Gregory Nazianzen said that Mary was the temple of Christ, a statement that closely associates her with the Church (id. at 163). St. Ambrose went so far as to call Mary the type and image of the Church (id. at 198). It does seem that the Mary-Church parallel can be justified by typology alone, since Mary, as the Second Eve, is the “mother of all living” (Gen 3:20), and the CFs all teach that the Church is also our mother. Moreover, Mary contained the body of Christ within her womb, and the Church is the body of Christ – so in some sense we may say she is the mother of all Christians (Rev 12:17); she has given birth to us all in giving birth to Christ, just as the Church gives birth to us all. Why is this important? If in fact Mary is the image of the Church, then the way is paved for a typological argument in favor of her sinlessness. For the Church is called “holy” in all of the ancient creeds – “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.” St. Paul himself had said that Christ will “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). If Mary is, in the plan of God, the woman chosen to be the living and personal image of the Church, then she also might be expected to be “holy” and “without blemish” – which is precisely what the CFs do say of her. One therefore can justify the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness on the basis of the pattern and structure of Biblical ecclesiology as it applied to Mary.

So, why then did some of the CFs hold that Mary had in fact sinned? (the two specific sins I’ve seen mentioned are the sins of doubt and vainglory.) Let’s start with Origen. Initially, it’s important to note that although Origen sometimes explicitly bases doctrines on an oral Apostolic Tradition (he does so with infant baptism), he does not do so with respect to his view that Mary committed sin. Rather, Origen appears to have based his view on two things. First, it was an exegetical inference he made, especially from Luke 2:34-35, where it was prophesied that Mary would be “pierced by a sword.” For Origen, these words meant that Mary would doubt her son, and thus commit sin. While this reading is perhaps plausible, it is by no means the only interpretation (and is certainly not the consensus interpretation among the CFs). Second, as a theological point, Origen reasoned that Mary must have sinned because Jesus died for all humans, and Mary was a human, presupposing that a human could be redeemed only if he or she had in fact sinned (this is a view shared by Protestants). Duns Scotus adequately answered this charge in realizing that Mary could have been anticipatorily redeemed, preserving Christ’s universal redemption. We may therefore conclude that Origen erred in supposing that someone can be redeemed only if that person sinned. Origen cannot be faulted for not knowing about anticipatory redemption – how could he have foreseen a development that took hundreds of years to unfold? But once the nature of anticipatory redemption is understood, we immediately see the unsoundness of Origen’s argument against Marian sinlessness. If someone opposes Mary’s freedom from sin, then, they must do so on grounds other than those supplied by Origen. This conclusion is important because St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria explicitly based their doctrine on Origen. Thus, in one swoop, most of the patristic witnesses against Mary’s sinlessness are called into serious question.

Furthermore, while most CFs after Origen appealed to his argument, they did offer a few of their own. For instance, some of them appealed especially to a very low estimation of women to ground their assertion that Mary committed sin. CFs falling into this category would include St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom and possibly St. Cyril of Alexandria. In other words, these CFs attributed imperfections to Mary for no other reason than that she was a woman who, as such, participated in a “weak” nature that is incapable of moral perfection. It goes without saying that this view is out of harmony with modern sensibilities and Church teaching (and it should be noted that not all the CFs shared this view on women). Since I always like to bring up St. Thomas Aquinas, I’d just point out that he writes that Chrysostom “goes too far” when he said that Mary succumbed to human frailty in seeking vainglory; and although Aquinas did not formally endorse the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined by the Church in 1854 (he lived 600 years earlier and died before Duns Scotus), he did state that “she was sanctified in the womb” (Summa Theologica III, Q.27, Art. 1) and affirmed that she was “preserved from all actual sin” during her life (id. III, Q. 27, Art. 4).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

The only other patristic arguments against Mary’s sinlessness are based on pure Scriptural exegesis. I’ll just address a couple of their misinterpretations of the Bible. First, we can easily dismiss the argument from Luke 1:46, where Mary calls God her “savior.” In calling God her savior (which He was), Mary in no way admits that she was a sinner. Second, although Paul writes that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), he cannot literally mean every single person because Jesus, infants and the severely handicapped cannot sin. If there are exceptions to the rule, nothing prevents Mary from being such an exception.

At bottom, what’s clear is that the CFs who taught that Mary sinned did not ground this view on Apostolic Tradition. Rather, it was based on (1) the misplaced theological assumption that only sinners are capable of being redeemed; (2) a narrow view of the nature of women; and (3) private Scriptural exegesis.

Hope that’s helpful.

 

[dannyblaze]

No, they did not. People who are no longer Catholic and have left the Church to join Protestantism or nothing or another religion often still call themselves Catholic (I personally know a Baptist and an Evangelical that both call them and their families “Catholic”, as well as several people who don’t ever attend church that call themselves “Catholic”. This seriously disrupts and confuses the polls. The majority of faithful, practicing Catholics did not vote for Obama.

Also, the Eastern Orthodox churches lack one of the Four Marks of the Church: Unity. There are 15 or so Eastern Orthodox churches, and they have jurisdictional division, some even have doctrinal division. They are schismatic. Also there are liberals infecting the Eastern Orthodox churches in the U.S.

You should have complained to the Bishop about the unorthodoxy in the RCIA, and then found a more orthodox RCIA programme.

I am a bit disappointed because you sent this to me in an private message and then here. This is not acceptable and I will just let go and move on. I am done with this topic so thank you for your points of talk and (name removed by moderator)ut.

I will say that the Bible does not deal with this any further than Mary being the mother of Jesus, since Jesus is God she is Theotokas. Other than that it is purely speculation and opinion. East or West there is division within both groups and that my friend says a lot especially if I follow your logic.

Peace and love in Christ the only one born immaculate.

 

[steve_b]

I just don’t care to take this further because it will just be a back and forth matter that will not edify anything but our egos. Paul warned us about arguing over words.

Paul warned about all sorts of activities. Some have disasterous consequences for a soul who continues in that activity…particularly division

danny:

I just don’t accept the Roman Catholic teaching on the IC as you call it, but I do tend towards the Eastern Orthodox understanding and especially the quote that you gave from the EO Bishop that “if one is impelled to believe in the immaculate conception they would not be labeled a heretic”.

Bp Ware validated within EO, the IC language and even belief by some EO, the EO just don’t define it. But they argue that the Catholic Church is wrong for difining it… oh but as he says, if an EO wants to believe in the IC he wouldn’t call that person a heretic. Contradiction??? What does THAT say?

danny:

It is a fact that since the Pope made it dogma in 1854, that those who are impelled to not believe in the IC are in fact in sin because the Roman church says otherwise.

Paul said those who divide from the Church of Rome don’t serve Our Lord but their own appetites. Then he said stay away from them. [Rm 16:17…] Then he said those who divide and remain divided won’t inherit the kingdom of God [Gal 5:19…] Now THAT’S a serious sin.

danny:

The EO has the upper hand right now in my mind because they know that this matter is one of Theological opinion and that is is.

• When Bp Ware said it is a theological opinion, that’s his way of saying the EO don’t know for sure that they can condemn the belief, so if any of their own believe in the IC, because even their language in EO points to the IC, then they can’t call any of their own, heretics for believing in the IC. IOW many of their ranks believe in the IC now.
• Go back in Wares book and read about EO under Islam. EO if they wanted scholarship had to leave the East and go West because Islam slammed the door on higher education. Because of being under Islam for over 500+years, EO have a bias against scholarship which Ware says he regrets.

danny:

The RCC on the other hand has lifted this opinion to the status of a teaching one must accept if they are to be a Roman Catholic. I have even been told my Catholics that I am a heretic because I don’t accept this teaching.

The Catechism says, regarding such terms

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

IOW, it’s NOT okay being seperated from the chair of Peter.

danny:

You wanted to know what my profile means “in transition”? I was studying with the Roman Catholic Church for the last two years, was almost at the point of seriously considering communion with the Roman Church but that has changed. I won’t do into detail but I will just make a quick statement.

Most Catholics I have discussed different teachings of the Catholic Church don’t even believe or agree with what the church teaches. 54% of the Catholic Church voted against the teachings of the Catholic Church and in our RCIA class I got very tired of the Nun and Priest talking about women priest, how all religions are good and that you only need to be a good person and a good Catholic, Baptist, Buddist etc and you will be okay.

Did you inform the bishop of that diocese about that RCIA program?

As far as ignorant or disobedient Catholics, you’ll find this anywhere. You think Orthodox don’t have problems here?

danny:

I still love the Catholic Church but I have a family that I have to protect and that is why I am studying with the Orthodox Church because they even follow basically the same teachings of the Catholic Church but take it further and live what they teach.

The EO are seperated from Peter.

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

 

[dannyblaze]

SteveB.

I made my statement and where I stand. I don’t accept the RCCs teaching on the IC. Paul warns us not to get caught up on words and such because the bring strife and division. You have your points and the Catholic Church declared this teaching as dogma. I agree with the Orthodox Church and its approach to this teaching which is simply one either accepts it or doesn’t and either way, those on both sides are not to call each other heretics. This would be in line with Bishop Saint Paul’s teaching in the Sacred Scripture.

I just don’t care to keep going on with it, I don’t accept the IC teaching and it is not a salvation issue and never has been until the RC made is so. Now you may have problems with the EO church but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.

The real issue as I see it is that of division, the EO will not go into full communion with the RC as long as they are forced to accept Papal infallibility. Roman will not offer the right hand of fellowship until the EO accepts this. Both are going to have to deal with this issue and I believe they are working on it.

What is really sad is that my experience with Catholics on this forum and in other forums is the seeming animosity of some who have a very divisive spirit and so with that being said I am done with this topic.

I hope the best for you in your walk with God and that Our Lady keeps us all in prayer so that her children will stop fighting and start back in the business of spreading the Gospel of her Son Jesus Christ.

Peace in Christ with great love and many prayers,

Danny Blaze.

 

[teak421]

As I understand it, the baby HAS been subject to original sin, and retains the stain if not the actuality of that sin. Mary has not, since original sin was negated at the very moment of conception.

It is fairly standard teaching across all the ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic etc. ) that Mary committed no actual sin in her lifetime.

I think its important to note that Mary did not on her own authority commit no actual sin. It was ONLY because of God, not for anything Mary did.

• Michael

–
Check out my blog at: http:\www.edailymissal.org

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Danny,

I made my statement and where I stand. I don’t accept the RCCs teaching on the IC. Paul warns us not to get caught up on words and such because the bring strife and division. You have your points and the Catholic Church declared this teaching as dogma. I agree with the Orthodox Church and its approach to this teaching which is simply one either accepts it or doesn’t and either way, those on both sides are not to call each other heretics. This would be in line with Bishop Saint Paul’s teaching in the Sacred Scripture.

If you do not accept the Catholic Church based on this, the Eastern Orthodox Church will not offer you any reprieve. You will find a majority of EO who believe Catholics are heretics for believing in the IC. So don’t be fooled into believing you will not find just as much dogmatism in the EO as there is in the CC. In addition to that you will find that many EO often accuse the Catholic Church of “heresy” or will absolutely refuse communion with her on the following points that the Catholic Church herself says a difference of opinion on does not constitute “heresy” or cannot be a cause for disunity.

1. The use of unleavened bread in the celebration of the Eucharist.
2. The use of the title “co-redemptrix” for Mary.
3. The idea that God purifies souls by fire (whether spiritual or real).
4. The idea that Christ came as a substitutionary sacrifice (yes, believe it or not, many EO do not believe this and consider those who do believe it as heretics).
5. The idea of God as simple versus the idea that God is Essence and Energy (both points of view are acceptable in the Catholic Church - many EO believe the first idea is sufficient cause for disunity).
6. Miaphysitism versus diophysitism (both points of view are acceptable in the Catholic Church. Most EO adamantly believe the first is heresy).
7. As a princple, EO believe that the Church can anathematize persons infallibly. The Catholic Church does not, but believes anathematizations are merely ecclesiastical censures.

In truth and in short, you will find the FULL breadth and depth of the Traditions of the Church from the first millenium within the Catholic Church alone. In Eastern Orthodoxy, you will find that only the Eastern Byzantine Tradition is accepted, and all other Traditions are in serious error or heretical.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

SteveB.

I made my statement and where I stand. I don’t accept the RCCs teaching on the IC.

But you can’t explain why?

danny:

Paul warns us not to get caught up on words and such because the bring strife and division.

He was talking about needless arguing. He was NOT talking about defending faith issues.

danny:

You have your points and the Catholic Church declared this teaching as dogma.

A logical progression. The Catholic Church always explains the reasons for our faith.

You think the OC doesn’t have dogma?

danny:

I agree with the Orthodox Church and its approach to this teaching which is simply one either accepts it or doesn’t and either way, those on both sides are not to call each other heretics. This would be in line with Bishop Saint Paul’s teaching in the Sacred Scripture.

That’s NOT what Bp Ware was saying in the quote I gave you.

danny:

The real issue as I see it is that of division, the EO will not go into full communion with the RC as long as they are forced to accept Papal infallibility.

You raise arguments then don’t want to defend your charge. Why is that?

danny:

Roman will not offer the right hand of fellowship until the EO accepts this.

Baloney!

Look danny,

all you’re doing is feeding off some polemic. And so far you haven’t even tried to defend any of your accusations.

danny:

What is really sad is that my experience with Catholics on this forum and in other forums is the seeming animosity of some who have a very divisive spirit and so with that being said I am done with this topic.

Look at YOUR posts so far. They deny, they are accusatory. When Catholics defend against the accusation you see that as arguing, and divisive?

As a suggestion,

Don’t accuse if you’re not willing to have your own opinions cross examined.