Non Catholic view of Mariology II

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrelevant.

You have made an arbitrary assignation of one particular religious writer as your personal shibboleth.

There are a multitude of religious writers to whom any one of us could declare to be our arbiter of who’s informed or not.

I could pick one of my own, and upon your declaration of ignorance of this writer, proclaim you to be narrow minded and uninformed…

but that would be just plain odd for me to do so. Who says that I get to pick which religious writer is the one who must be read to be informed?
It’s your turn. I’ll be waiting. If yours is not as impressive as mine, I win.

I am interested to do more reading, and if your writer has written the quality of works as mine, I will learn something. That seems to be more than I can expect from narrow minds.
 
It’s your turn. I’ll be waiting. If yours is not as impressive as mine, I win.
Nope.

It’s clear that I have great disdain for your model.

So that you would declare that I need to play this game is, frankly, :whacky:

Take this analogy:

Let’s say there’s someone here who’s saying that he enjoys reading Playboy.

I rejoin that I find pornography filthy and degrading.

This poster then returns with, “It’s your turn. I’ll be waiting. You give me your example of pornography that you read and if yours is more filthy and degrading than mine, I win.”

Weird, no?

(NB: please do not respond with, “How dare you compare KA with pornography!” Clearly, anyone who makes that connection has an inability to think in the abstract and to understand the nature of analogies. No one is comparing KA with pornography. She is a writer of minimal stature in the world of religion, and, as such, is afforded some degree of respect.)
 
It’s your turn. I’ll be waiting. If yours is not as impressive as mine, I win.

I am interested to do more reading, and if your writer has written the quality of works as mine, I will learn something. That seems to be more than I can expect from narrow minds.
Alright non Catholic to be fair.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Schucman

Schucman took down some 1,500 typewritten pages of A Course in Miracles over a period of seven years Schucman, did not claim to be the author of the material herself as she called this God, “This is a course in miracles, please take notes.” 😉

You see I already find yours not as impressive as mine, so I win.
 
It’s your turn. I’ll be waiting. If yours is not as impressive as mine, I win.

I am interested to do more reading, and if your writer has written the quality of works as mine, I will learn something. That seems to be more than I can expect from narrow minds.
Isn’t it funny what happens when ego triumphs over intellect?

You win… you win what? And argument… How exactly? You call people narrow minded because of one single author? How narrow minded is that? How narrow is this standard of yours?

Of course, you are probably unaware of some of our (Catholic) writers: Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude. They wrote the New Testament.
 
Isn’t it funny what happens when ego triumphs over intellect?

You win… you win what? And argument… How exactly? You call people narrow minded because of one single author? How narrow minded is that? How narrow is this standard of yours?

Of course, you are probably unaware of some of our (Catholic) writers: Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude. They wrote the New Testament.
Which many consider the Greatest Book ever written. 🤷 In other words if you won’t believe this, what will you believe? Karen Armstrong, Schucman?

Least she’s on topic with predestination and the interaction of God within time.
 
Which many consider the Greatest Book ever written. 🤷 In other words if you won’t believe this, what will you believe? Karen Armstrong, Schucman?
Do you think they made the New York Times Best Seller List?
 
Do you think they made the New York Times Best Seller List?
Hah, That’s not as hard as remaining constantly in print and best selling, Course the Bible tis within this category.

biblica.com/bibles/faq/19/

as are many books, and many within Catholicism.

And many others as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophet_(book

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_Gibran

The Prophet is in its 163rd printing and has sold over 100 million copies since its original publication in 1923. The Prophet is consistently in the best selling category (overall) at Amazon. The Prophet is one of the best-selling books of all time.

Of a rather ambitious first printing of 2,000 in 1923, Knopf sold 1,159 copies. The demand for The Prophet doubled the following year — and doubled again the year after that. Since then, annual sales have risen steadily: from 12,000 in 1935 to 111,000 in 1961 to 240,000 in 1965. Worldwide.

The Prophet sells more than 5000 copies a week.

So all this is relevant how? :confused: Taken to mean everyone should be reading the Bible? 😛
 
Again, the “guilt” issues is a red herring that reflects a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, the contrast between the links that I provided and the other perspectives given in this thread show a strong divergence. (more here: razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html )This article gives an interesting perspective on this divergence.
The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Original Sin is a guilt that is passed on. It is only recently that this has suddenly changed and can no longer be found in the CCC. But if you go to older documents, you will see that Original Sin is a guilt passed on.

So the RCC has changed doctrines.
 
Yup.

I think CTG’s main error is in believing that Mary’s IC equals Mary’s eternal salvation.

Not.

Mary’s IC is her salvation from sin. NOT salvation from eternal punishment (although, of course she was saved from that as well, but that occurred at the Assumption/Dormition).
It is her salvation according to RC doctrine.

Look, what is Original Sin? Is it not Adam’s sin which cased the fall, and the sin passed on to every man afterwards? Why did Christ come to suffer and die? Is it not to save man from this fallen state? If fallen state = original sin, then one who does not have original sin does not need to be saved. So if the IC preserved Mary from original sin, she does not need to be saved.

It is really that simple.
 
Of course.

2 comments, however:

-I would never sarcastically deny what was clearly my view just a short period ago with, “Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was misinformed”, as if everyone reading ought to just know (by osmosis?) that I had changed my position. Rather, I would have said, “While it is true that I once believed [A], after further discussion and study, I now believe [not-A].”

-How are we to know which of your posts from, say, 2010 you are standing by, and which ones you now conclude were “misinformed”?
You know I’m a convert, so definitely my position changed. If you want you can dig up my posts defending the Papacy not too long ago.

Well, you know what my position is today based on what I am saying today.
 
That is also true in Catholic theology.
No it is not. The IC is a break from human nature, because all humanity has OS according to RCC doctrine, and Mary does not. It is a break.
In Catholic theology of the IC, she is NOT exempted from the all of the consequences of Original Sin, but from the “stain” of sin. The delimitation is quite clear:
How can you not have OS and then not be exempted by its effects? It makes not sense. If OS is the only way the effects of Adam’s sin is passed onto us, then Mary is exempted from it. If we don’t need OS to get the effects of OS, then what is the purpose of OS?
Orthodox will also talk of this ontological deficit that we, as descendants of Adam, sustain; this perspective on Original Sin lies well within Orthodox theology,
No it does not. In Orthodoxy the fallen state is the reality we are all born into. We do not need to inherit anything, there is no stain on our souls. Our nature was changed by Adam’s sin and we are born into this nature, into this reality. No one can be exempted from it without altering our very nature, thus making us something else other than human.
Similary, the idea that Mary was cleansed of this Sin is also completely Orthodox. The question is when? At the annunciation - notwithstanding that this is prior to Christ’s death and resurrection? Before her Entrance - as Orthodox liturgy makes unmistakably clear? From the very beginning of her earthly existence, as the IC asserts? Any of these positions are acceptable within Orthodoxy, according to ranking hierarchs - in particular if one avoids the polemical red herring of a change of nature - which simply is not part of the IC.

Which is exactly the Catholic teaching:
No, the Orthodox do not believe that Mary was cleansed of something the Orthodox do not believe is there in the first place. Mary’s holiness from her conception does not mean that she was cleansed of something. No one is born guilty of anything, Mary or anyone else need not be cleansed at their conception.
 
The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Original Sin is a guilt that is passed on. It is only recently that this has suddenly changed and can no longer be found in the CCC. But if you go to older documents, you will see that Original Sin is a guilt passed on.

So the RCC has changed doctrines.
What are some of these older documents? I’m interested to see the evidences for this change in doctrine.
 
You know I’m a convert, so definitely my position changed. If you want you can dig up my posts defending the Papacy not too long ago.

Well, you know what my position is today based on what I am saying today.
So I went to Mass on Saturday and then attended the Othosox service on Sunday. They were kissing Icons of the Blessed Mother. I believe some were even praying a silent Rosary with the beads in their hands although Icould be wrong. I find it fascinating how against Marian Dogma you are after what I saw at that Orthodox service. 🤷
 
So I went to Mass on Saturday and then attended the Othosox service on Sunday. They were kissing Icons of the Blessed Mother. I believe some were even praying a silent Rosary with the beads in their hands although Icould be wrong. I find it fascinating how against Marian Dogma you are after what I saw at that Orthodox service. 🤷
Some Orthodox use prayer beads to pray. They are similar to a rosary but definitely used in a different prayer pattern, from what I understand.
 
The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Original Sin is a guilt that is passed on. It is only recently that this has suddenly changed and can no longer be found in the CCC. But if you go to older documents, you will see that Original Sin is a guilt passed on.

So the RCC has changed doctrines.
Oh, I see “now” the teaching is correct. 👍 I’ll take that as growth in understanding.😉

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

“However, Augustine’s understanding of grace was much broader than would emerge later during the Reformation.”

"While the Augustinian position became the “orthodox” Christian position for the next 1,000 years the issue was not settled. It would emerge in the Reformation as John Calvin and his followers refined the doctrines of election "

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
 
No it is not. The IC is a break from human nature, because all humanity has OS according to RCC doctrine, and Mary does not. It is a break.

How can you not have OS and then not be exempted by its effects? It makes not sense. If OS is the only way the effects of Adam’s sin is passed onto us, then Mary is exempted from it. If we don’t need OS to get the effects of OS, then what is the purpose of OS?

No it does not. In Orthodoxy the fallen state is the reality we are all born into. We do not need to inherit anything, there is no stain on our souls. Our nature was changed by Adam’s sin and we are born into this nature, into this reality. No one can be exempted from it without altering our very nature, thus making us something else other than human.

No, the Orthodox do not believe that Mary was cleansed of something the Orthodox do not believe is there in the first place. Mary’s holiness from her conception does not mean that she was cleansed of something. No one is born guilty of anything, Mary or anyone else need not be cleansed at their conception.
Three word in Orthodoxy “John the Baptist”.

These questions have been answered, your stuck in denial.
 
If Mary, Jesus’ mother, was conceived through immaculate conception, why can’t she be God’s only begotten daughter?
 
If Mary, Jesus’ mother, was conceived through immaculate conception, why can’t she be God’s only begotten daughter?
She is human, but then all who seek the path to immortality and Salvation in Jesus Christ, are His brothers and sisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top