Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[ConstantineTG]

What was she, then,? (As far as sin and Mary apply in this context.)

Just because you don’t have a particular disease, it doesn’t mean you are immune from that disease. It just means you don’t have that disease.

Mary isn’t exempted from sin. She just didn’t sin. It doesn’t mean she cannot sin if she chose to sin, she can. (Note that I am talking about sin in the Western concept, not in the Eastern concept).

 

[joe371]

The exemption means that Mary did not need Jesus be incarnate, die on the cross, and rise from the dead, because she’s already been saved 14 years before the incarnation.

I knew you would say that. Simple yes or no question: The CC believes in the IC. Do you believe, based on that fact, that the CC teaches that Mary did not need Jesus be incarnate, die on the cross, and rise from the dead, because she’s already been saved 14 years before the incarnation?

Saved by who, since you do not believe it is Jesus who is her savior?

You act like Jesus’ atoning is confined to time…Hmm…His atoning work affect all of those OT people as well. Are were they just lost since Jesus’ atoning work came hundreds of years after them?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I knew you would say that. Simple yes or no question: The CC believes in the IC. Do you believe, based on that fact, that the CC teaches that Mary did not need Jesus be incarnate, die on the cross, and rise from the dead, because she’s already been saved 14 years before the incarnation?

I believe the CC teaches that, and I believe that teaching is wrong.

Saved by who, since you do not believe it is Jesus who is her savior?

Since I don’t believe in the IC, why should I answer this question? I don’t have the answer quite frankly, because you are asking about a scenario that is not covered by my belief.

Everyone, including the Theotokos, is saved by Christ. This is during His incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.

You act like Jesus’ atoning is confined to time…Hmm…His atoning work affect all of those OT people as well. Are were they just lost since Jesus’ atoning work came hundreds of years after them?

But we also profess that hell was harrowed only after Jesus died on the cross. So were the people from OT saved before that? No. This concept of “time” is born out of 1800s science fiction, not Patristic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t mean she cannot sin if she chose to sin, she can. (Note that I am talking about sin in the Western concept, not in the Eastern concept).

Yup. Very Catholic, this.

 

[PRmerger]

The exemption means that Mary did not need Jesus be incarnate, die on the cross, and rise from the dead, because she’s already been saved 14 years before the incarnation.

But she still needed a Savior. That he saved her before becoming Incarnate is irrelevant, as far as the economy of salvation goes.

 

[PRmerger]

The exemption means that Mary did not need Jesus be incarnate, die on the cross, and rise from the dead, because she’s already been saved 14 years before the incarnation.

When do you believe that she was made sinless, CTG? At the moment of the Anunciation?

 

[joe371]

ConstantineTG;10924369]I believe the CC teaches that, and I believe that teaching is wrong.

Please show me where the CC teaches, orally or in writing, that Mary did not need the atoning work of Jesus on the cross i.e. did not need Jesus as her savior? The IC is not an answer to my question.

Why couldn’t Jesus’ atoning work on the cross apply to Mary at her conception? You make it sound like it would be impossible.

 

[joe371]

When do you believe that she was made sinless, CTG? At the moment of the Anunciation?

CTG tells me that Mary never sinned. Then why does she need Jesus as her savior?

 

[PRmerger]

CTG tells me that Mary never sinned. Then why does she need Jesus as her savior?

'zactly.

And when was she made sinless? And how? When she was filled with God’s grace at the moment of her conception? Or when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her?

When was she saved from her sinful human nature?

 

[joe371]

'zactly.

And when was she made sinless? And how? When she was filled with God’s grace at the moment of her conception? Or when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her?

When was she saved from her sinful human nature?

What is the orthodox answer, is what I want to know…CTG already admitted that the CC view clais that Jesus was not the savior of his own mom.

 

[joe371]

'zactly.

And when was she made sinless? And how? When she was filled with God’s grace at the moment of her conception? Or when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her?

When was she saved from her sinful human nature?

 

[SteveVH]

Who said Elijah was saved?

Well I would have to say that since both Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration that it is safe to assume that they were both saved, not to mention that Elijah was “taken up to heaven”. Do you think there is anyone in heaven who has not been saved? So who said Elijah was saved? The word of God.

 

[Monergistic]

You might want to read these posts of mine, going back to 2009, which indicate how much I know about Orthodoxy. And which limn how I think that they are basically Catholic.

I’m glad we can eliminate one of those possibilities- which, again, has to do with you, a Roman Catholic, obnoxiously and somewhat childishly grilling an Eastern Orthodox Christian of all people, demanding to be shown chapter and verse, word for word, where it is that a particular idea is contained in Scripture. But evidently, this is not a consequence of an embarrassing ignorance re:Orthodoxy; to the contrary, you are proud of what you know.

Moving on to the other possibility, which you have so far left alone. You take great pleasure in frustrating people. Even if your argument is bad or nonexistent, there’s a certain feeling you get from leaving someone with no response. This feels like winning to you, and because of that, sometimes you lose yourself in your own little parody and do this sort of thing strictly because you like it, not because of a serious commitment to proving a point about the obnoxious thing that you’re doing. Constantly.

Bottom line, stop demanding chapter and verse in order to artificially short-circuit a discussion, as you are currently so fond of doing. Act like an adult. Maybe you can add this to your archives so you don’t forget.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps the only one frustrated is yourself. Nevertheless this is CAF, not play Jr Social Worker for the day after the “you made me mad” realization dawned on you while submitting what appears to be a indictment sheet.

What is this illusive question which everyone is avoiding which caused this mildly distracting melt down? Apparently being polite and ignoring you isn’t working.

So now that you have the worlds attention What is the CAF question “YOU” would like to discuss?

 

[Monergistic]

Perhaps the only one frustrated is yourself. Nevertheless this is CAF, not play Jr Social Worker for the day after the “you made me mad” realization dawned on you while submitting what appears to be a indictment sheet.

What is this illusive question which everyone is avoiding which caused this mildly distracting melt down? Apparently being polite and ignoring you isn’t working.

So now that you have the worlds attention What is the CAF question “YOU” would like to discuss?

The question is, Why would a Roman Catholic demand that an Eastern Orthodox Christian produce Scripture that backs a given statement word for word? Would a tremendous amount of ignorance be the reason, or would it be the other thing I described- basically, that the RC simply enjoys doing that to people? I am satisfied with the conclusion that this particular RC is not acting in ignorance, and it turns out the real reason is the other thing. This doesn’t really surprise me; I would have bet on the other thing to begin with.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s distraction, I’m on God.

This is where we are at. Same place as last week and next.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM22.HTM

Augustine, could not understand how the affirmation of a total absence of sin at the time of conception could be reconciled with the doctrine of the universality of original sin and the need of redemption for all Adam’s descendants. This conclusion was later reached by an ever more penetrating understanding of the Church’s faith, explaining how Mary had benefited from Christ’s redemptive grace from her conception.

The question and answer. What is not provided is the answer as to why Mary had to be subjected to a law which God imposed [He is not subject to the law] when at the same time the redemption plan was already realized and completed to restore humanity. And Mary was chosen which I would be speculating on what and how much Mary knew. The Coptic tradition shines much light on Marys early years. Mary was/is indeed Blessed and all indication is from the beginning. No-where does Mary choose mutable ideals. So no-one can suggest in good conscience that Mary sinned. Its not biblical nor does bible indicate anything as such.

The answer to the ECF, is the Early Church Fathers never mentioned this. True and a plausible statement. Yet they never stated anything otherwise as we see by Augustine., they bring you right to point they contemplated just as Augustine did, and as Irenaeus states very early on. Death through Eve, Life through Mary.

So why is it the Saints are a good argument in what we “assume” they did not believe, and we understand already they did not know since in fact we see their contemplation as with Augustine and Irenaeus?

God knew, there was nothing nor will be nothing which He doesn’t already know. Just as He knew Adam and Eve would transgress. He knew Christ would redeem and through Mary. And all the early church fathers also knew this. They were all at the same point by large where Augustine and Irenaeus were at.

The implied understanding suggest Gods “had” to be subjected to His own law and its supported by “All have sinned”.

Jesus Christ did not sin nor was He born into a state of sin. He was born into a state of Grace, by whom the Angel called by name “Full of Grace”, He didn’t call Her Mary, he called Her “Full of Grace”. That’s what She was already known as.

Mary only needed to complete but one task, and its the same as everyone, Cooperate with the Grace and not fight against it.

Inclination to sin by free will, is a focus on mutable ideas, this is the cause of separation from Grace, The Grace comes before the inclination to sin, Mary cooperated with the Grace that She was Full of. And Biblically.

So we can conclude Mary did not sin on earth, there is nothing which indicates this in scripture, very mush the opposite.

As to the fall your left to answer your own question as to why God chose to allow Mary to fall into sin, since He already knew She would bring the Incarnate Word into the world. From here questions about God deepen. What is most perfect of a perfect God?

Was Marys preservation more perfect first fallen then preserved, or preserved before fallen.

The claim of the West, Catholics, EO, Early Church Fathers, all a known. We are on the above questions.

The point of the thread is Protestants felt the last thread became a Catholic/EO thread. So you guys are on.

 

[PRmerger]

The question is, Why would a Roman Catholic demand that an Eastern Orthodox Christian produce Scripture that backs a given statement word for word? Would a tremendous amount of ignorance be the reason, or would it be the other thing I described- basically, that the RC simply enjoys doing that to people? I am satisfied with the conclusion that this particular RC is not acting in ignorance, and it turns out the real reason is the other thing. This doesn’t really surprise me; I would have bet on the other thing to begin with.

Careful, Monergistic.

This is the longest you’ve been able to dialogue with me,

Don’t ruin it now.

I won’t report you. But it appears that others may be doing so.

I can only be as indulgent as a good mother to a wayward toddler can be. Because I’m just patient like that.

 

[dvdjs]

And when was she made sinless? And how? When she was filled with God’s grace at the moment of her conception? Or when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her?
When was she saved from her sinful human nature?

This is a great question.

The idea within Eastern Orthodoxy that the sinless of the Theotokos stems, exclusively, from the Annunciation ir relatively new, - really a counterpoint to promulgation of the IC. (And the championing of the mulligan of Chrysostom about her ongoing sinfulness is even newer - an internet phenomenon.) But even if that idea were accepted it still means saving grace before the resurrection, thus vitiating that line of argumentation against the IC. Moreover, that idea is also contradicted by the liturgical teachings of the EOC, which make a clear statement of the purity of the Theotokos inspiring the awe of angels already at her entrance into the Temple. I see a pattern in which some EOs stretch so far to differentiate EO teachings from CC ones that they wind up contradicting their own teachings and traditions.

 

[PRmerger]

The question is, Why would a Roman Catholic demand that an Eastern Orthodox Christian produce Scripture that backs a given statement word for word?

I don’t know why either. There hasn’t been any RC on this thread or the original thread that has done so.

That we ask for Scripture verses to *support *our theology, however, is Catholic. And quite Orthodox.

That our theology comes from the Word of God is Catholic. And quite Orthodox.

Originally posted in our Catechism: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. (1 Thes 2:13) “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

 

[PRmerger]

This is a great question.

The idea within Eastern Orthodoxy that the sinless of the Theotokos stems, exclusively, from the Annunciation ir relatively new, - really a counterpoint to promulgation of the IC. (And the championing of the mulligan of Chrysostom about her ongoing sinfulness is even newer - an internet phenomenon.) **But even if that idea were accepted it still means saving grace before the resurrection, thus vitiating that line of argumentation against the IC. ** Moreover, that idea is also contradicted by the liturgical teachings of the EOC, which make a clear statement of the purity of the Theotokos inspiring the awe of angels already at her entrance into the Temple. I see a pattern in which some EOs stretch so far to differentiate EO teachings from CC ones that they wind up contradicting their own teachings and traditions.

Best. Post. Ever. (on this subject)