The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[dzheremi]

Yes it is. You just haven’t read the entire decree Ineffabilis Deus.

Like fun I haven’t. I provided a link to the text once already in this thread. Here it is again: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Just because I don’t see in it what you’re talking about with reference to the later Catholic Encyclopedia article (the “spiritual conception” of St. Mary) doesn’t mean I haven’t read the encyclical.

That’s usually the case with non-Catholics. They will read the dogma itself (without bothering to read the official explanations given by the Catholic Church), create some fantastic and incomprehensible conclusions from it - with the claim that their incomprehensible conclusions are what the CC teaches - and viola!, somehow the CC teaches heresy.

Ineffabilis Deus is the official explanation given by the Roman Catholic Church, so I don’t know what this portion of your reply has to do with what I’ve written, beyond the fact that you’re unhappy that I disagree with you and want to attribute your failure to provide a convincing argument to some defect in your interlocutor (I guess when I was Roman Catholic I understood everything by virtue of reading “official explanations”…hey, wait a minute… ). That’s usually the case, too.

WHEN animation occurs was not the point of Pope Alexander VII"s decree or of Ineffabilis Deus.

In post #211, you italicized and underlined “when” in the sentence “this is because during the time of Pope Alexander VII, the matter of when the body is animated was still debated”, which certainly makes it seem like it is the point. From here on out, if you’re going to use orthographic means of emphasizing things that are not the point, I really wish you’d let us all know, because that’s very confusing.

It was the first text that popped up when I googled the Encyclical of Pope ALexander VII. I figure since it is quite easly to use a google translator, I didn’t bother to give the English translation. Since you say you know Spanish, why does it even matter? What’s the point of this comment?

Because usually we post in English here on CAF, and as far as I know you don’t speak Spanish, and the Pope in question was not Hispanic, so it is odd. It’s not a problem, though.

That’s fine. As long as it is understood that you are rejecting it based only on what you falsely claim the doctrine is teaching, not based on what the doctrine is actually teaching.

I’m rejecting it based on the fact that I already didn’t believe in, and the subsequent clarification which you presented as though it agrees with Orthodoxy was proven to be not in agreement with Orthodoxy once you fleshed it out a little more (see Cavaradossi’s post in reply to Joe370).

 

[mardukm]

Like fun I haven’t. I provided a link to the text once already in this thread. Here it is again: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Just because I don’t see in it what you’re talking about with reference to the later Catholic Encyclopedia article (the “spiritual conception” of St. Mary) doesn’t mean I haven’t read the encyclical.

Depends on what you think I was claiming. I claimed that the dogma of the IC refers to the spiritual conception of her soul, not the physical conception of her body. Ineffabilis Deus, quoting Pope Alexander VII explicitly states that the doctrine refers to “her soul.” What is there to misunderstand, unless maybe you think I was claiming something that I was not claiming? If so, what do you think I was claiming.

Ineffabilis Deus is the official explanation given by the Roman Catholic Church, so I don’t know what this portion of your reply has to do with what I’ve written, beyond the fact that you’re unhappy that I disagree with you and want to attribute your failure to provide a convincing argument to some defect in your interlocutor (I guess when I was Roman Catholic I understood everything by virtue of reading “official explanations”…hey, wait a minute… ). That’s usually the case, too.

What part of the statement from Ineffabilis Deus “her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God…” causes you to disagree with the fact that the doctrine of the IC refers to the spiritual conception of her soul, not the physical conception of her body?

In post #211, you italicized and underlined “when” in the sentence “this is because during the time of Pope Alexander VII, the matter of when the body is animated was still debated”, which certainly makes it seem like it is the point. From here on out, if you’re going to use orthographic means of emphasizing things that are not the point, I really wish you’d let us all know, because that’s very confusing.

The purpose of my statement was to point out why there is a difference in the expressions (“…except…this is because…”), not to make any statement on the intention of the decrees. But I can see that it can be misunderstood.

I’m rejecting it based on the fact that I already didn’t believe in, and the subsequent clarification which you presented as though it agrees with Orthodoxy was proven to be not in agreement with Orthodoxy once you fleshed it out a little more (see Cavaradossi’s post in reply to Joe370).

Actually, I never claimed mortality is not a consequence of the Original Sin, and there was nothing in my statement that could cause you to misinterpret it that way. That’s something you read into my statement by yourself. And Cavaradossi averred that brother Apotheoun admitted multiple consequences of the Original Sin, not just mortality (which is what you are claiming).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Modern Catholic Dictionary: Soul

… It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. …

 

[joe370]

Since you define the stain of original sin to be the consequences of Adam’s sin inherited by all humans, it therefore should hold that you interpret the Immaculate Conception to mean that the Virgin was immortal. If not, then you must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ not to refer to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin, but to something else, at which point your objection loses its meaningfulness, because it is clear that Apotheoun does not deny that some things are inherited as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

Any good reason why I must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ (aka total spiritual separation from God) not to be referring to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin?

If Jesus is Mary’s Savior, and of course Jesus is, then why would Mary be immortal? Why would Mary’s pure soul, being infused into her body at the moment of her very normal conception, in terms of the flesh, make her immortal?

Adam and Eve would have remained immortal if they had not sinned; I get that.

Original sin (if you will allow the term) is blotted out at Baptism. It just happened in a different way for Mary.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks, Vico. I was struggling to come up with a way to explain it to Mardukm, but that simple definition actually does it, at least to some degree (keeping in mind that this is not a doctrine I’m invested in, and I find it unnecessary at best). Ineffabilis Deus makes a big deal out of differentiating between ‘the first instance of conception and the second’, without really explaining what either of those actually are. So, if taken in concert with the quote from Pope Alexander VII, the ‘first instance’ of conception must include the infusion of the soul into the body (as per the quote), but not the physical conception of St. Mary by Joachim and Anna (as per Mardukm’s objection). The trouble with that, of course, is that conception does refer to physical conception (even in Catholic sources, as you’ve shown), regardless of whether or not there are additional ideas about the infusion of the soul in the process (which, I have to wonder, if when that happens is not the point, why is this part of it? The quote from Pope Alexander VII talks about “the first instant”, and the rest of the paragraph talks about “the first and second” conceptions, so clearly this is about solving some kind of temporal problem or laying out some kind of temporal sequence). It seems like another instance where words mean whatever Rome wants them to mean, and if you object to that you just don’t “get” it. Well, fine. I don’t get it. That much is clear. I don’t understand why this is necessary in the first place, after all.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks, Vico. I was struggling to come up with a way to explain it to Mardukm, but that simple definition actually does it, at least to some degree (keeping in mind that this is not a doctrine I’m invested in, and I find it unnecessary at best). Ineffabilis Deus makes a big deal out of differentiating between ‘the first instance of conception and the second’, without really explaining what either of those actually are.

The 'first instance of conception" is the physical conception. The “second instance” is the spiritual conception (the creation of the soul and its infusion into the body that was conceived by the parents).

So, if taken in concert with the quote from Pope Alexander VII, the ‘first instance’ of conception must include the infusion of the soul into the body (as per the quote), but not the physical conception of St. Mary by Joachim and Anna (as per Mardukm’s objection).

No. Ineffabilis Deus clearly refers to the ideas of “first instance” and “second instance” of conception as existing at the time of Pope Alexander VII (about 200 years earlier). Pope Pius IX, on the other hand, already presumed that (as was current in his own day) the physical and spiritual conceptions occur in the same instance. But they are nevertheless two distinguishable events (if not only for the fact that while the human parents are involved in the physical conception, only God is inovlved in the spiritual conception). Hence, the fact that Pius IX approvingly quotes his predecessor’s affirmation that the IC refers to the conception (i.e. creation) of Mary’s SOUL by God, not the physical conception of her body by her parents.

The trouble with that, of course, is that conception does refer to physical conception (even in Catholic sources, as you’ve shown), regardless of whether or not there are additional ideas about the infusion of the soul in the process (which, I have to wonder, if when that happens is not the point, why is this part of it? The quote from Pope Alexander VII talks about “the first instant”, and the rest of the paragraph talks about “the first and second” conceptions, so clearly this is about solving some kind of temporal problem or laying out some kind of temporal sequence).

I think I see the source of the confusion. The Apostolic Constitution refers to the two instances only to explain why certain earlier Latin theologians (such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and others) denied that Mary was not immaculately conceived at the “first instance.” The earlier Latin theologians believed that the physical conception of the body by the human parents (the “first instance”) occurred at a different, earlier time than the spiritual conception of the soul by God (the “second instance”). ALL agreed with the doctrine that Mary was sanctified at the moment of spiritual conception, however. It was just that there was a difference in the understanding of when the spiritual conception occurred in relation to the physical conception. At the time of Pope Pius IX, it was generally believed the two conceptions occurred at the same instance, yet there was a time when there were those who believed that the spiritual conception occurred at a later time than the physical conception (as much as 40 days after).

It seems like another instance where words mean whatever Rome wants them to mean, and if you object to that you just don’t “get” it. Well, fine. I don’t get it. That much is clear. I don’t understand why this is necessary in the first place, after all.

Or it could mean that non-Catholics want Catholic doctrines to mean whatever THEY want it to mean just so they can pretend to reject it (not blaming you for that, since you are just following your sources). But some of these points are dramatically simple to respond to, and don’t take much thought at all. For example, I asked you why you would disagree with the statement that the doctrine refers to the SOUL of Mary, not her body, given the explicit statement of Pope Alexander VII that the doctrine indeed refers to her soul. It makes it seem as if ceratin Orthodox are purposefully not addressing the Catholic responses just so they can keep pretending the CC teaches heresy (e.g. the doctrine means Mary was not conceived naturally, the doctrine means Mary was not mortal, the doctrine means God did not save Mary, etc., etc., etc.). You keep saying, “well, this doesn’t really concern us,” yet appaprently it concerns certain people in the COC enough to start throwing around charges of heresy. Seriously? A throws the charge of heresy at B, B’s apologists respond, and all of sudden, A claims “it really doesn’t concern us?” I hope you can see how that comes off.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Thanks, Vico. I was struggling to come up with a way to explain it to Mardukm, but that simple definition actually does it, at least to some degree (keeping in mind that this is not a doctrine I’m invested in, and I find it unnecessary at best). Ineffabilis Deus makes a big deal out of differentiating between ‘the first instance of conception and the second’, without really explaining what either of those actually are. So, if taken in concert with the quote from Pope Alexander VII, the ‘first instance’ of conception must include the infusion of the soul into the body (as per the quote), but not the physical conception of St. Mary by Joachim and Anna (as per Mardukm’s objection). The trouble with that, of course, is that conception does refer to physical conception (even in Catholic sources, as you’ve shown), regardless of whether or not there are additional ideas about the infusion of the soul in the process (which, I have to wonder, if when that happens is not the point, why is this part of it? The quote from Pope Alexander VII talks about “the first instant”, and the rest of the paragraph talks about “the first and second” conceptions, so clearly this is about solving some kind of temporal problem or laying out some kind of temporal sequence). It seems like another instance where words mean whatever Rome wants them to mean, and if you object to that you just don’t “get” it. Well, fine. I don’t get it. That much is clear. I don’t understand why this is necessary in the first place, after all.

I.C. is basically that for the Blessed Virgin Mary:

Her **soul **was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
Adam “transmitted to the whole human race not only bodily death and other penalties (consequences of sin), but also sin itself as the death of the soul (peccatum quod mors est animae).” – vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html
In the first instance of her conception.
“This generosity of the Son towards his Mother goes back to the first moment of her existence. It is called the Immaculate Conception.” – vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19781208_en.html
By a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, Vico. This is as I understood it before Mardukm got me thinking that it might be about something else. Of course, there are now questions of what exactly is meant by “her conception”, but putting that aside (if it’s possible) – why is this dogma necessary? Because I know why it’s not necessary in the Orthodox view just by reading the Fathers, and the Marian hymns of my own Church (we are currently in Kiahk, which is a month when we sing a lot of praises to the Theotokos…like every month, I suppose, but to a much greater degree), but I haven’t really gotten a sense of why it is necessary from a Latin point of view, which I think might go a long way to cutting through the unhelpful (again, from an Orthodox perspective) distinctions being made here. If you had to explain why it is necessary that the Theotokos be conceived immaculately, what would you say?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The mortality and immortality of Eve and Mary was no different. Creatures vs Creator. Same path we are all on. Do you think you will become immortal? Isn’t that a meaningless question to ask in regards to divinization? When you in fact become immortal is when in fact you seek Gods Kingdom first and always. Your immortal thinking becomes an immortal reality through Gods grace and your will to cooperate with Grace. When one fails here is when one becomes mortal. That is why its called mortal “sin”. Grave is other term since that is what that path is, the path that counters why your here with a desire to return to dirt thus the grave.

Eve was distracted with the illusion of her own desire, she was already falling in her mind before the fact occurred and became reality, Adam was zero help. This disorientation of the understanding of God and Life continued in mankind for a very long time as a result. Man sought Death, as many do today in the Culture of Death holding to some nonsense that this foolishness is life, thus we should act off our insignificant mickey-mouse feelings to seek what we deem pleasure and in contrast to what God deems corruption

Just as Eve had the will to turn immortality into literal Dirt. Mary has the will to turn Dirt into immortality. Just as every single soul has in communion with Christ has.

So then what was Eve, mortal or immortal? We all know this truth in the struggle of souls in the visible and invisible Kingdom of Christ. Christ the Living God not only redeems man, he corrects the teaching to the path of Salvation which became disorientated with Adam/Eve and escalated with mankind. The interdenominational aspect of Christianity bears witness to this clarified message of Christ and illuminates the Mystical Body of Christ. Mary was indeed always guided in learning as not to error as Eve had. Christs ministry bears witness as does Marys intercession after the Cross, there is no inconsistency from birth forward with Mary. Her resume is as spotless as She is, that’s why she has the title Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.

So the trick million dollar question is when did Mary become immortal. That would be upon death of the physical body, a death which I’m convinced She would gladly have endured to go home with God. In fact I don’t see where She had much time to think about anything else. Especially when the Divine Master spent 33-years in Her presence teaching the ill fated flaws of Eve forward. And the first 12-years were spent in the Temple Consecrated to God. Seek the Kingdom of God first and always, that is what Mary did, and from the moment of awareness, that is unless there in another story told in these Church’s I haven’t heard. Mary was never off the path to divinization thus immortality. Since Daniel remained on the 9th step of Jacobs ladder, you can rest assure so did Mary its impossible to conclude any other way Biblically speaking and Tradition does seem to bear witness to this truth with a preponderance of evidence. Beyond a shadow of doubt I would even venture to state.

The idea that a few Saints had a comment that Mary “maybe” sinned is a stretch of the imagination in that it adds to the state of mind of inspired Scripture thus Gods Word. Far by me to take the liberty to assign sin to the Lords Mother when in fact no-where does Sacred Scripture state such a misguided fact. Then to add one of the seven deadly sins to the Wedding of Cana, a “mystery” of the Church, is simply a accusation I believe the Saint should thought about a little longer perhaps. Sacred Scripture/Tradition thus the Deposit of Faith doesn’t teach such nonsense. No different than the claim of the Annunciation. As one may consider fault in Marys will, I see a completely normal progression of thought, feeling and reason for a “twelve year old girl”. I can’t conclude from that conversation a 30 yo women would have responded in a much more mature response.

So when we are taking about protecting this preserved faith. What exactly do we mean by that? That we should ad-lib to Gods word and run it up the pole as protecting the preserved faith? I fail to see where that preserves anything, in fact I say it is a systematic attack on the preservation of the faith. That is why you hear so little of that speculation in the Kingdom of God and why there is a Magisterium. And why no Saint speaks by himself for the Church. Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible is the same as Sola Scriptura reading of the Saints.

The development of understanding through communication will continue far past our time, the mysteries of the Church will remain intact as they have always remained intact. Those mysteries are Christ, Eucharist and Mary, the preservation remains intact for the simple reason that though we may not be the generations which adds to the clarification by illumination, someone will add another brushstroke to the painting in defense of the painting.

So let me get this right, we are to add a brushstroke of sin to this painting to validate which everyone knows that Mary was in a human creature? Are we to say we don’t know and act as if we are confused by the truth? Or are we to say this is the Deposit of Faith handed down for 2000 years which no-where indicates sin with Mary. Its a contrary teaching to Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Eve at every breathing moment had the opportunity to live, so did Mary, the difference is Her faith and learned understanding in cooperation with the HS, first in Judaism then through the Living God Himself. Both whom obeyed all the laws even when not needed. Mary didn’t have to remain out of the Temple for 40-days. That was respect no more no less.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Any good reason why I must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ (aka total spiritual separation from God) not to be referring to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin?

If Jesus is Mary’s Savior, and of course Jesus is, then why would Mary be immortal? Why would Mary’s pure soul, being infused into her body at the moment of her very normal conception, in terms of the flesh, make her immortal?

Adam and Eve would have remained immortal if they had not sinned; I get that.

Original sin (if you will allow the term) is blotted out at Baptism. It just happened in a different way for Mary.

Read your own argument against Apotheoun. You were alleging that because he denies that there is a stain of original sin, he must therefore deny that there are consequences of sin which are inherited by the descendants of Adam. That would only be true if mortality were lumped in with the ‘stain of original sin.’ I was merely pointing out a corollary to your argument.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

By the same token, then, how can any Orthodox claim that the CC teaches that Mary did not have a natural human conception when there is historical record of a Pope actually, positively and authoritatively asserting that Mary did have a natural human conception – in fact, it was not by mere mention of the fact or by implication, but in explicit opposition to the contrary claim.

Indeed. Excellent point, Marduk.

Thanks for the question. What brother Fonebone means (and he can corroborate or deny this, but I’m pretty sure he will corroborate it) is that “Original Sin” has a more general meaning than “stain of original Sin.” The stain of Original Sin exclusively refers to one of the consequences of the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve - namely, the consequence of spiritual separation from God. The documents of Trent specifically refers to this stain (i.e., the spiritual separation from God) as the condition that is corrected or removed by Baptism. In distinction, “Original Sin” can refer to the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, and when it does so, it is inclusive of ALL the consequences of Original Sin, including mortality and corruption (which would be equivalent in your understanding as the inheritance of the fallen human nature), and can also refer to the original act that is the sin of Adam/ Eve.

Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Thank you for helping the discussion by clarifying my response, Marduk.

The matter in the Fonebone/Apotheoun exchange is about what is BELIEVED. In distinction, our discussion is about what is being TAUGHT. Fonebone can claim correctly, in response to brother Apotheoun that we BELIEVE the same thing because we have the same Faith despite the different theological terminologies. If brother Apotheoun stated that we TEACH different things, and brother Fonebone challenged that statement, I would side with brother Apotheoun because HOW the same Faith is expressed (i.e., the theological language and theological presuppositions) - and therefore taught - is indeed different between East and West.

Another excellent clarification. Thank you, and I agree. I always admire your specificity and thoroughness, my brother.

Fone Bone 2001,

Immaculate Conception (1854): Ineffabilis Deus.

Vatican I (1870): Dei Filius (doctrine against the manifold errors due to Rationalism) and Pastor Aeternus (the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome).**************

Oh, I see. I was confused because he mentioned that the same pope was behind them both, and my brain couldn’t make the connection to Pastor Aeternus since that was a conciliar teaching, not an exercise of so-called “papal infallibility.”

Since you define the stain of original sin to be the consequences of Adam’s sin inherited by all humans, it therefore should hold that you interpret the Immaculate Conception to mean that the Virgin was immortal. If not, then you must understand the term ‘stain of original sin’ not to refer to all of the inherited consequences of Adam’s sin, but to something else, at which point your objection loses its meaningfulness, because it is clear that Apotheoun does not deny that some things are inherited as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

An eminently fair response, Cavaradossi. I believe you are correct. As Marduk elaborated a few replies back, “the stain of original sin” refers not to all the consequences of original sin, but specifically to the deprivation of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Theotokos, from the first moment of her existence, had these.

I’m sure that’s what Joe meant.

The Latin tradition clearly attests that she did inherit mortality. Pope Pius XII explicitly mentioned her death in the very same document in which he dogmatized her Assumption.

And the best way to do this to assert that God preserved St. Mary from mortality (according to the definition of the “stain of original sin” given by Catholic posters in this thread)? Wow…paging John Cassian…attention: John Cassian…you are needed in Rome immediately!

No, we explicitly deny that “the stain of original sin” refers to mortality. It refers specifically to a privation of sanctifying grace. The Theotokos was mortal.

I will keep repeating, “Latins believe the Theotokos was mortal” until it sinks in.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, and I will keep repeating “the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary at best” until that sinks in. Fair deal.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thank you, Vico. This is as I understood it before Mardukm got me thinking that it might be about something else. Of course, there are now questions of what exactly is meant by “her conception”, but putting that aside (if it’s possible) – why is this dogma necessary? Because I know why it’s not necessary in the Orthodox view just by reading the Fathers, and the Marian hymns of my own Church (we are currently in Kiahk, which is a month when we sing a lot of praises to the Theotokos…like every month, I suppose, but to a much greater degree), but I haven’t really gotten a sense of why it is necessary from a Latin point of view, which I think might go a long way to cutting through the unhelpful (again, from an Orthodox perspective) distinctions being made here. If you had to explain why it is necessary that the Theotokos be conceived immaculately, what would you say?

I don’t have a great answer to this question, but for what it’s worth, I’ll try.

I think it was Vico - wasn’t it? - who said that it helped combat a growing sense of Pelagian ideology in the ideologies of some Enlightenment thinkers and into the positivistic optimism of an increasingly secularist modernity.

Recall that we’ve always believed the Blessed Virgin Mary to be sinless. Even when people point out things like, “Oh, St. Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception!” they’re always quick nonetheless to point out that he did, despite that, believe she was sinless.

Now, it’s the 19th century, and along comes all the exaggerations and undue positivstic optimism of this, as I said, increasingly secularist modernity. You’ve got all sorts of social and economic ideologies either growing or about to come upon the scene, like Marxism for instance, that promise an earthly utopia.

The Catholic understanding of our Blessed Mother’s sinlessness might seem to support this naive vision of human power divorced from God. If the Blessed Virgin Mary did not have the grace of God with her at all, if she was in the same condition that we’re in until our baptism, except in her case until the Annunciation, then her sinlessness was essentially achieved apart from God.

Ironically, the common objection that the Immaculate Conception makes her some kind of special-case Superwoman has it exactly backwards: it is far more ridiculous, and unusual, and unlikely, if the Blessed Virgin Mary remained good and sinless without any grace from God.

Such a possibility, such an impression, could inherently contribute in the sphere of the true faith to a building up of the false, naive, and secularist vision of optimistic modernity’s new ideological direction.

But along comes the dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Now, it becomes dogma for all Catholics to believe that from the first moment of her existence, the Mother of God enjoyed sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The dogma shatters the illusion of purely natural human power and reminds us of our own utter helplessness before God, in Whom alone we hope and in Whom alone is our salvation, for it emphasizes that the sinlessness and supreme virtue of the God-bearer was made possible only by this overabundance of divine grace lavished upon her. It is because she is “full of grace” that she has found favor with God, and truly she is right to rejoice in God her Savior.

Anyway, that may or may not make sense. It’s just how I look at it. The dogma was necessary in the context of the western situation to combat an impression potentially devastating to an understanding of our absolute dependence on God for all our salvation, sanctity, and divinization. It is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which prevents the Theotokos from becoming an almighty Superwoman exception to our utter dependence on God, and the Church in the 19th century was quite focused on combating the impression, growing in many ideological circles, that we can essentially save ourselves (whatever that means for those ideologies), an impression inherent to the growth of secularism.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, hence I wrote “paging John Cassian” (a saint in the RCC, I see), as he is remembered as having provided correctives to Augustine’s writings which went so far in their mission to destroy Pelagianism so as to provide a “Patristic” foundation for the likes of Calvinism, which certainly no apostolic church finds acceptable.

And again, I hate to keep harping on this, but your response (and Mardukm’s similar response) is doing nothing to disabuse me of the notion that this is a particularly Latin conceit that makes no sense outside of that context. This is why we say it is unnecessary, as it rests upon assumptions and ideas that we do not share.

 

[brb3]

Indeed. Excellent point, Marduk.

Yes, that is precisely what I meant. Thank you for helping the discussion by clarifying my response, Marduk.

Another excellent clarification. Thank you, and I agree. I always admire your specificity and thoroughness, my brother.

Oh, I see. I was confused because he mentioned that the same pope was behind them both, and my brain couldn’t make the connection to Pastor Aeternus since that was a conciliar teaching, not an exercise of so-called “papal infallibility.”

An eminently fair response, Cavaradossi. I believe you are correct. As Marduk elaborated a few replies back, “the stain of original sin” refers not to all the consequences of original sin, but specifically to the deprivation of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Theotokos, from the first moment of her existence, had these.

I’m sure that’s what Joe meant.

The Latin tradition clearly attests that she did inherit mortality. Pope Pius XII explicitly mentioned her death in the very same document in which he dogmatized her Assumption.

No, we explicitly deny that “the stain of original sin” refers to mortality. It refers specifically to a privation of sanctifying grace. The Theotokos was mortal.

I will keep repeating, “Latins believe the Theotokos was mortal” until it sinks in.

Fone Bone —

U and Mardukm are great spokesmen for the reasoning / rationale of IC of Mary, and what it means & doesn’t. U two have done a great service clearing away misconceptions held by Eastern Church & some in the RCC who needed clarification on the implications of Mary’s IC.

Also, special kudos in order to the WiseMan VIVO !!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a decent article which frames the Doctrine in time as to the how and why.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm

 

[brb3]

Here’s a decent article which frames the Doctrine in time as to the how and why.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm

Great link …!!

Claims that Mary was ‘LIBERATED FROM THE INFECTION OF O.S. of her Parents’ … makes sense, from the GENETIC, HERITABLE DNA transfer of O.S. that I hold to.
This fits my scientific understandings of OS, and how ALL are subject to it, UNLESS or ( but for) God repairing the ‘defective’ Parental DNA we receive @ Zygote, 1st fertilized cell stage, after sperm enters ova.

Eastern Church Catholics … am I wrong ?

 

[vames]

These seems to be another uniquely Latin thing: Have a private apparition, a new doctrine follows. I wonder if the Blessed Virgin Mary will appear some place in the future to sort out the ‘Mediatrix’ idea that is popular in some quarters, but still quite controversial?

Right, that’s why some people promote the “Marian apparitions” to Ida Peerdeman from Amsterdam, in which the apparition asked precisely for this new dogma - Mediatrix of All Graces.

 

[joe370]

Read your own argument against Apotheoun. You were alleging that because he denies that there is a stain of original sin, he must therefore deny that there are consequences of sin which are inherited by the descendants of Adam. That would only be true if mortality were lumped in with the ‘stain of original sin.’ I was merely pointing out a corollary to your argument.

I did. :thumbsup:I was talking to my friend Scott aka gurneyhalleck1 here at CAF; he is now a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he said the following:

"YES we believe in Original Sin! Yes! If you go back and read the Eastern Fathers: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Nicholas, and the rest, they all teach that Adam and Eve sinned, and deprived us of the sanctifying grace that is the divine life. And we inherit the consequences…HOWEVER, they never ever taught that we inherit THE GUILT of their sin. We’re not culpable for their sin. We just inherit the damage. In other words, it’s like a man who is doing drugs and a wife doing drugs and they have a baby. The baby isn’t guilty for the sin of doing drugs, but the baby is born with the defects FROM the drug-abuses. So, that’s Orthodoxy. And the Church was clear about that for centuries.

The problem is, the West through St. Augustine adopted a radically different view—that men and women not only inherit the damage, the blurred vision to see God and His Will, but ALSO they inherited the guilt and culpability. They’re just as guilty for that exact sin in the Garden as Adam and Eve. The East NEVER agreed to this. It just perpetuated in the West."

Do you agree?

 

[mardukm]

Right, that’s why some people promote the “Marian apparitions” to Ida Peerdeman from Amsterdam, in which the apparition asked precisely for this new dogma - Mediatrix of All Graces.

Not even Mary appearing to St. Bernadette asked for a definition. I’m glad that the Church correctly regards Marian apparitions as “private revelations,” to which none of the faithful are bound to adhere.

Blessings,
Marduk