The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Communion with God the Father as I contend above and have been right along.

Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, is Communion with God. We are aided in this on-going journey with the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Communion with Christ. Heaven is open since Christ on the Cross. What we must do is seek to remain in Communion with Christ. That is the path to Salvation and the path bought by Marys intercession with God the Father thus by Christ.

Its called in the Catholic Church a “State of Grace”. Mary remained in this State of Grace.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Communion with God the Father as I contend above and have been right along.

Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, is Communion with God. We are aided in this on-going journey with the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Communion with Christ. Heaven is open since Christ on the Cross. What we must do is seek to remain in Communion with Christ. That is the path to Salvation and the path bought by Marys intercession with God the Father thus by Christ.

Its called in the Catholic Church a “State of Grace”. Mary remained in this State of Grace.
Click to expand...
So, Mary received nothing which the Apostles lacked ?

Clearly Thomas doubted, Peter denied Christ, Judas became an Apostate ! They were not PRESERVED FROM SIN … and we today aren’t either, even our Popes.

But, you are saying MARY WAS PRESERVED FROM ALL SIN …from start (IC) to death !
That puts her in a Zone, on a Spiritual Level, all by herself …

Do I understand / express u correctly on Mary ?
 
brb3 said:
So, Mary received nothing which the Apostles lacked ?

Clearly Thomas doubted, Peter denied Christ, Judas became an Apostate ! They were not PRESERVED FROM SIN … and we today aren’t either, even our Popes.

But, you are saying MARY WAS PRESERVED FROM ALL SIN …from start (IC) to death !
That puts her in a Zone, on a Spiritual Level, all by herself …

Do I understand / express u correctly on Mary ?
Click to expand...
O-Kay, Mary, received exactly what we all receive in the process of Grace which I pray for you and I, and all others, this is the same path as the Pope, Patriarch, Saints, Apostles etc.

Mary was given a State of Grace thus Communion with Christ. She never lacked this anywhere with the progression of Grace, Mary didn’t start where you and I started, in other words She started ahead of Eve on this path of Grace by Divine Intervention. In this singular way which as I say flourished above from Her early life through the ministry of Christ and after the Ascension at the conception of the Church which was aided by Marys prayers/intercession also. As they all are today in the Apostolic Church’s.

What the Apostles did have and what Adam and Eve “had” was Communion with Jesus Christ through Gods Grace. This is also what Mary had, but perfectly Graced with this singular Grace from the on-set.

Preserved is of no consequence to those who you mention. They didn’t have “God” for a Son. Their Grace as a supernatural virtue is no different than the CC teaches or the EO teaches with Essence/Energies. Or in other words as with you or I. Be it these are very Blessed souls we are talking about. Marys Grace also was a very human process during Her life which continued just as you and I or the Saints and Apostles. Because She was Blessed in this singular way.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well was the flesh that Christ took on somehow different than ours? I don’t think so. Only difference is God is never not in communion with God.

What distorts the Incarnation is God who is always in communion with Himself, could not and was not born into anything not in communion with Him.

And no there is no teaching which indicates sanctified in the womb and from what I continue to see not in the Coptic either. Which holds to the apocryphal of James in regards to the teaching on Mary and Her childhood.

This idea Mary was sancitified in the womb is a “new” animal in Christianity. No early church father taught this and its not a constant in history nor Biblically.
Click to expand...
You’ve misread the post you’re responding to, Gary. I wrote “If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified)”, meaning…well, meaning just what it says: if you guys meant only that she was sanctified in the womb, that’d be one thing, since we already have examples of that happening to other people, as well, so it’s not something unheard of, and is found in scripture and the fathers. But that’s apparently not what the IC says, so it’s right to be more skeptical of it, as it is a more fantastic (and, to the Orthodox, unnecessary) claim.

Incidentally, I don’t know why you’re claiming that this idea that the Virgin was sanctified in the womb is new. Thomas Aquinas addresses it in his “Summa Theologica”, so it must’ve been current in the Roman Catholic West by the 13th century. I don’t think it’s so popular in the East or the Orient, though.
 
Vico said:
It is a real obstacle when different meanings for the same word are used.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s why I responded as I did. There are some discussions I just don’t see as profitable to anyone.
 
dzheremi said:
Sure, but it’s not 100% the same as ours so long as she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share. If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified), but to say that she was preserved from conception from ____ (I’ll let you fill that in with whatever you think is appropriate, because again these are not concepts we normally deal in, so I don’t want to use the wrong word and have my post dismissed out of hand on that account), when the rest of us are subject to _____, well…no. Then she is not like us, and so the flesh that Christ took from her is something other than that which shares the one (fallen) human nature. This is at the heart of why the Orthodox will not accept the IC: It distorts the theology of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Avoiding the issue of inheritance of human nature I can respond to the idea that “she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share”. She is not exempt from the need to be redeemed.

Exempt means free from liability and all humans have the liability and therefore each must be redeemed. To redeem means to free or buy back, and is necessary since Humanity was held captive in that it was enslaved by sin. In the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, she was* redeemed at the moment of her conception*. The text of the Immaculate Conception Apostolic Constitution (Ineffabilis Deus) states that “she was redeemed in the most sublime way”. “… et iccirco sublimiori modo redemptam.”

catholicphoenix.com/the-latin-text-of-ineffabilis-deus/

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
 
dzheremi said:
Indeed.
Click to expand...
I see, your right, I did misread, my apology. I assumed Christs Incarnation was the point. Your right though about Aquinas. He believed Mary was preserved just as John the Baptist in their mothers womb. Most all the Dominicans of that era did. Well, the rest is history.
 
dzheremi said:
Sure, but it’s not 100% the same as ours so long as she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share. If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified), but to say that she was preserved from conception from ____ (I’ll let you fill that in with whatever you think is appropriate, because again these are not concepts we normally deal in, so I don’t want to use the wrong word and have my post dismissed out of hand on that account), when the rest of us are subject to _____, well…no. Then she is not like us, and so the flesh that Christ took from her is something other than that which shares the one (fallen) human nature. This is at the heart of why the Orthodox will not accept the IC: It distorts the theology of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
But, what if the IC applied only to Mary’s spirit/ soul, not to her physical, genetic body …transfered from Adam/ Eve, via David, etc ?
Would that solve the delima between East & West ?
 
Vico said:
Avoiding the issue of inheritance of human nature I can respond to the idea that “she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share”. She is not exempt from the need to be redeemed.
Click to expand...
But taken together with what you say in the subsequent paragraph, she is redeemed at the moment of her conception. Is Christ’s death on the cross not necessary for her salvation, then, since she is uniquely redeemed at her conception?
In the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, she was* redeemed at the moment of her conception*.
Click to expand...
This is heretical to the Orthodox, so I hope we can now put to bed the idea that the Orthodox believe in the IC, which was was the whole point of my original post in this thread. From HG Bishop Youssef (my bishop):

“All those who oppose the Immaculate Conception (including us the Orthodox) believe that the Redemption accomplished by our Lord Christ would not be universal if the condition of sin were not common to all human beings. …] In our Orthodox view, this whole issue of defending or re-explaining the Immaculate Conception again diminishes the importance of the Cross. For if the Lord redeemed or pre-redeemed our Lady, or by His grace preserved her from sin, without or before actually dying on the Cross, then this whole salvation process might be considered as an act before man!”

suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=511&catid=203
 
brb3 said:
But, what if the IC applied only to Mary’s spirit/ soul, not to her physical, genetic body …transfered from Adam/ Eve, via David, etc ?
Would that solve the delima between East & West ?
Click to expand...
Souls are “transferred” from one generation to the next now? That sounds kinda…odd. Is this RC teaching? I’ve never heard of anything like that.

No, I don’t think that’s going to do it. There really isn’t a dilemma here, anyway; just very different ways of looking at things.
 
dzheremi said:
Souls are “transferred” from one generation to the next now? That sounds kinda…odd. Is this RC teaching? I’ve never heard of anything like that.

No, I don’t think that’s going to do it. There really isn’t a dilemma here, anyway; just very different ways of looking at things.
Click to expand...
Well, we inherit mental accumen & personality traits from parents, upon which nurture / environment come to bear upon.
And, scripture says the sins of parents are passed down to 3rd generation offspring.
 
Just like Her body was “uniquely” resurrected into Heaven on the Third day after Marys death? Why can God do this and not preserve Mary perfectly prior to Marys conception, that is being God?

Oh wait He could, that is being God right?

Who else has this honor?

Since that theory just fell through the floor, why is that God chose to wait till Marys conception after She was sanctified?

So God allows Mary to fall in the mud, then picks Her up? Or He stops Her from falling in the mud first? Tough question on what the Almighty God would do?
 
dzheremi said:
Mardukm: I don’t really care to get into a discussion with you about these matters. I provided those links because they show that the Orthodox Church, both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian, do not accept the Immaculate Conception
Click to expand...
I did not deny that the non-Catholic Churches deny the Immaculate Conception. But it is obviously according to the non-Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, which is different from the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

The Catholic Church by the dogma of the IC does not teach that God did not save Mary, does not teach that she did not experience ANY consequences from the Original Sin, and does not teach that she did not have a natural human conception.

Does the Coptic Orthodox Church reject the IC because she thinks it teaches that God did not save Mary, that she did not experience ANY consequences of Original Sin, that she did not have a natural physical conception? Yes. And being faithful to the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, I reject those beliefs too. I do not believe that God did not save Mary. I do not believe that Mary suffered no consequences of the original sin of Adam and Eve. And I do not believe that Mary did not have a natural physical conception. But these are not the things that the Catholic Church teaches with the IC. I fully accept the orthodox teaching on the IC by the Catholic Church, which has nothing to do with any of the things the Coptic Orthodox Church thinks the IC teaches. That’s all I’m saying.

If you prefer to adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Church’s opinions of what other Churches believe, that’s your prerogative. I prefer to adhere to what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches about HERSELF (not what she claims about what others teach), and what the Catholic Church teaches about HERSELF.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
GaryTaylor said:
Just like Her body was “uniquely” resurrected into Heaven on the Third day after Marys death? Why can God do this and not preserve Mary perfectly prior to Marys conception, that is being God?

Oh wait He could, that is being God right?
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of whether or not God could – it’s a question of whether or not He did. We don’t like to pry too much into the motivations of God. It’s kind of like when some people ask questions about why Jesus was incarnate as a man and not a woman, or why God could not have saved everybody instantly without the need for the Incarnation and the Crucifixion and all those other things that some people spend a lot of time prying into in an unhealthy way. We don’t live in some alternate universe where things are other than how they are, so that must be how God wanted them to be or else He would have them be some other way. So this kind of “why couldn’t He” idea is not helpful, and can actually be quite harmful.

So that’s the wrong question in the first place. The reality of the situation is that RCs believe that God did this thing that Orthodox believe He did not do.
 
dzheremi said:
It’s not a question of whether or not God could – it’s a question of whether or not He did. We don’t like to pry too much into the motivations of God
Click to expand...
Oh Christianity has been prying a long time now. And yes that is the question.

This very question has remained in the theological realm for a very long time even to point of belief Mary was preserved by Christs Immaculate Conception. Nothing new here.
dzheremi said:
So that’s the wrong question in the first place. The reality of the situation is that RCs believe that God did this thing that Orthodox believe He did not do.
Click to expand...
No its the same question which has been debated a very long time. And the answer is whats most fitting? Fall in the mud first or prevention from falling?
 
mardukm said:
I did not deny that the non-Catholic Churches deny the Immaculate Conception. But it is obviously according to the non-Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, which is different from the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

The Catholic Church by the dogma of the IC does not teach that God did not save Mary, does not teach that she did not experience ANY consequences from the Original Sin, and does not teach that she did not have a natural human conception.

Does the Coptic Orthodox Church reject the IC because she thinks it teaches that God did not save Mary, that she did not experience ANY consequences of Original Sin, that she did not have a natural physical conception? Yes. Does the Coptic Orthodox Church reject the IC based on the what the Catholic teaches that it is? No. That’s all I’m saying.

You can adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Church’s opinions and explanations of what other Churches believe if that gives you peace. That’s your prerogative. I prefer to adhere to what the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches about HERSELF (not what she claims about what others teach), and what the Catholic Church teaches about HERSELF.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I’m running out of patience with you, Mardukm. Please refer to post #27 in this thread. There is absolutely no point in having any conversation with you. Go away.
 
dzheremi said:
“All those who oppose the Immaculate Conception (including us the Orthodox) believe that the Redemption accomplished by our Lord Christ would not be universal if the condition of sin were not common to all human beings. …] In our Orthodox view, this whole issue of defending or re-explaining the Immaculate Conception again diminishes the importance of the Cross. For if the Lord redeemed or pre-redeemed our Lady, or by His grace preserved her from sin, without or before actually dying on the Cross, then this whole salvation process might be considered as an act before man!”

suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=511&catid=203
Click to expand...
That explanation looks like a switch-and-bait. First, it seems to make the need for redemption the whole point of the issue. This, the Catholic Church easily answers, because she does teach that Mary was redeemed by the Sacrifice of Christ.

Then, out of the blue it goes into an area that is wholly metaphysical, which certainly cannot be dogmatically determined by the Coptic Orthodox Church herself - the idea of whether the Grace of the Cross is eternal or merely temporal. If eternal, then the Coptic Orthdox Church has no grounds for objection on the issue of Mary’s Redemption at her conception. If merely temporal, then and only then is there merit in the objection. The question is, brother Dzheremi, what do you claim the Coptic Orthdox Church teaches about the Grace and Power of Christ’s Sacrifice. We all agree that there was a temporal aspect of it - the Crucifixion. But is the Grace derived from the Cross eternal or merely temporal? What was it that St. John saw in heaven that is recorded in Revelation? Did he actually witness an altar with a Lamb as though it had been slain in the realm of eternity? Or was it just a symbolic dream? Is the Grace and Power of the Cross eternal, or merely temporal?

If this is all too metaphysical for you, and you don’t want to discuss it, that’s fine.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top