Unanimous consent

[Mousey]

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

great websites that refute the OP but I still cannot find the supposed quotes in the op.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

There are two different ideas which Catolics have confused:

1. Immaculate life of Mary
2. Immaculate conception of Mary

Most Church Fathers, Orthodox church agree that Mary was sinless and spotless - by grace of God. But she was a normal human person who could have sinned. Otherwise, Christ does not receive a true human nature from his Mother by some kind of special semi-divine nature.

Immaculate conception has little reference in early church fathers if one is careful to make sure that such Father is talking of the mechanism of conception - and not just that Ioakim and Anna conceived a child who was immaculate.

Because Catolics believe such a semi-divine status for Mother of God, they have come to believe her as Co-Redeemer, which is truly an un christian idea. No christian has believed such a thing until Catolics have made Mary immaculately conceived and have had to follow their own reasoning that she is somehow not really like us and sinless, but different in nature.

Once again, Catholics believe that Mary could have sinned like Eve. But unlike Eve, she didn’t.

The Immaculate Conception just means that the Holy Virgin was created by a special act of God at her conception in the same state that Eve was when she was created.

The first Eve fell into the temptation of the Evil One, the Second Eve did not.

Both were created Immaculate, both also had the potential to sin, Eve sinned whereas the Holy Theotokos did not.

 

[Alexius]

Just to clarify something. Your profile, MGY100, says your religion is “pravoslavnia”. If one googles that, it turns up a Russian publication and a white supremacist organization. Can you explain what your religion is?

It’s the same word as Orthodox, just in Russian…Usually it is “Pravoslavna.”

 

[dvdjs]

The term stain is foreign to many Easterners, though, including myself. For us, no soul is not born with a stain of sin.

While many Easterners - especially those of frozen caveman ilk - seem to have trouble with the idea of “stain”, it is not a foreign concept. You write "no soul is not born with the stain of sin? The double negative is complicated, but you are right, from an EO perspective:

In the East, then, the concept of original sin has come to mean, as Fr. Michael Pomazansky very succinctly defines it, “the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them.”[5] Or, as John Karmiris puts it in an expanded definition, original sin is " ‘sin-sickness,’ the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life, [and] has been transmitted by means of natural heredity to all of the descendants of the first-born, along with the stigma, the consequences, the fruits of that Original Sin."[6] Indeed, Karmiris reminds us, “it was for this reason that the ancient Church instituted the Baptism of infants, specifically that they might be freed from the stigma of sin of their ancestors, although the infants possessed no guilt of ‘actual sin.’”[7]

stots.edu/library/rags.html

(Stigma is a good Greek word for “stain”).

That is original sin. And its consequences? Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) **Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. **

gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htm

The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace, the distortion of God’s image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam’s sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. “As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream,” teaches the Orthodox catechism, "so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal."

stjohndc.org/Homilies/9609a.htm

I wonder, though. Why did she have to receive this grace at birth and not later at the Annunciation?

The ideas above should help you understand. But to dispel this innovative idea that circulates among some EO’s that this grace was not received until the Annunciation, read the propers for the Vigil of the Entrance of the Theotokos.

 

[Volodymyr]

Once again, Catholics believe that Mary could have sinned like Eve.

But by believing that she could have sinned “like Eve” you do not believe that she could have sinned like you. Eve’s sin was a monumental thing. Your sin and mine come from our own nature, not opposed to it. You and others even with redeemer Jesus Christ have still such thing as you call concupisciencia - inclination to sin. Roman Church teaches that Mary has no such. Read below about her privilege which separates her from other people in Roman legalistic view.

But this belief in such privilege of Mother of God makes foolish the long preparation for Christ’s coming -EternalFather can at any time make some woman perfect and sinless and have her be Mother of God. Thus all Old Testament is just silliness. Also Mary’s Fiat is only not free-will of a normal human woman.

:
Furthermore to believe God could make her given benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection before such happens is not logical - if God could do this they why not apply to everyone from Adam.

CATHOLIC TEACHING:

The grace which exempted Mary from original sin preserved her also from the sting of concupiscence, or inordinate love of creatures, and tendency to evil. The first sin of Adam brought on us a deluge of evils, and by the two wounds of ignorance and concupiscence which it has left in us its malignity has spread its influence over all the powers of our souls. Through it our understanding is liable to be deceived and to be led away with errors; our will is abandoned to the assaults of the basest passions: our senses are become inlets of dangerous suggestions: we are subjected to spiritual weakness, inconstancy, and vanity, and are tyrannized over by inordinate appetites. Hence proceeds in us a difficulty in doing good, a repugnance to our duties, a proneness to evil, the poisoned charm of vice, and the intestine war of the flesh against the spirit. All this we experience and groan under; yet under the weight of such miseries, by a much greater evil, we are blind, proud, and insensible. We court our dangers, indulge and fortify our enemies, and caress and adore those idols which we are bound to destroy. To procure for ourselves some part in the blessing which Mary enjoyed in the empire over our passions, we must cheek them, restrain our senses, and die to ourselves. We must never cease sighing to God, to implore his aid against this domestic enemy, and never enter into any truce with him. “Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak; heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.”[6] If our weakness and dangers call for our tears’ we have still much greater reason to weep for our guilt and repeated transgressions. Whereas grace in Mary triumphed even over original sin; we, on the contrary, even after baptism and penance, by which we were cleansed from sin, return to it again, increase our hereditary weakness and miseries; and, what is of all things most grievous, infinitely aggravate out guilt by daily offences. “Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?”[7] O, Mother of Mercy, let your happy privilege, your exemption from all sin and concupiscence, inspire you with pity for our miseries: and by your spotless purity and abundant graces obtain for us strength against all our dangers; the deliverance from all our miseries, and the most powerful remedies of divine grace.

Thus you do not believe Mary is a normal human being who gives normal human nature to Christ, remaining sinless by grace of God even with inclination to sin. This is glory that Mary does not need - as both St Bernard Klairvo and St. Toma Akvin believed.

Also I am uncertain what is PROPERS that is worth reading according to DVDJS??

 

[dvdjs]

Furthermore to believe God could make her given benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection before such happens is not logical - if God could do this they why not apply to everyone from Adam.

Do you really mean to imply that God could not do this?

Also I am uncertain what is PROPERS that is worth reading according to DVDJS??

Then read them all.

 

[Alexius]

While many Easterners - especially those of frozen caveman ilk - seem to have trouble with the idea of “stain”, it is not a foreign concept. You write "no soul is not born with the stain of sin? The double negative is complicated, but you are right, from an EO perspective:

stots.edu/library/rags.html

(Stigma is a good Greek word for “stain”).

gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htm

stjohndc.org/Homilies/9609a.htm

The ideas above should help you understand. But to dispel this innovative idea that circulates among some EO’s that this grace was not received until the Annunciation, read the propers for the Vigil of the Entrance of the Theotokos.

The double negative was a typo. Do you really think I would use such improper language?

What I meant to say was:

No soul is born with the stain of sin. When I think of stain, it implies guilt. That comes with sin only. How can there be a stain where there is no sin?

Finally, I have read through the quotes of the Fathers and I don’t see anything implying she didn’t receive grace later.

 

[Alexius]

This is false. There is no such Catholic belief as “semi-divine status for Mother of God.”

This too is false.

** St. Ephrem of Syria** (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast).

St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

From a tenth-century English manuscript now at Salisbury:
All of the just are “co-workers with God” (1 Cor 3:9). Mary’s role was unique, however, as it was her fiat, not any other’s, that untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience.

As you say, everyone is a “co-worker with God.” It seems unnecessary to define such a teaching, IMHO. We know she was necessary for our salvation. We don’t need to define that which is not being challenged.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[dvdjs]

What I meant to say was:

No soul is born with the stain of sin. When I think of stain, it implies guilt. That comes with sin only. How can there be a stain where there is no sin?

Stain is the mark of disgrace - the penalty of loss that we sustain because our father squandered our inheritance. The existence of an inherited stain is clear from the EO links that I cited. These links also use the term “sin” in discussing this inherited stain.

Where are your innovative ideas coming from?

I don’t see anything implying she didn’t receive grace later.

Are you deliberately shifting from: a) at the annunciation, to b) some arbitrary time later than the conception? I repeat the suggestion that you read the EO ideas on inherited stain to get the picture, and the vigil service for the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos.

 

[dvdjs]

As you say, everyone is a “co-worker with God.” It seems unnecessary to define such a teaching, IMHO. We know she was necessary for our salvation. We don’t need to define that which is not being challenged.

Who’s defining what?

 

[anthony022071]

No soul is born with the stain of sin. When I think of stain, it implies guilt. That comes with sin only. How can there be a stain where there is no sin?

The word “stain” can refer not only to the guilt of personal sin,but also to the after-effects of Adam’s sin,which is mankind’s breach with God,and the inclination toward sin,and Adam’s own natural mortality. We all sinned in Adam,because we were all in Adam,in his seed. Sinfulness is hereditary – we take after Adam. We do not share Adam’s personal sin of disobedience,but we have inherited the stain of his personal sin. The guilt of Adam’s personal sin is not our personal guilt,but our guilt “takes after” the guilt of Adam just as we are related by heredity to him. If our souls were not born with the stain of sin,then babies would not die natural deaths,because as Paul says,sin works death. Babies cannot sin,and yet they can still die natural deaths. They are stained with the effects of Adam’s sin,original sin,even though they do not have any personal guilt. The hereditary guilt is enough to make vulnerable to a natural death even those who have committed no sin. The natural heredity that we have from Adam,after he sinned,brings with it natural death.

 

[Alexius]

Stain is the mark of disgrace - the penalty of loss that we sustain because our father squandered our inheritance. The existence of an inherited stain is clear from the EO links that I cited. These links also use the term “sin” in discussing this inherited stain.

Where are your innovative ideas coming from?

Are you deliberately shifting from: a) at the annunciation, to b) some arbitrary time later than the conception? I repeat the suggestion that you read the EO ideas on inherited stain to get the picture, and the vigil service for the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos.

The only Orthodox Father who comes close to an idea of hereditary guilt is St. Symeon the New Theologian.

Who’s defining what?

I know it hasn’t been defined. I was just expressing my views on it…

The word “stain” can refer not only to the guilt of personal sin,but also to the after-effects of Adam’s sin,which is mankind’s breach with God,and the inclination toward sin,and Adam’s own natural mortality. We all sinned in Adam,because we were all in Adam,in his seed. Sinfulness is hereditary – we take after Adam. We do not share Adam’s personal sin of disobedience,but we have inherited the stain of his personal sin. The guilt of Adam’s personal sin is not our personal guilt,but our guilt “takes after” the guilt of Adam just as we are related by heredity to him. If our souls were not born with the stain of sin,then babies would not die natural deaths,because as Paul says,sin works death. Babies cannot sin,and yet they can still die natural deaths. They are stained with the effects of Adam’s sin,original sin,even though they do not have any personal guilt. The hereditary guilt is enough to make vulnerable to a natural death even those who have committed no sin. The natural heredity that we have from Adam,after he sinned,brings with it natural death.

I was just discussing this on another thread and I am worn out. Tomorrow I’ll respond in more detail.

In all honesty, I think we are mostly talking past each other. I think we both have similar beliefs, but the language is different. When I hear “guilt,” I think of Augustine and his theological excesses, but that is irrelevant. I also hear many Catholics deny they believe in hereditary guilt.

I do not speak of such because such language is absent from the Eastern Fathers. I do not deny some Orthodox writings make use of the language, but the Fathers speak instead of “spiritual death.”

 

[dvdjs]

The only Orthodox Father who comes close to an idea of hereditary guilt is St. Symeon the New Theologian.

How does this respond to my remarks about inherited “stain”. Why do you conflate “stain” and “guilt”?

 

[Volodymyr]

Do you really mean to imply that God could not do this?

Then read them all.

To believe something just because Eternal God who is omnipotent could do it, could lead to believing much foolishness. There must be better more logical explanation than God could do it. God could even make my English perfect so I could know what it is you want to have us read. But I have looked in all English Russian dictionary that I have and find no such thing as PROPERS. What is PROPERS? Without knowing what is, I cannot find it to read it.

Sorry

 

[ematouk]

In my understanding the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception states the reason Mary cried out “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47) was that she was preserved from falling into the pit of original sin which the rest of us were doomed to fall into.

But in my understanding the bible says that God “shows no partiality” (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6). Why did Saint Paul claim “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11), when he was living in a time when Mary was saved in one manner and the rest of humanity another? How can we call God just, when He grants original Sanctity and innocence to one, and original sin to the rest of mankind?

Why is it that Mary needed to be Immaculately Conceived in order to bear God in her womb? Why could God not simply protect Jesus, as Catholics say He did Mary, when Jesus was conceived? Is this impossible for God? If God can protect Mary from being stained by Original Sin, are we to think He cannot even protect Himself?

Responses are appreciated. Thankyou for the responses thus far.

God bless.

 

[dvdjs]

To believe something just because Eternal God who is omnipotent could do it, could lead to believing much foolishness. There must be better more logical explanation than God could do it.

Yes of course. I don’t suggest for a moment that something should be believed just because it is possible. I am suspect, however, about people applying human ideas of how God should act. While we assert that God’s plan of salvation is not capricious or irrational, I would not go so far as to seek to circumscribe it by logic explanations and thus exclude mystery.

Sorry about the “propers”, I hadn’t realized that you were not a native speaker of English. The “proper” texts, as distinct from “ordinary” ones, are those that are used just for a given day - troparia, kontakia, and certain stichera, irmoi, etc. What I was calling attention to, in particular, is the pripiv on the ninth ode of matins, which I cannot see as consistent with the idea that Mary’s magnification did not occur until the annunciation.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

But by believing that she could have sinned “like Eve” you do not believe that she could have sinned like you. Eve’s sin was a monumental thing. Your sin and mine come from our own nature, not opposed to it. You and others even with redeemer Jesus Christ have still such thing as you call concupisciencia - inclination to sin. Roman Church teaches that Mary has no such. Read below about her privilege which separates her from other people in Roman legalistic view.

{snip}

CATHOLIC TEACHING:

The grace which exempted Mary from original sin preserved her also from the sting of concupiscence, or inordinate love of creatures, and tendency to evil. The first sin of Adam brought on us a deluge of evils, and by the two wounds of ignorance and concupiscence which it has left in us its malignity has spread its influence over all the powers of our souls. Through it our understanding is liable to be deceived and to be led away with errors; our will is abandoned to the assaults of the basest passions: our senses are become inlets of dangerous suggestions: we are subjected to spiritual weakness, inconstancy, and vanity, and are tyrannized over by inordinate appetites. Hence proceeds in us a difficulty in doing good, a repugnance to our duties, a proneness to evil, the poisoned charm of vice, and the intestine war of the flesh against the spirit. All this we experience and groan under; yet under the weight of such miseries, by a much greater evil, we are blind, proud, and insensible. We court our dangers, indulge and fortify our enemies, and caress and adore those idols which we are bound to destroy. To procure for ourselves some part in the blessing which Mary enjoyed in the empire over our passions, we must cheek them, restrain our senses, and die to ourselves. We must never cease sighing to God, to implore his aid against this domestic enemy, and never enter into any truce with him. “Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak; heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.”[6] If our weakness and dangers call for our tears’ we have still much greater reason to weep for our guilt and repeated transgressions. Whereas grace in Mary triumphed even over original sin; we, on the contrary, even after baptism and penance, by which we were cleansed from sin, return to it again, increase our hereditary weakness and miseries; and, what is of all things most grievous, infinitely aggravate out guilt by daily offences. “Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?”[7] O, Mother of Mercy, let your happy privilege, your exemption from all sin and concupiscence, inspire you with pity for our miseries: and by your spotless purity and abundant graces obtain for us strength against all our dangers; the deliverance from all our miseries, and the most powerful remedies of divine grace.

Thus you do not believe Mary is a normal human being who gives normal human nature to Christ, remaining sinless by grace of God even with inclination to sin. This is glory that Mary does not need - as both St Bernard Klairvo and St. Toma Akvin believed.

Also I am uncertain what is PROPERS that is worth reading according to DVDJS??

I don’t know where you got your quotes in red, but here is the official definition:

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Please read the document:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As you say, everyone is a “co-worker with God.” It seems unnecessary to define such a teaching, IMHO. We know she was necessary for our salvation. We don’t need to define that which is not being challenged.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I haven’t advocated for a de fide definition. I’m showing how this has been a teaching of the Catholic Church well before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the erroneous claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[ematouk]

I have been studying the Immaculate Conception from a RCC perspective recently. But here is a problem I find with it.

The Dogma clearly states it was the “unanimous opinion of the fathers” (under the heading “Testimonies of Tradition”). It also claims “This doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors" (ibid.)

But can we really believe this as Dogma when it is so clearly false?

Pope Leo 1 taught “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.” (St Pope Leo 1, Sermon 24 in "Nativ.Dom”[AD. 440]). Pope Gelasius also taught “It belongs alone to the Immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all." (St Pope Gelasius, Dicta, vol. 4, col. 1241 [AD. 492]). Who is the more infallible? Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo 1 and Pope Gelasius? Can the Catholic Church really attest that these early Popes believed in the Immaculate Conception that apparently “always existed in the church”?

St Augustine of Hippo also affirmed “For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin." (St Augustine, “Psalm 34” Discourse 2; [AD. 420])

The quotes above were taken from quoted from newadvent.org/fathers/

Also the famous quote by Ludwig Ott “Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary” **(Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p. 201 [June, 1974]) **.

How do Catholics respond to this? Is the fact the RCC is wrong on unanimous consent enough to debunk the Dogma?

God bless.

After looking at some of your responses, there were some interesting arguments made.

However, one member suggested that since the papal decrees were not said while the pope was speaking ex cathedra that they do not need to be upheld. Whilst I was rereading the documents of Vatican 2 I came across this passage suggesting Catholics need to agree withe the pope’s teachings even when he does not speak ex cathedra:

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25)"

Does this only apply to the current pope or any pope in the past as well?

God bless.