Here’s my question,
I would say it doesn’t have much to do with when the anathema took place in history, but rather, what the topic or subject of the anathema happens to be. In terms of iconoclasm vs. the immaculate conception or the assumption, I would say the heresy of iconoclasm would be more central to its effects on Christian truth. Touching on what Jon said as it relates to the doctrine’s importance to the gospel, forbidding images of Christ could be seen as an attack on the incarnational reality of the Gospel. That is, to deny an image of Christ is to deny that God became flesh. This would be more injurious to the Gospel than denying that Mary was conceived without original sin.
If the Church is in the business of saving souls, and a particular belief would be beneficial to one’s salvation, the Church is compelled to emphatically (even under the threat of anathema) proclaim the truth.
I don’t deny that Iconoclasm is problematic…
You could, but I don’t believe it would hold up under scrutiny. While Christ promises that all believers will be resurrected on the Last Day, He does not state that one in particular would rise before then. So if Mary didn’t, it doesn’t contradict His promise. Secondly, we already have proof that we will rise again - the resurrection of Christ. It is to that which the apostles point to in order to vouchsafe our resurrection.
How would it be an attack on original sin, since to say that Mary was conceived with original sin would only affirm that original sin is a reality? That Christ was without sin is affirmed by the apostles and by His obedience to the will of the Father, as well as by His resurrection - since Christ didn’t sin, death had no hold over Him, etc. Christ doesn’t need another to be sinless in order to be sinless Himself.
if you believe original sin is transmitted from Adam and Eve through the parents, your last statement is problematic.
Rather than argue all these points, I’ll just respond by saying that the Iconoclasts didn’t deny the “incarnational reality of the Gospel” (but if they did, neither would that hold up under scrutiny), and they could find the truth regarding the Incarnation in the Sacred Scriptures; and there is no evidence that I am aware of that the Apostles ever pointed to the veneration of images in order to defend the “incarnational reality of the Gospel”. I was just trying to show that it seemed to me that you weren’t being consistent in your criticism of the attaching of anathemas to the Marian Dogmas in question. On the one hand you seem critical of the attaching of anathemas to the denial of Marian Dogmas, but aren’t equally critical of the attaching of the anathemas to Iconoclasm.
It would only be problematic if Jesus were not conceived by the the power of the Holy Spirit and was not the second person of the Holy Trinity.
Mary is the Mother of God. See my earlier post regarding #3 Ephesus. #3 Ephesus and your reasoning, I would argue, does not jive.
Not really, because one has to remember what the iconoclasts were saying in regards to having images of Christ. Christians which use imagery heavily, such as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. do not say that having images is mandatory, or that they must be venerated. But the iconoclasts were saying that it was forbidden to have them in any sense whatsoever. The denial of this was seen as a direct attack on the incarnation. It is to this that the council itself pointed to in its condemnation of iconoclasm:
Yes, she is, but she is not the reason He was free from original sin. That would be owed to the fact that He was the GOD-man.
Let me try to simplify…
Gospel passages can be ambiguous on issues. Take John 6 for an example. Each person with no bias can give you many different interpretations. So you are incorrect in stating Luther merely pointed to Gospels/Scripture. Luther also gave an interpretation WHICH people who followed him accepted.
I think you are mistaking “why” Luther did what he did with “does he have the authority”. My point was that we will grant that Luther had reasons to revolt. Perhaps to make it more interesting, let us say that the Pope at the time had personally gone and killed Luther’s parents and other immediate family.
I didn’t say she was the reason. Said another way…I do not believe Christ could be conceived and born of a sinful person. I would say to believe so is beneath the dignity owed to God.
I do not know how you got in to this topic but don’t you think it belongs in another thread? (you might find tons that already have discussed this)
I am not trying to sabotage the discussion, honestly.
In my opinion, the ambiguity of the Gospel is vastly overstated - I’ll listen to what God tells me foremost, then the if I have difficulty, then I’ll trust the church over myself.
Perhaps Luther didn’t have the authority, but all Christians have the responsibility to point to the Cross when a new gospel is being put in it’s place - in this case a gospel of paid-for indulgences rather than Grace through Faith.
500 years ago, not only was it reasonable, but a necessity.
We are still inside the church, though perhaps you may not agree to such a statement.
I am asking to describe how the Apostolic Tradition refutes Papal claims. Is it that “Doctrine X that existed prior to definition contradicts definition of Papal office”? What doctrine is that?
But that itself is a faith claim of enormous magnitude. It assumes that God has made some promise to you that he will speak directly to you. That itself is a mini religion right there. Since there is no reason to think that you have received a special revelation where God makes such a promise, why should you yourself believe that?
The issue is that you are trusting on something that is already devious i.e. the idea that God should guide you. That itself is a faith statement and not something intuitively self-evident or attainable through reason.
As noble sounding as the statement sounds, it is a faith claim. Therefore that claim itself requires authority to pronounce. I do not have that authority, you do not have it and neither did Luther. So what exactly are the Lutherans doing following him?
A necessity? How can it be a “necessity” for a student to rebel against the professors and start his own university? If the Professors seemed to be straying, the right thing to do is stay in the Church and object. Not start your own gig.
You are not completely inside the Church though you are strongly connected to it via baptism.