What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kd5glx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Wrong. I have stated that it is not patristic or part of the ancient Church. You say otherwise. Prove it.
Agreed.
Can you show this to us patristically?
Click to expand...
Sure go back and re-read the thread instead or racing to post a reply. The links are the outline, the early church fathers are referrenced in the links and correctly. And my point is made with Irenaeus in not only the last post but in previous. 🤷
 
Hesychios said:
Regarding the IC dogma, my personal opinion is that it came about as a bug fix.

The prevailing concept of Original Sin in the west is fundamentally flawed. There is a sense of total depravity in humanity. A symptom of this is all the agnst over justification, which divides Christians today.

The traditional early high regard for the Holy Theotokos cannot be sustained in an environment like this unless she is made an exception and not born like the rest of us. So the IC dogma was declared as a kind of ‘patch’, a ‘bug fix’ to western theological programming to preserve both the western notion of deparavity and the older traditional notion of the Holy Theotokos’ purity.

So that’s what we have now. Westerners arguing over whether she is as depraved as the rest of us from birth, or whether she is not.

This explains why Eastern Christians often have a hard time answering the question of whether they believe in the IC. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It depends on what one thinks about original sin. Roman Catholics often try to claim that they believe the same things about original sin that the Orthodox do, but their need to preserve the Holy Theotokos from original sin clearly shows that they do not see it the same way, regardless of how they describe it.
Click to expand...
Good summary, Michael. Thank you.
 
Mickey said:
I have read them. Nothing is said about the IC. 🤷
Click to expand...
Odd I posted the link to the IC? 🤷 And “outlined” the section of the early church fathers. I see you have no desire to re-read and are still racing to post. 👍
 
Hesychios said:
Regarding the IC dogma, my personal opinion is that it came about as a bug fix.

The prevailing concept of Original Sin in the west is fundamentally flawed. There is a sense of total depravity in humanity. A symptom of this is all the agnst over justification, which divides Christians today.

The traditional early high regard for the Holy Theotokos cannot be sustained in an environment like this unless she is made an exception and not born like the rest of us. So the IC dogma was declared as a kind of ‘patch’, a ‘bug fix’ to western theological programming to preserve both the western notion of deparavity and the older traditional notion of the Holy Theotokos’ purity.

So that’s what we have now. Westerners arguing over whether she is as depraved as the rest of us from birth, or whether she is not.

This explains why Eastern Christians often have a hard time answering the question of whether they believe in the IC. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It depends on what one thinks about original sin. Roman Catholics often try to claim that they believe the same things about original sin that the Orthodox do, but their need to preserve the Holy Theotokos from original sin clearly shows that they do not see it the same way, regardless of how they describe it.
Click to expand...
Your explanation helps me to understand both viewpoints. From my understanding of scripture, we human beings are given a pure soul from God within an imperfect body.
Hence, the apostle Paul’s paraphrased writing: “the good that I would,I do not, the evil that I hate, that I do. Who shall deliver me from this body of death?” The answer: Our Lord Jesus Christ, “who was tempted in every way as we are, but yet without sin”.
 
Mickey said:
For you it is…it is a doctrine of the RCC.
Sorry rinnie. It is not insanity to believe that St Mary was born with original sin like you and I…but through the grace of God and her own free will, through great ascetism, she remained sinless in preparation for the Anunciation! This is a glorious example to the entire human race that we can choose (by grace) to be free from the passions…like our mother…the Most Holy Theotokos. 🙂
Click to expand...
Then as I stated before how could she have original sin and her son Not be touched by it and not contradict scripture then?

As ST Thomas stated we must therefore confess that she commited no actual sin neither venial nor mortal so that what is written if fulfilled.

How can there be not a Spot on thee, if she had the stain or Original Sin?
 
Mickey said:
What I saw…had nothing to do with IC. Why don’t you highlight some of the quotes and post it. 😉
Click to expand...
Mickey the IC link has nothing to do with the IC? Irenaeus made the connection of Mary/Eve/Genesis…DID HE NOT?
 
Mickey said:
Christ saved us all. Eve was about disobedience…St Mary was about obedience—her affirmative response to the angel Gabriel.
Indeed she was blessed amongst women and Christ is the fruit of her womb…but this had nothing to do with the innovation of the immaculate conception…you are not making any sense.
Click to expand...
That is not what I asked you, I asked you if Eve was indeed conceived without original sin?

And Yes I agree 100% Eve’s disobedience brought down shame on all mankind. But it was Mary’s Obedience to God and her yes to Christ that brought Salvation to the whole world through her SON Jesus Christ.

But either Mary was stained with O.S. or she was not. And if she was then she as I stated could not fulfill the Song of Songs as I stated.
 
rinnie said:
That is not what I asked you, I asked you if Eve was indeed conceived without original sin?
Click to expand...
Eve came into being via direct creation from God, whilst St Mary was born of a woman in a fallen world.
 
Mickey said:
Eve came into being via direct creation from God, whilst St Mary was born of a woman in a fallen world.
Click to expand...
So tell us how Jesus Christ reachs the hypostatic union and Mary remains in a state of sin?
 
Mickey said:
Jesus Christ was completely human and completely divine.
Click to expand...
This is completely true. So if he was made human by his Human Mother was he not? Now she was either completely free from any stain of sin as the RCC teaches or you are in direct conflict with the word of God. What is it going to be Mickey?
 
Mickey said:
LOL! Where are the patristic references to the IC…they are not there.
Click to expand...
Mickey the IC in its second part “is” talking about MARY/GENESIS/EVE

Irenaeus is talking about MARY/GENESIS/EVE in 2-AD.

That is a patristic reference, I’m sorry you fail to see.
 
As I stated Mickey according to the word of God in 2 Cor 3:6 SHe had to be qualified as a minister of a new Covenant. If she had the stain of sin she could not be qualified and be in line with this scripture.

Prov. Because honor of parents reflects on the Child. You cannot have scripture contradict scripture. It is the word of God Mickey. How do you explain this then?
 
rinnie said:
This is completely true. So if he was made human by his Human Mother was he not? Now she was either completely free from any stain of sin as the RCC teaches or you are in direct conflict with the word of God.
Click to expand...
My dear rinnie. I am not in direct conflict. I am sorry that you cannot understand.

It is not natural nor logical to impute an immaculatey conceived state upon the Holy Virgin. This notion sets her apart from mankind according to nature. It removes her humanity.
 
rinnie said:
As I stated Mickey according to the word of God in 2 Cor 3:6
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 3:6-18 says “All of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit”
 
GaryTaylor said:
So tell us how Jesus Christ reachs the hypostatic union and Mary remains in a state of sin?
Click to expand...
The Word of God the Father became Flesh, not by a change or alteration of his own nature … but because having made the flesh taken from the body of the Virgin his own, one and the same subject is called Son, before the Incarnation as Word still incorporeal, and after the Incarnation as the same Word now embodied. That is why we say that the same subject is simultaneously both God and Man, not dividing him conceptually into a human being with a separate identity and God the Word also with a separate identity, that we may exclude any idea of two Sons, but acknowledging that one and the same subject is Christ and Son and Lord.
St Cyril of Alexandria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top