Problem Solving

[Don5925]

We have all been treated to WA and XA jousting in various threads the last few weeks. I don't think anyone can deny that they both love the Lord and their faiths. Most of us could learn from their zeal. I know I have learned bunches as to the Orthodox perspective and perhaps the Orthodox have gained some understanding of the Catholic side of things.

In the thread 'First among Equals' XA said:
"It is just unfortunate that at this stage we do not see a way out - I am also not sure where the way would be."

Well, let me offer my perspective on that statement. First let me say that the only way the rift can be healed is for the parishioners to demand that it is. We pray for unity, but do we work for it? Are we expecting to wake up and be one church? That is going to happen about as soon as my avatar flies.

The whole idea of one side coming to the other's is absurd. What is not absurd is for the people to demand unity. I would bet that most people are less than 'six degrees of separation' away from their bishop, make sure he knows what we want.

The other thing we can do is accept the idea that both sides are right and have valid points and conversely, have points of weakness. There is invention on both sides as well as orthodoxy. How can a Catholic expect an Orthodox buy into the Immaculate Conception when he does not buy into original sin? How can an Orthodox expect a Catholic to back away from papal primacy when we see the pope as the successor to Peter on whom the Church was built?

Another point to remember is that the day that unity comes will be the day two new churches are formed: The Truly Old Catholic Church and the Truly Orthodox Orthodox Church.

We can do it and will be the parishioners that drive it not the bishops. It is quite arrogant for either side to think they have the corner on guidance from the Holy Spirit. If that were true there would be no anti-popes nor schism, let alone dominations. We can do this, if we really work for it. As the saying goes: God helps those who help themselves. I am sure that both sides can give.

[xristos.anesti]

Rome is the primal see - the honour among Churches - leader in love. The mouth peace of Orthodoxy, the theology of the West - the defender of the science.

Let us not go and expect the obedience of power - we have struggled lot - let us acknowledge the freedom of the East and the inquisity of the West - St. Thomas of Aquino is St. Gregory Palamas - of the same mother two kids seeing the same in different colours.

We have hurt and died in our stupidity - our own lies - our own separations -

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - not of one - but of five - not of five - but of all - for the truth is freedom and freedom is Christ - always Christ - in all, through all and of all - Christ.

And there are:

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem...
and all those with them -

Schism is the greatest sin against the Church.

But - we can not disregard truth for the sake of unity -


EVERY BISHOP IS EQUAL

and

ROME IS THE FIRST AMONG EQUALS.



Many years.

[zhilan]

We have all been treated to WA and XA jousting in various threads the last few weeks. I don't think anyone can deny that they both love the Lord and their faiths. Most of us could learn from their zeal. I know I have learned bunches as to the Orthodox perspective and perhaps the Orthodox have gained some understanding of the Catholic side of things.

In the thread 'First among Equals' XA said:
"It is just unfortunate that at this stage we do not see a way out - I am also not sure where the way would be."

Well, let me offer my perspective on that statement. First let me say that the only way the rift can be healed is for the parishioners to demand that it is. We pray for unity, but do we work for it? Are we expecting to wake up and be one church? That is going to happen about as soon as my avatar flies.

The whole idea of one side coming to the other's is absurd. What is not absurd is for the people to demand unity. I would bet that most people are less than 'six degrees of separation' away from their bishop, make sure he knows what we want.

The other thing we can do is accept the idea that both sides are right and have valid points and conversely, have points of weakness. There is invention on both sides as well as orthodoxy. How can a Catholic expect an Orthodox buy into the Immaculate Conception when he does not buy into original sin? How can an Orthodox expect a Catholic to back away from papal primacy when we see the pope as the successor to Peter on whom the Church was built?

Another point to remember is that the day that unity comes will be the day two new churches are formed: The Truly Old Catholic Church and the Truly Orthodox Orthodox Church.

We can do it and will be the parishioners that drive it not the bishops. It is quite arrogant for either side to think they have the corner on guidance from the Holy Spirit. If that were true there would be no anti-popes nor schism, let alone dominations. We can do this, if we really work for it. As the saying goes: God helps those who help themselves. I am sure that both sides can give.


:wave:

Don,

While I understand and appreciate your sentiments and I have no doubt they come from the best of intentions, when it comes to truth and maintaining orthodoxy, the middle path does not always mean the best path. If I say there is a God and Bob says there isn't, that doesn't mean that agnosticism is the answer.

Of course we all want unity, but unity brings nothing good if it comes about by compromising the truth God has given down to us. We want unit with the Jews too, but does that mean we should compromise and agree that Jesus was a good guy, maybe even a prophet?

Unity can only come if it is based in truth. The Orthodox Church cannot and never will be able to accept Papal Infallibility or Supremacy. Catholics often like to point to the ERC and tell us that we will be in Communion with the Pope but not under him or something, but that doesn't make sense because to be Catholic is to be under the Pope. You cannot be Orthodox in beliefs but in Communion with the Pope. Why is it that a Latin Catholic who thinks that birth control may be ok is in mortal sin and not a "real" Catholic but supposedly Eastern Rite Catholics can reject infallible doctrines and still be "in communion" with the Pope? It seems like the RCC is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

I know this isn't your intention, but to Orthodox it seems sneaky when Catholics try to tell us "oh you can still be Orthodox in beliefs" but just come into Communion, when that is not really true. The Orthodox Church cannot and will not compromise the truth for unity. We, like you, believe we are the true faith. Once the Pope stops claiming supremacy and denounces post-schism innovations, then we can talk. I know that sounds harsh, and I'm sorry for that. Some of the OBOBers on here probably don't believe me, but I honestly have a lot of respect for Catholics and I've known some great Catholic priests and people. But false unity is not unity.

[WarriorAngel]

I think the Byzantine Catholics are heppy to be in union with the Pope.

Byzantine Catholics are similar to the EO...except they follow the Pope ... as the Old Church did.

The Pope shall and always has defined doctrines against heretics, or we should have seen the gates prevail long ago.

JUST as we do not agree with agnostics, we always must define and teach agnostics.

SO the role of Pope is still intact...plodding along against heretical ideas and trying to establish obedience to the old doctrines.
Which not only is it true in the West but also the East that modernism is creeping in.

IF the Bishops [in the West] respected and honored the Pope and abstained from these poisons, then the Church would be pure.
However; dissention, heresy, pride, apostasy...et al have always been the bi-products of man.

Peter's Chair is teacher...a Teacher is required to teach.
That has not changed...the only that has changed is new or more refined heresies as generations continue onward.

And as that goes, so does the Teacher in defining and proclaiming what always was and is.

Not leaving anything to chance.

So the truth is intact...its just that East admittedly cannot move forward in explaining it, but the West can.

That doesnt mean the EO do not have an understanding of Immaculate Conception [Eastern fathers taught it]...they just have not defined it against any heresies.

Its not that they don't have the understanding of original sin [origin] but that they go no further to explain it.

However the West does, and always has.

SO the truth is intact...but it continues to be revealed as heresies continue to blaspheme the Lord.

Peace! :) Always.

BTW, I am praying for unity...regardless of the messes we have...I know God can do anything, and I put this in his hands, not demanding He do things my way....but His way.

'Thy will be done, on earth, AS it is in Heaven..'
Just praying that He does it.:crossrc:

[WarriorAngel]

Mt brother predicts [he is Byzantine] that the Churches will reunite, but the most hard headed will schism off the EO when this happens and form their own church...
Just as the reform happened.

But that is ok...
The Reunification will happen.

I heard prophecies pointing to it...where I do not remember certainly.

However; Nostradamus predicted it.
Lets see if I can remember the stanza..

'No one thought it would happen, but the East and the Western brother stand side by side again.
They will become a powerful ally.

I cannot remember it word for word, and havent been able to find it again.

I remember Orson Wells on tv reading that prophecy.
The world thinks it is about Russian and USA, but I do not.
Nostradamus, although used forms of 'occult' to divinate the future, did act as a seer to the Catholic Church. Although I do not agree with what he did [or so the rumors tell us he did]
But when he prophecied, it was for the Church.

SO I dont think he was talking about secular nations...
NOT to digress the thread...:holy:

[zhilan]

WA,

The East considers the Immaculate Conception heretical.

So while we "understand" it, we do not condone it and believe it is a heresy, that teeters on making Jesus unable to save us.

And Byzantines may be happy in the same way that liberal Catholics may be happy - they just pick and chose which doctrines to follow. Why don't you at least be consistent and leave the liberals alone then?

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

The East considers the Immaculate Conception heretical.

So while we "understand" it, we do not condone it and believe it is a heresy, that teeters on making Jesus unable to save us.

And Byzantines may be happy in the same way that liberal Catholics may be happy - they just pick and chose which doctrines to follow. Why don't you at least be consistent and leave the liberals alone then?


Church Fathers:

implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? - 202?);
Found in the more general terms about Mary: "holy", "innocent", "most pure", "intact", "immaculate" (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397);
Explicit language: Mary - free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109);
Eastern Church:

celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century;link (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm)

~~~~~

Eastern Fathers prepared the way for an understanding of the Immaculate Conception in the West. Thus, Andrew of Crete (d. 740) writes:
Today that [human] nature, which was first brought forth from the earth, receives divinity for the first time; the dust, having been raised up, hastens with festive trend toward the highest peak of glory. Today, from us and for us, Adam offers Mary to God as firstfruits, and, with the unpoisoned parts of the muddy dough, is formed a bread for the rebuilding of the human race....Today pure human nature receives from God the gift of the original creation and reverts to its original purity. By giving our inherited splendor, which had been hidden by the deformity of vice, to the Mother of Him who is beautiful, human nature receives a magnificent and most divine renovation, which becomes a complete restoration. The restoration, in turn, becomes deification, and this becomes a new formation, like its pristine state.



Original sin;
'Behold in iniquity was I conceived and in sin my mother conceived me' (Ps. 50)

St. Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), while maintaining the universality of original sin, asserted the absolute purity of Mary in a way that was conducive towards understanding the Immaculate Conception:
It is right that that Virgin should shine with a purity greater than which one is not able to imagine, to whom God the Father was disposed to give His only Son, whom He loved as Himself, begotten equal from His heart, that He would naturally be the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin at the same time.



The feast of Mary's Conception appears to have spread from the East into Western Europe in two directions. One was by way of Southern Italy. The feast may have been celebrated in Naples around the year 850. At that time, the liturgy of Southern Italy was very much influenced by the Byzantine liturgy. The second approach was by way of England. Liturgical documents from around 1030 exist which indicate that the feast of the Conception was celebrated in England at the Benedictine abbeys of Old Minster and Newminster, both in Winchester, on December 8. Since the feast was celebrated on December 9 in the East, the December date suggests an Eastern influence.

link (http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/kimmac.html)


Finally, a comment by eminent Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff is relevant as to the Eastern/Byzantine difference on their view of Original Sin and the definition of the Immaculate Conception:
"Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854 , if only they had shared the Western doctrine of original sin." (John Meyendorff, [B]Byzantine Theology, page 148)

[Don5925]

I know WA won't back me on this, but the first thing that needs to be done is for the Pope to at least back away from infallibility. The Pope needs to teach and lead, but must also accept council from the bishops.

I think it is arrogant to think that anyone side has a monopoly on guidance from the Holy Spirit. Pretty much every church says they are lead by it, and I know of no way to prove they are/not.

[xristos.anesti]

It always annoyed me more than anything - when Latins say that we - in the East - actually "always believed" what they are (erroneously) teaching - it is just that we are either stupid or whatever else or just do not understand them, or we changed the way just in order to be in disagreement etc.


Then they (like WA) find one or two Eastern fathers and misquote and misrepresent what the people are saying and then like little angels sit there with their arms crossed and little smiles as if to say:"See I told ya"...

It annoys me to no end when a Roman Catholic who knows nothing about anything in the East quotes Eastern fathers of the 5th century in order to "prove" a Latin heresy of the XVIII century.

More than anything I dislike people who like to tell others - what they (others) actually believe and how they are there to tell the facts and instruct them - because for some reason - (ah - that German fellow in Rome) they know what is what - and what is best for everyone else.

It really makes my blood boil when some XXI century Roman Catholic American is teaching us what a V century Orthodox Greek "really meant" when he said something...

No disrespect - can you, like - give me a break?




Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

I know WA won't back me on this, but the first thing that needs to be done is for the Pope to at least back away from infallibility. The Pope needs to teach and lead, but must also accept council from the bishops.

I think it is arrogant to think that anyone side has a monopoly on guidance from the Holy Spirit. Pretty much every church says they are lead by it, and I know of no way to prove they are/not.

Actually, what if you are wrong and the Holy Spirit pushed this?

Man thinks not...but I assure you, the Church doesn't change anything. If one error then all error...one crack then all cracks.

http://www.livingmiracles.net/Myrna.html

It always annoyed me more than anything - when Latins say that we - in the East - actually "always believed" what they are (erroneously) teaching - it is just that we are either stupid or whatever else or just do not understand them, or we changed the way just in order to be in disagreement etc.


Then they (like WA) find one or two Eastern fathers and misquote and misrepresent what the people are saying and then like little angels sit there with their arms crossed and little smiles as if to say:"See I told ya"...

It annoys me to no end when a Roman Catholic who knows nothing about anything in the East quotes Eastern fathers of the 5th century in order to "prove" a Latin heresy of the XVIII century.

More than anything I dislike people who like to tell others - what they (others) actually believe and how they are there to tell the facts and instruct them - because for some reason - (ah - that German fellow in Rome) they know what is what - and what is best for everyone else.

It really makes my blood boil when some XXI century Roman Catholic American is teaching us what a V century Orthodox Greek "really meant" when he said something...

No disrespect - can you, like - give me a break?




Many years.

So...in your own words, why did the Eastern Church celebrate the Conception of Mary as a MAIN celebration in the 8th-9th century?
The date being Dec 9th.

It is now a minor celebration...but was major.

SO IN YOUR own words...and not the ECF's...why is that?

What was soooo significant to her conception?

[prodromos]

Ha ha ha ha Warrior Angel, you really need to stop this, it just makes you look silly.

Of course we celebrated the feast day of the Conception of Mary in the East, just as we also celebrated the feast day of the Conception of Elizabeth, however there was never any term "immaculate" associated with either feast day.

[WarriorAngel]

Ha ha ha ha Warrior Angel, you really need to stop this, it just makes you look silly.

Of course we celebrated the feast day of the Conception of Mary in the East, just as we also celebrated the feast day of the Conception of Elizabeth, however there was never any term "immaculate" associated with either feast day.

SO, you are telling me that you celebrated the date that Elizabeth was conceived in her parents womb??:scratch:

How come?

[prodromos]

It is now a minor celebration...but was major.Who ever told you it is not a major feast day in the Orthodox Church? It is hugely significant, more so than the feast day of the Nativity of our Lord, because it was at the point of Mary conceiving that God took on flesh, that the one who cannot be contained was contained in her womb. Christmas day is when we celebrate Christ being revealed initially to the world (and only to a few shepherds and some Eastern Magi), but the conception of Mary is where creation and the uncreated become one for the first and last time in the history of creation.

[edit] Apologies for confusing two feast days in this discussion. I was now talking about the feast day we refer to as the Annunciation of Mary and not St Anne's conception of Mary (which is still anything but a minor feast day)

[prodromos]

SO, you are telling me that you celebrated the date that Elizabeth was conceived in her parents womb??:scratch:

How come?Sorry WA, I've obviously suffered a brain fart.

We celebrate the feast days of the conception of Mary and the conception of John the Forerunner. The feast days are named after their respective mothers however, Ss Anne and Elizabeth.

[WarriorAngel]

Who ever told you it is not a major feast day in the Orthodox Church? It is hugely significant, more so than the feast day of the Nativity of our Lord, because it was at the point of Mary conceiving that God took on flesh, that the one who cannot be contained was contained in her womb. Christmas day is when we celebrate Christ being revealed initially to the world (and only to a few shepherds and some Eastern Magi), but the conception of Mary is where creation and the uncreated become one for the first and last time in the history of creation.

Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary...:wave: So, is that significant that the ECF'S called her sinless?

[WarriorAngel]

I just wanted to add that not only did the Pope proclaim this from hsitorical writings....BUT at Lourdes where ST Bernadette saw the Apparition of Mary...Our Lady called Herslf 'I am the Immaculate Conception'...

Bernadette was ignorant and being so sickly she missed alot of school so she was very child like and had a difficult time learning theology.
She was never taught this term whatsoever...let along still trying to learn what the Trinity was.

And her body is Incorruptible today as a sign from the Lord that she is a Saint and that she did indeed see our Lady.

SO, Mary called herself the Immaculate Conception....

DO you still deny that she is?

[prodromos]

What was soooo significant to her conception?
What was soooo significant to St John the Forerunner's conception?

[WarriorAngel]

What was soooo significant to St John the Forerunner's conception?

No thanks, I read your posts just now and see you misunderstood. :hug:

BUT could you read the next post of mine...which I quoted again, and fixed spelling mistakes... :D


QUOTE:

I just wanted to add that not only did the Pope proclaim this from historical writings....BUT at Lourdes where ST Bernadette saw the Apparition of Mary...Our Lady called Herself..... 'I am the Immaculate Conception'...

Bernadette was ignorant and being so sickly she missed alot of school so she was very child like and had a difficult time learning theology.
She was never taught this term whatsoever...let alone still trying to learn what the Trinity was.

And her body is Incorruptible today as a sign from the Lord that she is a Saint and that she did indeed see our Lady.

SO, Mary called herself the Immaculate Conception....

DO you still deny that she is?

[prodromos]

I just wanted to add that not only did the Pope proclaim this from hsitorical writings....BUT at Lourdes where ST Bernadette saw the Apparition of Mary...Our Lady called Herslf 'I am the Immaculate Conception'...An apparition supposedly called itself thus.
Bernadette was ignorant and being so sickly she missed alot of school so she was very child like and had a difficult time learning theology.
She was never taught this term whatsoever...let along still trying to learn what the Trinity was.I have heard from other sources that the term "immaculate conception" was being expressed a lot by those who were supportive of the doctrine, and that it is quite possible for Bernadette to have heard it said many times before her vision.
And her body is Incorruptible today as a sign from the Lord that she is a Saint and that she did indeed see our Lady.It is an indication that she had indeed mortified her flesh and put on Christ. She had quite some time to strive for holiness after her vision, so her being incorrupt does not necessarily say anything about the validity of her vision. There are many incorrupt saints, but that is God's testimony regarding their lives of holiness, not that they were free from making mistakes.
SO, Mary called herself the Immaculate Conception....An apparition supposedly called itself thus. It is quite possible that an uneducated girl might have got it wrong.
DO you still deny that she is?The Orthodox Church quite sensibly does not form doctrine based on visions but rather tests the visions against doctrine. This vision fails the test.

[prodromos]

I would also like to remind you that the feast day of St Anne's conception of Mary is anything but a minor feast day as you claimed earlier.

[WarriorAngel]

An apparition supposedly called itself thus.
I have heard from other sources that the term "immaculate conception" was being expressed a lot by those who were supportive of the doctrine, and that it is quite possible for Bernadette to have heard it said many times before her vision.
It is an indication that she had indeed mortified her flesh and put on Christ. She had quite some time to strive for holiness after her vision, so her being incorrupt does not necessarily say anything about the validity of her vision. There are many incorrupt saints, but that is God's testimony regarding their lives of holiness, not that they were free from making mistakes.
An apparition supposedly called itself thus. It is quite possible that an uneducated girl might have got it wrong.
The Orthodox Church quite sensibly does not form doctrine based on visions but rather tests the visions against doctrine. This vision fails the test.


Did you ever read about the Apparition of Lourdes?

The Apparition did not tell her, although she asked many times, until the last vision that she said 'I am the Immaculate Conception.' WHICH no one expected....

Let alone Bernadette.
WHO is on record for saying this is what she said...

Otherwise do you think she lied?
If she was a liar....then why is she incorrupt?

[WarriorAngel]

The Orthodox Church quite sensibly does not form doctrine based on visions but rather tests the visions against doctrine. This vision fails the test.

The Apparition occurred AFTER the Pope pronounced this to the faithful.

So, are you suggesting that this Apparition
A) Lied
B) St Bernadette lied
C) that it did not occur...

I do not believe that anyone ever once told St Bernadette what IC meant, and furthermore she was threantened to retract that...but she refused.

Just read about it. :wave:

There was no mistaking this...and the Pope did not base doctrine on the Apparition, the apparition was 'making it a pronounced fact' of what the Pope said, by calling herself this.

[prodromos]

Otherwise do you think she lied?
If she was a liar....then why is she incorrupt?Either mistaken or it was a false apparition.
Incorruption in saints is not an indication that their lives had always been free of error, it is an indication that at the time of their death they had been successful in acquiring the Holy Spirit.

[prodromos]

The Apparition occurred AFTER the Pope pronounced this to the faithful.Thus quite likely that this simple uneducated girl had heard the expression many times.
So, are you suggesting that this Apparition
A) LiedIf the apparition did say this then it wasn't Mary. Mary uses proper grammar ;)
B) St Bernadette liedYou are the only one suggesting that I am suggesting this.
C) that it did not occur...Something occurred, that is for sure.

I do not believe that anyone ever once told St Bernadette what IC meantThat has no bearing on the argument as she never claimed to understand what it meant either.

[zhilan]

WA,

Several things.

First, we do believe that Mary is sinless. I'm not sure if you missed that somehow. Sinless is not the same as the Immaculate Conception. Also conception is not the same as the Immaculate Conception. So to make it clear 1) We believe that yes, Mary was indeed conceived and 2) She did not sin. We do not however, hold the false belief that her conception was somehow different than any other conception.

Also, once again it seems like you have difficulty separating your own views from historical fact. Just because you believe in an apparition that claims Mary was Immaculate Conception doesn't make it true.

When Muslims say "Yes well Gabriel told Muhammed about the Koran!" do you automatically believe them because well, gee, and ANGEL told him it was true. And hey, Jesus and God themselves told Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon, therefore it must be true.

I think instead of relying on "apparitions" that bring innovations into Christianity it is better to rely on the historical teachings of the Church.

It's strange why, if it was an ancient teaching as you claim, the Eastern Orthodox decided to throw it out, TOTALLY SEPARATELY, the Oriental Orthodox (who left 1000 years earlier) decided to throw it out, and again TOTALLY SEPARATELY the Assyrian Church of the East decided to toss it out. All on their own. They all, decided, hey, let's toss out this one teaching of the Church. Do you have an answer for that?

[Don5925]

.

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

Several things.

First, we do believe that Mary is sinless. I'm not sure if you missed that somehow. Sinless is not the same as the Immaculate Conception. Also conception is not the same as the Immaculate Conception. So to make it clear 1) We believe that yes, Mary was indeed conceived and 2) She did not sin. We do not however, hold the false belief that her conception was somehow different than any other conception.

Also, once again it seems like you have difficulty separating your own views from historical fact. Just because you believe in an apparition that claims Mary was Immaculate Conception doesn't make it true.

When Muslims say "Yes well Gabriel told Muhammed about the Koran!" do you automatically believe them because well, gee, and ANGEL told him it was true. And hey, Jesus and God themselves told Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon, therefore it must be true.

I think instead of relying on "apparitions" that bring innovations into Christianity it is better to rely on the historical teachings of the Church.

It's strange why, if it was an ancient teaching as you claim, the Eastern Orthodox decided to throw it out, TOTALLY SEPARATELY, the Oriental Orthodox (who left 1000 years earlier) decided to throw it out, and again TOTALLY SEPARATELY the Assyrian Church of the East decided to toss it out. All on their own. They all, decided, hey, let's toss out this one teaching of the Church. Do you have an answer for that?

First, how do you say she is sinless but YET her conception was typical?

:doh: <~~About your disparaging the apparition.
YOU did NOT read what I said....

The Pope declared the Immaculate Conception BEFORE the Apparition ever occurred.
Which btw has been shown to be a worthy apparition...BUT ASIDE from the NUMEROUS miracles from that Grotto...

St Bernadette IS Incorruptible.[the young girl who had the visions]

HAD she lied, I daresay she would have corrupted.
Especially considering her body laid in mud for several years which is not a conducive environment for any body to remain incorrupt.

Water and mud just help the decaying process much faster otherwise.

Furthermore; aside from God's evident Message through this apparition and her incorrupt state, I really dont know what to tell the Churches who throw this out.

I am more inclined to see the proof from the Lord that this is true, rather than not.

[WarriorAngel]

link (http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bg_lourdes_conception.htm)


Thursday, March 25, 1858Bernadette joyfully rejoined the lady in the grotto. It had been 3 weeks since she saw Aquero and had not known whether she would ever appear again. This time she was determined to obtain the lady's name, so that she could finally tell the priest. Bernadette was characteristically stubborn, and she repeated four times the question she had practiced so often, "Would you be so kind as to tell me who you are?" The answer finally came: "I am the Immaculate Conception."
"I went every day for a fortnight, and each day I asked her who she was–and this petition always made her smile. After the fortnight I asked her three times consecutively. She always smiled. At last I tried for the fourth time. She stopped smiling. With her arms down, she raised her eyes to heaven and then, folding her hands over her breast she said, 'I am the Immaculate Conception.' Then I went back to M. le Curé to tell him that she had said she was the Immaculate Conception, and he asked was I absolutely certain. I said yes, and so as not to forget the words, I had repeated them all the way home."

[zhilan]

First, how do you say she is sinless but YET her conception was typical?

:doh: <~~About your disparaging the apparition.
YOU did NOT read what I said....

The Pope declared the Immaculate Conception BEFORE the Apparition ever occurred.
Which btw has been shown to be a worthy apparition...BUT ASIDE from the NUMEROUS miracles from that Grotto...

St Bernadette IS Incorruptible.[the young girl who had the visions]

HAD she lied, I daresay she would have corrupted.
Especially considering her body laid in mud for several years which is not a conducive environment for any body to remain incorrupt.

Water and mud just help the decaying process much faster otherwise.

Furthermore; aside from God's evident Message through this apparition and her incorrupt state, I really dont know what to tell the Churches who throw this out.

I am more inclined to see the proof from the Lord that this is true, rather than not.
We believe she was sinless because she did not commit sins. That doesn't have anything to do with an Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. She was born different that us. We do not hold that to be true.

So you think that three seperate churches, in different parts of the world that were out of communion for 1500 all decided on their own "hey, we believe that Mary is sinless, we believe in the teachings about her, but you know what, let's throw away the Immaculate Conception."

Is that more likely or is it more likely that ONE church decided to ADD it?

Again, you apparitions do not me anything as we do not hold them to be true. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith's body glowed with light after he was shot. Does that make it true? Everyone has "miracles." I don't know if she is as you say or not. Even if she is, that doesn't make everything she said true. Saints aren't infallible. As you said it came after, so she was Catholic and believed as the Pope said. If she is incorruptible, well then, that's because she was a saintly woman. I'm sure God wouldn't hold it against her that she believed in the IC if that's all she knew. I won't judge either way on the state of her body and soul, but what she believes she heard doesn't mean anything any more than any other "private revelation."

It's not like we are Protestants trying to discredit Mary. Orthodox honor her as much as Catholics do, so why would we try to get rid of doctrines about her? Why would the Coptics also on their own, despite equally honoring her decide to get rid of doctrines about her? Seems strange. I think applying the logic and common sense game here may do some good.

[WarriorAngel]

We believe she was sinless because she did not commit sins. That doesn't have anything to do with an Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. She was born different that us. We do not hold that to be true.

So you think that three seperate churches, in different parts of the world that were out of communion for 1500 all decided on their own "hey, we believe that Mary is sinless, we believe in the teachings about her, but you know what, let's throw away the Immaculate Conception."

Is that more likely or is it more likely that ONE church decided to ADD it?

Again, you apparitions do not me anything as we do not hold them to be true. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith's body glowed with light after he was shot. Does that make it true? Everyone has "miracles." I don't know if she is as you say or not. Even if she is, that doesn't make everything she said true. Saints aren't infallible. As you said it came after, so she was Catholic and believed as the Pope said. If she is incorruptible, well then, that's because she was a saintly woman. I'm sure God wouldn't hold it against her that she believed in the IC if that's all she knew. I won't judge either way on the state of her body and soul, but what she believes she heard doesn't mean anything any more than any other "private revelation."

It's not like we are Protestants trying to discredit Mary. Orthodox honor her as much as Catholics do, so why would we try to get rid of doctrines about her? Why would the Coptics also on their own, despite equally honoring her decide to get rid of doctrines about her? Seems strange. I think applying the logic and common sense game here may do some good.

Logic?
You mean like St Thomas had...?
Logically Jesus died, and he saw Him dead.
Logically, God is not logical.

You are trying to bait me about the 'two Churches' OO and EO about not accepting....how about this scenerio...?
'Hey we all know Mary is sinless, but we are not in communion with the Pope, so let's not accept his pronouncements and call it a heresy.'
:wave: Is that just as valid to suggest? You do call it heretical, correct?

The Churches you mentioned a few times now were not in union with the Pope in 1854 AD, so it is not likely they threw out a doctrine they never acknowledged in the first place.
St Augustine has defined this...Original Sin.
For whatever reason, St Augustine is not acknowledged in the East...yet he was a Bishop pre schism[s].

WHICH means St Augustine was thrown out and the explanation of Original Sin....why?

As I said many times now, the Pope is the Teacher as he sits on Peter's Chair, and the Holy Spirit guides him thru the keys...
And he defined this doctrine [it is true you also believe she is sinless] into dogma.

You have told me, or some have, that the East does not define, they prefer mysticism. But the West, the Pope does define. This is his role.

ALSO:
You cannot or rather SHOULD NOT make a comparison between a psuedo miraculous claim of a man who said there would be a 'hill' somewhere and archeology that hasnt prooven a single claim of his whatsoever....to one that very much has evidence from the Lord...?
How do you rightfully compare the two??
That is flamatory against my Church and against the Lord, and Mary.

[WarriorAngel]

NOW, I am going to turn this around and ask you...
Where does the belief that Mary was sinless but choose not to sin derive from??

[prodromos]

First, how do you say she is sinless but YET her conception was typical?
Original sin;
'Behold in iniquity was I conceived and in sin my mother conceived me' (Ps. 50)

First, in the Psalms according to the Septuagint it says"For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me."David is speaking of the environment into which he was born, not 'original sin'.

We believe Mary was conceived in exactly the same manner as all humans are. She is no different from us in that regard. All are born sinless. The difference is that we have all fallen into sin. Mary, through the grace of God, did not. She still had a fallen human nature which was a slave to death until Christ shattered death from the inside through His own death and resurrection. It used to be the firm belief of the Latin Church that Mary herself died and was then later bodily assumed into heaven, the feast day of the Assumption was originally known in the Latin Church as the Dormition of Mary. However, due to the false belief that Mary was conceived free from 'original sin' it obviously followed that she was free too of the curse associated with 'original sin', ie. death. Thus it is no longer the firm belief in the Latin Church that Mary died first and was later assumed. It is now permissible to believe that she was assumed bodily without tasting death. Or faced with the fact of her death, some Catholics claim that she chose to imitate her Son in dying (though no explanation is given as to how she might do this or how this is different to committing suicide).

[prodromos]

The Churches you mentioned a few times now were not in union with the Pope in 1854 AD, so it is not likely they threw out a doctrine they never acknowledged in the first place.Exactly, it was never a belief in the Church prior to the schisms which formed the separate communions, just like Papal infallibility and Papal supreme, universal jurisdiction were not.
St Augustine has defined this...Original Sin.
For whatever reason, St Augustine is not acknowledged in the East...yet he was a Bishop pre schism[s].He neglected to have his works translated and distributed to the Church in the East. If he had, he would have had his errors corrected before Rome took the ball and ran with it.

[Albion]

It always annoyed me more than anything - when Latins say that we - in the East - actually "always believed" what they are (erroneously) teaching - it is just that we are either stupid or whatever else or just do not understand them, or we changed the way just in order to be in disagreement etc.

Orthodox Christians do it, too, it seems to me from reading all these posts. However, I am glad that you raised this point because I find it quite offensive whenever anyone in making a point throws in that extra little piece of arrogance by adding, "as was always done" or "when the Pope was accepted by all" or "as the Bible clearly teaches" when the writer KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT others here dispute and have disputed, as have all in their communions, the truth of these claims. That's why we are in separate communions, after all, for the very reason that these contentions have not been clearly shown to be one way or the other, whether the claim is based on scripture, tradition, or history.


Then they (like WA) find one or two Eastern fathers and misquote and misrepresent what the people are saying and then like little angels sit there with their arms crossed and little smiles as if to say:"See I told ya"...

Very true. WA set out to find what all the ECFs had to say about Papal Supremacy, but stopped after finding a handful of quotes that favored Peter.

No disrespect - can you, like - give me a break?

It's something we all must remind ourselves of, regardless of which icon we are sporting. It just isn't necessary to salt ones posts with blunt claims that are known to be in doubt.

[Don5925]

Well, I had high hopes in starting this thread. Instead of finding mutually agreeable doctrines, it once again became a 'he started it' experience. XA is probably right, East and West won't come back together any time soon, if this forum is any indication of thoughts and feelings.

[zhilan]

WA, as prodromos pointed out, it seems that in your latest post you are actually arguing for us. In pointing out that the proclamation came AFTER the schism, you are confirming that it is a new doctrine and thus the reason why none of the other churches have it is because it wasn't a teaching of the early church.

And as to your apparition, I said I wasn't judging her soul one way or the other, but for the rest of our discussions, since we do not hold her apparition to be true, let's just leave it out. It does not good for your case to keep saying "But SHE SAID IT" because we do not hold it and it has not bearing on historical fact or teaching of the Church anymore than a Mormon or Muslim who refuses to look at historical occurances but instaeds insists on debating solely on the claim that an ANGEL gave the word of God does no good. Again, I'm not saying it's the same (so don't get all offended) but a Muslim believes and Angel gave Muhammad the Koran just as much as you believe in this. Neither appearance can be proven and neither is believed by those not part of the faith, so if you want to talk with someone outside of the faith you must use other things to show your point.

[zhilan]

I'd also like to point out that in Orthodoxy pretty much all our saints are incorruptible as that is usually how we see if they are a saint. So can we equally assume that since saints in our church who were against the IC and Papacy were incorruptible that they must be right and you must be wrong?

[prodromos]

I'd also like to point out that in Orthodoxy pretty much all our saints are incorruptible as that is usually how we see if they are a saint.Well, not in the sense that Bernadette is incorrupt. The term "incorrupt" actually describes a wide range of states, from next to no deterioration of the flesh, having the appearance of sleeping as in the case of Bernadette or as St Nektarios was for twenty years (though his beard and nails continued to grow) or in the case of St Mary Magdalan's left hand which maintains body temperature, to the complete mummification of the body or parts of the body without external causes which is the case for many, many saints.

[WarriorAngel]

First, in the Psalms according to the Septuagint it says"For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me."David is speaking of the environment into which he was born, not 'original sin'.

We believe Mary was conceived in exactly the same manner as all humans are. She is no different from us in that regard. All are born sinless. The difference is that we have all fallen into sin. Mary, through the grace of God, did not. She still had a fallen human nature which was a slave to death until Christ shattered death from the inside through His own death and resurrection. It used to be the firm belief of the Latin Church that Mary herself died and was then later bodily assumed into heaven, the feast day of the Assumption was originally known in the Latin Church as the Dormition of Mary. However, due to the false belief that Mary was conceived free from 'original sin' it obviously followed that she was free too of the curse associated with 'original sin', ie. death. Thus it is no longer the firm belief in the Latin Church that Mary died first and was later assumed. It is now permissible to believe that she was assumed bodily without tasting death. Or faced with the fact of her death, some Catholics claim that she chose to imitate her Son in dying (though no explanation is given as to how she might do this or how this is different to committing suicide).

I disagree we are born sinless...only because if that were true then we would have been kept in Paradise whereas Adam and Eve alone would have suffered seperation from God.
Scriptures says all have sin...
Scriptures doesn't go indepth to explain that we are born with that sin in that verse, but as you just requoted psalms 50, we are born in iniquities to which we do not have a choice.
All ppl are born with the sin of humanity that that does not leave us a choice, except to try to abstain.
But Mary was not conceived with sin, as Jesus was not.
I believe you will find her compared to the New Eve in Church history. Eve was not created with a fallen nature...but choose to obtain it.
Just as Mary was also not created with the fallen nature, and she choose to obey.

Catholics DO NOT say Mary did not die...
This is a false rumor evidently.

Furthermore, Jesus Who was sinless became like us in everything but sin, and He died. The same is true of Mary.
Because God gave her perfect humanity to carry His Son, doesnt mean she could not taste mortal death in order to Resurrect immediately.

How come St Augustine was dismissed after the schism?
I know of few, only those in heresy, who did not consider him a teacher of the Church.

Are there any pre schism writings from orthodox ECF's of the East who [not heretical] dismissed him?



Exactly, it was never a belief in the Church prior to the schisms which formed the separate communions, just like Papal infallibility and Papal supreme, universal jurisdiction were not.
He neglected to have his works translated and distributed to the Church in the East. If he had, he would have had his errors corrected before Rome took the ball and ran with it.

And just like the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Incarnation.......which were never documented until heresies arose...
SO...were they also fabrications because the Gospels were not explicit enough?
One must ask, were they erred teachings because the Apostles never made explicit notations in their Epistles?
Time is not a measure of truth being truth, heresies arise, God always answers them.
Just as JW's do not believe in the hypostatic union, and the pelagians do not believe in sin coming from our parents, and Arians dont believe Jesus is God...etc, is not proof that the Church wasnt already teaching things they passed on from generation to generation so we would have that proof. That is Tradition.

I COULD SEE claims to heresy IF...IF....these things were never explained nor mentioned, but they were.

Apparently God preserved this information for our future use...since He knew our future always and anyway.


WA, as prodromos pointed out, it seems that in your latest post you are actually arguing for us. In pointing out that the proclamation came AFTER the schism, you are confirming that it is a new doctrine and thus the reason why none of the other churches have it is because it wasn't a teaching of the early church.

And as to your apparition, I said I wasn't judging her soul one way or the other, but for the rest of our discussions, since we do not hold her apparition to be true, let's just leave it out. It does not good for your case to keep saying "But SHE SAID IT" because we do not hold it and it has not bearing on historical fact or teaching of the Church anymore than a Mormon or Muslim who refuses to look at historical occurances but instaeds insists on debating solely on the claim that an ANGEL gave the word of God does no good. Again, I'm not saying it's the same (so don't get all offended) but a Muslim believes and Angel gave Muhammad the Koran just as much as you believe in this. Neither appearance can be proven and neither is believed by those not part of the faith, so if you want to talk with someone outside of the faith you must use other things to show your point.

You only want to remove the proof from Heaven that backs up what the Pope stated...
Does that make you correct by dismissing it? Seriously, does it?
Is this about seeking truth for you??

A Saint who did not lie, was not properly yet chatechized due to health, a girl who was not taught the new dogma, and she is incorrupt.

YET...YOU will compare her to John Smith and Muhammad. YET she was NOT creating her own following and religion.

Ok, here ya go again...using false prophets that had no proof of miracle or back up of their claims....
More inflamatory comparisons.

:sigh:

So Lourdes cannot be prooven?
Yet tons of miracles which are unexplainable to science is not proof?
A well of water from no where is not proof?
St Bernadatte's Incorruption cannot be prooven?

I have to, for the sake of charity, not read your posts anymore.

[WarriorAngel]

I just wanted to add a note;
Adam conceived sin...Adam is the name for humanity, not just a name for the first father.

Adam meant humanity.
Adam conceived sin, thus humanity conceived sin.

[NewToLife]

I think this was an interesting thread that illustrates very well just how very unlikely any union is, especially given that mutual respect isnt even possible a good deal of the time.

[Yeznik]

I just wanted to add a note;
Adam conceived sin...Adam is the name for humanity, not just a name for the first father.

Adam meant humanity.
Adam conceived sin, thus humanity conceived sin.

Ok quick question, if Adam conceived sin then what did Satan conceive when he disobeyed God?

[zhilan]

WA,

I'm sorry if my posts make you feel offended, but I must ask, if you cannot seperate your personal beliefs from historical facts then why are you even joining in the discussion? You don't seem to understand that the Orthodox Church does not accept or believe in this apparition. So you will get no where by trying to bring it in a "support" for your position anymore than if I tell you that you should not believe in the IC because God told me it's not true.

If you believe in this that's fine. I don't care if you believe it or not. But I don't think you can use it as absolute evidence when even Catholics are not required to believe it. I could be a 100% in Communion devote Catholic and not believe a word of the apparition, so how can you expect us as Orthodox to accept it as your proof when the Catholic Church does not even require belief in it?

So if you want to discuss the historical basis for the Immaculate Conception, then please, let's discuss it. But you must present more than the words of a Saint the rest of us don't recognize. In any event, even if for the sake of argument we give Berenadette the benefit of the doubt, surly she and the Pope must have been relying on EARLIER teachings of the Immaculate Conception, so let's talk about where is was taught in the Church pre-schism.

[zhilan]

Also, why do you think we dismiss Augustine? We don't. We do consider him a Saint.

Saints are not infallible.

[xristos.anesti]

In order to really come to a state where the arguments among members are minimised the dictum of 1976 made by now Pope BXVI that states:

"on the doctrine of the primacy (of the papacy), Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first millennium”–that is, prior to the 1054 Great Schism".

should be what we have to come to again and again.


It seems that there is a bit of inconsistency between what the "official" Vatican is trying to do with what we are presented here.

On one side RC Encyclopaedia in one of the articles says that Orthodox need not change a thing in order to re-commune with Rome. We are also presented with statements as the one quoted above (Ratzinger , Graz Austria -1976).

On the other side every single venerable discipline and science of the Orthodox Church is attacked - daily - by the very members of the organisation that is trying to "promote unity" and has actually released more bulls regarding it than all of the others put together.

I am confused -

It is obvious that RCC knows that papal infallibility is not the product of the apostolic age - nor even product of the first (at least) 1500 years (for not even during the false ecumenical council in Ferrara/Florence of the XV century there was no mention of it). It is obvious that RCC (officially at least) knows about orthodoxy of Orthodox (excuse the pun) - for it says (through its official papers) that we do not change a thing in our theology -

and yet, the faithfull of this organisation (at least some of them - those who seem to deem themselves to be members of the holy office of the inquisition) attack the very orthodox (according to RCC) Orthodox doctrine on all fronts.

On one side the RCC encyclopaedia speaks of us not having to change a thing and future pope speaks of us not being required to accept anything that was not formulated during the first 1000 years -

on the other side - inquisitors like WA are trying to force feed us with her visions of Orthodoxrein world of some sort of "united church".

Some should stop and breathe in and think about things they are writing (probably myself included).

If the future Pope of Rome infallible in chair not out of chair - or whatever - says (admittedly out of chair) that: "on the doctrine of the primacy (of the papacy), Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first millennium”–that is, prior to the 1054 Great Schism".

Why are we force fed these XIX century innovations of immaculate conceptions, infallible popes and etc?

Just wondering.

Many years.

[xristos.anesti]

So...in your own words, why did the Eastern Church celebrate the Conception of Mary as a MAIN celebration in the 8th-9th century?
The date being Dec 9th.

It is now a minor celebration...but was major.

SO IN YOUR own words...and not the ECF's...why is that?

What was soooo significant to her conception?
Feast of Immaculate Conception was instituted in AD1476 by Pope Sixtus IV!

Unfortunately that is some 500-600 years AFTER the time you are speaking of -

Also, Rome does not ask even from uniates to accept this heresy -


If you are (and I know you are) referring to the feast of Conception of Theotokos by St. Anna -

This is what the Church teaches:

St Anna, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was the youngest daughter of the priest Nathan from Bethlehem, descended from the tribe of Levi. She married St Joachim (September 9), who was a native of Galilee.

For a long time St Anna was childless, but after twenty years, through the fervent prayer of both spouses, an angel of the Lord announced to them that they would be the parents of a daughter, Who would bring blessings to the whole human race.

The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of Her Son. Only Christ was born perfectly holy and sinless, as St Ambrose of Milan teaches in Chapter Two of his Commentary on Luke.The Holy Virgin was like everyone else in Her mortality, and in being subject to temptation, although She committed no personal sins. She was not a deified creature removed from the rest of humanity. If this were the case, She would not have been truly human, and the nature that Christ took from Her would not have been truly human either. If Christ does not truly share our human nature, then the possibilty of our salvation is in doubt.

The Conception of the Virgin Mary by St Anna took place at Jerusalem. The many icons depicting the Conception by St Anna show the Most Holy Theotokos trampling the serpent underfoot.

"In the icon Sts Joachim and Anna are usually depicted with hands folded in prayer; their eyes are also directed upward and they contemplate the Mother of God, Who stands in the air with outstretched hands; under Her feet is an orb encircled by a serpent (symbolizing the devil), which strives to conquer all the universe by its power."

There are also icons in which St Anna holds the Most Holy Virgin on her left arm as an infant. On St Anna's face is a look of reverence. A large ancient icon, painted on canvas, is located in the village of Minkovetsa in the Dubensk district of Volhynia diocese. From ancient times this Feast was especially venerated by pregnant women in Russia.

Troparion (Tone 4) Today the bonds of barrenness are broken, God has heard the prayers of Joachim and Anna. He has promised them beyond all their hopes, To bear the Maiden of God By whom the Uncircumscribed One was born as mortal man, Who commanded an angel to cry to Her: Rejoice, O Full of Grace, the Lord is with You! Kontakion (tone 4)
Today the universe rejoices, For Anna has conceived the Theotokos through God's dispensation, For she has brought forth the One who is to bear the Ineffable Word! (taken from OCA website)



In my own words - well, the Church celebrates the birth of the mother of God as we celebrate her life and her death and her lifting up. It is a holistic approach to the life of the Mother of God - the New Eve.

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what you set yourself to do.





Many years.

[prodromos]

Catholics DO NOT say Mary did not die...
This is a false rumor evidently.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5768865
Over 25% of those Catholics who responded to the poll believe she did not die. You took part in the poll yourself WA!

[a_ntv]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5768865
Over 25% of those Catholics who responded to the poll believe she did not die. You took part in the poll yourself WA!

WarriorAngel meant to say that there is not any official teaching of the Church on this issue.
Do you think that the pope have to do infallible statments on every historical fact? N, I dont

[prodromos]

WarriorAngel meant to say that there is not any official teaching of the Church on this issue.

If that is what she meant then she surely would have said "The Catholic Church DOES NOT say Mary did not die". Instead she said "Catholics".
Do you think that the pope have to do infallible statments on every historical fact? N, I dontWell the trouble is, if the Pope hasn't made an infallible statement then it appears that many Catholics believe they are free to speculate. Look at the poll I linked to and see for yourself.

[WarriorAngel]

Ok quick question, if Adam conceived sin then what did Satan conceive when he disobeyed God?

[font=century gothic]Hell. Isnt that the place made for him and all his fallen angels....the demons? ;)
Angels are held accountable differently, and I do not know yet how they are judged.....


Also, why do you think we dismiss Augustine? We don't. We do consider him a Saint.

Saints are not infallible.

Ok, you don't adhere to what he says....on original sin, but you adhere to another 'Saint' who did not agree, per say.
SO is this preferential theology? :scratch:

In order to really come to a state where the arguments among members are minimised the dictum of 1976 made by now Pope BXVI that states:

"on the doctrine of the primacy (of the papacy), Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first millennium”–that is, prior to the 1054 Great Schism".

should be what we have to come to again and again.


It seems that there is a bit of inconsistency between what the "official" Vatican is trying to do with what we are presented here.

On one side RC Encyclopaedia in one of the articles says that Orthodox need not change a thing in order to re-commune with Rome. We are also presented with statements as the one quoted above (Ratzinger , Graz Austria -1976).

On the other side every single venerable discipline and science of the Orthodox Church is attacked - daily - by the very members of the organisation that is trying to "promote unity" and has actually released more bulls regarding it than all of the others put together.

I am confused -

It is obvious that RCC knows that papal infallibility is not the product of the apostolic age - nor even product of the first (at least) 1500 years (for not even during the false ecumenical council in Ferrara/Florence of the XV century there was no mention of it). It is obvious that RCC (officially at least) knows about orthodoxy of Orthodox (excuse the pun) - for it says (through its official papers) that we do not change a thing in our theology -

and yet, the faithfull of this organisation (at least some of them - those who seem to deem themselves to be members of the holy office of the inquisition) attack the very orthodox (according to RCC) Orthodox doctrine on all fronts.

On one side the RCC encyclopaedia speaks of us not having to change a thing and future pope speaks of us not being required to accept anything that was not formulated during the first 1000 years -

on the other side - inquisitors like WA are trying to force feed us with her visions of Orthodoxrein world of some sort of "united church".

Some should stop and breathe in and think about things they are writing (probably myself included).

If the future Pope of Rome infallible in chair not out of chair - or whatever - says (admittedly out of chair) that: "on the doctrine of the primacy (of the papacy), Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first millennium”–that is, prior to the 1054 Great Schism".

Why are we force fed these XIX century innovations of immaculate conceptions, infallible popes and etc?

Just wondering.

Many years.

You are not asked to change...but a few things.
One, communing with the Pope.
Two, [this would take historical scholars help on the Eastern side] remove the New Rome status of Constantinople, and Photius as a Saint.

I believe those are all that the West asks for in order for the ENTIRE Church to be as one again....like pre schism.
Only we would have a better knowledge of what a schism is and how to avoid it.


I am sure stipulations will also come from the East.
But our own 'theology' wont interfer with yours.
The theology is similar and undefined in the East.

And cultural aspects should not be forced upon one another.

Also, Rome does not ask even from uniates to accept this heresy -




I often find this to be exceptionally rude...
I have used caution to avoid calling the East heretical...
it does nothing for discussion and it does nothing to understanding one another.

[Secundulus]

You are not asked to change...but a few things.
One, communing with the Pope.

That's all the Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion asked. So far he has not received a positive response.

So maybe that is not all that is asked from Rome.

[NewToLife]

You are not asked to change...but a few things.
One, communing with the Pope.
Two, [this would take historical scholars help on the Eastern side] remove the New Rome status of Constantinople, and Photius as a Saint.


Those are going to be enough to guarantee no union alone, how can you ask us to deny a saint, it's not like the Church makes saints we merely recognise the work of God. On top of this we will of course require Rome to renounce her 'innovations' before we allow you back into the communion.

Clearly we can't be as we were pre-schism if we accept doctrines that were invented post schism. It should also be clear that we cant enter into communion with those who hold un Orthodox views.

[WarriorAngel]

That's all the Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion asked. So far he has not received a positive response.

So maybe that is not all that is asked from Rome.

I think the gay married Bishop and women priests have to be removed first.
I believe that those points of contention have been the only factor seperating the Churches.

Those are going to be enough to guarantee no union alone, how can you ask us to deny a saint, it's not like the Church makes saints we merely recognise the work of God. On top of this we will of course require Rome to renounce her 'innovations' before we allow you back into the communion.

Clearly we can't be as we were pre-schism if we accept doctrines that were invented post schism. It should also be clear that we cant enter into communion with those who hold un Orthodox views.

Well, I do not know if Pope B is asking that, but I read that this is what scholars feel divide the Church at this point.

Rome does not ask you accept the post schism doctrines.
The Byzantine Catholics are not required to do that...
and yet I can step into any Church that is Eastern Catholic and participate in the Liturgy fully.:groupray:

[Secundulus]

I think the gay married Bishop and women priests have to be removed first.
I believe that those points of contention have been the only factor seperating the Churches.

Come on, we've been through this before. The Traditional Anglican Communion has absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with the body that possesses women's ordination and gay married Bishops.

We are not even in communion with them.

As we have also discussed before, legitimacy of orders is no longer an issue either. We have Apostolic succession through the Old Catholic Church as well as through Anglican channels so the Vatican need not readdress Apostolicae Curae.

I had heard that the talks were going well with Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope. Since then, nothing has happened.

All we ask for is communion with Rome. The obstacle is the Vatican, not us.

[WarriorAngel]

Come on, we've been through this before. The Traditional Anglican Communion has absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with the body that possesses women's ordination and gay married Bishops.

We are not even in communion with them.

As we have also discussed before, legitimacy of orders is no longer an issue either. We have Apostolic succession through the Old Catholic Church as well as through Anglican channels so the Vatican need not readdress Apostolicae Curae.

I had heard that the talks were going well with Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope. Since then, nothing has happened.

All we ask for is communion with Rome. The obstacle is the Vatican, not us.

Well, last I knew ppl were hopeful and thot JPll was watching over, because things were heading towards unity. Which is something JPll wanted for the Lord's Churches.

Let me go look.

[Secundulus]

The Anglican communion is dissentigrating over the issues you listed.

My wish, and maybe its just a pipe dream, is that we, or some other part of the Continuing Anglican Church, could reestablish communion with Rome to give the other dissenters something to rally around.

Otherwise, all we have is more of the same. Schism after schism until we are all Churches of one person each.

[WarriorAngel]

Anglicans and Catholics Take Times to Task - Catholic Online (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg16NSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBl5TFhrgcfpBxGtNb8gQeUPYuPa7By%5FVISe1m6grRyICQ9dUWOqz2n%5F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2DD2yt2QwNpjYfP4CoAZl%2DB9grK2wt8dLD1TMTvvPcL6z7KXY8a8YScPt59FnFnFycB4kJq70k8u7IgQ7UVUysjihaw08bZ418HDP8teR%2DUKII3axnfUI8QvkoImzKjnZ39MR2P%5FuHld7leIMmEnrKvbLdUEuaOjl9fcLaP3g8YZLAONIMlTzgDJiymCn98ycj%5FA3OdGyAtVH%5FelPm%5FDyFNvp9ermfGvLdxkuyb%2DRM34J0E%2E&yargs=www.catholic.org)
Prelates Clarify Upcoming Document
LONDON, FEB. 20, 2007

[Secundulus]

Anglicans and Catholics Take Times to Task - Catholic Online (http://www.goodsearch.com/Redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://rc12.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg16NSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwBl5TFhrgcfpBxGtNb8gQeUPYuPa7By%5FVISe1m6grRyICQ9dUWOqz2n%5F%2DUFBCMQFCXG%2DD2yt2QwNpjYfP4CoAZl%2DB9grK2wt8dLD1TMTvvPcL6z7KXY8a8YScPt59FnFnFycB4kJq70k8u7IgQ7UVUysjihaw08bZ418HDP8teR%2DUKII3axnfUI8QvkoImzKjnZ39MR2P%5FuHld7leIMmEnrKvbLdUEuaOjl9fcLaP3g8YZLAONIMlTzgDJiymCn98ycj%5FA3OdGyAtVH%5FelPm%5FDyFNvp9ermfGvLdxkuyb%2DRM34J0E%2E&yargs=www.catholic.org)
Prelates Clarify Upcoming Document
LONDON, FEB. 20, 2007

This is confusing because we all are calling ourselves Anglican. That article refers to the Anglican Communion under Canterbury. That is not us.

We are not in communion with Canterbury. The talks between the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Vatican are entirely separate.

[NewToLife]

Rome does not ask you accept the post schism doctrines.
The Byzantine Catholics are not required to do that...
and yet I can step into any Church that is Eastern Catholic and participate in the Liturgy fully.


Perhaps we see this differently but acceptance of those new doctrines is implicit in the idea of any restored communion with an unchanged Roman Catholic church. Whether Rome believes it asks this of us or not the effect is that we are indeed asked to accept them.

[zhilan]

WA,

Maybe you can explain something to me. Why are different standards given to Eastern Catholics than to Latin Catholics?

I remember in my Catholic school I had a horrible liberal religion teacher. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He did not believe in Papal Infallibility. He did not believe that priests should be celibate. He did not hold the doctrine of purgatory. He did take Communion at every occasion. Are you telling me that I was wrong to argue with him over his liberal cafeteria Catholicism that he was teaching us and that he was actually well within acceptable Catholic beliefs?

[zhilan]

Also as to your question about Augustine, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. If you are accusing us of "choosing" then we can make the same claim of you since you pick Augustine and we pick the Eastern Church fathers.

We recognize him as a Saint because he was a Saintly man who God has shown to be his chosen. But we do not hold Saints to be infallible. I don't believe the Catholic Church does either, so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

And as someone else has noted we cannot "undo" a Saint. A Saint is a Saint because God has chosen them. Do you think the Church has the power to pull someone out of Heaven? That's a nice compliment to the EOC, but I'm afraid even we do not have the power to override God. ;)

[a_ntv]

Maybe you can explain something to me. Why are different standards given to Eastern Catholics than to Latin Catholics?

I remember in my Catholic school I had a horrible liberal religion teacher. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He did not believe in Papal Infallibility. He did not believe that priests should be celibate. He did not hold the doctrine of purgatory. He did take Communion at every occasion. Are you telling me that I was wrong to argue with him over his liberal cafeteria Catholicism that he was teaching us and that he was actually well within acceptable Catholic beliefs?

The standards are the same for all East or West: the moral behaviour, the need of personal and liturgical prayer, the need of fast, the need of charity, the path to the sanctity: they are the same
(well sometime in the West they are more strict: ad instance the EO allow the divorce two times, we never)

Your catholic liberal teacher was in error. that s all

PS the Catholic Church is under attack: the protestants from a side, the liberals and the traditionalists from within: I kindly ask the EO not to attack they too the CC: you have no idea how the Orthodoxy (and the EC) are important for us to stay in the right way (if you have no idea I'll give you same papal document to read). So please help us and do not attack us always and in any case.

[zhilan]

The standards are the same for all East or West: the moral behaviour, the need of personal and liturgical prayer, the need of fast, the need of charity, the path to the sanctity: they are the same
(well sometime in the West they are more strict: ad instance the EO allow the divorce two times, we never)

Your catholic liberal teacher was in error. that s all

PS the Catholic Church is under attack: the protestants from a side, the liberals and the traditionalists from within: I kindly ask the EO not to attack they too the CC: you have no idea how the Orthodoxy (and the EC) are important for us to stay in the right way (if you have no idea I'll give you same papal document to read). So please help us and do not attack us always and in any case.


Eastern Rite Catholics are allowed to divorce? How can something be ok for one group and not for the other? Is sin and truth relative? And if the Catholic Church is the true Church why does it need the Orthodox church to "stay in the right way"?

[a_ntv]

Eastern Rite Catholics are allowed to divorce?
The EC are not allowed to divorce (as far as I know)
The indissolobility of the marriage is a commandament of Christ, not something that depends from a rite

And if the Catholic Church is the true Church why does it need the Orthodox church to "stay in the right way"? The wise man sins seven times a day....anyone and anychurch shall ask for help, both to Christ, to Mary and also to the brothers

[NewToLife]

In our vision, the indissolobility of the marriage is a commandament of Christ, not something that depends from a rite


I dont know, if the Catholic Church takes marriage so seriously you'd think you might ensure people are in fact free to marry each other before pronouncing them so. Yet in reality we have all these 'annulments' where your Church has told people they are married and then changed it's mind later ( oddly in exactly the scenarios that might otherwise lead to divorce ). Doesnt this make the Church complicit in fornication? It has afterall allowed a relationship that is supposed to be reserved for marriage between those who apparently were not married? That seems at odds with your statement.

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

Maybe you can explain something to me. Why are different standards given to Eastern Catholics than to Latin Catholics?

I remember in my Catholic school I had a horrible liberal religion teacher. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He did not believe in Papal Infallibility. He did not believe that priests should be celibate. He did not hold the doctrine of purgatory. He did take Communion at every occasion. Are you telling me that I was wrong to argue with him over his liberal cafeteria Catholicism that he was teaching us and that he was actually well within acceptable Catholic beliefs?

:scratch: Well, he was a horrible liberal teacher....


Also as to your question about Augustine, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. If you are accusing us of "choosing" then we can make the same claim of you since you pick Augustine and we pick the Eastern Church fathers.

We recognize him as a Saint because he was a Saintly man who God has shown to be his chosen. But we do not hold Saints to be infallible. I don't believe the Catholic Church does either, so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

And as someone else has noted we cannot "undo" a Saint. A Saint is a Saint because God has chosen them. Do you think the Church has the power to pull someone out of Heaven? That's a nice compliment to the EOC, but I'm afraid even we do not have the power to override God. ;)

Point is...it should not matter what Rite he was in, but that he fought off heresy against someone [group] who argued against original sin.
Interesting read.

I dont know, if the Catholic Church takes marriage so seriously you'd think you might ensure people are in fact free to marry each other before pronouncing them so. Yet in reality we have all these 'annulments' where your Church has told people they are married and then changed it's mind later ( oddly in exactly the scenarios that might otherwise lead to divorce ). Doesnt this make the Church complicit in fornication? It has afterall allowed a relationship that is supposed to be reserved for marriage between those who apparently were not married? That seems at odds with your statement.
Maybe a Catholic got married did so out of the Catholic jurisdiction...
And other things that were kept secret...

But mostly, these should be rare.

I had a list of why's...cant recall them all however.

[prodromos]

(well sometime in the West they are more strict: ad instance the EO allow the divorce two times, we never)It is getting really old that we have to correct this falsehood again and again and again.

Please take careful note.The Orthodox Church will normally permit remarriage after ONE divorce.

The Orthodox Church may allow a person to marry up to THREE times. This could be after becoming widowed twice, or divorced then widowed, but it is no way a sanction for multiple divorce.

Remarriage DOES NOT imply divorce. Please get that through your skulls

[zhilan]

WA,

Why is it that my teacher is a horrible liberal teacher (which I agree with you on!) but yet you welcome Eastern Rite Catholics to hold such views?

a_ntv,

Maybe I misunderstood you but in your first post you implied that EO's would not be required to change their remarriage policy were they to come into communion with Rome, but then you said that the teaching doesn't depend on Rite....

[zhilan]

Point is...it should not matter what Rite he was in, but that he fought off heresy against someone [group] who argued against original sin.
Interesting read.



Who are we talking about here? Augustine or Photius?

I was responding to the point that Rome would ask us to remove Photius from Sainthood, which I don't believe is possible. How are we to pull someone from Heaven?

[WarriorAngel]

Who are we talking about here? Augustine or Photius?

I was responding to the point that Rome would ask us to remove Photius from Sainthood, which I don't believe is possible. How are we to pull someone from Heaven?

I said scholars said that this was the dividing line.
Historical scholars saw that Photius led to beginnings of the seperation and in all liklihood no one knows how that effected his salvation.

I do not know his judgement and wont speculate on it, but if he began the division, it is not likely scholars will ever see him as a Saint. :sorry: t



WA,

Why is it that my teacher is a horrible liberal teacher (which I agree with you on!) but yet you welcome Eastern Rite Catholics to hold such views?

a_ntv,

Maybe I misunderstood you but in your first post you implied that EO's would not be required to change their remarriage policy were they to come into communion with Rome, but then you said that the teaching doesn't depend on Rite....

Although the EC do not deny the IC, or other doctrines in an offensive way, they do not necessarily celebrate them the same way.

BUT to be absolute certain, I will ask my brother. ;)

[prodromos]

You are not asked to change...but a few things.
One, communing with the Pope.
Two, [this would take historical scholars help on the Eastern side] remove the New Rome status of Constantinople, and Photius as a Saint.

I believe those are all that the West asks for in order for the ENTIRE Church to be as one again....like pre schism.With all due respect WA, this is utter nonsense. You cannot present a single statement from the Pope or your magesterium to back this up.

[zhilan]

I said scholars said that this was the dividing line.
Historical scholars saw that Photius led to beginnings of the seperation and in all liklihood no one knows how that effected his salvation.

I do not know his judgement and wont speculate on it, but if he began the division, it is not likely scholars will ever see him as a Saint. :sorry: t

Which scholars? Obviously Orthodox scholars do see him as a Saint.





Although the EC do not deny the IC, or other doctrines in an offensive way, they do not necessarily celebrate them the same way.

BUT to be absolute certain, I will ask my brother. ;)

When I talked to Eastern Rite priests I was assured that they DO NOT hold those doctrines and I have also heard this from many others. Also throughout this conversation and throughout many other conversations Catholics have repeatedly stated that were the Orthodox to come into Communion with Rome they would not have to change their beliefs. What does it mean they do not celebrate them in the same way. How can one not hold papal infallibility and the IC and be in Communion with Rome? You would not accept that from others, why from the RC? Even in this very thread we heave heard from high church Anglicans who WANT to be in Communion with Rome but are denied it, why do you hold them to different standards than us?

[Don5925]

See post 45 by xristos.anesti on page 5. I think he cracked the EO side of this nut with fairness.