I am happy to participate in this forum and thank you for your kind reply and for showing me the link.
Just now I found another page for the same title under HH Pope Shenouda books part (http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/Pope Shenouda/Saint Mary In The Orthoodox Concept.pdf)
That book you link us to is in fact the very same as that which I referred you to i.e. the one authored by Fr. T. Malaty. I'm not quite sure why that particular website has it listed under His Holines Pope Shenouda III.
Iqbal, Going up one step the tree in that website to the main english books page, it's clear why: HH Pope Shenouda books page link is in the table cell just above Fr Tadros books. I find it a minor editing thing: all the books source is our same Coptic Orthodox Church. For me, this is a nice 'coincidence' (and I've reached p.80).
Michael_Thoma, I am happy you read this book. I consider it a gem: not lengthy yet not too concise. Chapters 4 and 5 are definitely the ones related to this thread.
If we believe St Mary never sinned then why was she in need of a Saviour? and if we believe we do not inherit the guilt of original sin but just the curse (if that makes sense) then does that mean she was not in need of salvation because she is not guilty of that too? maybe she was in need of salvation from the curse only? but she died on earth did she not?
I hope people are not annoyed from these questions?
As discussed in the previous posts, St Mary, despite overcoming all her temptations, was nonetheless born with, and hence possessed, a human nature that suffered from the consequences of original sin. The fact she died is proof of that, since mortality is one of such consequences. The only way St Mary's nature could truly be transformed via the restoration of the image of God within her, the re-establishment of the potential to progress to the likeness of God, and her ability to achieve that potential, is through the incarnation, the incarnate life, and the death of God the Word in the flesh.
Even if She never sinned She still died on earth because of the consequences of original sin .. am I right? but then would She be able to save Herself from eternal punishment since maybe She was not seperated from God if She never sinned?...
yet She was not able to live a sinless life without Gods grace through Jesus Christ.. am I right? but She maybe was sinless even before She gave birth to Christ .. Was Gods grace available (if thats one right word to use here) to those even before Christ's coming?
(maybe because God knows He will keep His promise that ? the Messiah would suffer for the whole world )
then what benefits do we have who were born after Christs coming compared? to those before?
I just stumbled onto this. Well, this is interesting, because I am in the process of becoming Roman Catholic myself, and used to go to a Coptic church, (I am technically still Coptic Orthodox), but IC is something I accepted rather readily, especially in light of the teachings of Augustine on original sin. But, this is not the reason I left the Coptic church. I left due to reasons regarding the priesthood. My priest wanted me to marry, which is not my calling, and told me I should use contraception in marriage. I knew this was sin. Also, he got angry with me in the confession room, and that was difficult, and he put down some of my friends in the church in there, and meanmouthed another priest and called him a liar. I was an American convert to that church, so I was very disappointed in the conduct I experienced. I contacted a bishop in Egypt, but he did not get it reconciled, even though he agreed with my views. So, I left. I have to have peace in confession, and walk away from church in peace. But, studying the Catechism, it explains the doctrines rather well, and I have not found anything I find to be objectionable. In fact, the teachings on moral issues such as abortion, contraception, fornication, masterbation, adultery, murder, euthenasia, are impeccable. I have seen nothing like it in the Orthodox church. Personally, I would rather be wrong on the IC, than be wrong on even one moral issue. For instance, with the exception of the Armenian church, I don't know of much Orthodox teaching against birth control, even though it is obviously Onanism.
You raise a good question; though I do not have an official answer, I could offer a possible answer: the Lord according to His foreknowledge of the perfect submission that St Mary would offer Him, thus pre-ordained her as the one who would give birth to God the Word, and hence supplied her with a unique level of Grace unknown to her contemporaries or predecessors. Since the results of the Incarnation are timeless, then St Mary would not have necessarily have had to wait for the actual event to benefit from its fruits.
Note that this is simply a theological opinion that I offer to reconcile the Church's position on the matter, and not an official position that I have seen advocated by an Chuch heirarch as of yet.
This thread relates specifically to the heresy of IC as adopted by the Latin Church; if you have other issues you would like to discuss, please feel free to create a new thread, or search the database for existing threads relating to your issues of concern. The only point you have made concerning IC in this thread is that you have chosen to readily accept it in your embrace of heterodoxy. Well Sammy, I doubt anyone is really interested in your mere personal opinion or personal position here; we deal with the facts, reason, and Tradition that all oppose the heresy of IC. I urge you to read over the last 2 pages of this thread, and if you are able to address the Orthodox objections raised then I invite you to engage with them. If not, you are of course free to blindly dismiss such objections in your pursuit to abandon the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, but please, with all due respect, do not disturb the flow of this thread.
Regarding whatever personal disputes you had with a certain priest of a certain local church: that is your personal issue; the Church is perfect, but no one ever said her clergy are perfect. They are normal human beings with human passions and limitations like the rest of us. We do not elevate our clergy to divine beings. If you think the Latin Church does not have problems with her clergy, then you should think again – especially considering the media coverage that certain controversies relating to Latin priests have attained in the past decade. Every church has its problems; leaving a particular church due to some personal disputes is a reflection of spiritual immaturity in my opinion - here i speak generally.
With respect to the issue of contraceptives, I thank God that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church recognizes the fluidity of morality, which is contingent upon contextual factors such as time, circumstance, and culture. Truly the Church is enlightened by the divine light of the true Logos, and is hence able to deal with reality; it is not blinded by the darkness of pharisaic legalism that has forced the Latin Church to make such strict and superfluous regulations on issues for which such judgments are not called for. It is this type of legalism that has corrupted the Latin Church, morally and doctrinally. It is nothing but such legalism that constitues real sin; it inhibits rather than assissts one's spiritual life. Unfortuantely, some people are of such a feeble mind that they require these black and white rulings to feel content within themselves; such feeling of content is inspired by none other than satan himself, who would stop at nothing to take the sons of God away from the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
If you search the database, you will find a couple of threads already existing on the issue of contraceptives. Again, your mere personal opinion and position, whilst respected on this forum, is really of little to no interest to anyone here unless you can support your assertions and claims with reason, logic, and Tradition. I thus urge you to go through such threads and engage with the arguments made, if you are capable of so doing.
48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Was it sinful for St Mary to be anxious and to seek Jesus? Did she not trust God? And is it a sin that she did not understand (read verse 50) ? :( ? (should I be sad about this?)
First off, I am glad I have found you. A convert from the Roman church to Orthodoxy since 1990 and a member of the Coptic Church since 1992, I have needed to find such a discussion board as it is always good to go over the reasons for one's faith, if only for one's own edification.
I have read the three pages of this discussion with a lot of interest because I believe the question of the Immaculate Conception directly relates to even deeper theological and soteriolgical issues that separate the Orthodox Church from Her friends in Rome. I can share with those of you who are Catholic or who are thinking of switching to Catholicism that I, as a former Catholic, fully sympathize with the tendency to think that because dogmatic assertions seem similar, they must be the same. But my experience in the Orthodox Church has opened up to me the profound differences between what I once thought to be merely two sides of one coin.
The "stain" of "original sin" is consonant with a hyper-Augustinian view of the nature of the fall of our foreparents. If Orthodoxy agreed with Augustine that Adam's sin is essential to our nature and communicated to us via the procreative act, then of course some sort of "prevenient grace" would be necessary for the all-holy Theotokos to warrant such an apellation, but the Church does not. Orthodoxy's insistence on the freedom of the human will implies that She vehemently disagrees with the Augustinian tradition that has ultimately led to a belief in humanity's absolute depravity before God's irresistable grace as found in various Protestant sects.
The "Theanthropological" model of Orthodoxy posits that humans can and must participate in their own salvation as existentially free beings. Such was preeminently true in the case of the Theotokos, whose choice to serve God as His Mother was a free choice not contingent upon an irresistable grace that would have predetermined her response of "YES".
The real historical question, however, that I have always pondered is why the Roman pontiff would find it necessary to promulgate as dogma a pious belief shared in the Franciscan tradition (which has always been much closer to the Augustinian tradition than the Thomistic, whether Dominican or Jesuit) especially since the tridentine reformation itself had sanctified Aquinas's theology as nearly constituting the so-called Magisterium. What purpose did such a move serve? What "truths" were in danger of being violated? How does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in any way enhance Mary's manifest glory?
If any of the participants, Orthodox or Roman, can help me understand the reason or justification for this action, I would appreciate it. Thank you all! I remain
It is a very interesting topic that I would always be confused about.
I was born and raise Catholic. I entered Coptic Orthodox Church 3 years ago after my husband who is Egyptian. Catholic Church thought me that we inherit the fallen human nature not the original sin. My family and friends who are Catholic were also though the same thing (just as Orthodox). I do not really understand who introduced on this forum the notion that Catholic Church believes that we inherit the original sin.
Lets pray for the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church as we All mention it in the Creed.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg47830 date=1139841229] As discussed in the previous posts, St Mary, despite overcoming all her temptations, was nonetheless born with, and hence possessed, a human nature that suffered from the consequences of original sin. The fact she died is proof of that, since mortality is one of such consequences.
I'm just curious - what proof does the Coptic Church provide that Mary died?
[quote author=Klara link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61162 date=1159037836]Catholic Church thought me that we inherit the fallen human nature not the original sin. My family and friends who are Catholic were also though the same thing (just as Orthodox). I do not really understand who introduced on this forum the notion that Catholic Church believes that we inherit the original sin.
If you look up the definition of 'Original Sin' according to the CCC you will find inherent legalistic notions of mankind inheriting the "stain" or "guilt" of sin.
[quote author=tashaar link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61623 date=1159991803]I'm just curious - what proof does the Coptic Church provide that Mary died?
St. Mary's death and her subsequent assumption, are long-held traditions of the Church. Biblical/Patristic/Orthodox anthropology furthermore necessitates that St. Mary undergo death if she is to be regarded a true human being.
Is there some other particular form of "proof" that you had in mind?
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61707 date=1160055760] [quote author=Klara link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61162 date=1159037836]Catholic Church thought me that we inherit the fallen human nature not the original sin. My family and friends who are Catholic were also though the same thing (just as Orthodox). I do not really understand who introduced on this forum the notion that Catholic Church believes that we inherit the original sin.
If you look up the definition of 'Original Sin' according to the CCC you will find inherent legalistic notions of mankind inheriting the "stain" or "guilt" of sin.
I think it's the same concept in the Orthodox Tradition as it is in the Catholic one, it's just that we've defined it a bit more concretely. And I realize that bothers the Orthodox sensibility. But if I may interject a thought here.
The Catholic Church teaches that it wasn't necessary that Mary be sinless and without original sin, only that it is fitting that she be so. She is the new Eve, and Eve, if you remember, was brought into the word without a fallen nature - or original sin if we may call it that. Is it a stain? Well, that's one way describe it. It's a compulsion, a tendency to sin. It changed the nature of our being from what God created. We changed it, and changed ourselves permanently.
Now, St. Mary is to start a new creation, to be a mother of the Kingdom of God, Mother to the Church. She is the new Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant, that carried God within her.
Why would God choose to come into the world through sin, or the touch of sin?
I would just have you consider, for a moment that this whole idea of an Immaculate Conception has not as much to do about Mary as it does Christ himself. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore all the flesh on his bones came from this woman. Would God allow himself to be born of flesh formed of a fallen nature? Or would he come from flesh of a New Even of a non-fallen nature? What would he, himself, choose?
This is just theoretical reasoning on my part, and I'm not stating this as gospel. I'm just throwing it out there for a discussion. But I will state this for certain - the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed not for the sake of Mary, but for the sake of Christ--to make a statement about the nature of the Incarnation itself.
I'm going to do a little more research on this and come back. I've always found this topic interesting. --Ann
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61708 date=1160056009] [quote author=tashaar link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61623 date=1159991803]I'm just curious - what proof does the Coptic Church provide that Mary died?
St. Mary's death and her subsequent assumption, are long-held traditions of the Church. Biblical/Patristic/Orthodox anthropology furthermore necessitates that St. Mary undergo death if she is to be regarded a true human being.
Is there some other particular form of "proof" that you had in mind?
Well - I'd always heard that it was open to debate in the Orthodox Church (as it is in the Catholic Church) that Mary even died--that she could have been taken just before the moment of her death into heaven (like Elijah). In fact, it is the concept of Elijah we use to justify the Assumption to Protestants. We believe in her Assumption, of course. But is there a tomb for her at all--one to venerate? --Ann
I am presuming that you have not read the entirety of the last three pages of this thread, which is understandeable since that would be quite some lengthy reading and it may be the case that your schedule simply does not permit you enough time to do so. However, I strongly recommend that you do attempt to get through them before pursuing any further discussion because the questions and arguments of your last response have already been addressed (see replies # 23 & 28 on page 2, in particular).
i really thank you Iqbal, and fellow members on this site, for the awesome information provided on that thread. i always had problems understanding this issue, what it exactly meant, and where our church stands. now, i have a much better idea about it. it's a lot of info. but it's very useful.
I am presuming that you have not read the entirety of the last three pages of this thread, which is understandeable since that would be quite some lengthy reading and it may be the case that your schedule simply does not permit you enough time to do so. However, I strongly recommend that you do attempt to get through them before pursuing any further discussion because the questions and arguments of your last response have already been addressed (see replies # 23 & 28 on page 2, in particular).
Thanks. I read what I think are the posts in question. Michael Thomas's response reflects my own (sadly, Latin) point of view that it is a problem of semantics.
God bless you. Look forward to talking with you more.
Thanks. I read what I think are the posts in question. Michael Thomas's response reflects my own (sadly, Latin) point of view that it is a problem of semantics.
Well if you would like to respond to any of my contentions with this position, then please feel free to do so. If you would like me to clarify or elaborate on anything I can do that also, or if you think there was a relevant point raised that I have not answered or that I have not answered sufficiently, you can point that out as well.
Just for the sake of emphasis: I wasn't trying to brush you off in my previous response, I was just pointing out that the issues you have mentioned have already been raised and discussed as far as I recall; I am surely willing to pursue discussion further if you feel otherwise however.
[quote author=tashaar link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61759 date=1160090518] Well - I'd always heard that it was open to debate in the Orthodox Church (as it is in the Catholic Church) that Mary even died--that she could have been taken just before the moment of her death into heaven (like Elijah). In fact, it is the concept of Elijah we use to justify the Assumption to Protestants. We believe in her Assumption, of course. But is there a tomb for her at all--one to venerate?
Actually, the Orthodox Church calls this feast the Dormition (i.e. death) of the Theotokos. Just look at our iconography. Her death is certainly not open for debate.
And yes, there is a tomb on mount Zion, which is visited by both Catholics and Orthodox.
Well, first of all , bravo iqbal. Many thanks for the explanation. And a warm welcome to the RCC's amongst us!! We have many good saints in common. I was in a catholic Church once, and my Coptic Orthodox Father of Confession was there too. He came in with a group of Coptic kids showing them the CHurch. APparently, he was there for the relics of one or two saints that we share in common with the RCC.
Orthodox11: What is the Church in Mount Zion?
I also wish to say the following concerning Saint Mary:
* In the Bible, she says :"My Son, and my Saviour" upon seeing our Lord on the cross. So, if she was immaculate, then why would she have addressed her Son as her 'Saviour': she wouldnt need to be saved also? (please correct me if i am wrong).
* Yet, as you know, Tasbeha means Praises. And one of venerations we have for Saint Mary in Coptic says the following: "O you, who is without blemish, the pure dove, sinless, the Saint in Everything, the one who presented us to God, held upon her arms".
(in Coptic: Ti-Atsoleb En-semneh)
In Arabic: "Ay-yatoo hal ghayr il danisah, il 3afeefah, Al Qudessa fe kol shayQ, allati quddamatlana Allah, ma7moulan 3ala zira3ayha".
[quote author=vassilios link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61878 date=1160419463] Orthodox11: What is the Church in Mount Zion?
Hi,
If you mean the name, I honestly can't remember. I assume it's something along the lines of Tomb of the Virgin Mary or something.
I have a big poster from there somewhere which has the name on it. I'll let you know if I find it.
If you mean which Church it belongs to, it is shared by the Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches.
Also, to add to my previous post. There is a huge Catholic Cathedral at the place the Blessed Virgin died, called the Dormition. So clearly the RCC does not believe she was assumed prior to her death.
Hi Orthodox, As far as I know, the Catholics do believe in the Assumption of Saint Mary. Why they even celebrate it a week before us, and furthermore , its a national vacation in France known as feast of the assumption.
OK. the truth is: It is a national vacation, but the homosexual mayor of Paris decided to annul all vacations that were religious a few years ago.
But what happened was this: All of France STILL took the day off anyway, and what they do is this: They cut off the traffic to 4 major bridges in Paris around Notre Dame. Then they carry a statue of Saint Mary and sing praises and say Hail Mary whilst carrying the statue until Place Saint Michel. We are talking about crowds of 100,000 to 150,000 easily. No one is banging their horns, the procession moves very slowly (i mean VERY slowly!), and everyone loves it.
[quote author=vassilios link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61883 date=1160420931] Hi Orthodox, As far as I know, the Catholics do believe in the Assumption of Saint Mary.
Of course they do. I never said they didn't. What I said was that they do not believe she was assumed prior to her death.
Why they even celebrate it a week before us
Because they follow the Gregorian calendar, which is 13 days ahead of the Julian one.
and furthermore , its a national vacation in France known as feast of the assumption.
Its a national holiday in most Catholic countries. I was in Italy on Aug 15th last year. They had fireworks, parades, etc. Really nice :D
[quote author=vassilios link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=45#msg61888 date=1160423357] Orthodox, Please forgive my ignorance
OK. I forgive your ignorance :P
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
and please explain what you mean about the RCC not believing that she was assumed prior to her death.
According to Orthodox Holy Tradition, the blessed Virgin reposed in a normal manner. Then, after her death (dormition), her body was taken into heaven (assumed).
Considering the fact that the RCC has a gigantic Cathedral on the site of her dormition, bearing that name, clearly suggests that they believe she died. Therefore, the Assumption in Catholic teaching (like Orthodox) must have taken place after her death, and not prior to it.
Comments
Just now I found another page for the same title under HH Pope Shenouda books part (http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/Pope Shenouda/Saint Mary In The Orthoodox Concept.pdf)
John and Iqbal for posting this text, I am reading it now.
That book you link us to is in fact the very same as that which I referred you to i.e. the one authored by Fr. T. Malaty. I'm not quite sure why that particular website has it listed under His Holines Pope Shenouda III.
Going up one step the tree in that website to the main english books page, it's clear why: HH Pope Shenouda books page link is in the table cell just above Fr Tadros books. I find it a minor editing thing: all the books source is our same Coptic Orthodox Church. For me, this is a nice 'coincidence' (and I've reached p.80).
Michael_Thoma,
I am happy you read this book. I consider it a gem: not lengthy yet not too concise. Chapters 4 and 5 are definitely the ones related to this thread.
I hope people are not annoyed from these questions?
yet She was not able to live a sinless life without Gods grace through Jesus Christ.. am I right? but She maybe was sinless even before She gave birth to Christ .. Was Gods grace available (if thats one right word to use here) to those even before Christ's coming?
(maybe because God knows He will keep His promise that ? the Messiah would suffer for the whole world )
then what benefits do we have who were born after Christs coming compared? to those before?
You raise a good question; though I do not have an official answer, I could offer a possible answer: the Lord according to His foreknowledge of the perfect submission that St Mary would offer Him, thus pre-ordained her as the one who would give birth to God the Word, and hence supplied her with a unique level of Grace unknown to her contemporaries or predecessors. Since the results of the Incarnation are timeless, then St Mary would not have necessarily have had to wait for the actual event to benefit from its fruits.
Note that this is simply a theological opinion that I offer to reconcile the Church's position on the matter, and not an official position that I have seen advocated by an Chuch heirarch as of yet.
This thread relates specifically to the heresy of IC as adopted by the Latin Church; if you have other issues you would like to discuss, please feel free to create a new thread, or search the database for existing threads relating to your issues of concern. The only point you have made concerning IC in this thread is that you have chosen to readily accept it in your embrace of heterodoxy. Well Sammy, I doubt anyone is really interested in your mere personal opinion or personal position here; we deal with the facts, reason, and Tradition that all oppose the heresy of IC. I urge you to read over the last 2 pages of this thread, and if you are able to address the Orthodox objections raised then I invite you to engage with them. If not, you are of course free to blindly dismiss such objections in your pursuit to abandon the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, but please, with all due respect, do not disturb the flow of this thread.
Regarding whatever personal disputes you had with a certain priest of a certain local church: that is your personal issue; the Church is perfect, but no one ever said her clergy are perfect. They are normal human beings with human passions and limitations like the rest of us. We do not elevate our clergy to divine beings. If you think the Latin Church does not have problems with her clergy, then you should think again – especially considering the media coverage that certain controversies relating to Latin priests have attained in the past decade. Every church has its problems; leaving a particular church due to some personal disputes is a reflection of spiritual immaturity in my opinion - here i speak generally.
With respect to the issue of contraceptives, I thank God that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church recognizes the fluidity of morality, which is contingent upon contextual factors such as time, circumstance, and culture. Truly the Church is enlightened by the divine light of the true Logos, and is hence able to deal with reality; it is not blinded by the darkness of pharisaic legalism that has forced the Latin Church to make such strict and superfluous regulations on issues for which such judgments are not called for. It is this type of legalism that has corrupted the Latin Church, morally and doctrinally. It is nothing but such legalism that constitues real sin; it inhibits rather than assissts one's spiritual life. Unfortuantely, some people are of such a feeble mind that they require these black and white rulings to feel content within themselves; such feeling of content is inspired by none other than satan himself, who would stop at nothing to take the sons of God away from the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
If you search the database, you will find a couple of threads already existing on the issue of contraceptives. Again, your mere personal opinion and position, whilst respected on this forum, is really of little to no interest to anyone here unless you can support your assertions and claims with reason, logic, and Tradition. I thus urge you to go through such threads and engage with the arguments made, if you are capable of so doing.
48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
From
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 2:48-50;&version=9;
Was it sinful for St Mary to be anxious and to seek Jesus?
Did she not trust God?
And is it a sin that she did not understand (read verse 50) ?
:( ? (should I be sad about this?)
First off, I am glad I have found you. A convert from the Roman church to Orthodoxy since 1990 and a member of the Coptic Church since 1992, I have needed to find such a discussion board as it is always good to go over the reasons for one's faith, if only for one's own edification.
I have read the three pages of this discussion with a lot of interest because I believe the question of the Immaculate Conception directly relates to even deeper theological and soteriolgical issues that separate the Orthodox Church from Her friends in Rome. I can share with those of you who are Catholic or who are thinking of switching to Catholicism that I, as a former Catholic, fully sympathize with the tendency to think that because dogmatic assertions seem similar, they must be the same. But my experience in the Orthodox Church has opened up to me the profound differences between what I once thought to be merely two sides of one coin.
The "stain" of "original sin" is consonant with a hyper-Augustinian view of the nature of the fall of our foreparents. If Orthodoxy agreed with Augustine that Adam's sin is essential to our nature and communicated to us via the procreative act, then of course some sort of "prevenient grace" would be necessary for the all-holy Theotokos to warrant such an apellation, but the Church does not. Orthodoxy's insistence on the freedom of the human will implies that She vehemently disagrees with the Augustinian tradition that has ultimately led to a belief in humanity's absolute depravity before God's irresistable grace as found in various Protestant sects.
The "Theanthropological" model of Orthodoxy posits that humans can and must participate in their own salvation as existentially free beings. Such was preeminently true in the case of the Theotokos, whose choice to serve God as His Mother was a free choice not contingent upon an irresistable grace that would have predetermined her response of "YES".
The real historical question, however, that I have always pondered is why the Roman pontiff would find it necessary to promulgate as dogma a pious belief shared in the Franciscan tradition (which has always been much closer to the Augustinian tradition than the Thomistic, whether Dominican or Jesuit) especially since the tridentine reformation itself had sanctified Aquinas's theology as nearly constituting the so-called Magisterium. What purpose did such a move serve? What "truths" were in danger of being violated? How does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in any way enhance Mary's manifest glory?
If any of the participants, Orthodox or Roman, can help me understand the reason or justification for this action, I would appreciate it. Thank you all! I remain
Your brother in IHC XPC,
Michael
I was born and raise Catholic. I entered Coptic Orthodox Church 3 years ago after my husband who is Egyptian. Catholic Church thought me that we inherit the fallen human nature not the original sin. My family and friends who are Catholic were also though the same thing (just as Orthodox). I do not really understand who introduced on this forum the notion that Catholic Church believes that we inherit the original sin.
Lets pray for the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church as we All mention it in the Creed.
As discussed in the previous posts, St Mary, despite overcoming all her temptations, was nonetheless born with, and hence possessed, a human nature that suffered from the consequences of original sin. The fact she died is proof of that, since mortality is one of such consequences.
I'm just curious - what proof does the Coptic Church provide that Mary died?
--Ann
If you look up the definition of 'Original Sin' according to the CCC you will find inherent legalistic notions of mankind inheriting the "stain" or "guilt" of sin.
St. Mary's death and her subsequent assumption, are long-held traditions of the Church. Biblical/Patristic/Orthodox anthropology furthermore necessitates that St. Mary undergo death if she is to be regarded a true human being.
Is there some other particular form of "proof" that you had in mind?
[quote author=Klara link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61162 date=1159037836]Catholic Church thought me that we inherit the fallen human nature not the original sin. My family and friends who are Catholic were also though the same thing (just as Orthodox). I do not really understand who introduced on this forum the notion that Catholic Church believes that we inherit the original sin.
If you look up the definition of 'Original Sin' according to the CCC you will find inherent legalistic notions of mankind inheriting the "stain" or "guilt" of sin.
I think it's the same concept in the Orthodox Tradition as it is in the Catholic one, it's just that we've defined it a bit more concretely. And I realize that bothers the Orthodox sensibility. But if I may interject a thought here.
The Catholic Church teaches that it wasn't necessary that Mary be sinless and without original sin, only that it is fitting that she be so. She is the new Eve, and Eve, if you remember, was brought into the word without a fallen nature - or original sin if we may call it that. Is it a stain? Well, that's one way describe it. It's a compulsion, a tendency to sin. It changed the nature of our being from what God created. We changed it, and changed ourselves permanently.
Now, St. Mary is to start a new creation, to be a mother of the Kingdom of God, Mother to the Church. She is the new Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant, that carried God within her.
Why would God choose to come into the world through sin, or the touch of sin?
I would just have you consider, for a moment that this whole idea of an Immaculate Conception has not as much to do about Mary as it does Christ himself. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore all the flesh on his bones came from this woman. Would God allow himself to be born of flesh formed of a fallen nature? Or would he come from flesh of a New Even of a non-fallen nature? What would he, himself, choose?
This is just theoretical reasoning on my part, and I'm not stating this as gospel. I'm just throwing it out there for a discussion. But I will state this for certain - the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed not for the sake of Mary, but for the sake of Christ--to make a statement about the nature of the Incarnation itself.
I'm going to do a little more research on this and come back. I've always found this topic interesting.
--Ann
[quote author=tashaar link=board=12;threadid=3054;start=30#msg61623 date=1159991803]I'm just curious - what proof does the Coptic Church provide that Mary died?
St. Mary's death and her subsequent assumption, are long-held traditions of the Church. Biblical/Patristic/Orthodox anthropology furthermore necessitates that St. Mary undergo death if she is to be regarded a true human being.
Is there some other particular form of "proof" that you had in mind?
Well - I'd always heard that it was open to debate in the Orthodox Church (as it is in the Catholic Church) that Mary even died--that she could have been taken just before the moment of her death into heaven (like Elijah). In fact, it is the concept of Elijah we use to justify the Assumption to Protestants. We believe in her Assumption, of course. But is there a tomb for her at all--one to venerate?
--Ann
I am presuming that you have not read the entirety of the last three pages of this thread, which is understandeable since that would be quite some lengthy reading and it may be the case that your schedule simply does not permit you enough time to do so. However, I strongly recommend that you do attempt to get through them before pursuing any further discussion because the questions and arguments of your last response have already been addressed (see replies # 23 & 28 on page 2, in particular).
Fibo
tashaar,
I am presuming that you have not read the entirety of the last three pages of this thread, which is understandeable since that would be quite some lengthy reading and it may be the case that your schedule simply does not permit you enough time to do so. However, I strongly recommend that you do attempt to get through them before pursuing any further discussion because the questions and arguments of your last response have already been addressed (see replies # 23 & 28 on page 2, in particular).
Thanks. I read what I think are the posts in question. Michael Thomas's response reflects my own (sadly, Latin) point of view that it is a problem of semantics.
God bless you. Look forward to talking with you more.
--Ann
Just for the sake of emphasis: I wasn't trying to brush you off in my previous response, I was just pointing out that the issues you have mentioned have already been raised and discussed as far as I recall; I am surely willing to pursue discussion further if you feel otherwise however.
Well - I'd always heard that it was open to debate in the Orthodox Church (as it is in the Catholic Church) that Mary even died--that she could have been taken just before the moment of her death into heaven (like Elijah). In fact, it is the concept of Elijah we use to justify the Assumption to Protestants. We believe in her Assumption, of course. But is there a tomb for her at all--one to venerate?
Actually, the Orthodox Church calls this feast the Dormition (i.e. death) of the Theotokos. Just look at our iconography. Her death is certainly not open for debate.
And yes, there is a tomb on mount Zion, which is visited by both Catholics and Orthodox.
And a warm welcome to the RCC's amongst us!! We have many good saints in common. I was in a catholic Church once, and my Coptic Orthodox Father of Confession was there too. He came in with a group of Coptic kids showing them the CHurch. APparently, he was there for the relics of one or two saints that we share in common with the RCC.
Orthodox11: What is the Church in Mount Zion?
I also wish to say the following concerning Saint Mary:
* In the Bible, she says :"My Son, and my Saviour" upon seeing our Lord on the cross. So, if she was immaculate, then why would she have addressed her Son as her 'Saviour': she wouldnt need to be saved also? (please correct me if i am wrong).
* Yet, as you know, Tasbeha means Praises. And one of venerations we have for Saint Mary in Coptic says the following:
"O you, who is without blemish, the pure dove, sinless, the Saint in Everything, the one who presented us to God, held upon her arms".
(in Coptic: Ti-Atsoleb En-semneh)
In Arabic: "Ay-yatoo hal ghayr il danisah, il 3afeefah, Al Qudessa fe kol shayQ, allati quddamatlana Allah, ma7moulan 3ala zira3ayha".
Orthodox11: What is the Church in Mount Zion?
Hi,
If you mean the name, I honestly can't remember. I assume it's something along the lines of Tomb of the Virgin Mary or something.
I have a big poster from there somewhere which has the name on it. I'll let you know if I find it.
If you mean which Church it belongs to, it is shared by the Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches.
Also, to add to my previous post. There is a huge Catholic Cathedral at the place the Blessed Virgin died, called the Dormition. So clearly the RCC does not believe she was assumed prior to her death.
As far as I know, the Catholics do believe in the Assumption of Saint Mary. Why they even celebrate it a week before us, and furthermore , its a national vacation in France known as feast of the assumption.
OK. the truth is: It is a national vacation, but the homosexual mayor of Paris decided to annul all vacations that were religious a few years ago.
But what happened was this: All of France STILL took the day off anyway, and what they do is this: They cut off the traffic to 4 major bridges in Paris around Notre Dame. Then they carry a statue of Saint Mary and sing praises and say Hail Mary whilst carrying the statue until Place Saint Michel. We are talking about crowds of 100,000 to 150,000 easily. No one is banging their horns, the procession moves very slowly (i mean VERY slowly!), and everyone loves it.
Am i missing something then?!
Hi Orthodox,
As far as I know, the Catholics do believe in the Assumption of Saint Mary.
Of course they do. I never said they didn't. What I said was that they do not believe she was assumed prior to her death. Because they follow the Gregorian calendar, which is 13 days ahead of the Julian one. Its a national holiday in most Catholic countries. I was in Italy on Aug 15th last year. They had fireworks, parades, etc. Really nice :D
Please forgive my ignorance, and please explain what you mean about the RCC not believing that she was assumed prior to her death.
O, and just a small favour: Don't quote me saying :"Please forgive my ignorance" and then reply saying :"OK. I forgive your ignorance".
I've gotten to know you pretty well !! U o'l greek orthodox guy you!!
Orthodox,
Please forgive my ignorance
OK. I forgive your ignorance :P
Sorry, I couldn't resist. According to Orthodox Holy Tradition, the blessed Virgin reposed in a normal manner. Then, after her death (dormition), her body was taken into heaven (assumed).
Considering the fact that the RCC has a gigantic Cathedral on the site of her dormition, bearing that name, clearly suggests that they believe she died. Therefore, the Assumption in Catholic teaching (like Orthodox) must have taken place after her death, and not prior to it.