Greetings, Orthodox brethren.
I am a Coptic Catholic who translated to the Catholic Church from Coptic Orthodoxy about 5 years ago. I translated (not converted) to the Catholic Faith not in rejection of my Coptic Orthodox heritage, but merely by a rejection of years of misconceptions about the Catholic Church that I had imbibed.
As a Copt, I adhere to the paradigm expressed here:
"The Alexandrian Fathers used theological terms to explain the divine truths and their deep meanings, and to defend the Orthodox faith against heresies, but they were not enslaved to the terms themselves. St. Athanasius who devoted his life to defending Christ's Godhead stated that disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/t...church3-1.htmlI do believe much of the tension between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Oriental) are based on a misunderstanding of each others' theological language. In view of that, I would like to start a series of threads to uncover the Faith that unites us.
To wit: Is the Immaculate Conception a heresy, or an acceptable theologoumenon? What is the Coptic Orthodox understanding of the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception? Can we come to a common ground on the matter?
Blessings
Comments
Can you describe why you came to leave the Orthodox Church and become a Catholic? I am not sure what you mean about becoming a Catholic due to rejection of misconceptions about Catholicism? There are folk here who I think sometimes have misconceptions about Protestantism, but I would not become a Protestant simply because others have misconceptions.
As has been said, the Orthodox position is that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as understood and taught by Roman Catholics, is error. It requires a particular view of sin and the fall and salvation which Orthodox do not accept.
Father Peter
And also, i don't believe we will ever reach a connection or whatever you are trying to do with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church's dogmas simply are not the same as ours and have many faults.
Many muslims became Christian over this. Many Christians were healed from their sicknesses. You can find the apparitions on the internet - just google "Zeitun".
Do you think that the Mother of God would appear in a heretical Church?
Whenever I say this to Catholics, they tell me: "Yes, the Orthodox are the 2nd lungs of the Body of Christ". Frankly speaking, I prefer not to hear such stuff. Our patriarchs wrote your creed for you. Our Patriarchs chaired every single Ecumenical council.
The immaculate conception means that Saint Mary was born without the original sin.
That is absolutely nonsensical. It is not right. For us, Saint Mary is Holy, pure and saintly. Saintly in that she did not commit any sins her life. She was THAT Holy. But she was born of Anna and Joaquim - not of the Holy Spirit.
Here are scriptural proofs against the Immaculate Conception:
And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, {47} and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour ." (Luke 1:46-47)
I will add more later, but needless to say, if she was born without the original sin, then she wouldn't have said "in God my Saviour".
The catholics even went to the extent of saying that Mary is a Co-Redeemer - if she is also born without the original sin, then she is Divine and can lead someone to heaven.
For us, as Orthodox, we generally like people who honour our Holy Mother. I mean, i personally find it charming. I think its cute.
But unfortuantely for the Catholics, a lot of them do not see Mary as immaculate to the extent they are leaving the Catholic Church and becoming Protestant.
You are losing people with dogmas that we do not have. Again, would saint Mary really say something that would cause division? Would she be the cause of Division?
I think with the RC, they try to explain things that do not need explaining, and to explain them they come up with dogmas and theories that result in them looking very foolish:
* Transubstantiation for the how the bread is converted to the Body of Christ.
* Immaculate Conception to explain how Christ cannot be born of a woman who had the original sin. This is ridiculous! In fact, it goes against the basic theological principles of Soteriology. Christ TOOK what is ours and gave us what is his!!
He took OUR NATURE, our COMPLETE human nature and united it with His Divinity. What He took, he healed. What he took from us, He corrected it in Him.
He HAD to take the human nature that was relevant to all mankind.
This dogma of the immaculate conception has really led DROVES of people to leave the RC - and unfortunately end up as protestant! (lol).
Its wasteful and for no reason!!!!
* Purgatory - to explain domestic justice! Lol. SOmeone borrowed my DVD and didnt return it, and that gives them 10 mins in purgatory, but the person that returned it and damaged it gets more.
What is this!!!
I have actually NOTHING against the RC. I love the RC very much, but I mean this when i tell u: Your heretical dogmas are causing people to leave you. You are more widespread than us (The Orthodox), and people will most likely hear about the RC more than the Orthodox Church. What bothers me is that they think we have these heresies in common.
Oh dear!!!!
She has appeared many times in the Catholic Church, most notably in Fatima.
There is a little bit of misconception about the natures of Christ and indulgences. Not many else.
Why would you leave such a blessed religion with so much to give you? I was Catholic and attended Catholic School all my life. Why would you leave such a blessed church like the Orthodoxy. Catholics dream of a church like ours; the church of miracles, of martyrs, and the true church of Christ. The Orthodoxy is truly the straightest way to heaven. It is a church of sound doctrine and a strong history. Catholicism has been watered down throughout its history and dogma has been continually added. I love Catholics and I loved my time in the Catholic Church. God woke me up one time, and I hope he does the same to you.
Thank you everyone for your responses. But I only saw one response to my question, "What is the Coptic Orthodox understanding of the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception?"
Are there any who would like to respond?
Blessings
Thank you for your questions.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9357.msg115501#msg115501 date=1276548999]
Can you describe why you came to leave the Orthodox Church and become a Catholic? I am not sure what you mean about becoming a Catholic due to rejection of misconceptions about Catholicism? There are folk here who I think sometimes have misconceptions about Protestantism, but I would not become a Protestant simply because others have misconceptions.
Well, I wouldn't compare it to an apostolic Christian becoming Protestant. Even if an apostolic Christian became Protestant because he felt he had previous misconceptions, he/she would still have to give up a lot of his/her Orthodox heritage to become Protestant. On the other hand, I have not given anything of my Coptic Orthodox heritage to become Catholic - as stated, I just had to give up my misconceptions of the Catholic Faith. Could you please elaborate on this? Thank you.
Humbly,
Marduk
Our church's view on the immaculate conception has been stated clearly. We do not believe that St. Mary obtained some sort of "special salvation" as I learned in my Catholic school's religion class. The reason is, if that were the case, why did Christ incarnate at all? Couldn't He have given all of us this "special salvation"? If St. Mary was never was in need of saving throughout her earthly life. "The wage of sin is death" If we say she never sinned, and she was born without original sin, why did she die? Finally, this belief was not the consensus of the early fathers, nor is it supported by the Bible. Thus, from an Orthodox perspective, it is dogma that was added separate from Tradition or the Bible.
If I was unclear or made any mistakes, forgive me and feel free to correct me,
aiernovi
Thank you for actually responding to my original inquiry.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9357.msg115521#msg115521 date=1276556819]The immaculate conception means that Saint Mary was born without the original sin.
That is absolutely nonsensical. It is not right. For us, Saint Mary is Holy, pure and saintly. Saintly in that she did not commit any sins her life. She was THAT Holy. But she was born of Anna and Joaquim - not of the Holy Spirit.
Agreed. In the late Middle Ages, there were Catholics who thought that was what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception meant. In the 17th century, Pope Alexander, in explaining the true meaning of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, formally condemned the error that Mary was not born naturally of Sts. Joachim and Hannah. So whatever else the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches, it certainly does not teach that. What the Immaculate Conception teaches is simply this – St. Mary’s soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God from the very first moment of her existence. Agreed. And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception explicitly teaches that it was God who preserved Mary from Original Sin. Imagine a deep hole, and you are on the edge of it and about to fall in. Person A grabs your arm and pulls you back so you don’t fall in the hole. Now imagine that you have actually fallen in, and Person A pulls you out. Did not Person A save you in both situations?
Mary had a human nature. What makes you think the IC teaches otherwise? Is it because of the misunderstanding you expressed earlier that the IC means she did not have a natural conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah?
Blessings,
Marduk
[quote author=geomike link=topic=9357.msg115534#msg115534 date=1276571687]
Can you explain a little bit about what Immaculate Conception is.
Thanks for your question. I did not want to immediately go into it because I did not want to appear like I was proselytizing. My only purpose here is to promote understanding. I'm not trying to convert anybody.
The Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception is unfortunately couched in a lot of Latin theological terminology. After I studied it more, I realized that what it really teaches, the only thing it teaches is this:
The soul of Mary was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by God's own Grace - from the first moment of her existence. In other words, Mary was united to God every moment of her life.
Blessings
[quote author=aiernovi link=topic=9357.msg115537#msg115537 date=1276572694]
In response to your question, our Church does not attempt to explain dogmas of other denominations. Instead, the Church goes to great lengths to explain the orthodox dogma for the edification and education of its adherents. Therefore, to ask what is the Coptic Church's understanding of the Catholic's teaching is quite the difficult question. It is much easier to ask, "Do Copts believe St. Mary was born without Original Sin."
The "Non-Orthodox Inquiries" description states that this is the place to ask the Orthodox view of other Faiths. Did I misinterpret that? If I did, I apologize. That's interesting. That's what I thought too, a long time ago - until I actually studied what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. I was thinking this would be good for another thread, but since it is tied up with the doctrine of the IC, I guess this thread is as good a place as any. So, what do you think is the difference between the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox understanding of Original Sin? Well, there’s sometimes a difference between what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches, and how a local Catholic school teacher might teach it. You won’t find a single, official authoritative teaching on the IC that describes the IC as “some sort of special salvation.” Mary was saved in exactly the same way as you or I are saved – by the blood of Christ. The only difference is the timing. Mary was unique among any other living creature – she was to be the tabernacle of God-made-man. Most importantly, God would take His flesh from her. According to the great Pope St. Athanasius, death is natural to the human body, both before and after the Fall. Before the Fall, man was immortal not by nature, but by Grace. When man fell, the consequence was not that he changed from being naturally immortal to being naturally mortal. What happened was that he lost the Grace of immortality (aside from the Graces of Original holiness and Original Justice), and was thus subject to physical death that was always inherent in his nature.
When Christ came, died, and rose again, He conquered sin and death, both spiritual death, and physical death. We obtain the Graces of His Sacrifice at Baptism. When we are baptized, we regain the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice and are united spiritually to God (whereas before we were not). We have overcome the spiritual death by reacquiring the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice in Baptism. In other words, we have been cleansed of Original Sin. But even though we no longer have original sin, we have yet to receive the Grace of Immortality, and we will not receive it until the Second Coming.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary received the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice from the first moment of her existence, whereby she was united spiritually to God. But the doctrine of the IC does not teach that Mary received the Grace of Immortality at that time. Mary did not receive the Grace of Immortality at the IC any more than you or I receive the Grace of Immortality at Baptism.
In short, the absence of Original Sin on the soul does not equate to an immediate possession of the Grace of Immortality. So it does not make sense to say “Mary died, therefore she had Original Sin.”
Forgive me for saying so, but I find it strange that a Coptic Orthodox would use this argument, given the teaching of Pope St. Athanasius on human nature. I mean, before I came into Catholic communion, I had used other arguments against the IC, but not this one. Though I’d often heard it used by the Eastern Orthodox. I’m not sure if you are EO. In case you are, I will include EO Fathers too until the 17th century:
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the 3rd century taught that even before the Annunciation, even before the death and resurrection of our Lord, Mary was already "in possession of the incorruptible citizenship," and that she had "a body made purer than any gold."
St. Ephraim in the 4th century taught that before their respective decisions, Eve and Mary were "utterly equal."
St. Theodotus of Ancyra in the 5th century taught that Mary was "included in woman's sex, but without a share in woman's fault."
St. Proclus of Constantinople, likewise in the 5th century taught that Mary was " made without any stain."
St. Severus of Antioch in the 6th century taught that Mary was "of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate."
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century taught that Mary, "holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from EVERY CONTAGION. ”
St. Andrew of Crete in the 7th/8th centuries taught that Sts. Joachim and Hannah's prayers bore fruit with Mary, and called her "the immaculate fruition."
St. John Damascene in the 8th century taught that Mary was "hidden from the fiery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the spirit, preserved without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God.”
St. Photius in the 9th century taught that Mary was sanctified ek brephous in the womb of St. Hannah - that is, from the first instance of her existence in her mother's womb.
St. Euthymes of Constantinople in the 10th century taught that God built His "fully sanctified" tabernacle on the day Mary was conceived.
St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century taught that Mary was created with flesh that was "both new and ours."
Patriarch Scholarios in the 15th century taught that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence.”
Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople in the 17th century taught that Mary "was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her conception."
Patriarch Gerasimo of Alexandria, likewise in the 17th century, taught that Mary "was not subject to the sin of our first father."
St Dimitri of Rostov, also in the 17th century, a member of the Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception, taught that Mary was the Tabernacle of our Lord, and that this Tabernacle was created "clad in the splendor of virtues...Not with gold, nor with inanimate stones are you adorned. In stead of gold, the Spirit shines in you." Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” Catholics understand this to refer to Mary and Jesus. The enmity between the woman and her seed towards Satan is the same. A woman with Original Sin cannot possibly be at enmity with Satan. As St. John Damascene wrote, Mary was “hidden from the fiery dart of Satan.”
Isaiah 66:7-8 – “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.” I believe this refers to Mary and Jesus, since it is in the context of a prophecy of the coming of Christ. As you know, one of the consequences of the original sin was painful childbearing for the woman. But the woman spoken of in this passage does not experience the pain of childbirth. The pain experienced after the birth of Jesus in this passage is interpreted to mean Mary’s spiritual pain as mother of the Church.
Jeremiah 31:22 – “For the Lord has created a new thing on earth: a woman encompasses a man.” I believe this refers to Mary and Jesus, the first fruits of the New Creation. Whereas in the First Creation, man encompassed woman (i.e., woman takes her flesh from man), in the New Creation, it is woman who encompasses man (i.e., man takes his flesh from her). Note that it states that the woman is created new. This verse is more poignant given the fact that it is in the context of a prophecy on the coming of Christ.
You may not agree with the above interpretations, but that there are even any passages that can be interpreted to support the IC is enough to successfully challenge the notion that “it is not supported by the Bible.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I am not sure why you are posting this material here. It is not the place to seek to convince people of Catholicism. The Non-Orthodox Inquiries board is for people who are seeking to learn about our Orthodoxy to ask questions about our Orthodoxy, not for people who undoubtedly already know what the Orthodox Church teaches to present the teachings of non-Orthodox groups.
I would appreciate an answer to the question why you left the Orthodox Church?
You ask..
What is the Coptic Orthodox understanding of the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception? Can we come to a common ground on the matter?
but if you have left the Orthodox Church then you already know the answers to these questions, so I am not sure why you are asking them? If you were a Catholic seeking to know the Orthodox point of view then that would be one thing. But you have been Orthodox and have left Orthodoxy so it is hard to see how the questions are necessary?
Father Peter
It is indeed a heresy. Was this believed by any of the early church fathers? No. This was introduced at the Council of Basel and was then a widespread teaching by the end of the 15th century. Many dispute the council, but it is as a result of this council that this belief exists, one cannot discount that. The council of Trent did not affirm this as dogma and it was not until Pope Pius IX did this become dogma in the Catholic church. So this is a relatively new belief introduced later on and not heard of by the early church fathers. Much like the fililoque and the unleavened bread, also transubstantiation, which was not introduced until rather recent history.
Not only that Ioannes, but the Catholic definition of the Immaculate conception (as with all their incorrect dogmas) has evolved. First it was "Saint Mary was the Immaculate Conception" that means that she was born (she was conceived without the original sin). Then , later on, it changed to be one of "She was so much filled with Grace, that the original sin left her". And now, its a completely different story.
We say in our tasbeha (Tiatsoleb): Oh you who is undefiled (without sin), the faithful, the saint in everything, the one who presented to us Christ, carried upon her arms.
We say she is undefiled, pure and saintly in everything in our own Church; but the Catholics , because of their ridiculous insecurity in proving everything, they went to explain how Saint Mary is undefiled and pure and saintly through the dogma of the immaculate conception. And as Bishop Kallistos Ware says : All these dogmas are redundant, and yet dangerous because they not only confuse people, it results in Catholics converting to protestantism.
Christ took our nature from saint Mary and united it with His Divinity. What He united HE HEALED. What He united to His Divinity, it was corrected. So, if saint Mary's SPIRITUAL nature was different than ours, then we would not have been saved. He corrected our ENTIRE nature, but taking on an ENTIRE human being.
This is from Saint Athanasious the Apostolic who said that. He took what was ours, to give us what is His.
But the catholics NEED to explain everything and so fall into traps that their futile explanations lead them. Being born of the original sin does not mean you are full of sin! It means you are prone to sin. A child is not born filthy; but it is through God's Grace that we do not sin. But the Catholic understanding of Original Sin was so immature. They understood the inheritance of the original sin as to mean something along the lines that we are all filthy. Whereas, the original sin MEANS that we just inherited a corrupt nature from the fall.
Adam sinned, and we inherited the CONSEQUENCES of his sin; not the GUILT!!!
If Christ took the flesh of someone that was not born from the consequences of Adam's sin (i.e. in the fallen state), then He came for no reason. He came to CORRECT that state. He came to return man BACK to his original standing, and his original form.
The immaculate conception dogma goes against the BASIC Nicene creed that they accepted. It is pointless. ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS DOGMA!!!!
They've done this with everything, they've added their own dogmas to go and explain things that do not need explaining; and in the process, they have unwittingly, fallen into heresy. This was the same attitude of the heretics before them.
The catholics were duophysite. That means that Christ has 2 natures. Yet, their definition of this was as follows:
* Christ has 2 natures, man and Divine. When Christ was hungry after fasting, this was His Human Nature that was hungry. When He created eyes for the blind, this was His Divine Nature that was present. Its as if one nature leaves, and one nature goes depending on the mood of Christ.
Now, they try and position themselves as MIAPHYSITE (like us!).
If saint Mary was not born with the original sin, then why did her body assume to heaven after she passed away? For death was a consequence of the sin of Adam that we all inherited. If Saint Mary was born without the original sin, she would never have died; she would never have called her Son, ON MANY OCCASSIONS: "MY SAVIOUR".
As I stated, I have not repudiated any core teachings of my Coptic Orthodox Faith. Among other things, I am still miaphysite (not diophysite), I uphold the doctrines of Divine Justice, the Atonement, the indissolubility of marriage, the collegial/synodal nature of the Church and her government, belief in only one Final judgment (not a particular judgment), the sufficiency and substitutionary nature of Christ’s Sacrifice, that Christ is the Supreme head of the Church, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Further, I reject: purgatorial fire, that the Son is a Source of the Spirit, that Mary was not conceived naturally of Sts. Joachim and Hannah, that Mary did not die, that the Pope of Rome can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, that bishops are just vicars of the Pope, that the Pope can teach infallibly apart from the rest of the Church, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
People will inevitably wonder – how can you consider yourself Catholic given all that? And that’s my whole point. That people will wonder demonstrates that there is a lot of misconception about what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
As stated earlier, my translation to the Catholic Church did not involve a rejection of anything that makes me Coptic Orthodox. It only required a rejection of my ignorance and misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. One of the great Latin Catholic archbishops of the last century (Fulton Sheen) exhorted, “there are not 100 people in this world who reject the Catholic Church for what she is, but there are many who reject her for what they think she is.”
Of course, as stated, given your concern over proselytism, I will no longer answer questions about my Catholic Faith. Neither will I give any responses in the other threads I started.
I know many Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern) who do not see the Catholic Church as being in heresy, and they remain in their particular Churches, while working towards, hoping, and praying for unity through common understanding. I was hoping to promote such understanding here, and refute the charges of heresy that I have heard/read from certain members in this forum. But if in responding to them, I might be seen as “proselytizing” (which the Catholic Church forbids her members to do to her Orthodox brethren), then I prefer not to do so.
Forgive me for any misunderstanding about my intentions here.
Humbly,
Marduk
My friend, the Orthodox Church by definition IS also the Catholic Church.
The Immaculate Conception is the miracle of the Holy Spirit that resulted in Saint Mary the Virgin Mother of God to carry and give birth to Jesus Christ, Emmanuel our Savior. It describes the coming of Jesus Christ as an unique event in human history.
At the conclusion of the ecumenical council in which the Roman Church decided to split and act on its own according to its own interests, it threw excommunication at whom oppose its policy. Accordingly excommunication was a reciprocal reaction from the Orthodox Church, who intimately follows the Apostolic Tradition.
The Patriarches of the conflicting Churches are the only authorities under Christ to cancel the above mentioned excommunications. Until they do that there is unfortunately no true communion between the RC and the Orthodox Church. You can define yourself as either Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian - not both.
One worse thing is the addition of more problems that accumulated more and more differences with time.
GBU
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9357.msg115544#msg115544 date=1276606757]
Not only that Ioannes, but the Catholic definition of the Immaculate conception (as with all their incorrect dogmas) has evolved. First it was "Saint Mary was the Immaculate Conception" that means that she was born (she was conceived without the original sin). Then , later on, it changed to be one of "She was so much filled with Grace, that the original sin left her". And now, its a completely different story.
We say in our tasbeha (Tiatsoleb): Oh you who is undefiled (without sin), the faithful, the saint in everything, the one who presented to us Christ, carried upon her arms.
We say she is undefiled, pure and saintly in everything in our own Church; but the Catholics , because of their ridiculous insecurity in proving everything, they went to explain how Saint Mary is undefiled and pure and saintly through the dogma of the immaculate conception. And as Bishop Kallistos Ware says : All these dogmas are redundant, and yet dangerous because they not only confuse people, it results in Catholics converting to protestantism.
Christ took our nature from saint Mary and united it with His Divinity. What He united HE HEALED. What He united to His Divinity, it was corrected. So, if saint Mary's SPIRITUAL nature was different than ours, then we would not have been saved. He corrected our ENTIRE nature, but taking on an ENTIRE human being.
This is from Saint Athanasious the Apostolic who said that. He took what was ours, to give us what is His.
But the catholics NEED to explain everything and so fall into traps that their futile explanations lead them. Being born of the original sin does not mean you are full of sin! It means you are prone to sin. A child is not born filthy; but it is through God's Grace that we do not sin. But the Catholic understanding of Original Sin was so immature. They understood the inheritance of the original sin as to mean something along the lines that we are all filthy. Whereas, the original sin MEANS that we just inherited a corrupt nature from the fall.
Adam sinned, and we inherited the CONSEQUENCES of his sin; not the GUILT!!!
If Christ took the flesh of someone that was not born from the consequences of Adam's sin (i.e. in the fallen state), then He came for no reason. He came to CORRECT that state. He came to return man BACK to his original standing, and his original form.
The immaculate conception dogma goes against the BASIC Nicene creed that they accepted. It is pointless. ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS DOGMA!!!!
They've done this with everything, they've added their own dogmas to go and explain things that do not need explaining; and in the process, they have unwittingly, fallen into heresy. This was the same attitude of the heretics before them.
The catholics were duophysite. That means that Christ has 2 natures. Yet, their definition of this was as follows:
* Christ has 2 natures, man and Divine. When Christ was hungry after fasting, this was His Human Nature that was hungry. When He created eyes for the blind, this was His Divine Nature that was present. Its as if one nature leaves, and one nature goes depending on the mood of Christ.
Now, they try and position themselves as MIAPHYSITE (like us!).
If saint Mary was not born with the original sin, then why did her body assume to heaven after she passed away? For death was a consequence of the sin of Adam that we all inherited. If Saint Mary was born without the original sin, she would never have died; she would never have called her Son, ON MANY OCCASSIONS: "MY SAVIOUR".
Is it right to defend the Truth of the Coptic Orthodox Church by spreading untruth about another Church? Cause I'm afraid that's all you've done in this whole post.
Blessings
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9357.msg115549#msg115549 date=1276610766]
Attempts to exploit others' good intentions is commonly seen. What preserves the Apostolic Orthodox Tradition is the spiritual vigilance of the orthodox Christians and their Fathers as guided by the Holy Spirit.
My friend, the Orthodox Church by definition IS also the Catholic Church.
And the Catholic Church is just as orthodox as any Church with the title "Orthodox." Agreed. As stated, I have not rejected anything of my Coptic Orthodox heritage when I joined the Catholic communion. The Immaculate Conception of our Lord was a unique event that is shared by no other, including Mary. But the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception of our Lord. They share the name "Immaculate Conception," but the basis for the teaching of each is different. That's all I can say. I'm honor bound by my promise to Father Peter not to explain it further. True enough. Even though our Churches have formal Christological Agreements, the excommunications have not been lifted. And I agree it has to be a bilateral lifting of excommunications. The fact is, though there are formal Christological Agreements between the CC and all the OOC’s, the same is not true between the EOC’s and the OOC’s. Though there is no theological impediment for the CC to lift its own excommunication of the OOC, there is a canonical impediment. Since Chalcedon was a Council of composed of members who have split into the CC and the EOC, the lifting of the excommunication on the Chalcedonian side must be a joint action by the CC and EOC. The fact of the matter is, even though the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have formally come together on the issue of Christology, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have not. FYI, there is a formal agreement of limited intercommunion in extenuating circumstances between the Syriac Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, and an informal reality of the same between the Armenian Apostolic and Catholic Churches. Agreed. I am a miaphysite Catholic, not a non-Chalcedonian Catholic. Agreed, but isn’t it possible that these differences are merely due to a lack of theological understanding and appreciation of one side for the other due to centuries of isolation from one another? If we really sat down and talked it over, can you deny the possibility that there will indeed some day be understanding. I mean – who would have thought that the OOC’s could ever sign formal Christological Agreements with the CC? That was surely the work of the Holy Spirit. I sincerely wish I could explain the theological position of the Catholic Church to you here on the other issues that (seemingly) divide us, but it would seem to go against the purpose of this website. Unfortunately, I doubt people here would even be interested to go to a Catholic website to ask questions.
Blessings,
Marduk
I am not following any of your thoughts. They seem like a waffle of ideas trying to make things fit, and they just do not. I believe there are issues which you are not sharing to ascribe to this system you have deveoped.
There are too many ill-fitted pretexts in your comments. They do not make sense.
I'm not sure you even realize what you are saying.
For the CoC, all of the issues are deal-breakers. There is no compromise, nor will there ever be a compromise on these issues.
These RCC dogmas/doctrines are heretical, period.
As for the signed Christological declaration with the RCC, it in essence became void when the RCC accepted the Assyrian Church of the East into communion without having them recant the teachings of Nestorius.
Are you dating some RCC girl for which you have come up with these revelations? Girls have a way of making one think different.
Dear brother GeoMike,
[quote author=geomike link=topic=9357.msg115534#msg115534 date=1276571687]
Can you explain a little bit about what Immaculate Conception is.
Thanks for your question. I did not want to immediately go into it because I did not want to appear like I was proselytizing. My only purpose here is to promote understanding. I'm not trying to convert anybody.
The Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception is unfortunately couched in a lot of Latin theological terminology. After I studied it more, I realized that what it really teaches, the only thing it teaches is this:
Thank you for explaining to my small brain. To my understanding brother, the Coptic Church does not believe in this. She was a normal human being like all of us, but because of her actions and her spirituality God chose her to be the Theotokos or Mother of God.
The soul of Mary was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by God's own Grace - from the first moment of her existence. In other words, Mary was united to God every moment of her life.
Blessings
I am not following any of your thoughts. They seem like a waffle of ideas trying to make things fit, and they just do not. I believe there are issues which you are not sharing to ascribe to this system you have deveoped.
There are too many ill-fitted pretexts in your comments. They do not make sense.
I'm not sure you even realize what you are saying.
Your reaction is understandable, because you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches. Amen. That’s what I used to think too. And then I started reading about what the Catholic Church teaches from her own documents, instead of second or third-hand reports from non-Catholics, and I realized I was mistaken. The sad thing about non-Catholic accounts of Catholic teaching is that they pretend to “expose” Catholic teaching by quoting little bits and pieces of it, and then formulate some monstrous caricature of Catholic teaching with those little eisegetic, out-of-context, quotes. It’s like how Unitarians or non-Christians point out Church documents that say “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,” and then wrongly conclude just from that little out-of-context quote that Trinitarian Christians are polytheists. I realized that non-Catholic polemical literature does exactly just that, and my conscience would not permit me to adhere to that hypocrisy.
Btw. unless I’m mistaken, heresies are determined by Ecumenical Councils, and no local Church alone has the authority to proclaim something as a heresy. Can you provide a quote from an Ecumenical Council stating that any of the Catholic dogmas are “heretical?” Let me give a list for your convenience: 1) Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; 2) Indulgences; 3) Purgatory; 4) Filioque; 5) Assumption of the Blessed Virgin; 6) papal primacy in the universal Church; 7) papal infallibility ; 8) Transubstantiation.
That’s good enough for now. Since I don’t think I’m permitted to correct your misconceptions of Catholic doctrine in this forum, I’d appreciate it if you don’t respond by just giving your reasons why you perceive these dogmas to be heretical. I’d just prefer it if you can provide direct, explicit, clear, and un-interpreted statements from Ecumenical Councils that assert that these dogmas are heretical. Really? As far as I know, our hierarchs are still discussing the issue with openness to the movement of the Holy Spirit and understanding. Have you ever even bothered to ask a Chaldean Catholic what it is he or she believes as a Catholic, or is this another instance where you depend on non-Catholic sources to tell you what the Catholic Church teaches? Isn’t THAT true! Hahahaha! But for me, it was my own study of Catholicism. I never even read Catholic apologetics because I did not want to be influenced. I read the Fathers and source documents such as Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, Acts of the Catholic Councils, Catechisms, etc. Bereft of any lay apologetic or polemic influences, I came to Catholic communion.
Blessings,
Marduk
[quote author=geomike link=topic=9357.msg115558#msg115558 date=1276620058]
Thank you for explaining to my small brain. To my understanding brother, the Coptic Church does not believe in this. She was a normal human being like all of us, but because of her actions and her spirituality God chose her to be the Theotokos or Mother of God. Thank you for your response, but can you explain it a bit more? I guess I’m not seeing how your statement and my statement contradict each other.
Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
Greetings in our Lord. I hope that this message finds you well; I wish to welcome you to these forums. I pray that it is the Holy Spirit within you that has guided you back to attempt to gain more knowledge concerning the Orthodox Church, as is evidenced by the fact that you have become a member of these forums. I think that it is important that we maintain all of our discussions in an appropriate manner; that is to say, that we objectively look at what has been presented to us by the great Fathers of the Church, and that we have an open mind to accept that which becomes clearly presented to us as truth. That being said, it is not I as an individual who determines Orthodoxy, but the Orthodox Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that does so, and as such, it is not within any individual's capacity to "accept" or "not accept," but it is rather a matter of my choosing to follow or choosing not to follow that which is put forth by the blessed Orthodox Church. I trust that we agree on this matter.
Allow me to post the following, taken from a website of an Eastern Orthodox Church. Though it does not go into sufficient depth, it does address this particular topic and sheds a bit of light on the Orthodox stance on the Immaculate Conception, with the Orthodox understanding of the Theotokos, and necessarily speaks of the differences in concepts of original sin. There is much literature to read on the Orthodox teachings on what is termed "original sin" and its consequences, and I am sure that you, being a very inquisitive person by nature, will take it upon yourself to find those writings and have an open mind about what they say.
I pray that God guides you in the right path through the grace of the Holy Spirit, leading the way in your path towards salvation,
childoforthodoxy
Thank you for your kind welcome. I am glad to have your acquaintance. I pray my response to your worthy post does not put you off.
1) I admit I am not here to learn of Coptic Orthodoxy. Indeed, I have not let go of any of my Coptic Orthodox heritage just because I became Catholic. I came on here with the hopes of promoting understanding between the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Churches. I simply don't believe misconceptions about another Faith is an inherent feature of what it means to be Coptic Orthodox. However, according to Father Peter, it would not be in keeping with the purpose of this website if I did that. I do enjoy conversing with other Christians. Though I admit I feel awkward reading rampant misconceptions of the Catholic Faith and not being able to properly and fully address them, I fully respect Father Peter's wishes and the purpose of this forum.
2) Thank you for your citation of the EO source. But - apologies - I am not a fan of appealing to Eastern Orthodox sources to inform me of my Oriental Faith. There are many teachings in Eastern Orthodoxy, aside from diophysitism, that I don't accept. As it relates to the IC, I don't accept the modern EO teaching on Original Sin, on which they base much of their complaints about the IC. For instance, modern EO do not believe that Original Sin involves the loss of Original Justice. And modern EO believe the sine qua non of Original Sin is physical death (while not denying the spiritual consequences), whereas Orientals generally believe the sine qua non of Original Sin is spiritual death (while not denying the physical consequences). This has great relevance for the doctrine of the IC, but I won't go into it any further than that.
Thank you for your prayers regarding an increase in my faith. Let us also offer up prayers for the spiritual fruist of understanding, wisdom, and patience for the sake of the unity of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
[quote author=geomike link=topic=9357.msg115568#msg115568 date=1276624156]
Well to me it sounds like you are saying that Mary was perfect and without sin.
Now this puzzles me even more. I have always believed as a Copt that St. Mary was indeed perfect and sinless. St. Mary never sinned her entire life. Are you saying she did? Forgive me, once again, but I don't understand how your statement here contradicts that Mary was perfect and without sin. Isn't "her righteous virtues" equivalent to "perfect and without sin?" Again, are you saying that Mary did in fact sin sometime during her life?
Blessings
I would like you to explain why you left the Orthodox Church and became a Catholic.
It is all very well saying that you think that the Catholic Church has been misunderstood, but that is never a reason for leaving the Church and joining another group.
Father Peter