I thank you for your reply. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox source because the basis of the understanding of the "corrupt nature," that which you refer to as "original sin," is essentially identical between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. I find it interesting that you sympathize more with Catholicism than you do with the Eastern Orthodox Church while still claiming to not have lost your Oriental Orthodox heritage. It is almost as though you choose what you personally agree with from each of the Churches and have formulated your own concept. I ask for your sincere forgiveness if this is not the case. I only wish to understand where you are coming from so that our dialogue may be more beneficial, as I trust that we all wish to benefit and not simply to discuss things idly.
Allow me to quote from St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word:
"You must know, moreover, that the corruption which had set in was not external to the body but established within it. The need, therefore, was that life should cleave to it in corruption's place, so that, just as death was brought into being in the body, life also might be engendered in it. If death had been exterior to the body, life might fittingly have been the same. But if death was within the body, woven into its very substance and dominating it as though completely one with it, the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off. Suppose the Word had come outside the body instead of in it, He would, of course, have defeated death, because death is powerless against the Life. But the corruption inherent in the body would have remained in it none the less. Naturally, therefore, the Savior assumed a body for Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth remain immortal."
Let us look carefully at these words, particularly the last few lines. It is established that the body which Adam had after the Fall had a "corruption inherent" in it; this corruption, then is "assumed" by "the Savior" as He "assumed a body for Himself," namely, the corrupt body, termed "sarx" or flesh. If the body that the Savior assumed was not characteristically "interwoven" with this corruption, that is to say, if He did not assume that which is ours, then the purpose of His incarnation in terms of our salvation becomes meaningless. Does St. Cyril of Alexandria not say "He took what is ours and gave us what is His?" Allow me to post his own words here...
"He took what was ours to be His very own so that we might have all that was His. “He was rich but he became poor for our sake, so that we might be enriched by His poverty.” (2 Cor. 8:9). When they say that the Logos of God did not become flesh, or rather did not undergo birth from a woman according to the flesh, they bankrupt the economy of salvation. For if He who was rich did not impoverish Himself, abasing Himself to our condition out of tender love, then we have not gained His riches but are still in our poverty, still enslaved by sin and death, because the Logos becoming flesh is the undoing and the abolition of all that fell upon human nature as our curse and punishment… If the Logos has not become flesh then neither has the dominion of death been overthrown, and in no way has sin been abolished, and we are still held captive in the transgressions of the first man, Adam, deprived of any return to a better condition; a return which I would say has been gained by Christ the Savior of us all… For God was in humanity. He who was above all creation was in our human condition. The invisible One was made visible in the flesh. He who is from the heavens and from on high was in the likeness of earthly things. The immaterial One could be touched. He who is free in His own nature came in the form of a slave. He who blesses all creation became accursed. He who is all righteousness was numbered among the transgressors. Life itself came in the appearance of death. All this followed because the body which tasted death belonged to no other but to Him who is the Son by nature."
Can we agree, then, that the words of St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria oppose the ideology of "original sin" as is conceived by the Catholic Church? If the Holy Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately, and she had no "original sin," and Christ had taken flesh from her, then He necessarily took a body that did not have the "original sin." This is the logical result, is it not? And if this is the case, then the Incarnation has no effect on my salvation; this also implies that what the Fathers say is untrue. But, since we know that our greatly revered Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit, and you yourself recognize this, then you yourself recognize the incongruence. As is stated in the quote above, "He who was above all creation in our human condition." This human condition is in agreement with the assumption of our corrupt nature.
As should always be the case when we are learning about the faith and attempting to grow with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I ask that we all pray before, during, and after reading the Fathers of the Church, in trying to understand what it is that they have enlightened for us. Let us put aside our own personal thoughts and share in the wisdom of the Fathers.
[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
Marduk,
I don't know what your problem is with what I've said as ChildofOrthodoxy has said the exact same thing as me and has even kindly given the works of Saint Athanasious. I'll say it again and again:
IF CHRIST DID NOT TAKE OUR CORRUPT NATURE, THEN HIS COMING WAS POINTLESS. What He took, HE CORRECTED. What He took, HE SANCTIFIED in Him. Our nature was sanctified in Christ.
Now, with respect to the immaculate conception, the original definition that I was taught was that Saint Mary had the original sin removed from her. As I said, SOTERIOLOGICALLY speaking, this is nonsensical. Physically speaking, it makes no sense either.
Please feel free to correct me where I've made a mistake; but I have said the exact same thing as ChildofOrthodoxy, yet using less words.
Marduk, I love the RC. I do. I see the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as dangerous and redundant. Dangerous in that it confuses people and reduces the salvation to only those who already had no need of it, and redundant, in that it is needless if its intent was just to explain to others the holiness and virtues of Saint Mary. She is Holy, Sinless, and Saintly. And we do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception Dogma.
Forgive me for being dense, but I think I finally understand what you’re asking. What I think you’re asking is: “If you did not feel there was anything wrong with Coptic Orthodoxy, why did you leave the Coptic Orthodox Church?”
If that is what you’re asking, here’s my answer.
My journey to the Catholic Church took a little over three years. As I learned about Catholicism from Catholic sources, I became convinced that there is really nothing that should separate our two Churches. Now, that in itself did not convince me to join the Catholic communion, and I was fully content with being Coptic Orthodox while believing that the Catholic dogmas – rightly understood according to her own teaching, and not through the lens of non- and anti-Catholic reporting – were also orthodox. After all, the Catholic Church herself teaches that the Coptic Orthodox has the means of salvation (i.e., the Sacraments), so there was really no reason for me to leave the Coptic Orthodox Church.
But there was one thing that always scratched in the back of my mind. It had to do with the idea of the papacy. The thing that began my journey towards Catholicism was the removal of the title “heads of the Apostles” as a descriptive of Sts. Peter and Paul from the Mass. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I started to read the Church Fathers on the topic. Mind you, I did not even think about the Catholic Church at this point. As I read the Fathers, I noticed that this was a near-unanimous teaching of the early Church. Of course, I found nothing wrong with the revision in the liturgy itself, and agreed in my heart and mind that it was necessary to combat the Romish excesses on the matter. Nevertheless, reading so much evidence from the Fathers of the idea that Sts. Peter and Paul (and more often just St. Peter) were the heads of the Apostles – I mean seeing it from the writings of the Fathers themselves – planted a seed in me.
Logically, I next started to investigate the idea of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, seeing as how the Catholic Church makes this claim based on the St. Peter’s headship of the Apostles. Of course, when I started this endeavor, I was very confident that the Church Fathers knew nothing of a universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Offering that proof is not my purpose here, in view of your request Father, but let me just say that Boy, was I wrong! It all started with Scripture (since the Apostles were the teachers of the whole world, and St. Peter was their head, then the idea of universal primacy was scriptural) and was clearly expressed by all the Councils of the Church until Chalcedon --- and beyond.
But, as I said earlier, that did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, since I saw it as a mere ecclesiastical matter, not a divine revealed one, as the Catholics claimed. But I did ask myself, “Why did the early Church recognize Rome to have universal primacy?” The obvious answer was that she was the standard of orthodoxy. A corollary question that naturally came to mind was, “If Rome’s universal primacy was recognized in the early Church, why is it not so now?” The obvious answer was that she had fallen from the Faith. That consideration started my investigation into the specific teachings of the Catholic Church that I had at that time considered to be heretical or erroneous. As already stated, this investigation made me realize that I had a very wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church actually taught/teaches, and that she was orthodox, after all – especially given the Christological Agreements between all the OOC’s and the CC. So, in my mind, I found no reason why the Church in Rome should not have the primacy again. In my mind, the Church in Rome already possessed de facto, if not de jure the universal primacy.
But, as I said earlier, this did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, especially as Rome herself taught that we (the CO) had the means of salvation as well. I thought I could just work and pray for unity within the Coptic Orthodox Church without joining the Catholic Church.
I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
I hope that was a sufficient answer for the Faith that lies in me.
Again, thank you for your kind words. It is a joy to have this discussion with you.
I thank you for your reply. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox source because the basis of the understanding of the "corrupt nature," that which you refer to as "original sin," is essentially identical between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. I find it interesting that you sympathize more with Catholicism than you do with the Eastern Orthodox Church while still claiming to not have lost your Oriental Orthodox heritage. It is almost as though you choose what you personally agree with from each of the Churches and have formulated your own concept. I ask for your sincere forgiveness if this is not the case. I only wish to understand where you are coming from so that our dialogue may be more beneficial, as I trust that we all wish to benefit and not simply to discuss things idly.
May I ask what you think the Latin Catholic Church teaches about original sin which distinguishes it from the Oriental Orthodox teaching on Original Sin. I mean, I seriously believe that the Latin Catholic Church’s teaching on Original Sin is practically identical to the Oriental Orthodox teaching. I asked this of another poster yesterday, but he has not responded.
Btw, if you’ll notice, I said “Latin Catholic Church.” If you are not aware, the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, the Latin Church being the biggest. I belong to the Coptic Catholic Church.
Allow me to quote from St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word:
Does St. Cyril of Alexandria not say "He took what is ours and gave us what is His?" Allow me to post his own words here...
Can we agree, then, that the words of St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria oppose the ideology of "original sin" as is conceived by the Catholic Church?
I’m afraid we can’t, because what these two “Doctors of the Catholic Church” (that’s the special name we give our two great Popes in the Catholic Church) teach is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches on Original Sin. I have to ask once again, what do you think it is that the Latin Catholic Church teaches on Original Sin that makes you believe that it is different?
If the Holy Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately, and she had no "original sin," and Christ had taken flesh from her, then He necessarily took a body that did not have the "original sin." This is the logical result, is it not? And if this is the case, then the Incarnation has no effect on my salvation; this also implies that what the Fathers say is untrue. But, since we know that our greatly revered Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit, and you yourself recognize this, then you yourself recognize the incongruence. As is stated in the quote above, "He who was above all creation in our human condition." This human condition is in agreement with the assumption of our corrupt nature.
Here’s where we have to disagree. I do not believe that Christ had Original Sin. Christ took on everything of our nature except sin – that is what Scripture itself states - so I don’t understand how you can say that Christ had original sin. He took on our sin at the Cross, not at any time before that – the same way the OT sacrificial lambs took on the sin of the people of Israel at the point of the sacrifice, not at any time before then.
Here is what I believe as an Oriental and as a Catholic about Original Sin:
The essence of Original Sin is not physical death, but spiritual death, separation from God. This is the result of the lack of the Grace of Original Holiness and the Grace of Original Justice. Do you agree with that?
At Baptism, we are cleansed of Original Sin (as babies, and actual sin also, as adults), which is, as stated, the spiritual death. We reacquire the Graces of Original Justice and Original Holiness and thereby overcome the natural separation from God. Do you agree with that?
But Baptism does not grant us the Grace of Immortality. We have to await for that Grace at the Second Coming. Do you agree with that?
If the essence of Original Sin was physical death, and not spiritual death, then being cleansed of original Sin at Baptism would mean we automatically become immortal. But this is obviously not true. Rather, the essence of Original Sin is spiritual death, and when Baptism wipes away Original Sin, it means that it has cleansed us of the spiritual death. Do you agree with that?
So a Christian who is baptized no longer has Original Sin. Do you agree with that?
Nevertheless, that same Christian will physically die. Correct?
So would you agree that “Original Sin” is not equivalent to the fact that we are able to die? Before you answer that, ponder the following.
Now, Original Sin has two definitions: 1) The actual sin of our first parents; 2) the spiritual death that is separation from God. Do you agree with that?
Now our Father St. Athanasius taught us that mortality/corruptibility was always a natural condition of human nature – both before and after the Fall. Before the Fall, man was not naturally immortal/incorruptible, but was immortal/incorruptible by Grace. When man fell, man’s nature did not all of a sudden become mortal (since it always was mortal/corruptible). What happened was that he lost the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility, and was henceforth subject to his natural human condition of mortality/corruptibility that was always inherent in his nature.
So we inherited three things from our first parents due to the Fall: 1) physical death as a result of losing the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility; 2) damaged reason/free will as much a result of our natural animal nature as the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness; 3) spiritual death (separation from God) as a result of losing the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice.
Notice that #1 and #2 are part of our nature, but #3 is not. That is why our holy Father St. Athanasius and so many other early Church Fathers spoke of Original Sin and Sin in general as a “stain,” or “scar,” or “blemish,” or somesuch other appropriate word.
When we speak today of “Original Sin,” we mean either the actual sin of our parents, or spiritual death (as mentioned above). When we speak of being “cleansed of Original Sin” at Baptism, we mean that we are cleansed of #3 above – i.e., spiritual death – not #1 or #2, because that is part of our nature. Baptism cleanses us of the stain that is Sin, including Original Sin.
Now here is the distinction of the modern EO teaching on Original Sin (I say “modern” because there are also other EO who understand Original Sin as the Westerns and Orientals do): 1) They do not speak of Original Sin as a stain, scar, blemish, etc. 2) They believe the essence of Original Sin is physical death, not spiritual death (which would explain why, unlike us, they do not normally speak of Original Sin as a stain) 3) They do not accept the notion of Original Justice.
Now, how does this all relate to the IC? The IC teaches that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin from the first moment of her existence. Understanding that Original Sin refers to spiritual death, then all that the IC is saying is that Mary was united to God from the first moment of her existence, since she did not experience spiritual death (i.e., Original Sin). In other words, she possessed the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice from the first moment of her existence.
But notice that her possession of the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice does not affect her human nature, which is naturally subject to death/corruption, in the exact same way that our human nature, naturally subject to death/corruption, is not changed even though we possess those same Graces through Baptism.
So what Christ received from Mary was indeed our human nature, naturally subject to death/corruptibility, without the stain Original Sin (i.e., spiritual death or separation from God). This is the human nature that Christ took on and transformed by his Resurrection, the promise of which is not merely that we will have the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility, but that our very nature will be transformed to be immortal/incorruptible. In other words, we will become even greater than Adam and Ever were. They possessed immortality/incorruptibility only by Grace. Our promise is to actually be immortal/incorruptible by nature.
Now I hope you understand why it is that modern EO find the IC objectionable. Since they believe that the essence of Original Sin is physical death (not spiritual death), then they think that because Mary died, then she must have had Original Sin. But if one understands that the essence of Original Sin is spiritual death, which can be removed without affecting our natural human condition (as is indeed the case during Baptism), then the IC is perfectly orthodox.
As should always be the case when we are learning about the faith and attempting to grow with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I ask that we all pray before, during, and after reading the Fathers of the Church, in trying to understand what it is that they have enlightened for us. Let us put aside our own personal thoughts and share in the wisdom of the Fathers.
[quote author=mardukm link=topic=9357.msg115592#msg115592 date=1276637381] I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
Hello Marduk I have one question. If the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Coptic Church has the essentials for salivation but on the other hand they also teaches “if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church doesn’t this contradict itself. How can we have the essentials for salivation according to the RCC and still face judgment for not joining the RCC. P.S. Thank you for sharing your journey. I am sure we can all learn something from it even if we dong agreeing with all your views. :) In Christ Theophilus
I believe that I, at least in part, presented the Orthodox thought on the corrupted nature in my two previous posts, including that quote from the EO site, which I chose to copy over as a matter of saving time rather than formulating that which I have learned over the years and read from the writings of the Fathers. What I know the Catholic Church to teach on the matter of what they term as "original sin" is what you have written explicitly in your post; this is, indeed, what Catholics believe, and the conceptual basis with which I wish to address your posts by providing the writings of the Fathers.
I certainly agree with you that Christ took all that we had except for sin. Let us, then, explore this notion within the Catholic mindset, and see why it is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception had to, in time, be formulated by the Catholics as a means of bridging the gap that was created as a result of the Augustinian theology regarding "original sin." If we assume "original sin" to be true in its existence as is conceptualized in the Catholic mindset, then Christ certainly did not take what is ours, except that we can say that He took some sort of body that was separate from our own, in that it was not afflicted with anything. Indeed, this is necessary, as the concept of "original sin" can be likened to a coin that is deposited in a box, which is then removed from the box when a person is baptized. This is not what Fathers teach, though, as it is not the sin of my father which I inherit, nor the guilt, but rather, the consequences of the sin, indeed, the corrupt nature, as was previously cited in my last post.
If He, then, did not have "original sin" as the coin was not deposited as per our analogy, then the depositor must also not have had a coin, which necessitates the idea of the Immaculate Conception. This has its own problem in that it removes the willing role of the Holy Virgin Mary; it is as though God made a robot that would obey His commands perfectly, in preparation of having His Son becoming incarnated from her. If we are to consider this to be true, then her own mother also did not have a coin to deposit, as she necessarily could not endow a perfect body if she herself was imperfect. This is then to imply that the Holy Virgin's father is not truly her father, as he necessarily had original sin. This also implies that the Holy Virgin's mother did not have original sin, and so on, until we arrive to Adam and Eve, which Catholics certainly state as having had original sin. The removal of free will, then, would not be a loving act, as we are all made out of God's love, as God is Love, and He cannot cease from being Love; the gift of free will is just that, a gift, and this was imparted on all of mankind without discrimination.
The beauty and honor of the Holy Virgin is that she indeed did have free will; that she was created like the rest of us, with the corruption just as the rest of us, and is due the veneration given to her because she, of her own free will, was so much of a servant of God, indeed, a handmaiden of the Lord, that she, of her own volition, stated "Let it be unto me according to your word." She willingly accepted this; it was not forced upon her. If she, then, willingly accepted this, then she has free will, which means that she was not created apart from any other individual, but that it was her own choice and the volition of her will, indeed, the tendency within her towards God, that then makes her the Holy Virgin, from whom Christ took His flesh (sarx) along with the Holy Spirit. The sarx, namely the flesh, is the corrupted flesh, with which Adam was clothed with, that skin which is spoken of in Genesis. Not corrupted with sin, as Christ is without sin, but corrupted by sin, as all of flesh is subject to the corrupt nature of the flesh, not the sin nor the guilt of the sin.
I do not know where you have gathered the idea that Orthodox theology supports only the idea of a physical death, which certainly is one of the consequences of death. The Orthodox Church has been guided by the great Fathers of the Church over the years, and they do not allude to this.
I think it is also important that we recognize that Augustine based his theology on a mistranslation of a verse, from which this discussion then finds its basis, and that he, in this regard, does not share in the unity of thought of the rest of the Orthodox fathers concerning the matter.
You also stated that we will become immortal/incorruptible by nature; this is not found in Orthodox teaching. All of this is effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit and the work of God. What He is by nature, I become by grace. There are volumes of writings that support this from the Fathers.
Pray for me and my weaknesses, and pray that we all grow together in faith, recognizing the Truth, childoforthodoxy
Again, the Orthodox Church, including the COC, believe in the immaculate conception as having only one possible meaning: that is the unique miraculous conception of Christ by the Virgin Saint Mary the Theotokos through the Divine Action of the Holy Spirit.
Adding a side (but true) story, I told once a Coptic Catholic person what if he is called orthodox and he took it very badly, he was convinced I was insulting him. In another occasion another Coptic Catholic person felt humiliated when I reminded him he was also Coptic.
BTW original sin means both a spiritual and a physical death. A human is body and spirit and because of sin both became corrupt.
The Catholic Church adheres to a principle called invincible ignorance. In effect, this means that if through no fault of your own, you do not come to the full knowledge of the Truth, then you are not immediately condemnable in the eyes of the Church, and you have the possibility of salvation according to the mercy of God, if you have kept the precepts of God according to a well-informed conscience.
When I say “full knowledge,” I do not mean intellectual knowledge, but a belief according to a well-informed conscience. So, for example, I could know everything there is to know about the Catholic Church and her teachings, but if my conscience does not permit me to accept the Catholic Church for whatever reason (by indoctrination in another Faith, by force, or by any other means which is through no fault of my own), then it is not considered “full knowledge.”
Now, if, despite my knowledge of the Catholic Church, I still did not believe she was orthodox according to my conscience, then the principle ““if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” would not apply to me. And, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, having the means of salvation within the Coptic Orthodox Church, I would not only have the possibility of being saved, but I could definitely be saved.
However, in my heart and conscience, I did believe the Catholic Church to be orthodox. So if I did not follow my conscience, I would be in sin.
I hope that helps.
Blessings, Marduk
[quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=9357.msg115605#msg115605 date=1276645710] [quote author=mardukm link=topic=9357.msg115592#msg115592 date=1276637381] I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
Hello Marduk I have one question. If the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Coptic Church has the essentials for salivation but on the other hand they also teaches “if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church doesn’t this contradict itself. How can we have the essentials for salivation according to the RCC and still face judgment for not joining the RCC. P.S. Thank you for sharing your journey. I am sure we can all learn something from it even if we dong agreeing with all your views. :) In Christ Theophilus
Again, the Orthodox Church, including the COC, believe in the immaculate conception as having only one possible meaning: that is the unique miraculous conception of Christ by the Virgin Saint Mary the Theotokos through the Divine Action of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I believe in the Immaculate Conception of our Lord, and so does every member of every one of the 23 Catholic Churches. The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos should probably be called something else, I can agree. Then again, we shouldn’t really war over words, but look for the meaning behind them.
Adding a side (but true) story, I told once a Coptic Catholic person what if he is called orthodox and he took it very badly, he was convinced I was insulting him. In another occasion another Coptic Catholic person felt humiliated when I reminded him he was also Coptic.
That’s sad. Perhaps you met cradle Coptic Catholics, proud of their identity as Catholics. Since I translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy, I am proud of my Coptic Orthodox heritage. I consider myself as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”
BTW original sin means both a spiritual and a physical death.
Yes. The Catholic Church teaches that too.
A human is body and spirit and because of sin both became corrupt.
Agreed, but God can effect a dichotomy with the power of the Cross. He does this every time at Baptism, where our spirit is renewed, but our bodies remain corruptible and subject to physical death. God did the same thing for the Theotokos, except He did it at the first moment of her existence.
If we assume "original sin" to be true in its existence as is conceptualized in the Catholic mindset, then Christ certainly did not take what is ours, except that we can say that He took some sort of body that was separate from our own, in that it was not afflicted with anything.
Christ acquired our corruptibility and subjection to death from Mary. What other afflication do you think He would have needed to acquire? Are you saying he should have acquired our tendency to sin?
This is not what Fathers teach, though, as it is not the sin of my father which I inherit, nor the guilt, but rather, the consequences of the sin, indeed, the corrupt nature, as was previously cited in my last post.
Yes, this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
If He, then, did not have "original sin" as the coin was not deposited as per our analogy, then the depositor must also not have had a coin, which necessitates the idea of the Immaculate Conception.
No. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus did not have original sin because His Father was God, and He Himself was God. The doctrine of the IC has nothing to do with why our Lord did not have Original Sin. So I think from the get-go, your discussion will be flawed if this is what you think the IC teaches.
The only thing the IC teaches is that Mary was pure and holy in the sight of God, by God’s own Grace, from the first moment of her existence.
It does not teach that she did not have original sin so that Christ would not have original sin.
It does not teach that Mary’s flesh had to be pure so that Christ’s flesh would be pure.
And it does not teach that she did not obtain our fallen flesh, subject to death and corruption, naturally from Sts. Joachim and Hannah.
In future posts, please keep these in mind and try to formulate your responses around these facts.
This has its own problem in that it removes the willing role of the Holy Virgin Mary; it is as though God made a robot that would obey His commands perfectly, in preparation of having His Son becoming incarnated from her.
As explained in previous posts, the Graces Mary received at her conception are the same Graces we receive at Baptism. Do we lose our free will when we are baptized? If not, one should not expect Mary to have lost her free will when she received those same Graces, wouldn’t you agree? Mary could have freely chosen to reject the Graces God gave her, just as we can freely choose to reject the Graces we receive at Baptism. It is not the Catholic Church that teaches the idea of irresistible Grace. Only the Protestant Calvinists teach such a thing, and the Catholic Church refuted them at the Council of Trent.
If we are to consider this to be true, then her own mother also did not have a coin to deposit, as she necessarily could not endow a perfect body if she herself was imperfect. This is then to imply that the Holy Virgin's father is not truly her father, as he necessarily had original sin. This also implies that the Holy Virgin's mother did not have original sin, and so on, until we arrive to Adam and Eve, which Catholics certainly state as having had original sin.
The problem with the syllogism you propose here is the very first clause “If we consider this to be true.” Since, as explained above, the whole basis of your ideas is based on a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter, then everything else that follows in the syllogism must be false.
The removal of free will, then, would not be a loving act, as we are all made out of God's love, as God is Love, and He cannot cease from being Love; the gift of free will is just that, a gift, and this was imparted on all of mankind without discrimination.
Agreed. And God did not remove St. Mary’s free will by granting her the Grace of Original Holiness and Original Justice, Graces which we also receive at Baptism.
The beauty and honor of the Holy Virgin is that she indeed did have free will; that she was created like the rest of us, with the corruption just as the rest of us, and is due the veneration given to her because she, of her own free will, was so much of a servant of God, indeed, a handmaiden of the Lord, that she, of her own volition, stated "Let it be unto me according to your word." She willingly accepted this; it was not forced upon her. If she, then, willingly accepted this, then she has free will, which means that she was not created apart from any other individual, but that it was her own choice and the volition of her will, indeed, the tendency within her towards God, that then makes her the Holy Virgin, from whom Christ took His flesh (sarx) along with the Holy Spirit. The sarx, namely the flesh, is the corrupted flesh, with which Adam was clothed with, that skin which is spoken of in Genesis. Not corrupted with sin, as Christ is without sin, but corrupted by sin, as all of flesh is subject to the corrupt nature of the flesh, not the sin nor the guilt of the sin.
Agreed. All you say here is what the Catholic Church teaches.
I do not know where you have gathered the idea that Orthodox theology supports only the idea of a physical death, which certainly is one of the consequences of death. The Orthodox Church has been guided by the great Fathers of the Church over the years, and they do not allude to this.
Agreed, but I do not know where you think I stated that Orthodox theology supports only the idea of physical death as a consequence.
I think it is also important that we recognize that Augustine based his theology on a mistranslation of a verse, from which this discussion then finds its basis, and that he, in this regard, does not share in the unity of thought of the rest of the Orthodox fathers concerning the matter.
I don’t know how this has any relevance. Can you explain? I mentioned the Scriptures in the OT that I believe support the IC in a previous post, and the mistranslated verse is not one of them.
You also stated that we will become immortal/incorruptible by nature; this is not found in Orthodox teaching. All of this is effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit and the work of God. What He is by nature, I become by grace. There are volumes of writings that support this from the Fathers.
Scripture supports it – Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…and we shall be changed. For this corruptible nature must put on the incorruptible, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.(I Cor 15:51-53)
Of course our change will come through Grace, but our nature itself will be changed.
Pray for me and my weaknesses, and pray that we all grow together in faith, recognizing the Truth,
Thank you for your responses. I fear that our discussion will not yield any immediate results, though I pray that we both progress in the proper faith. I fear that much of the topics on which you posted in may yield the same outcome, as you yourself have said that you are not here to learn Orthodoxy nor to pursue what I will term as theological edification. Though we speak of things of substance, it does not appear that the discussions will yield fruit.
I will continue to pray for you, and I hope that you do the same for me and the rest of people on this forum, childoforthodoxy
The Catholic Catechism, the official teaching of the Catholic Church says...
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
This is not an Orthodox position because Orthodoxy does not accept the view of Original Sin promulgated by Augustine and Rome. When Adam and Eve sinned they lost the grace of immortality and incorruptibility, the Holy Spirit withdrew from them, and man was left to his natural mortality and was separated from God.
We are born into this situation, mortal children of mortal parents, separated from God. But we are not born sinners. The Fathers of the Church are clear about that. We suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, and then the judgement due to our own sins, but we are not guilty of Adam's sin, nor is his sin passed down to us so that we are considered sinners because of his sin. You state that Christ did not inherit Original Sin, and while I certainly do not believe in Original Sin as proposed by the Catholic Church, nevertheless if he did not enter into our condition in all things then we are not saved. If he was not incarnate in a body liable to corruptibility and death then we are not saved. If he did not enter into the cursed condition in which we find ourselves then we are not saved.
When our Lord willed to be incarnate he chose to enter into our fallen state, and so he bore the consequences of Adam's sin as we do, submitting himself even to death in a mortal body that was naturally able to suffer. To escape from the consequences of Adam's sin is to be immortal and incorruptible. Our Lord was neither in his humanity until after the resurrection. Indeed the heresy of Julianism was entirely the teaching that Christ was not subject to the fallen-ness of humanity and therefore only appeared to suffer and die.
If the Virgin Mary had escaped the curse of Adam at her conception then she would have been immortal and incorruptible. But this was not the case. We know that she died a natural death as was proper to her fallen humanity and, like us, she enters into the glory of the resurrection after death.
The Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin is error. Therefore the teaching on the Immaculate Conception is also error, not least because, as Metropolitan Kallistos has written, it is redundant. The Orthodox are clear that the Virgin Mary was the best of which humanity had to offer to God, and that she was morally pure above all others. But to propose that she is lifted outside the human experience of fallen-ness is to make her what she is not. Selecting quotes from Orthodox Fathers which have been translated into English using the word 'immaculate' does not support the particular meaning of the phrase 'immaculate conception' in Catholic theology.
However, in my heart and conscience, I did believe the Catholic Church to be orthodox. So if I did not follow my conscience, I would be in sin.
Does this mean that the status of your conscience imply it is THE truth we must be convinced of? In other words, with due respect, you alone would follow your own faith convictions - and suffer alone the consequences.
I still have a serious question. Can you state in detail how and when were the Romans of Rome preached the Gospel, and more importantly who spent enough time there preaching to them the Christian faith?
Mardukm, What misconceptions and untruths are we spreading? Many teachings between the Latin church and the Orthodox (I use Latin instead of Catholic because we are the true Catholic Orthodox chruch). Worldly ideas of church government, and some other changes, is what seperated us in the 11th century. The Latin church is vastly different in thought, theology, and practice than the Orthodox. Its growing acceptance of homosexual priests, as Fr Cozzone, a latin priest, estimates that about 50% of all latin clergy are homosexuals. (The Changing Face of the Priesthood Fr. Donald Cozzone p.99) Their willingness to alter doctrines and dogmas to mean something else to appease and better their image is unfathomable to Orthodoxy. The growing acceptance of women into the priesthood. The Latin church has become more and more unrecognizable since the schism, and going to my local museum I can visually see through Iconography this change. Closer to the schism, the Iconography was very similar to that of Orthodoxy. Over time it became more pagan, with naked cherubs and angels, much more worldly and materialistic in nature, so much so that it is not called iconography or holy in any way, its just art.
I am not sure as to your motive in posting on here, but I dont like the idea of you telling us that we are spreading lies or teaching untruths about the Latin church, the Latin church is a lie and it teaches untruths.
I understand that you came to believe that the Catholic Church was THE truth, but can you therefore explain in what areas you think that Orthodoxy is in error?
You would not have left the Orthodox Church if you had not become convinced that the Orthodox Church was at fault.
I agree, that was a good and concise explanation of the Orthodox position. But it was an equally erroneous explanation of the Catholic position.
1) You keep saying that the Catholic teaching on Original Sin is in error. I have asked twice already from your members here to specify what that error is. Why can no one respond? As a priest, perhaps you can provide us with some more insight.
2) I already explained more than once that and how Mary’s body was not preserved from the physical consequence of Original Sin. She did inherit corruptibility and mortality, which is what our Lord inherited from her.
As explained earlier as well, just because you think that a Catholic dogma teaches one thing, whereby you reject it, that does not mean that is what the Catholic dogma actually teaches. I gave the specific example of Unitarians and non-Christians who think that Christians are polytheists because of their misinterpretation of our confession that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Should we believe them? In the same vein, why should I believe what you misinterpret to be the Catholic position? I mean, if the teaching on the IC actually did teach that Christ did not inherit mortality and corruptibility, then I’d see your point. But it doesn’t, and you won’t find a single Magisterial Catholic document that can support what [u][i]you believe the IC teaches. In fact, isn’t it true that your position is based not on direct statements from Catholic sources, but rather on clever syllogism?[/i][/u]
I’ll give you another example. There are Chalcedonians who believe that miaphysites think that Jesus’ human nature was totally absorbed by divinity to the point that he had no human nature. They do this by a careful and eisegetic interpretation of our statements. Should we believe their misinterpretation of our statements, or what we actually teach?
You have asked what it is about Orthodoxy that I find wrong that caused me to leave it? As I’ve repeatedly stated, I find nothing wrong with Orthodoxy. I reject nothing from it. What I reject are its misinterpretations of the Catholic Faith.
Let’s just take this topic as an example.
1) You say: “the Orthodox Church teaches that Mary was subject to death and corruption.”
2) You claim: “The Catholic teaching of the IC teaches that Mary was not subject to death and corruption.”
3) The Catholic Church teaches: “Mary was given the Grace of Original Holiness and Original Justice from the first moment of existence, but was not preserved from the natural corruption and mortality of the body.”
4) I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
So, Father. Did I reject what the Orthodox Church teaches, or did I reject your misconception of what the Catholic Church teaches?
I could similarly explain the misinterpretations of Catholic dogma on the other issues in the threads I started (and issues other than those besides), but I already told you I would not participate in those threads after you expressed your concern about proselytism.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9357.msg115620#msg115620 date=1276687729] Commenting on your reply
However, in my heart and conscience, I did believe the Catholic Church to be orthodox. So if I did not follow my conscience, I would be in sin.
Does this mean that the status of your conscience imply it is THE truth we must be convinced of? In other words, with due respect, you alone would follow your own faith convictions - and suffer alone the consequences. Conscience does not determine the Truth. It determines our degree of culpability before God for rejecting Truth. For example, a baby who has no properly formed conscience has no culpability for sin before God. Does that help?
I still have a serious question. Can you state in detail how and when were the Romans of Rome preached the Gospel, and more importantly who spent enough time there preaching to them the Christian faith?
I believe St. Paul spent the most time there. But St. Paul admits in the book of Romans that someone else had laid the foundation of the Church in Rome. Some Catholic apologists believe this was St. Peter. It is interesting that there are no Churches who claim apostolic succession from St. Paul. Just as an example. though St. Paul clearly established Churches in Asia Minor, they claim apostolic successon from St. John. Perhaps St. paul never ordained any bishops except Sts. Timothy and Titus?
I think that you are being at least unwittingly disingenuous.
No-one leaves a Church they believe is true to join another community, and especially not just because there are misconceptions held about that other community. So I do not believe you have been honest about why you left the Orthodox Church.
You have clearly abandoned some Orthodox teachings to become Catholic, yet you say that you have not abandoned anything. This does not seem reasomable or true. To take one example. Orthodoxy rejects the universal jurisdicition of the Pope and you must accept it. Therefore you have rejected the Orthodox view and accepted a view which Orthodox consider heretical.
Let me quote from a serious Catholic paper on Original Sin..
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were ``one body'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those ``who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power'' (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent). In other words, only those properly of the seed of Adam would be subject of original sin. Thus Aquinas concludes that ,''If anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently, he would not contract original sin'' (Ibid.; New Advent). Thus, Aquinas finds that Jesus Christ would have no need to cleanse his body of original sin, since his conception, by its independence from carnal generation, would have been without sin.
This cannot be reconciled with the Orthodox view. It teaches that Christ, being born of a Virgin, escapes the state in which we find ourselves. If he escapes the state in which we find ourselves then he cannot save us.
The paper concludes..
In terms of propagation, Aquinas found that original sin was propagated through being ``moved'' by the will of Adam, which was accomplished by carnal generation. For him, Jesus' miraculous conception alone would have sufficed to give him a body freed from original sin.
This seems to me to illustrate the error that original sin is something passed on by sexual intercourse, which is rejected by the Orthodox. And again clearly expresses the view that Christ escapes the state in which we find ourselves. If he is not in our state, subject to the curse, then we are not saved. If Christ is also not of Adam then Adam's seed are not saved.
Marduk, One only needs to look at the councils of the Latin church to see that you are clearly wrong. Throughout the several councils these have been defined much differently than what you think, this is what the Latin church is good at, redefining their position to escape criticism, because if they are wrong then they are not infallible. IC clearly states that St Mary was born without the corruption of original sin, this is from which all other sin stems from, if she was not born without sin how then could Christ redeem mankind from it? This was introduced in the mid 15th century. You will not find this belief in any of the early church fathers writings, unless of course you manipulate, take out of context, or only quote part of the church father, which the Latin church is good at doing with great Saints such as St Cyprian and St John Chrysostom to try and solidify their stance that they are the church of churches.
A simple and basic course on early church history will illustrate that it is you and the Latin church that are in error and are redefining without actually saying you are redefining the dogma of IC. Since this dogma was introduced rather recently, and there is no biblical or early church father sources supporting it, then it is clearly going against Orthodox teaching. This is the basic definition of heresy, going against the established teaching, which again is one thing the Latin church is good at.
Please look at the council of Basel, the council of Trent and this source: We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. —Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854 The dogma was defined in accordance with the conditions of papal infallibility, which would be defined in 1870 by the First Vatican Council. (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm)
I am assuming it is US who interpret this wrong, but if it does not differ from Orthodox theology, then why even create it? Marduk, it is heresy.
I think the word "disingenuine" is most appropriate. I do not think the purpose of any of these posts was for anything other than proselytizing.
If the new found revelation and "freedom from misconceptions" relates to some new founding in the acceptance of Papal infallability and Roman Primacy, I would say that the foundation for that revelation is even weaker than any of these flawed explanations.
How do you explain primacy? There is no pre-eminence for Peter. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, so does that pre-dispose the Syrian Church as being supreme to even Rome? How is Peter a "rock" in one verse and "satan" in another verse? If Peter was in Rome then how is it that Paul does not address him in the Epistle to the Romans? If Peter was the archtype of infallability then how is it that the Council of Jerusalem had to correct his naivity? If Peter was right all the time, then why did Paul have to correct him on issues of dogma and the evolving church? Paul addresses an already established Church in Rome, with a hierarchy, and no mention of Peter in any form.
The Latin Church prefers that its adherents do not read the Holy Bible and rely on a flawed catechism to keep the apparent from being revealed. In this case, and in pertinence to the above statements: The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians.
It has been established in several sources, including westerners, that there have been intentional alterations in translations in order to prop up the Roman argument for Primacy. It is nonsense, and there is no misinterpretation.
The Latin Pontiffs did not attend the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus; and not even Chalcedon. They relied on proxies, legates, and manipulations for their own aims. The Emperor Constantine, himself, did not deem it necessary for the Roman presence. Come on, let's put it in simpler terms, their presence was insignificant, and non-essential. The Decrees of the Only Three Ecumenical Councils are the basis of All Apostolic Churches, and the Roman Church did not have any presence or leadership, definition or erudition.
Their only major function was to create the issues of Chalcedon to help preserve the Empire.
How would you explain John Paul II, and being a person of dogmatic inafallability bowing to kiss the ground of a mosque as hallowed, and to give homage by kissing the Koran as being revered, and to quote him: "divinely inspired". Last time I checked the Koran identified Jesus Christ as a prophet, and not the Son of God. I believe that legitimately puts John Paul II as a heretic, theologically flawed, and dogmatically incorrect. Where is the revelation of infallability now?
If you left the Coptic Church, you have left the One Catholic and Orthodox Church. We will be all judged one day and we will see where God's Word lies.
I think your revelation is childish, not at all sound in logic or deduction, based on disingenuine thoughts. I see your comments as trying to corrupt some of the members on this forum. I also add that one day we will face God's Judgment. I pray for your soul for it has reached out for the corrupt rather than the succor of the Mother Church.
Sheesh guys stop fighting. I'm sure St. Mary, whether or not she was immaculately conceived, would not want to see us all arguing like this. There are differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy but this type of arguing and harsh language is not going to amount to anything. From 4 pages of posts, it is clear that neither side is going to give a second thought to what the opposing side is saying. So just calm down and accept we have differences without any name-calling. This is a forum to promote unity not aggravate small differences.
I also do not appreciate the misuse of the Mother of God. I do not like her name being dragged through the mud. I do not appreciate a disingenuine person claiming some magical and mystical revelation. And I certainly do not like anyone maligning the Coptic Orthodox Church, in a sly and indirect fashion.
ilovesaintmark, I agree with you totally. I am in the same kind of think on a discussion board on an Ethiopian Orthodox FB page. The protestants there, as Fr Peter and I have discussed, are extremely militant, actually they are extremists. The person I am "debating", and I use that term loosely as he never answers any questions, came there under false pretense as well. He pretended to be a confused Orthodox Christian. Then gave sources to prove his "arguement", and it turned out the so called priest that supposedly converted, was actually protestant all along. I am glad you were here for most of this as I have had to exercise a great deal of restraint in these discussions.
I am with you, I think this person is not here for the reason he says he is.
Are we watching newly devised strategies for hunting people from well established Churches by confusing their members with sophisticated yet philosophical arguments that overwhelm the mind?
My sincere advice to whom planned such an agenda, since you claim you have THE truth, is to consider preaching the Gospel where people do not know yet the spirituality of the Christian faith to help them believe in Christ - instead of spending your energy in trying to convince already Orthodox Apostolic Christians with a useless non edifying politically oriented worn out primacy ideology that drags a long queue of inserted dogmas of non Apostolic non Orthodox non Biblical origins.
Mardukm, replying to you: it does not help.
Would you please state here the full Catholic version of the Ten Commandments that were given personally by God to Moses - then we can seriously discuss conscience issues.
and about
But St. Paul admits in the book of Romans that someone else had laid the foundation of the Church in Rome. Some Catholic apologists believe this was St. Peter.
Not all Catholic apologists?
Apologists are those who are defending the Faith not primacy matters. Accordingly these "apologists" probably believe St Peter preached exclusively the Romans of Rome, that he did not preach anywhere else but in Rome.
When the Apostles where disputing who would be better placed Our Lord Jesus Christ told them that who seeks to be the greatest let him be first the servant of the others. His Kingdom is not earthly and He is the only Eternal Supreme Head of the Church.
Mark 9 [NKJV] 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
This topic of the immaculate conception is very interesting. It is interesting indeed, but Marduk REALLY must appreciate one thing if this discussion is to progress:
Does he appreciate that the Roman Catholic definition has changed over time of the Immaculate Conception dogma?
Just as the name suggests, the immaculate conception is a dogma that states that Mary was born WITHOUT the original sin. The definition of this has changed now (in the RC) that the original sin was removed from her when she conceived Jesus Christ in her womb.
Before we move any further, if Marduk can at least appreciate this, then we can move on. Having said that, he also needs to appreciate that what happened to Saint Mary is more along the lines of the burning bush that moses saw: A tree that was engulfed by fire, that was not consumed by the fire; rather than the Graces of the Holy Spirit that we receive during Baptism and Confirmation.
Comments
I thank you for your reply. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox source because the basis of the understanding of the "corrupt nature," that which you refer to as "original sin," is essentially identical between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. I find it interesting that you sympathize more with Catholicism than you do with the Eastern Orthodox Church while still claiming to not have lost your Oriental Orthodox heritage. It is almost as though you choose what you personally agree with from each of the Churches and have formulated your own concept. I ask for your sincere forgiveness if this is not the case. I only wish to understand where you are coming from so that our dialogue may be more beneficial, as I trust that we all wish to benefit and not simply to discuss things idly.
Allow me to quote from St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word:
"You must know, moreover, that the corruption which had set in was not external to the body but established within it. The need, therefore, was that life should cleave to it in corruption's place, so that, just as death was brought into being in the body, life also might be engendered in it. If death had been exterior to the body, life might fittingly have been the same. But if death was within the body, woven into its very substance and dominating it as though completely one with it, the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off. Suppose the Word had come outside the body instead of in it, He would, of course, have defeated death, because death is powerless against the Life. But the corruption inherent in the body would have remained in it none the less. Naturally, therefore, the Savior assumed a body for Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth remain immortal."
Let us look carefully at these words, particularly the last few lines. It is established that the body which Adam had after the Fall had a "corruption inherent" in it; this corruption, then is "assumed" by "the Savior" as He "assumed a body for Himself," namely, the corrupt body, termed "sarx" or flesh. If the body that the Savior assumed was not characteristically "interwoven" with this corruption, that is to say, if He did not assume that which is ours, then the purpose of His incarnation in terms of our salvation becomes meaningless. Does St. Cyril of Alexandria not say "He took what is ours and gave us what is His?" Allow me to post his own words here...
"He took what was ours to be His very own so that we might have all that was His. “He was rich but he became poor for our sake, so that we might be enriched by His poverty.” (2 Cor. 8:9). When they say that the Logos of God did not become flesh, or rather did not undergo birth from a woman according to the flesh, they bankrupt the economy of salvation. For if He who was rich did not impoverish Himself, abasing Himself to our condition out of tender love, then we have not gained His riches but are still in our poverty, still enslaved by sin and death, because the Logos becoming flesh is the undoing and the abolition of all that fell upon human nature as our curse and punishment… If the Logos has not become flesh then neither has the dominion of death been overthrown, and in no way has sin been abolished, and we are still held captive in the transgressions of the first man, Adam, deprived of any return to a better condition; a return which I would say has been gained by Christ the Savior of us all… For God was in humanity. He who was above all creation was in our human condition. The invisible One was made visible in the flesh. He who is from the heavens and from on high was in the likeness of earthly things. The immaterial One could be touched. He who is free in His own nature came in the form of a slave. He who blesses all creation became accursed. He who is all righteousness was numbered among the transgressors. Life itself came in the appearance of death. All this followed because the body which tasted death belonged to no other but to Him who is the Son by nature."
Can we agree, then, that the words of St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria oppose the ideology of "original sin" as is conceived by the Catholic Church? If the Holy Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately, and she had no "original sin," and Christ had taken flesh from her, then He necessarily took a body that did not have the "original sin." This is the logical result, is it not? And if this is the case, then the Incarnation has no effect on my salvation; this also implies that what the Fathers say is untrue. But, since we know that our greatly revered Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit, and you yourself recognize this, then you yourself recognize the incongruence. As is stated in the quote above, "He who was above all creation in our human condition." This human condition is in agreement with the assumption of our corrupt nature.
As should always be the case when we are learning about the faith and attempting to grow with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I ask that we all pray before, during, and after reading the Fathers of the Church, in trying to understand what it is that they have enlightened for us. Let us put aside our own personal thoughts and share in the wisdom of the Fathers.
childoforthodoxy
Dear Zoxsasi,
[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
Marduk,
I don't know what your problem is with what I've said as ChildofOrthodoxy has said the exact same thing as me and has even kindly given the works of Saint Athanasious. I'll say it again and again:
IF CHRIST DID NOT TAKE OUR CORRUPT NATURE, THEN HIS COMING WAS POINTLESS. What He took, HE CORRECTED. What He took, HE SANCTIFIED in Him. Our nature was sanctified in Christ.
Now, with respect to the immaculate conception, the original definition that I was taught was that Saint Mary had the original sin removed from her. As I said, SOTERIOLOGICALLY speaking, this is nonsensical. Physically speaking, it makes no sense either.
Please feel free to correct me where I've made a mistake; but I have said the exact same thing as ChildofOrthodoxy, yet using less words.
Marduk, I love the RC. I do. I see the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as dangerous and redundant. Dangerous in that it confuses people and reduces the salvation to only those who already had no need of it, and redundant, in that it is needless if its intent was just to explain to others the holiness and virtues of Saint Mary. She is Holy, Sinless, and Saintly. And we do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception Dogma.
Forgive me for being dense, but I think I finally understand what you’re asking. What I think you’re asking is: “If you did not feel there was anything wrong with Coptic Orthodoxy, why did you leave the Coptic Orthodox Church?”
If that is what you’re asking, here’s my answer.
My journey to the Catholic Church took a little over three years. As I learned about Catholicism from Catholic sources, I became convinced that there is really nothing that should separate our two Churches. Now, that in itself did not convince me to join the Catholic communion, and I was fully content with being Coptic Orthodox while believing that the Catholic dogmas – rightly understood according to her own teaching, and not through the lens of non- and anti-Catholic reporting – were also orthodox. After all, the Catholic Church herself teaches that the Coptic Orthodox has the means of salvation (i.e., the Sacraments), so there was really no reason for me to leave the Coptic Orthodox Church.
But there was one thing that always scratched in the back of my mind. It had to do with the idea of the papacy. The thing that began my journey towards Catholicism was the removal of the title “heads of the Apostles” as a descriptive of Sts. Peter and Paul from the Mass. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I started to read the Church Fathers on the topic. Mind you, I did not even think about the Catholic Church at this point. As I read the Fathers, I noticed that this was a near-unanimous teaching of the early Church. Of course, I found nothing wrong with the revision in the liturgy itself, and agreed in my heart and mind that it was necessary to combat the Romish excesses on the matter. Nevertheless, reading so much evidence from the Fathers of the idea that Sts. Peter and Paul (and more often just St. Peter) were the heads of the Apostles – I mean seeing it from the writings of the Fathers themselves – planted a seed in me.
Logically, I next started to investigate the idea of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, seeing as how the Catholic Church makes this claim based on the St. Peter’s headship of the Apostles. Of course, when I started this endeavor, I was very confident that the Church Fathers knew nothing of a universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Offering that proof is not my purpose here, in view of your request Father, but let me just say that Boy, was I wrong! It all started with Scripture (since the Apostles were the teachers of the whole world, and St. Peter was their head, then the idea of universal primacy was scriptural) and was clearly expressed by all the Councils of the Church until Chalcedon --- and beyond.
But, as I said earlier, that did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, since I saw it as a mere ecclesiastical matter, not a divine revealed one, as the Catholics claimed. But I did ask myself, “Why did the early Church recognize Rome to have universal primacy?” The obvious answer was that she was the standard of orthodoxy. A corollary question that naturally came to mind was, “If Rome’s universal primacy was recognized in the early Church, why is it not so now?” The obvious answer was that she had fallen from the Faith. That consideration started my investigation into the specific teachings of the Catholic Church that I had at that time considered to be heretical or erroneous. As already stated, this investigation made me realize that I had a very wrong understanding of what the Catholic Church actually taught/teaches, and that she was orthodox, after all – especially given the Christological Agreements between all the OOC’s and the CC. So, in my mind, I found no reason why the Church in Rome should not have the primacy again. In my mind, the Church in Rome already possessed de facto, if not de jure the universal primacy.
But, as I said earlier, this did not convince me to join the Catholic Church, especially as Rome herself taught that we (the CO) had the means of salvation as well. I thought I could just work and pray for unity within the Coptic Orthodox Church without joining the Catholic Church.
I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
I hope that was a sufficient answer for the Faith that lies in me.
Humbly,
Marduk
There are claims that the following verse is a basis for the doctrine of the immaculate conception:
Proverbs 4:7
"You are all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in you"
Does anyone know the COrthodox interpretation for this verse?
Again, thank you for your kind words. It is a joy to have this discussion with you. May I ask what you think the Latin Catholic Church teaches about original sin which distinguishes it from the Oriental Orthodox teaching on Original Sin. I mean, I seriously believe that the Latin Catholic Church’s teaching on Original Sin is practically identical to the Oriental Orthodox teaching. I asked this of another poster yesterday, but he has not responded.
Btw, if you’ll notice, I said “Latin Catholic Church.” If you are not aware, the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, the Latin Church being the biggest. I belong to the Coptic Catholic Church. I’m afraid we can’t, because what these two “Doctors of the Catholic Church” (that’s the special name we give our two great Popes in the Catholic Church) teach is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches on Original Sin. I have to ask once again, what do you think it is that the Latin Catholic Church teaches on Original Sin that makes you believe that it is different? Here’s where we have to disagree. I do not believe that Christ had Original Sin. Christ took on everything of our nature except sin – that is what Scripture itself states - so I don’t understand how you can say that Christ had original sin. He took on our sin at the Cross, not at any time before that – the same way the OT sacrificial lambs took on the sin of the people of Israel at the point of the sacrifice, not at any time before then.
Here is what I believe as an Oriental and as a Catholic about Original Sin:
The essence of Original Sin is not physical death, but spiritual death, separation from God. This is the result of the lack of the Grace of Original Holiness and the Grace of Original Justice. Do you agree with that?
At Baptism, we are cleansed of Original Sin (as babies, and actual sin also, as adults), which is, as stated, the spiritual death. We reacquire the Graces of Original Justice and Original Holiness and thereby overcome the natural separation from God. Do you agree with that?
But Baptism does not grant us the Grace of Immortality. We have to await for that Grace at the Second Coming. Do you agree with that?
If the essence of Original Sin was physical death, and not spiritual death, then being cleansed of original Sin at Baptism would mean we automatically become immortal. But this is obviously not true. Rather, the essence of Original Sin is spiritual death, and when Baptism wipes away Original Sin, it means that it has cleansed us of the spiritual death. Do you agree with that?
So a Christian who is baptized no longer has Original Sin. Do you agree with that?
Nevertheless, that same Christian will physically die. Correct?
So would you agree that “Original Sin” is not equivalent to the fact that we are able to die? Before you answer that, ponder the following.
Now, Original Sin has two definitions: 1) The actual sin of our first parents; 2) the spiritual death that is separation from God. Do you agree with that?
Now our Father St. Athanasius taught us that mortality/corruptibility was always a natural condition of human nature – both before and after the Fall. Before the Fall, man was not naturally immortal/incorruptible, but was immortal/incorruptible by Grace. When man fell, man’s nature did not all of a sudden become mortal (since it always was mortal/corruptible). What happened was that he lost the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility, and was henceforth subject to his natural human condition of mortality/corruptibility that was always inherent in his nature.
So we inherited three things from our first parents due to the Fall: 1) physical death as a result of losing the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility; 2) damaged reason/free will as much a result of our natural animal nature as the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness; 3) spiritual death (separation from God) as a result of losing the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice.
Notice that #1 and #2 are part of our nature, but #3 is not. That is why our holy Father St. Athanasius and so many other early Church Fathers spoke of Original Sin and Sin in general as a “stain,” or “scar,” or “blemish,” or somesuch other appropriate word.
When we speak today of “Original Sin,” we mean either the actual sin of our parents, or spiritual death (as mentioned above). When we speak of being “cleansed of Original Sin” at Baptism, we mean that we are cleansed of #3 above – i.e., spiritual death – not #1 or #2, because that is part of our nature. Baptism cleanses us of the stain that is Sin, including Original Sin.
Now here is the distinction of the modern EO teaching on Original Sin (I say “modern” because there are also other EO who understand Original Sin as the Westerns and Orientals do):
1) They do not speak of Original Sin as a stain, scar, blemish, etc.
2) They believe the essence of Original Sin is physical death, not spiritual death (which would explain why, unlike us, they do not normally speak of Original Sin as a stain)
3) They do not accept the notion of Original Justice.
Now, how does this all relate to the IC?
The IC teaches that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin from the first moment of her existence. Understanding that Original Sin refers to spiritual death, then all that the IC is saying is that Mary was united to God from the first moment of her existence, since she did not experience spiritual death (i.e., Original Sin). In other words, she possessed the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice from the first moment of her existence.
But notice that her possession of the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice does not affect her human nature, which is naturally subject to death/corruption, in the exact same way that our human nature, naturally subject to death/corruption, is not changed even though we possess those same Graces through Baptism.
So what Christ received from Mary was indeed our human nature, naturally subject to death/corruptibility, without the stain Original Sin (i.e., spiritual death or separation from God). This is the human nature that Christ took on and transformed by his Resurrection, the promise of which is not merely that we will have the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility, but that our very nature will be transformed to be immortal/incorruptible. In other words, we will become even greater than Adam and Ever were. They possessed immortality/incorruptibility only by Grace. Our promise is to actually be immortal/incorruptible by nature.
Now I hope you understand why it is that modern EO find the IC objectionable. Since they believe that the essence of Original Sin is physical death (not spiritual death), then they think that because Mary died, then she must have had Original Sin. But if one understands that the essence of Original Sin is spiritual death, which can be removed without affecting our natural human condition (as is indeed the case during Baptism), then the IC is perfectly orthodox. Wise words, brother.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
Hello Marduk
I have one question. If the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Coptic Church has the essentials for salivation but on the other hand they also teaches “if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church doesn’t this contradict itself. How can we have the essentials for salivation according to the RCC and still face judgment for not joining the RCC.
P.S. Thank you for sharing your journey. I am sure we can all learn something from it even if we dong agreeing with all your views. :)
In Christ
Theophilus
I believe that I, at least in part, presented the Orthodox thought on the corrupted nature in my two previous posts, including that quote from the EO site, which I chose to copy over as a matter of saving time rather than formulating that which I have learned over the years and read from the writings of the Fathers. What I know the Catholic Church to teach on the matter of what they term as "original sin" is what you have written explicitly in your post; this is, indeed, what Catholics believe, and the conceptual basis with which I wish to address your posts by providing the writings of the Fathers.
I certainly agree with you that Christ took all that we had except for sin. Let us, then, explore this notion within the Catholic mindset, and see why it is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception had to, in time, be formulated by the Catholics as a means of bridging the gap that was created as a result of the Augustinian theology regarding "original sin." If we assume "original sin" to be true in its existence as is conceptualized in the Catholic mindset, then Christ certainly did not take what is ours, except that we can say that He took some sort of body that was separate from our own, in that it was not afflicted with anything. Indeed, this is necessary, as the concept of "original sin" can be likened to a coin that is deposited in a box, which is then removed from the box when a person is baptized. This is not what Fathers teach, though, as it is not the sin of my father which I inherit, nor the guilt, but rather, the consequences of the sin, indeed, the corrupt nature, as was previously cited in my last post.
If He, then, did not have "original sin" as the coin was not deposited as per our analogy, then the depositor must also not have had a coin, which necessitates the idea of the Immaculate Conception. This has its own problem in that it removes the willing role of the Holy Virgin Mary; it is as though God made a robot that would obey His commands perfectly, in preparation of having His Son becoming incarnated from her. If we are to consider this to be true, then her own mother also did not have a coin to deposit, as she necessarily could not endow a perfect body if she herself was imperfect. This is then to imply that the Holy Virgin's father is not truly her father, as he necessarily had original sin. This also implies that the Holy Virgin's mother did not have original sin, and so on, until we arrive to Adam and Eve, which Catholics certainly state as having had original sin. The removal of free will, then, would not be a loving act, as we are all made out of God's love, as God is Love, and He cannot cease from being Love; the gift of free will is just that, a gift, and this was imparted on all of mankind without discrimination.
The beauty and honor of the Holy Virgin is that she indeed did have free will; that she was created like the rest of us, with the corruption just as the rest of us, and is due the veneration given to her because she, of her own free will, was so much of a servant of God, indeed, a handmaiden of the Lord, that she, of her own volition, stated "Let it be unto me according to your word." She willingly accepted this; it was not forced upon her. If she, then, willingly accepted this, then she has free will, which means that she was not created apart from any other individual, but that it was her own choice and the volition of her will, indeed, the tendency within her towards God, that then makes her the Holy Virgin, from whom Christ took His flesh (sarx) along with the Holy Spirit. The sarx, namely the flesh, is the corrupted flesh, with which Adam was clothed with, that skin which is spoken of in Genesis. Not corrupted with sin, as Christ is without sin, but corrupted by sin, as all of flesh is subject to the corrupt nature of the flesh, not the sin nor the guilt of the sin.
I do not know where you have gathered the idea that Orthodox theology supports only the idea of a physical death, which certainly is one of the consequences of death. The Orthodox Church has been guided by the great Fathers of the Church over the years, and they do not allude to this.
I think it is also important that we recognize that Augustine based his theology on a mistranslation of a verse, from which this discussion then finds its basis, and that he, in this regard, does not share in the unity of thought of the rest of the Orthodox fathers concerning the matter.
You also stated that we will become immortal/incorruptible by nature; this is not found in Orthodox teaching. All of this is effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit and the work of God. What He is by nature, I become by grace. There are volumes of writings that support this from the Fathers.
Pray for me and my weaknesses, and pray that we all grow together in faith, recognizing the Truth,
childoforthodoxy
Adding a side (but true) story, I told once a Coptic Catholic person what if he is called orthodox and he took it very badly, he was convinced I was insulting him. In another occasion another Coptic Catholic person felt humiliated when I reminded him he was also Coptic.
BTW original sin means both a spiritual and a physical death.
A human is body and spirit and because of sin both became corrupt.
GBU
Thank you for your kindness and your question.
The Catholic Church adheres to a principle called invincible ignorance. In effect, this means that if through no fault of your own, you do not come to the full knowledge of the Truth, then you are not immediately condemnable in the eyes of the Church, and you have the possibility of salvation according to the mercy of God, if you have kept the precepts of God according to a well-informed conscience.
When I say “full knowledge,” I do not mean intellectual knowledge, but a belief according to a well-informed conscience. So, for example, I could know everything there is to know about the Catholic Church and her teachings, but if my conscience does not permit me to accept the Catholic Church for whatever reason (by indoctrination in another Faith, by force, or by any other means which is through no fault of my own), then it is not considered “full knowledge.”
Now, if, despite my knowledge of the Catholic Church, I still did not believe she was orthodox according to my conscience, then the principle ““if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” would not apply to me. And, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, having the means of salvation within the Coptic Orthodox Church, I would not only have the possibility of being saved, but I could definitely be saved.
However, in my heart and conscience, I did believe the Catholic Church to be orthodox. So if I did not follow my conscience, I would be in sin.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
[quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=9357.msg115605#msg115605 date=1276645710]
[quote author=mardukm link=topic=9357.msg115592#msg115592 date=1276637381]
I would have probably stayed in the COC all my life, fully content, had it not been for a harrowing experience in which I felt my life was threatened while in Assyut. At that moment, for some reason (it was strange to me because my research into the Catholic Church was more of a hobby than something that really impressed itself in my life), one of the Catholic teachings flashed in my mind. Namely, if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God. It incited my conscience, and I was very soon received into the Catholic Church by confession and a profession of Faith – and I didn’t even have to say the filioque. ;D
Hello Marduk
I have one question. If the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Coptic Church has the essentials for salivation but on the other hand they also teaches “if one knows and acknowledges the Catholic Church to be true, and leaves or refuses to join it, then one will face the judgment of God” assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church doesn’t this contradict itself. How can we have the essentials for salivation according to the RCC and still face judgment for not joining the RCC.
P.S. Thank you for sharing your journey. I am sure we can all learn something from it even if we dong agreeing with all your views. :)
In Christ
Theophilus
Blessings,
Marduk
The only thing the IC teaches is that Mary was pure and holy in the sight of God, by God’s own Grace, from the first moment of her existence.
It does not teach that she did not have original sin so that Christ would not have original sin.
It does not teach that Mary’s flesh had to be pure so that Christ’s flesh would be pure.
And it does not teach that she did not obtain our fallen flesh, subject to death and corruption, naturally from Sts. Joachim and Hannah.
In future posts, please keep these in mind and try to formulate your responses around these facts. As explained in previous posts, the Graces Mary received at her conception are the same Graces we receive at Baptism. Do we lose our free will when we are baptized? If not, one should not expect Mary to have lost her free will when she received those same Graces, wouldn’t you agree? Mary could have freely chosen to reject the Graces God gave her, just as we can freely choose to reject the Graces we receive at Baptism. It is not the Catholic Church that teaches the idea of irresistible Grace. Only the Protestant Calvinists teach such a thing, and the Catholic Church refuted them at the Council of Trent. The problem with the syllogism you propose here is the very first clause “If we consider this to be true.” Since, as explained above, the whole basis of your ideas is based on a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter, then everything else that follows in the syllogism must be false. Agreed. And God did not remove St. Mary’s free will by granting her the Grace of Original Holiness and Original Justice, Graces which we also receive at Baptism. Agreed. All you say here is what the Catholic Church teaches. Agreed, but I do not know where you think I stated that Orthodox theology supports only the idea of physical death as a consequence. I don’t know how this has any relevance. Can you explain? I mentioned the Scriptures in the OT that I believe support the IC in a previous post, and the mistranslated verse is not one of them. Scripture supports it – Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…and we shall be changed. For this corruptible nature must put on the incorruptible, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.(I Cor 15:51-53)
Of course our change will come through Grace, but our nature itself will be changed. Pray for me as well, brother.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for your responses. I fear that our discussion will not yield any immediate results, though I pray that we both progress in the proper faith. I fear that much of the topics on which you posted in may yield the same outcome, as you yourself have said that you are not here to learn Orthodoxy nor to pursue what I will term as theological edification. Though we speak of things of substance, it does not appear that the discussions will yield fruit.
I will continue to pray for you, and I hope that you do the same for me and the rest of people on this forum,
childoforthodoxy
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
This is not an Orthodox position because Orthodoxy does not accept the view of Original Sin promulgated by Augustine and Rome. When Adam and Eve sinned they lost the grace of immortality and incorruptibility, the Holy Spirit withdrew from them, and man was left to his natural mortality and was separated from God.
We are born into this situation, mortal children of mortal parents, separated from God. But we are not born sinners. The Fathers of the Church are clear about that. We suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, and then the judgement due to our own sins, but we are not guilty of Adam's sin, nor is his sin passed down to us so that we are considered sinners because of his sin. You state that Christ did not inherit Original Sin, and while I certainly do not believe in Original Sin as proposed by the Catholic Church, nevertheless if he did not enter into our condition in all things then we are not saved. If he was not incarnate in a body liable to corruptibility and death then we are not saved. If he did not enter into the cursed condition in which we find ourselves then we are not saved.
When our Lord willed to be incarnate he chose to enter into our fallen state, and so he bore the consequences of Adam's sin as we do, submitting himself even to death in a mortal body that was naturally able to suffer. To escape from the consequences of Adam's sin is to be immortal and incorruptible. Our Lord was neither in his humanity until after the resurrection. Indeed the heresy of Julianism was entirely the teaching that Christ was not subject to the fallen-ness of humanity and therefore only appeared to suffer and die.
If the Virgin Mary had escaped the curse of Adam at her conception then she would have been immortal and incorruptible. But this was not the case. We know that she died a natural death as was proper to her fallen humanity and, like us, she enters into the glory of the resurrection after death.
The Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin is error. Therefore the teaching on the Immaculate Conception is also error, not least because, as Metropolitan Kallistos has written, it is redundant. The Orthodox are clear that the Virgin Mary was the best of which humanity had to offer to God, and that she was morally pure above all others. But to propose that she is lifted outside the human experience of fallen-ness is to make her what she is not. Selecting quotes from Orthodox Fathers which have been translated into English using the word 'immaculate' does not support the particular meaning of the phrase 'immaculate conception' in Catholic theology.
Father Peter
I still have a serious question. Can you state in detail how and when were the Romans of Rome preached the Gospel, and more importantly who spent enough time there preaching to them the Christian faith?
GBU
I am not sure as to your motive in posting on here, but I dont like the idea of you telling us that we are spreading lies or teaching untruths about the Latin church, the Latin church is a lie and it teaches untruths.
I understand that you came to believe that the Catholic Church was THE truth, but can you therefore explain in what areas you think that Orthodoxy is in error?
You would not have left the Orthodox Church if you had not become convinced that the Orthodox Church was at fault.
Father Peter
i also found yr explanation above very clear and helpful and will use it in the future :)
I agree, that was a good and concise explanation of the Orthodox position. But it was an equally erroneous explanation of the Catholic position.
1) You keep saying that the Catholic teaching on Original Sin is in error. I have asked twice already from your members here to specify what that error is. Why can no one respond? As a priest, perhaps you can provide us with some more insight.
2) I already explained more than once that and how Mary’s body was not preserved from the physical consequence of Original Sin. She did inherit corruptibility and mortality, which is what our Lord inherited from her.
As explained earlier as well, just because you think that a Catholic dogma teaches one thing, whereby you reject it, that does not mean that is what the Catholic dogma actually teaches. I gave the specific example of Unitarians and non-Christians who think that Christians are polytheists because of their misinterpretation of our confession that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Should we believe them? In the same vein, why should I believe what you misinterpret to be the Catholic position? I mean, if the teaching on the IC actually did teach that Christ did not inherit mortality and corruptibility, then I’d see your point. But it doesn’t, and you won’t find a single Magisterial Catholic document that can support what [u][i]you believe the IC teaches. In fact, isn’t it true that your position is based not on direct statements from Catholic sources, but rather on clever syllogism?[/i][/u]
I’ll give you another example. There are Chalcedonians who believe that miaphysites think that Jesus’ human nature was totally absorbed by divinity to the point that he had no human nature. They do this by a careful and eisegetic interpretation of our statements. Should we believe their misinterpretation of our statements, or what we actually teach?
You have asked what it is about Orthodoxy that I find wrong that caused me to leave it? As I’ve repeatedly stated, I find nothing wrong with Orthodoxy. I reject nothing from it. What I reject are its misinterpretations of the Catholic Faith.
Let’s just take this topic as an example.
1) You say: “the Orthodox Church teaches that Mary was subject to death and corruption.”
2) You claim: “The Catholic teaching of the IC teaches that Mary was not subject to death and corruption.”
3) The Catholic Church teaches: “Mary was given the Grace of Original Holiness and Original Justice from the first moment of existence, but was not preserved from the natural corruption and mortality of the body.”
4) I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
So, Father. Did I reject what the Orthodox Church teaches, or did I reject your misconception of what the Catholic Church teaches?
I could similarly explain the misinterpretations of Catholic dogma on the other issues in the threads I started (and issues other than those besides), but I already told you I would not participate in those threads after you expressed your concern about proselytism.
Humbly,
Marduk
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9357.msg115620#msg115620 date=1276687729]
Commenting on your reply Does this mean that the status of your conscience imply it is THE truth we must be convinced of? In other words, with due respect, you alone would follow your own faith convictions - and suffer alone the consequences.
Conscience does not determine the Truth. It determines our degree of culpability before God for rejecting Truth. For example, a baby who has no properly formed conscience has no culpability for sin before God. Does that help? I believe St. Paul spent the most time there. But St. Paul admits in the book of Romans that someone else had laid the foundation of the Church in Rome. Some Catholic apologists believe this was St. Peter. It is interesting that there are no Churches who claim apostolic succession from St. Paul. Just as an example. though St. Paul clearly established Churches in Asia Minor, they claim apostolic successon from St. John. Perhaps St. paul never ordained any bishops except Sts. Timothy and Titus?
Blessings
I think that you are being at least unwittingly disingenuous.
No-one leaves a Church they believe is true to join another community, and especially not just because there are misconceptions held about that other community. So I do not believe you have been honest about why you left the Orthodox Church.
You have clearly abandoned some Orthodox teachings to become Catholic, yet you say that you have not abandoned anything. This does not seem reasomable or true. To take one example. Orthodoxy rejects the universal jurisdicition of the Pope and you must accept it. Therefore you have rejected the Orthodox view and accepted a view which Orthodox consider heretical.
Let me quote from a serious Catholic paper on Original Sin..
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were ``one body'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those ``who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power'' (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent). In other words, only those properly of the seed of Adam would be subject of original sin. Thus Aquinas concludes that ,''If anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently, he would not contract original sin'' (Ibid.; New Advent). Thus, Aquinas finds that Jesus Christ would have no need to cleanse his body of original sin, since his conception, by its independence from carnal generation, would have been without sin.
This cannot be reconciled with the Orthodox view. It teaches that Christ, being born of a Virgin, escapes the state in which we find ourselves. If he escapes the state in which we find ourselves then he cannot save us.
The paper concludes..
In terms of propagation, Aquinas found that original sin was propagated through being ``moved'' by the will of Adam, which was accomplished by carnal generation. For him, Jesus' miraculous conception alone would have sufficed to give him a body freed from original sin.
This seems to me to illustrate the error that original sin is something passed on by sexual intercourse, which is rejected by the Orthodox. And again clearly expresses the view that Christ escapes the state in which we find ourselves. If he is not in our state, subject to the curse, then we are not saved. If Christ is also not of Adam then Adam's seed are not saved.
Father Peter
One only needs to look at the councils of the Latin church to see that you are clearly wrong. Throughout the several councils these have been defined much differently than what you think, this is what the Latin church is good at, redefining their position to escape criticism, because if they are wrong then they are not infallible. IC clearly states that St Mary was born without the corruption of original sin, this is from which all other sin stems from, if she was not born without sin how then could Christ redeem mankind from it? This was introduced in the mid 15th century. You will not find this belief in any of the early church fathers writings, unless of course you manipulate, take out of context, or only quote part of the church father, which the Latin church is good at doing with great Saints such as St Cyprian and St John Chrysostom to try and solidify their stance that they are the church of churches.
A simple and basic course on early church history will illustrate that it is you and the Latin church that are in error and are redefining without actually saying you are redefining the dogma of IC. Since this dogma was introduced rather recently, and there is no biblical or early church father sources supporting it, then it is clearly going against Orthodox teaching. This is the basic definition of heresy, going against the established teaching, which again is one thing the Latin church is good at.
Please look at the council of Basel, the council of Trent and this source:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
The dogma was defined in accordance with the conditions of papal infallibility, which would be defined in 1870 by the First Vatican Council.
(http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm)
I am assuming it is US who interpret this wrong, but if it does not differ from Orthodox theology, then why even create it? Marduk, it is heresy.
I think the word "disingenuine" is most appropriate. I do not think the purpose of any of these posts was for anything other than proselytizing.
If the new found revelation and "freedom from misconceptions" relates to some new founding in the acceptance of Papal infallability and Roman Primacy, I would say that the foundation for that revelation is even weaker than any of these flawed explanations.
How do you explain primacy? There is no pre-eminence for Peter. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, so does that pre-dispose the Syrian Church as being supreme to even Rome? How is Peter a "rock" in one verse and "satan" in another verse? If Peter was in Rome then how is it that Paul does not address him in the Epistle to the Romans? If Peter was the archtype of infallability then how is it that the Council of Jerusalem had to correct his naivity? If Peter was right all the time, then why did Paul have to correct him on issues of dogma and the evolving church? Paul addresses an already established Church in Rome, with a hierarchy, and no mention of Peter in any form.
The Latin Church prefers that its adherents do not read the Holy Bible and rely on a flawed catechism to keep the apparent from being revealed. In this case, and in pertinence to the above statements: The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians.
It has been established in several sources, including westerners, that there have been intentional alterations in translations in order to prop up the Roman argument for Primacy. It is nonsense, and there is no misinterpretation.
The Latin Pontiffs did not attend the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus; and not even Chalcedon. They relied on proxies, legates, and manipulations for their own aims. The Emperor Constantine, himself, did not deem it necessary for the Roman presence. Come on, let's put it in simpler terms, their presence was insignificant, and non-essential. The Decrees of the Only Three Ecumenical Councils are the basis of All Apostolic Churches, and the Roman Church did not have any presence or leadership, definition or erudition.
Their only major function was to create the issues of Chalcedon to help preserve the Empire.
How would you explain John Paul II, and being a person of dogmatic inafallability bowing to kiss the ground of a mosque as hallowed, and to give homage by kissing the Koran as being revered, and to quote him: "divinely inspired". Last time I checked the Koran identified Jesus Christ as a prophet, and not the Son of God. I believe that legitimately puts John Paul II as a heretic, theologically flawed, and dogmatically incorrect. Where is the revelation of infallability now?
If you left the Coptic Church, you have left the One Catholic and Orthodox Church. We will be all judged one day and we will see where God's Word lies.
I think your revelation is childish, not at all sound in logic or deduction, based on disingenuine thoughts. I see your comments as trying to corrupt some of the members on this forum. I also add that one day we will face God's Judgment. I pray for your soul for it has reached out for the corrupt rather than the succor of the Mother Church.
I also do not appreciate the misuse of the Mother of God.
I do not like her name being dragged through the mud.
I do not appreciate a disingenuine person claiming some magical and mystical revelation.
And I certainly do not like anyone maligning the Coptic Orthodox Church, in a sly and indirect
fashion.
I am with you, I think this person is not here for the reason he says he is.
Are we watching newly devised strategies for hunting people from well established Churches by confusing their members with sophisticated yet philosophical arguments that overwhelm the mind?
My sincere advice to whom planned such an agenda, since you claim you have THE truth, is to consider preaching the Gospel where people do not know yet the spirituality of the Christian faith to help them believe in Christ - instead of spending your energy in trying to convince already Orthodox Apostolic Christians with a useless non edifying politically oriented worn out primacy ideology that drags a long queue of inserted dogmas of non Apostolic non Orthodox non Biblical origins.
Mardukm, replying to you: it does not help.
Would you please state here the full Catholic version of the Ten Commandments that were given personally by God to Moses - then we can seriously discuss conscience issues.
and about Not all Catholic apologists?
Apologists are those who are defending the Faith not primacy matters.
Accordingly these "apologists" probably believe St Peter preached exclusively the Romans of Rome, that he did not preach anywhere else but in Rome.
When the Apostles where disputing who would be better placed Our Lord Jesus Christ told them that who seeks to be the greatest let him be first the servant of the others. His Kingdom is not earthly and He is the only Eternal Supreme Head of the Church.
Mark 9 [NKJV]
34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
GBU
Does he appreciate that the Roman Catholic definition has changed over time of the Immaculate Conception dogma?
Just as the name suggests, the immaculate conception is a dogma that states that Mary was born WITHOUT the original sin. The definition of this has changed now (in the RC) that the original sin was removed from her when she conceived Jesus Christ in her womb.
Before we move any further, if Marduk can at least appreciate this, then we can move on. Having said that, he also needs to appreciate that what happened to Saint Mary is more along the lines of the burning bush that moses saw: A tree that was engulfed by fire, that was not consumed by the fire; rather than the Graces of the Holy Spirit that we receive during Baptism and Confirmation.
Thanks