would you agree that not all things in the bibe must be Taken as their exact meaning?
christ says he is the Door to heaven. is he a phyichal door? no
paul say ALL men have sinned. small children have not sinned. So obviously we can not take this teaching literally, to say that every-single man has sinned.
christ says he is the Door to heaven. is he a phyichal door? no
actuly Christ is the door of heaven. not phyichaly but he was the reason the door of heaven was open to us. like we call St.Mary "The Second Heaven" she wasn't the second heaven, but in a way because our Lord Jesus Christ Original place was Heaven, and He also Dwelt in her womb. so she to have carried Jesus as the Heaven did and do now.
paul say ALL men have sinned. small children have not sinned. So obviously we can not take this teaching literally, to say that every-single man has sinned.
No and NO. if you're talking about the old testment, EVERY HUMAN BEING was a siner of the original sin. and even now, don't little kids bring the mother pain. and what does that have to do with this discussion. st mary was not a child when she gave birth to Jesus.
would you agree that not all things in the bibe must be Taken as their exact meaning
i think that was one of the reasons the churches had splitt. yes i agree, but there's no point of making new stuff out of it.
and tu es Petrus, sorry when i say that every time when i say somthing, you answer back with a bigger topic. i kno it all connect together but am sure you could just answer the Q. and am really happy you've started all thse discussions. i never answer back and forth to any one before :). but it's just fun. and PLEASE don't stop. and i think you should start new sparate topics because this one's name is VERY VERY general. :)
so u believe in original sin? that we all individually carry the SIN itself from our ancestors, and not just inherit the sinfull nature? i think that brings us to a whole different discussion.
iqbal, fenak ya 3am, u dont want to miss this discussion ;D
ow and btw, what does it mean he saved her from sin? does that mean so couldnt sin? that wouldnt be fair now would it? and as someone else said before, if he could save St Mary from sin without the blood of Christ, then why didnt he do that do all people, and leave the whole deal of salvation on the cross? And if she was saved from her sin when she was born, why then did the Holy Spirit come over her? wasnt that also to purify her from sin, so that Christ wouldnt inherit that?
christ says he is the Door to heaven. is he a phyichal door? no
actuly Christ is the door of heaven. not phyichaly but he was the reason the door of heaven was open to us. like we call St.Mary "The Second Heaven" she wasn't the second heaven, but in a way because our Lord Jesus Christ Original place was Heaven, and He also Dwelt in her womb. so she to have carried Jesus as the Heaven did and do now.
paul say ALL men have sinned. small children have not sinned. So obviously we can not take this teaching literally, to say that every-single man has sinned.
No and NO. if you're talking about the old testment, EVERY HUMAN BEING was a siner of the original sin. and even now, don't little kids bring the mother pain. and what does that have to do with this discussion. st mary was not a child when she gave birth to Jesus.
would you agree that not all things in the bibe must be Taken as their exact meaning
i think that was one of the reasons the churches had splitt. yes i agree, but there's no point of making new stuff out of it.
and tu es Petrus, sorry when i say that every time when i say somthing, you answer back with a bigger topic. i kno it all connect together but am sure you could just answer the Q. and am really happy you've started all thse discussions. i never answer back and forth to any one before :). but it's just fun. and PLEASE don't stop. and i think you should start new sparate topics because this one's name is VERY VERY general. :)
Thanks for the encouragment!
yes this weekend i will be starting a topic about questions and misconceptions, the immaculate conception, possibly purgartory, and maybe the Primacy of peter.
Basically the requirments for a mortal sin is full knowledge, full constent of will, and grave matter.
the child does not have full knowledge nor does he have full constent of will. So no children do not sin.
lets look at the Anunciation again
And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
The Angel Hail's mary. As a Latin Catholic and a latin student i would like to explain to you what the word Hail means. Hail is a latin word used to great someone in a higher Rank then oneself. During the days of the Roman empire people would say Hail Caesar because he was their leader and greater then themselves. Now we see an Angel of the Lord Hailing a woman. He is greeting her with the word Hail because She is greater than Him. Now in the Bible the Angel of the Lord Says "full of Grace". THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE BIBLE WHO IS DESCRIBED AS FULL OF GRACE IS THE LORD! now does this mean mary is equal to the Lord? Absoultley NOT. But both did not commit sin and this is why they are described this way.
[quote author=Hos Erof link=board=12;threadid=3026;start=30#msg45622 date=1137105171] so u believe in original sin? that we all individually carry the SIN itself from our ancestors, and not just inherit the sinfull nature? i think that brings us to a whole different discussion.
iqbal, fenak ya 3am, u dont want to miss this discussion ;D
ow and btw, what does it mean he saved her from sin? does that mean so couldnt sin? that wouldnt be fair now would it? and as someone else said before, if he could save St Mary from sin without the blood of Christ, then why didnt he do that do all people, and leave the whole deal of salvation on the cross? And if she was saved from her sin when she was born, why then did the Holy Spirit come over her? wasnt that also to purify her from sin, so that Christ wouldnt inherit that?
yes we believe In original sin
"The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings." -Catholic answers
since she was in a state of sancifying grace, because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life. the Blood of christ did save Mary. SHe would not have been able to enter heaven before CHrists Ascension. Why did God make Mary sinless?
i do not know. Posiibly becuase she has a speical role in the salvation of men, and to harbor and raise his son. God also wants people to love him. If everyone is perfect we are all slaves of God. He did not want this. I do not know why the Holy Ghost came over her. Possibly to enlighten her.
first of al (and iqbal can correct me on this one), we do not believe in original sin in the sense that we directly received the SIN of adam, we inherited the consequence of Adam's sin, which is death and the corrupt sinfull nature.
second, this arguments i found really weak:
Why did God make Mary sinless?
i do not know. Posiibly becuase she has a speical role in the salvation of men, and to harbor and raise his son. God also wants people to love him. If everyone is perfect we are all slaves of God. He did not want this. I do not know why the Holy Ghost came over her. Possibly to enlighten her.
if everyone is made perfect we are all slaves, thats so true, so in that case, did God make an exception and make St mary a slave when he made her without sin during her birth?? Freedom of choice is something we ALL have. Truly God chose st Mary because she was the purest and undefiled of all women, not because HE made her pure when she was born and consequently did not leave her any choise than to be holy and pure, but because she lived such a pure and holy life. Then the Holy Spirit came over her to purify her that Christ may take flesh from her, without inheriting the same sin as we do.
I meant a slave to love him. She had no choice not to love him. she obviously had freedom of choice inasmuch as she did not sin. We obviously disagree about the Immaculate conception. that is what makes me a Papist and you an Orthodox coptic.
I would not say that Saint Paul's teaching were any better than a Solemnly definded Teaching by the Holy Father. Paul's teachings in the letter were obviously infallible but so are Dogmas definded by the Holy Father.
This is a blatant arrogance my friend, you put the holy Bible equal to the writing of a pope!! I have never heard of something like that before and this is not the teaching of my beloved Coptic Church or the Orthodox teaching in general. Did you know that the first sin that the world came to know was what? It was the sin of pride and arrogance when the Devil wanted to be equal to God and it is the same sin that the Devil deceived Eve and caused her fall. The Holy Bible is the first of all the source of our teaching. What happened to the Catholic Church? It was a time when the Church prevented the ordinary Catholic people from reading the Bible, and that was one of the cause of the Reformation and the Protestant movement, and the translation of King James Bible.
not every writing of the Pope would be on par with the bible. But if it is Dogmatic than yes, because both are true. How can one truth be better than another truth? I am not proud i have just come to bring the good news. the church did not prevent the ordinary people from reading the bible. they were concerned about Mistranslations of the bible. Our Catholic bible was published in english well before the King James bible.
But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin.
Yes a child inherits the corrupt sinful nature and death and he/she is sinful even if his/her life is only one day on earth. I think we as a Church say this part in the Eucharist. And that is why the Coptic Church is adamant to baptize the infants very early in their life for fear of dying before being granted the absolution.
As Hos Erof stated, we do not believe in inheriting the original sin from Adam and Eve, but we inherit the corrupt sinful nature. By baptism, the person gets new nature, what St. Paul mentioned it as the New Man.
Tu es Petrus,
I think we could not convince you and you too can not shake our believe. . So pease be with you
I am also a Catholic (Eastern Catholic). But I think you are mistaken on many of the statements you are presenting.
First, you claimed that the Catholic Church never gave the Body and Blood to the congregation. This is false. The Eastern Churches have ALWAYS given both. The Western Church started to give only the Body because the protestants claimed that Christ full body was only received if the person had both - but the Church has never taught this. If one receives the Body or Blood, we receive the WHOLE Christ, not a piece of Him (this is flawed thinking). To combat this misunderstanding started by Luther and other protestants, the Latin Church limited Communion to the Body in the 16th Century. Prior to this, they received BOTH and they received BOTH today (unless a bishop thinks he needs to limit it).
Another aspect is the Immaculate Conception. As an Eastern Catholic, we accept the teaching as valid, but your explanation is not understandable to Eastern people (as you can now see). The language that the IC was written in was scholastic Latin, we Easterners do not/have not ever read theology this way.
Yes when i was speaking only for my rite. Yes the Eastern Rites do give body and blood. But Christs body blood soul and divinty are in the Bread and wine when consecrated, So by Recieving just the Body you receive the Blood as well.
I am sorry if I did not explain the Immaculate Concpetion correctly. I do not really know much about Eastern Christians.
since she was in a state of sancifying grace, because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life. the Blood of christ did save Mary. She would not have been able to enter heaven before CHrists Ascension. Why did God make Mary sinless?
First off, congrats to tu es Petrus, very good job defending your church's docterines/dogmas. I wouldn't have expected anything less from such a well versed/educated Papist (which is still a very cool word in and of itself.) However, I do not agree, and with good reason. We could try to argue with each other for ages but I doubt either of us would concede. I guess that's both a good thing and a bad thing, however back to the original topic.
You tripped over yourself in the quote above. First off, "because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life." That my friend completly takes away her free will, the same free will that we were created in God's image in (at least one of the aspects in which we were made in His image.) If as you say St. Mary the Holy and Ever-Virgin Theotokos was indeed, as you say, saved from the stains of original sin, than she would still have the uncorrupted nature that Adam and Eve possesed prior to their eating of the Forbidden Fruit. That uncorrupted nature however still has free will as is evident in the actions of Adam and Eve. To say that "because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life," isn't right. It was through the purity of her choices that she did not sin, through her own free will and her love of the Lord her Savior. Sin by definition is an act against God and as the Bible says, the price of sin is death, eternal death.
Next, in that same qoute you say "the Blood of christ did save Mary. She would not have been able to enter heaven before CHrists Ascension" First off, the Blood of Emmanuel, our Lord couldn't have saved St. Mary at the moment of her conception because it had not yet been shed on the cross. Besides, if as you say she was saved as an action of "anticipation" from original sin, just as your "falling in the pit" analogy explains, then she wouldn't have needed the Blood of the Lamb in the first place would she? Since as you say, she was already saved
by a singular privilege and grace granted by God.
St. Mary, according to you, was never stained with original sin but needed a savior at the moment of her coneption to keep her from "falling into the pit" of original sin. However, how could she have known of that act of God and then call Him her savior. How could she call Him savior for something, according to you. that happened at the moment of her conception? How could she have known about it? Furthermore if you look in the Gospel of Luke 1:29 you'll see that even St. Mary herself was puzzled when the Archangel Gabriel came to her saying as you wrote:
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
However, in the very next verse, Luke 1:29 it says: "29 But when she saw him,[d] she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was."
Pertaing to this in particular is one of your posts where you wrote
The Angel Hail's mary. As a Latin Catholic and a latin student i would like to explain to you what the word Hail means. Hail is a latin word used to great someone in a higher Rank then oneself. During the days of the Roman empire people would say Hail Caesar because he was their leader and greater then themselves. Now we see an Angel of the Lord Hailing a woman. He is greeting her with the word Hail because She is greater than Him. Now in the Bible the Angel of the Lord Says "full of Grace". THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE BIBLE WHO IS DESCRIBED AS FULL OF GRACE IS THE LORD! now does this mean mary is equal to the Lord? Absoultley NOT. But both did not commit sin and this is why they are described this way.
You are right in saying that the Archangel Gabriel said Hail because St. Mary was higher than him. This is completly true and I'm glad that you recognize it when you said: "He is greeting her with the word Hail because She is greater than him." The Holy Theotokos is greater than all the prinipalities, authorities, thrones, angels, archangels, and even the Cherobiem and the Seraphiem. However, where you deter is when you liken the reason to why the word Hail is used to both the Lord and St. Mary to the idea that both didn't commit any sin. The Lord is given the word Hail because He IS God, the Savior, the Pantocrator, St. Mary is given the word Hail because she is chosen to be THE MOTHER OF GOD, THE EVER-VIRGIN HOLY THEOTOKOS. None but God alone is Holier than her.
Then you say that:
She would not have been able to enter heaven berfore CHrits Ascension.
You have to understand the concept of sin to understand why you are wrong in saying the above. (Anybody correct me if I'm wrong) but sin, as I said before, is by definition an act against God, and its natural consequence is eternal death. That is why only Christ could be the Messiah. One of the requirments of the Savior was that He be eternal because to atone for sin, whose natural consequence is eternal death, an eternal sacrafice was needed. This is why all the righteous people who died in the Old Testemant were sent to Hades (because they were still tainted with sin,), and the Lord had to descend to Hades and break its bronze gates to bring all the righteous who had suffered in His Name, up to Paradise. That being known, if St. Mary indeed was saved from original sin, she would have indeed ascended into Heaven, for she wasn't tainted with original sin (according to you) and she didn't commint any sin in her lifetime (which we agree on.)
One thing that I'd like to point out is when you wrote:
Basically the requirments for a mortal sin is full knowledge, full constent of will, and grave matter.
In a sense, I can see how the Catholic Church can say how one sin can be worse than another. I.E. Killing someone in cold blood would be worse than stealing a candy bar if the metaphor is to hold. However, in another sense, sinse the price if sin is death, and any/all sins will lead to death all sins could be considered the same, just in the sense that its natural consequences are the same.
Another thing you said was:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
"Redeemed in a more exalted manner." HOW CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHAT IS GREATER THAN THE PASSION OF OUR LORD ON THE CROSS. The Lord Himself said "13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends."- John 15:13.
You also said that
Dogma develops. Truth is always truth. It was just undefiended and it was optinonal for Catholics to believe, because it was not Dogma.
If you say the Immaculate Conception was truth before it was declared as Catholic dogma than how could it be optional for the people to believe? The truth is what should be believed not the dogma. The only catch is knowing the truth and seeing if the dogma is the truth.
However you then said
Mary may or May not be our co-redemptrix. it is not dogma.
meaning it is optional for a Catholic to believe. Right off the bat, if you intend to use the word co-redemptrix as meaning St. Mary is a co-redeemer than you are way off pal, even if you were to stick by the docterine of the Immaculate Conception, than St. Mary, who would have been pure and without sin, would have only been able to save herself, and nobody else. If on the other hand you use the word co-redemptrix as meaning St. Mary had a role in our salvation by giving birth to Christ, than personally, I see nothing wrong with it, but the term will confuse many and isn't really a fitting title to call the "the maidservant of the Lord" a title that shows St. Mary's obediance to the Lord (Luke 1:38.)
not every writing of the Pope would be on par with the bible. But if it is Dogmatic than yes, because both are true. How can one truth be better than another truth?
Consider the source. The Bible is the Word of God. How can you compare the Word of God to the word of man. And if you believe that what your pope says is truth (conscerining spiritual issues; i.e. Papal Infallibility) than they're should be no difference between the Word of God through the Holy Bible and the Word of God by the Holy Spirit through your pope.
I probably wrote something wrong somewhere in here so don't be shy to correct me lest I grow prideful, lol.
That's it for me for now, please pray for my family. Thank You +
i did some more research on the immaculate conception because of what you said. I seemed to have explained it incorrectly and i apologize. let me give it another go.
Mary was concieved without Original sin. She did not sin during her life, but it was not impossible for her to sin. During her life she had just as much free will as any of us and was fully capable of sinning. Some refer to her as the 'new eve'. Eve was also created free of sin, yet freely chose to sin and thus brought death into the world. Mary was also created free of sin, but where Eve said no Mary said Yes, and brought life into the world.
to respond to some of your other points:
Little children are baptized, and this removes from them the stain of original sin. If they then Die they are saved. They did not know anything about Jesus. Niether did Mary at her conception.
you also had a problem with the fact that mary was redeemed in a more exalted manner. Mary is Above us correct? She harbored Christ in her womb. Of course God would exalt her redemption and save her in a different way than ordinary people, because of her special mission from God.
The Reason that the Immaculate Conception was optional was because No Anathema was given to those who did not believe. If the Church is the guardian of Truth, and this truth was undefined it was still Truth just optional to believe.
Co-redemptrix just refers to marys special Role in god's plan of salvation
The term "co-redemptrix" is properly translated "the woman with the redeemer" or more literally "she who buys back with [the redeemer]." The prefix "co" comes from the Latin term "cum" which means "with" and not "equal to." Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.
It is impossible for one to be born without original sin because if this was so, there would have been no need for the christos.
Christ is the only one not born with original sin, because he was not born in the traditional way (i.e the St. Mary's virginity was sealed).
Saint Mary was born like any other human, and she was like any other human, who sinned, until the Lord chose her as his vessel, it is then that she was made pure, when she held the holies of holies in her womb, and not before.
Adam and Eve is a completely different story. Adam and Eve were born in Eden, the paradise of joy. Yes, they were born without sin, but so is every other baby that comes into this world. And like children, they learned, except they learned from God. But behold, Eve's pride took over her thinking, and hence, sin was born. Even before Eve took of the apple she had committed sin, she wished to be greater than God. Adam and Eve's situation was different, you cannot compare neither to Saint Mary nor to any other human being born into this world.
And this verse proves that grace and truth came by Christ: John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
We call the Virgin Mary O Full of Grace because she was full of grace. She had the will and the ability to sin, she was born like any other person. Saint Ann (Saint Mary's mother) carried Saint Mary in her womb like any other mother in and of this world. What makes Saint Mary special is that even though she had the ability to sin she didn't. If she was concieved without sin then that means she was perfect, only the one, the only, the holy Christ can be perfect.
[quote author=MarMar91 link=board=12;threadid=3026;start=45#msg45758 date=1137299951] Adam and Eve were not born of women tho.. God created us, the humans, in incorruption.. we brought the corruption of sin upon ourselves by disobeying his commandment...
besides.. St. Mary herself said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...
if she was born without original sin, she wud have no need of a Savior...
besides, now that u bring up Adam and Eve, I thought Catholics thought the Old Testament, was just a story, maybe its symbolic or maybe its made up...
i go to a Catholic School and thats what they say..
Once again. Mary did not make herself born without original sin. We do not claim it magically happened. We Say that God Saved her from original sin making him her Savior
I posted this a few months ago, but here is an Eastern (Catholic) perspective on Mary and the Immaculate Conception, from the well respected Eastern theologian Dr. Anthony Dragani:
Immaculate Conception Question from Dan on 10-29-2003:
Anthony,
Thanks for you time and effort. Its a blessing. I was wondering do the Eastern Catholics accept the teaching on the Immucalute Concepation? Thanks!
Answer by Anthony Dragani on 11-04-2003:
Dan,
Thank you for the kind words.
Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.
In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:
"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."
There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn't it?
I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first momemnt of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:
"In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition." (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)
So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.
Mary was born with a special blessing because God knew she would bear His Son. It is important to remember this is a teaching which began with the Syriac Fathers and not in the West. We also believe the St. John the Baptist was born in a similar way - when he Lept in the Womb when Mary and Elizabeth met. John recognized his Lord and was born blessed to be his forerunner.
Free will does not equal sin. Eve and Adam were born with free will, both are fully human. Sin is a FLAW in humanity, not part of it. Human beings are ideally supposed to be without SIN.
As we wish to avoid another thread jumping around “miscellaneous” issues relating to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), I suggest that if people wish to focus on a specific issue e.g. the RCC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (IC), that they create a new thread for that purpose.
Any future discussion on this specific issue should be continued there, for the sake of organisation and convenience.
tu es Petrus,
I encourage you to continue discussing this issue at the afore-linked thread; it would be appreciated if you are able to argue your position without pasting whole essays from Catholic Apologetic websites. Such tactics are neither helpful nor useful for constructive dialogue. I recommend you only directly quote those sections most significant to your case, and for the rest just try and summarise the argument succinctly in your own words if possible. I have not been able to read through this entire thread, so I will simply tackle the points made in your last response concerning IC, and you can choose to reiterate any relevant earlier made arguments that I’ve missed.
dear Sam, ur name is (Tu es petrus) 1)firstly , Jesus did not say 'tu es petrus' ... he said 'Tu es SHafa' which is the first name of peter in aramaic ... the latin translation is inaccurate ... using shafa then using 'Sho'o' in aramaic makes A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN Peter the apostle and the rock of the church ... u r still young to study this point 2) I WAS COPTIC CATHOLIC and I left catholicism because of its corrupt doctrine ... i- council of chalcedon was the reason for leaving your church. if u study it u will find a stupid dogma called tome of leo which embarrased your theologians in the last dialogue... cardinal walter Kasper said : if u use it against our dogma u will use a stick against us. ii- papal infallibility is the most funny dogma I've ever seen , I remember that there was 2 popes in the third and fourth centuries accepted Arius Heresey , and I think we both deny it ! ... besides , I'll give u a simple question : Could u tell me who was your pope between 855-858 please ? let's laugh lol iii- it is an honor for me to get rid of ur church because I cannot see a muslim taking eucharist with me in the same church ... in 1998 a big problem happened when a maronite catholic priest got a latin priest out of the church because he gave eucharist to a muslim woman . we cannot forget pope John Paul II who blessed the Sunni Muslim (Yasser Arafat) in his marriage to Soha arafat the catholic woman looooooool
Comments
christ says he is the Door to heaven. is he a phyichal door? no
paul say ALL men have sinned. small children have not sinned. So obviously we can not take this teaching literally, to say that every-single man has sinned.
do u guys believe that st mary didnt sin during her life? if so, then we dont disagree
do u guys believe she was NOT born with the sinfull nature, just as any person has been born since the fall of Adam?? If so, then we DO disagree...
(and any orthodox-specialist can correct me any time btw ;))
like we call St.Mary "The Second Heaven" she wasn't the second heaven, but in a way because our Lord Jesus Christ Original place was Heaven, and He also Dwelt in her womb. so she to have carried Jesus as the Heaven did and do now. No and NO. if you're talking about the old testment, EVERY HUMAN BEING was a siner of the original sin. and even now, don't little kids bring the mother pain. and what does that have to do with this discussion. st mary was not a child when she gave birth to Jesus. i think that was one of the reasons the churches had splitt.
yes i agree, but there's no point of making new stuff out of it.
and tu es Petrus, sorry when i say that every time when i say somthing, you answer back with a bigger topic. i kno it all connect together but am sure you could just answer the Q. and am really happy you've started all thse discussions. i never answer back and forth to any one before :). but it's just fun. and PLEASE don't stop. and i think you should start new sparate topics because this one's name is VERY VERY general. :)
iqbal, fenak ya 3am, u dont want to miss this discussion ;D
ow and btw, what does it mean he saved her from sin? does that mean so couldnt sin? that wouldnt be fair now would it? and as someone else said before, if he could save St Mary from sin without the blood of Christ, then why didnt he do that do all people, and leave the whole deal of salvation on the cross? And if she was saved from her sin when she was born, why then did the Holy Spirit come over her? wasnt that also to purify her from sin, so that Christ wouldnt inherit that?
like we call St.Mary "The Second Heaven" she wasn't the second heaven, but in a way because our Lord Jesus Christ Original place was Heaven, and He also Dwelt in her womb. so she to have carried Jesus as the Heaven did and do now. No and NO. if you're talking about the old testment, EVERY HUMAN BEING was a siner of the original sin. and even now, don't little kids bring the mother pain. and what does that have to do with this discussion. st mary was not a child when she gave birth to Jesus. i think that was one of the reasons the churches had splitt.
yes i agree, but there's no point of making new stuff out of it.
and tu es Petrus, sorry when i say that every time when i say somthing, you answer back with a bigger topic. i kno it all connect together but am sure you could just answer the Q. and am really happy you've started all thse discussions. i never answer back and forth to any one before :). but it's just fun. and PLEASE don't stop. and i think you should start new sparate topics because this one's name is VERY VERY general. :)
Thanks for the encouragment!
yes this weekend i will be starting a topic about questions and misconceptions, the immaculate conception, possibly purgartory, and maybe the Primacy of peter.
Basically the requirments for a mortal sin is full knowledge, full constent of will, and grave matter.
the child does not have full knowledge nor does he have full constent of will. So no children do not sin.
lets look at the Anunciation again
And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
The Angel Hail's mary. As a Latin Catholic and a latin student i would like to explain to you what the word Hail means. Hail is a latin word used to great someone in a higher Rank then oneself. During the days of the Roman empire people would say Hail Caesar because he was their leader and greater then themselves. Now we see an Angel of the Lord Hailing a woman. He is greeting her with the word Hail because She is greater than Him. Now in the Bible the Angel of the Lord Says "full of Grace". THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE BIBLE WHO IS DESCRIBED AS FULL OF GRACE IS THE LORD! now does this mean mary is equal to the Lord? Absoultley NOT. But both did not commit sin and this is why they are described this way.
God Bless,
Sam
actually we honor her more than anything , any one who's ever attended a kiahk midnight praise could tell u that ;)
thing is, she was not born in a different way than any one of us. If you would plz first answer the questions in my previous post.
we also use the term "full of grace" in our bibles, and in our hymns, u should check some of the words in the theotokia's:
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/index.php?action=viewcat&id=56
as an example (taken from saturday theotokia):
so u believe in original sin? that we all individually carry the SIN itself from our ancestors, and not just inherit the sinfull nature? i think that brings us to a whole different discussion.
iqbal, fenak ya 3am, u dont want to miss this discussion ;D
ow and btw, what does it mean he saved her from sin? does that mean so couldnt sin? that wouldnt be fair now would it? and as someone else said before, if he could save St Mary from sin without the blood of Christ, then why didnt he do that do all people, and leave the whole deal of salvation on the cross? And if she was saved from her sin when she was born, why then did the Holy Spirit come over her? wasnt that also to purify her from sin, so that Christ wouldnt inherit that?
yes we believe In original sin
"The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings."
-Catholic answers
since she was in a state of sancifying grace, because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life. the Blood of christ did save Mary. SHe would not have been able to enter heaven before CHrists Ascension. Why did God make Mary sinless?
i do not know. Posiibly becuase she has a speical role in the salvation of men, and to harbor and raise his son. God also wants people to love him. If everyone is perfect we are all slaves of God. He did not want this. I do not know why the Holy Ghost came over her. Possibly to enlighten her.
second, this arguments i found really weak: if everyone is made perfect we are all slaves, thats so true, so in that case, did God make an exception and make St mary a slave when he made her without sin during her birth?? Freedom of choice is something we ALL have.
Truly God chose st Mary because she was the purest and undefiled of all women, not because HE made her pure when she was born and consequently did not leave her any choise than to be holy and pure, but because she lived such a pure and holy life. Then the Holy Spirit came over her to purify her that Christ may take flesh from her, without inheriting the same sin as we do.
sam
and it is the same sin that the Devil deceived Eve and caused her fall.
The Holy Bible is the first of all the source of our teaching. What happened to the Catholic Church? It was a time when the Church prevented the ordinary Catholic people from reading the Bible, and that was one of the cause of the Reformation and the Protestant movement, and the translation of King James Bible.
not every writing of the Pope would be on par with the bible. But if it is Dogmatic than yes, because both are true. How can one truth be better than another truth? I am not proud i have just come to bring the good news. the church did not prevent the ordinary people from reading the bible. they were concerned about Mistranslations of the bible. Our Catholic bible was published in english well before the King James bible.
Sam
As Hos Erof stated,
we do not believe in inheriting the original sin from Adam and Eve, but we inherit the corrupt sinful nature.
By baptism, the person gets new nature, what St. Paul mentioned it as the New Man.
Tu es Petrus,
I think we could not convince you and you too can not shake our believe. . So pease be with you
and we still don't know who won ;D
its gettin quite interesting
;D
TAIO
I am also a Catholic (Eastern Catholic). But I think you are mistaken on many of the statements you are presenting.
First, you claimed that the Catholic Church never gave the Body and Blood to the congregation. This is false. The Eastern Churches have ALWAYS given both. The Western Church started to give only the Body because the protestants claimed that Christ full body was only received if the person had both - but the Church has never taught this. If one receives the Body or Blood, we receive the WHOLE Christ, not a piece of Him (this is flawed thinking). To combat this misunderstanding started by Luther and other protestants, the Latin Church limited Communion to the Body in the 16th Century. Prior to this, they received BOTH and they received BOTH today (unless a bishop thinks he needs to limit it).
Another aspect is the Immaculate Conception. As an Eastern Catholic, we accept the teaching as valid, but your explanation is not understandable to Eastern people (as you can now see). The language that the IC was written in was scholastic Latin, we Easterners do not/have not ever read theology this way.
I am sorry if I did not explain the Immaculate Concpetion correctly. I do not really know much about Eastern Christians.
Sam
You tripped over yourself in the quote above. First off, "because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life." That my friend completly takes away her free will, the same free will that we were created in God's image in (at least one of the aspects in which we were made in His image.) If as you say St. Mary the Holy and Ever-Virgin Theotokos was indeed, as you say, saved from the stains of original sin, than she would still have the uncorrupted nature that Adam and Eve possesed prior to their eating of the Forbidden Fruit. That uncorrupted nature however still has free will as is evident in the actions of Adam and Eve. To say that "because God Preserved her from original sin, she did not sin through out her life," isn't right. It was through the purity of her choices that she did not sin, through her own free will and her love of the Lord her Savior. Sin by definition is an act against God and as the Bible says, the price of sin is death, eternal death.
Next, in that same qoute you say "the Blood of christ did save Mary. She would not have been able to enter heaven before CHrists Ascension" First off, the Blood of Emmanuel, our Lord couldn't have saved St. Mary at the moment of her conception because it had not yet been shed on the cross. Besides, if as you say she was saved as an action of "anticipation" from original sin, just as your "falling in the pit" analogy explains, then she wouldn't have needed the Blood of the Lamb in the first place would she? Since as you say, she was already saved St. Mary, according to you, was never stained with original sin but needed a savior at the moment of her coneption to keep her from "falling into the pit" of original sin. However, how could she have known of that act of God and then call Him her savior. How could she call Him savior for something, according to you. that happened
at the moment of her conception? How could she have known about it? Furthermore if you look in the Gospel of Luke 1:29 you'll see that even St. Mary herself was puzzled when the Archangel Gabriel came to her saying as you wrote: However, in the very next verse, Luke 1:29 it says:
"29 But when she saw him,[d] she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was."
Pertaing to this in particular is one of your posts where you wrote You are right in saying that the Archangel Gabriel said Hail because St. Mary was higher than him. This is completly true and I'm glad that you recognize it when you said: "He is greeting her with the word Hail because She is greater than him." The Holy Theotokos is greater than all the prinipalities, authorities, thrones, angels, archangels, and even the Cherobiem and the Seraphiem. However, where you deter is when you liken the reason to why the word Hail is used to both the Lord and St. Mary to the idea that both didn't commit any sin. The Lord is given the word Hail because He IS God, the Savior, the Pantocrator, St. Mary is given the word Hail because she is chosen to be THE MOTHER OF GOD, THE EVER-VIRGIN HOLY THEOTOKOS. None but God alone is Holier than her.
Then you say that: You have to understand the concept of sin to understand why you are wrong in saying the above. (Anybody correct me if I'm wrong) but sin, as I said before, is by definition an act against God, and its natural consequence is eternal death. That is why only Christ could be the Messiah. One of the requirments of the Savior was that He be eternal because to atone for sin, whose natural consequence is eternal death, an eternal sacrafice was needed. This is why all the righteous people who died in the Old Testemant were sent to Hades (because they were still tainted with sin,), and the Lord had to descend to Hades and break its bronze gates to bring all the righteous who had suffered in His Name, up to Paradise. That being known, if St. Mary indeed was saved from original sin, she would have indeed ascended into Heaven, for she wasn't tainted with original sin (according to you) and she didn't commint any sin in her lifetime (which we agree on.)
One thing that I'd like to point out is when you wrote: In a sense, I can see how the Catholic Church can say how one sin can be worse than another. I.E. Killing someone in cold blood would be worse than stealing a candy bar if the metaphor is to hold. However, in another sense, sinse the price if sin is death, and any/all sins will lead to death all sins could be considered the same, just in the sense that its natural consequences are the same.
Another thing you said was: "Redeemed in a more exalted manner." HOW CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHAT IS GREATER THAN THE PASSION OF OUR LORD ON THE CROSS. The Lord Himself said "13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends."- John 15:13.
You also said that If you say the Immaculate Conception was truth before it was declared as Catholic dogma than how could it be optional for the people to believe? The truth is what should be believed not the dogma. The only catch is knowing the truth and seeing if the dogma is the truth.
However you then said meaning it is optional for a Catholic to believe. Right off the bat, if you intend to use the word co-redemptrix as meaning St. Mary is a co-redeemer than you are way off pal, even if you were to stick by the docterine of the Immaculate Conception, than St. Mary, who would have been pure and without sin, would have only been able to save herself, and nobody else. If on the other hand you use the word co-redemptrix as meaning St. Mary had a role in our salvation by giving birth to Christ, than personally, I see nothing wrong with it, but the term will confuse many and isn't really a fitting title to call the "the maidservant of the Lord" a title that shows St. Mary's obediance to the Lord (Luke 1:38.) Consider the source. The Bible is the Word of God. How can you compare the Word of God to the word of man. And if you believe that what your pope says is truth (conscerining spiritual issues; i.e. Papal Infallibility) than they're should be no difference between the Word of God through the Holy Bible and the Word of God by the Holy Spirit through your pope.
I probably wrote something wrong somewhere in here so don't be shy to correct me lest I grow prideful, lol.
That's it for me for now, please pray for my family. Thank You +
thanks for the response.
i did some more research on the immaculate conception because of what you said. I seemed to have explained it incorrectly and i apologize. let me give it another go.
Mary was concieved without Original sin. She did not sin during her life, but it was not impossible for her to sin. During her life she had just as much free will as any of us and was fully capable of sinning. Some refer to her as the 'new eve'. Eve was also created free of sin, yet freely chose to sin and thus brought death into the world. Mary was also created free of sin, but where Eve said no Mary said Yes, and brought life into the world.
to respond to some of your other points:
Little children are baptized, and this removes from them the stain of original sin. If they then Die they are saved. They did not know anything about Jesus. Niether did Mary at her conception.
you also had a problem with the fact that mary was redeemed in a more exalted manner. Mary is Above us correct? She harbored Christ in her womb. Of course God would exalt her redemption and save her in a different way than ordinary people, because of her special mission from God.
The Reason that the Immaculate Conception was optional was because No Anathema was given to those who did not believe. If the Church is the guardian of Truth, and this truth was undefined it was still Truth just optional to believe.
Co-redemptrix just refers to marys special Role in god's plan of salvation
It is impossible for one to be born without original sin because if this was so, there would have been no need for the christos.
Christ is the only one not born with original sin, because he was not born in the traditional way (i.e the St. Mary's virginity was sealed).
Saint Mary was born like any other human, and she was like any other human, who sinned, until the Lord chose her as his vessel, it is then that she was made pure, when she held the holies of holies in her womb, and not before.
Pray for me
And this verse proves that grace and truth came by Christ: John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
We call the Virgin Mary O Full of Grace because she was full of grace. She had the will and the ability to sin, she was born like any other person. Saint Ann (Saint Mary's mother) carried Saint Mary in her womb like any other mother in and of this world. What makes Saint Mary special is that even though she had the ability to sin she didn't. If she was concieved without sin then that means she was perfect, only the one, the only, the holy Christ can be perfect.
Adam and Eve were not born of women tho.. God created us, the humans, in incorruption.. we brought the corruption of sin upon ourselves by disobeying his commandment...
besides.. St. Mary herself said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...
if she was born without original sin, she wud have no need of a Savior...
besides, now that u bring up Adam and Eve, I thought Catholics thought the Old Testament, was just a story, maybe its symbolic or maybe its made up...
i go to a Catholic School and thats what they say..
Once again. Mary did not make herself born without original sin. We do not claim it magically happened. We Say that God Saved her from original sin making him her Savior
Immaculate Conception
Question from Dan on 10-29-2003:
Anthony,
Thanks for you time and effort. Its a blessing. I was wondering do the Eastern Catholics accept the teaching on the Immucalute Concepation? Thanks!
Answer by Anthony Dragani on 11-04-2003:
Dan,
Thank you for the kind words.
Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.
In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:
"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."
There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn't it?
I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first momemnt of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:
"In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition." (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)
So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.
God Bless, Anthony
This is not a difficult answer.
Mary was born with a special blessing because God knew she would bear His Son. It is important to remember this is a teaching which began with the Syriac Fathers and not in the West. We also believe the St. John the Baptist was born in a similar way - when he Lept in the Womb when Mary and Elizabeth met. John recognized his Lord and was born blessed to be his forerunner.
Free will does not equal sin. Eve and Adam were born with free will, both are fully human. Sin is a FLAW in humanity, not part of it. Human beings are ideally supposed to be without SIN.
As we wish to avoid another thread jumping around “miscellaneous” issues relating to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), I suggest that if people wish to focus on a specific issue e.g. the RCC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (IC), that they create a new thread for that purpose.
As such I have created a new thread on IC, and related issues such as St Mary’s sinlessness here: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3054
Any future discussion on this specific issue should be continued there, for the sake of organisation and convenience.
tu es Petrus,
I encourage you to continue discussing this issue at the afore-linked thread; it would be appreciated if you are able to argue your position without pasting whole essays from Catholic Apologetic websites. Such tactics are neither helpful nor useful for constructive dialogue. I recommend you only directly quote those sections most significant to your case, and for the rest just try and summarise the argument succinctly in your own words if possible. I have not been able to read through this entire thread, so I will simply tackle the points made in your last response concerning IC, and you can choose to reiterate any relevant earlier made arguments that I’ve missed.
ur name is (Tu es petrus)
1)firstly , Jesus did not say 'tu es petrus' ... he said 'Tu es SHafa' which is the first name of peter in aramaic ... the latin translation is inaccurate ... using shafa then using 'Sho'o' in aramaic makes A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN Peter the apostle and the rock of the church ... u r still young to study this point
2) I WAS COPTIC CATHOLIC and I left catholicism because of its corrupt doctrine ...
i- council of chalcedon was the reason for leaving your church. if u study it u will find a stupid dogma called tome of leo which embarrased your theologians in the last dialogue... cardinal walter Kasper said : if u use it against our dogma u will use a stick against us.
ii- papal infallibility is the most funny dogma I've ever seen , I remember that there was 2 popes in the third and fourth centuries accepted Arius Heresey , and I think we both deny it ! ... besides , I'll give u a simple question : Could u tell me who was your pope between 855-858 please ? let's laugh lol
iii- it is an honor for me to get rid of ur church because I cannot see a muslim taking eucharist with me in the same church ... in 1998 a big problem happened when a maronite catholic priest got a latin priest out of the church because he gave eucharist to a muslim woman .
we cannot forget pope John Paul II who blessed the Sunni Muslim (Yasser Arafat) in his marriage to Soha arafat the catholic woman looooooool