Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
At the risk of answering for Kosta, you should understand that the entire concept of “Original Sin” and thus, necessarily, the “Immaculate Conception” are not at all within the consensus Patrum and are and have been consistently rejected by the Christian East. As you of course know, even Aquinas himself rejected the Immaculate Conception. Blessed Augustine didn’t understand Greek and thus, rather than having the benefit of the writings of the earlier Fathers, it seems he drew on his Manichean youth for many of his notions, including Original Sin. It is quite correct to say that the Most Holy Theotokos was conceived without Original Sin. Neither were any of us. She was however fully human and thus born subject to the distortions wrought in human nature by the Sin of Adam. To say otherwise makes her something other than human (a “goddess” perhaps?)and that notion would have, I am sure you will agree, a rather profound effect on our Christology.
What Kosta has written is patristic. What you have advanced is not.
I don't know about Luther, but Calvin devoted A LOT of time and ink to infant baptism. And no one would confuse him with Rome.
32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.32. WHY SATAN SO VIOLENTLY ASSAILS PAEDOBAPTISM
Here's a more modern take on the debate...
All the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin held to infant baptism. Though these three great Protestants disagreed on many things, they all agreed on the Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. They also agreed that infant baptism is a biblical practice and the best expression of the Protestant gospel. In fact, infant baptism has been the practice of the historic Christian church since the Apostolic period. Of course the historic practice of the church does not settle the question. Historic practice, however, suggests a certain presumption in favor of infant baptism. Nevertheless, tradition alone is not sufficient reason for any practice in the church. Therefore Reformed Christians practice covenant baptism because we are commanded to do so in both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures...
So in looking to Scripture, we find children are part of the covenant and equal partakers in God's grace as determined by God from before the foundation of the world...
"... immediately he [the jailer] and all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:33) "... I [the apostle Paul] also baptized the household of Stephanas..." (I Corinthians 1:16) Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children..." (Acts 2:38-39)"... she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized..." (Acts 16:15)
The earliest explicit reference to infant baptism outside of Scripture is by Hippolytus, about 215 A.D. --
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."
Infant baptism was never really an issue of debate until the Anabaptists came along in 1525 and rejected infant baptism and insisted on rebaptizing each other as adults. To this error, Luther replied...
"Of the baptism of children we hold that children ought to be baptized. For they belong to the promised redemption made through Christ, and the Church should administer it to them. (Martin Luther, The Smalcald Articles, Article V: Of Baptism, 1537)
And Calvin concurred...
"If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559)
The call of the OPC has your name on it, Harleyd. Resistance is futile. 8~)
“”At the risk of answering for Kosta, you should understand that the entire concept of “Original Sin” and thus, necessarily, the “Immaculate Conception” are not at all within the consensus Patrum and are and have been consistently rejected by the Christian East. As you of course know, even Aquinas himself rejected the Immaculate Conception””
Dear friend, what was written in my post are words that come from from Saint Thomas Aquinas himself regarding Mary
Why do you think Mary is lesser then Eve? (Born without Original sin)Jesus(God) is perfect. How can He have come into the world from someone with the stain of sin?
Mary is the New Eve, she fulfills God,s perfect plan that was lost by Eve,s sin.
This does not make her a God . It personifies and fulfills God,s original plan for mankind.
Even Scripture says that GOD will not join Himself with anything defiled.
Some examples.....
Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not, nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin. For the holy spirit of discipline flees deceit and withdraws from senseless counsels; and when injustice occurs it is rebuked
Wis 1:4-5,
Lo, the hand of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.
Rather, it is your crimes that separate you from your God, It is your sins that make him hide his face so that he will not hear you.
For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt; Your lips speak falsehood, and your tongue utters deceit.
No one brings suit justly, no one pleads truthfully; They trust in emptiness and tell
lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth malice
Isa 59:1-4,
Dear friend, I admire the special position given to Mary by the Orthodox.
I find it strange why Orthodox do not seem to accept Mary as the New Eve.
Of course, but there are biblical figures of whose sinlessness were are specifically told. Zacharias and Anna are described "without blame" (Zacharias sins later). Their son John is described "filled with the Holy Spirit", and Mary is described "fill of grace". In the Old Testament Noah is described as "just and perfect". So, the notion that everyone has committed a personal sin of which we are not told is just not scriptural. Jesus tells us specifically that the centurion's faith was greater than any He had seen in Israel. That includes Mary
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one. The Centurion has asked for one after he had seen or at least heard of miracles. As to the literal "no one in Isreal", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation form God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary.
Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
You make Christ a dependent of Mary in the spiritual sense
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor. Certainly Mary is not the central point of the gospel, but neither is she a divine incubator without a role. I gave you specifically what you have robbed yourselves of, becasue of mariophobia.
The "woman" in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary
This is this flight of mariophobic fancy that is plain comical. That woman is described giving birth to Christ right in that chapter, in graphic and physiological terms. This is like you womb=water from John 3:5. Are we reading the scripture or are we writing our own?
she was not perfect
Adressed in the beginning of the post.
By different authors? Justification means acquital of fault, and salvation means defeat of death. Not quite the same but for the purposes of our discussion the distinction is not significant.
The Church will give him grace. Men will give him grace. I am surprised
Well, the Church will give grace because she is send by Christ. The Church is the transmission belt.
The strictest sense of this quote would be that "God sent God, as God, and now He sends the Apostles, as God".
Ah. Don't tell me another time your mariophobia has no deleterious effects. God did not send Christ as God. God sent Christ as Man. Christ as God could not be sent anywhere He is God now and forever and outside of time. Now, Christ, in this verse, plain text, sends the Church likewise, like men. I know it is shocking, but all I do is read what is written.
OK, good. My understanding is that the Church teaches that the scriptures are indeed inspired and inerrant.
I trust the collective knowledge of the Church, and I never assume that I am right and the Church is wrong. I simply present my perceptions in hope of finding convincing answers.
Yes, for lurkers, Kosta has been very open and clear about this in the past.
[Re: Rom. 9:6-8] "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." Clearly, not all were the "People of God" (meaning of "Israel"). That God is the God of the Jews. He makes that abundantly clear in the OT. Those who believe in Him become Israel, and are considered Jews. There are also idolatrous Jews (that includes Christian Jews), and naturally they are not the People of God.
Yes, on all counts.
Being "genetically" a Hebrew doesn't make you a Jew if you are an idolater. Those who believe in the (Jewish) God of Abraham are true Israel.
Yes again.
"That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." ---- Very cleverly worded. The children of promise, which +Paul uses extensively in Romans makes it sound as if anyone who belongs to Christ is, like Him, a descendant of Abraham.
Sure. That is what he meant, and I agree with him.
The only thing he left out (and Romans were no experts on Jewish history) is that nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that those who believe in the God of Abraham are, or become, Jews! For 1,300 years, those who converted to the faith of Abraham, became Jews.,/p>
I'm not following. Were Adam, Eve, Abel, etc., saved? They were not "Jews".
But [Paul] was too aware of the fact that pagan Greeks and Romans would never accept becoming Jews. And the Church had to survive; the Church was being strangled in Israel. That is a historical fact and even Christ warned the Apostles that they will be thrown out of the synagogues because of Him.
And what else did Christ teach concerning His own power? He taught that it was infinite and that His will would be done. Paul never fretted that Christianity would be finished but for some heroic gesture on his part. Look at the man's humility and faith. He put trust in God that I only dream about. :) Paul KNEW that God would take care of the "movement". He had to.
So, while Jesus never encouraged the Apostles to preach in gentile lands, and admits being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and appoints one Apostle for each tribe, and the Revelation speaks of 12 apostolic judges, it is clear that the number 12 refers to 12 tribes of Israel and not all the people of the world.
If this is what you really think that Jesus thought, then how do you or I get in? Did God literally change His mind based on what Paul did? If so, or even something close to that, then I would think that you and the Church should honor Paul at least as much as Mary.
Of course, someone will bring up Matthew 28 and the Great Commission. Can I be blunt without being excommunicated? It was written when the Church was out of Israel struggling to survive in pagan lands. What else could +Matthew have written to make it acceptable to the Gentiles? I believe that part was added for reasons that should be obvious. In other words, I doubt Christ ever said that.
If He never said it, then the Bible contains patent error. I know that in finality you will accept the Church's teachings on any given matter, but if that isn't available, how do you know which scriptures are true and which are not?
[continuing:] I doubt it because all the other Apostles go around baptizing in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity. In fact, there are hardly any trinitarian expressions in the NT, so Matthew 28 stands out like a sore thumb, out of context and out of place.
I don't know what the other Apostles said as they were baptizing, but I know there is scripture that reads to back up your thought. You are right that Matthew 28 stands out. So much, in fact, that it is precisely what we (Southern Baptists) practice. Proper baptism should be in the name of the Trinity. I happen to believe that the Trinity is covered adequately in the scriptures, and I understand that some disagree. I would disagree that the actions of men, any men, on any side, constitute evidence that any scriptures are false. In your faith I have learned what the road to hell is paved with. :) That should say NOTHING to us on the truth of the scriptures.
You must know in your heart that the truth of the scriptures is NOT a rebutable presumption. It is an irrebutable FACT.
In Mat 15:24, Jesus is quoted as saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Well, in Mat 10:5-6 he makes it abundantly clear that the house of Israel does not include the Gentiles: ...
OH, come-on. :) This was a specific mission that Jesus sent them on, knowing that they would return for further teaching and instructions. This was not Jesus being "anti-Gentile", He just had a specific mission He wanted accomplished, and so He sent out His Apostles to accomplish it.
So, according to this the fullness of the Deity lives in us too. Does that make us Gods?
No, of course not. "Fullness in Christ" is the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. That is to human capacity. No essence is transferred or shared.
It just so happens that this one is (along with Ephesians written soon afterwards) is one of those disputed Pauline books as regards to authorship. Unlike his earlier works, its character is doctrinally critical of Gnostics and their distaste for the body. Hence reference to bodies.
I'm not aware of any credible dispute as to the authorship of these books. Paul went where he went, and then he wrote to them according to their needs, and ours.
Collosians 1:15 actually says "He is the image (Gr. eikwn, eikon) of the invisible God" in an attempt to associate visible body with something godly (since the Gnostics considered the body as evil), for obvious reasons. But he falls short of calling Him God. We say that a priest an icon of Christ, but no one thinks that he is Christ!
I think "image" has survived as a good description here. An "image" is a visible perception. "God" is not normally visible, but in Christ He is. That's all he meant. Paul recognizes Christ as God over and over again in scriptures. I've given you some of many verses.
The Greek text says "being in the form [morfwn, morphon] of God, not "the very nature of God!" The word for nature/essence is ουσία (ousia). The word morphon comes from morphe which means form/shape.
"Nature" is a perfectly good translation (or use) of "morphe" (Strong's 3444). It also includes your interpretation, more prominently. Trying to show that Paul did not recognize Christ as God is a very uphill struggle, imho :). That's because, first one must assert that Paul was not a Christian, that he was not born again.
Well, in context everything points to an unequal "single essence." Christ also is quoted as saying to the disciples not to worry and not to trouble their hearts, for they should be happy He is going to the Father. But, then, in the Gethsemane He is troubled and afraid.
Do you think that is contradictory? I don't. The disciples HAD no worries, comparatively, but when Jesus went to Gethsemane, we saw His human nature.
Shame, shame, shame. :)
“Dear friend, what was written in my post are words that come from from Saint Thomas Aquinas himself regarding Mary”
Back to the books, +SF! What Aquinas spoke of was The Most Holy Theotokos’ sinlessness, which is in accord with the consensus patrum. He rejected the notion that she was born free from “Original Sin”. A number of great Latin Rite saints similarly rejected the notion, for example +Bernard of Clairvaux. As I said earlier, the whole notion of the Immaculate Conception is necessitated by the non-Patristic Augustinian anthropology of the West. Panagia was born fully human and subject to the same “distortion” of her nature as all humans. By her response to uncreated grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, she was able to resist sin throughout her life. Whether this indwelling of the HS happened in the womb or after we don’t know, though it is interesting to note that we celebrate as feast days only three Nativities and Conceptions, that of Christ, of course, and those of Panagia and +John the Forerunner (whom we also speculate was graced while still in the womb).
If one rejects Augustian notions about sin, there is quite simply no need for a dogma like the Immaculate Conception.
“Why do you think Mary is lesser then Eve?”
and
“I find it strange why Orthodox do not seem to accept Mary as the New Eve.”
Good heavens, +SF, the whole concept of Panagia as the New Eve comes from the Greek Fathers. It is a thoroughly Orthodox concept. To tell you the truth, to us Orthodox, Latin Rite Marian devotion seems at many levels pretty thin gruel and at others almost cultish. How do the Orthodox speak of the Most Holy Theotokos? At every Divine Liturgy, just after the consecration, we pray:
“It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.”
I don’t see anything like that in the Latin Rite Liturgy, +SF. Try a read of the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos; its a regular Lenten Devotion done multiple times in Great lent and the Lent of the Dormition in August. Here are a couple of the Eikoi and a link:
” Rejoice, you through whom joy shall shine forth. Rejoice, you through whom the curse will vanish.
Rejoice, the Restoration of fallen Adam. Rejoice, the Redemption of the tears of Eve.
Rejoice, O Height beyond human logic. Rejoice, O depth invisible even to the eyes of Angels.
Rejoice, for you are the King’s throne. Rejoice, you bear Him, Who bears the universe.
Rejoice, O Star revealing the Sun. Rejoice, O Womb of divine Incarnation.
Rejoice, you through whom creation is renewed. Rejoice, you through whom the Creator is born a Babe.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride.”
and
“Rejoice, Ray of the spiritual Sun. Rejoice, Beam of the innermost Splendour.
Rejoice, Lightning, enlightening our souls. Rejoice, Thunder, striking down the enemy.
Rejoice, for you caused the many-starred Light to dawn. Rejoice, for you caused the ever-flowing River to gush forth.
Rejoice, you who depict the image of the Font. Rejoice, you who wash away the stain of sin.
Rejoice, Laver purifying conscience. Rejoice, Wine-bowl over-filled with joy.
Rejoice, sweet-scented Fragrance of Christ. Rejoice, Life of mystic festival.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride”
http://www.monachos.net/library/Akathist_Hymn_to_Our_Most_Holy_Lady_Mother_of_God_(Theotokos)
After you read the Akathist, make a comparison with the foolishness of visions of Panagia in cheese sandwiches or baking pans or the mass hysteria caused by visions of her in damp stains on bridge abuttments and tell me what you think. Do you still think we place her lower than Eve?
“No essence is transferred or shared.”
AH! You are paying attention! :)
“The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense....”
Indeed!
“Rejoice, O seer of the ineffable Will. Rejoice, O surety of those praying in silence.
Rejoice, you the Preface of Christ’s miracles. Rejoice, you the Pinnacle of His commandments.
Rejoice, O heavenly Ladder, by which God descended. Rejoice, O Bridge leading those from earth to Heaven.
Rejoice, O Miracle, much marveled of Angels. Rejoice, O trauma, much dirged of demons.
Rejoice, you who ineffably gave birth to the Light. Rejoice, you who revealed the mystery to none.
Rejoice, O knowledge superseding the wise. Rejoice, You who enlighten the minds of the faithful.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride”
From these two passages we gather St. Thomas’s teaching as to Mary’s prerogatives. 1. She possessed an almost infinite dignity from her closeness to God, in this surpassing the angels. 2. She ought, that is, she had the right, to receive the fullness of Divine grace beyond all other creatures. Since then it is the work of grace to purify the soul by imparting to it the Divine beauty, it follows necessarily that grace wrought absolute sinlessness in her soul, and created boundless holiness. In this dual capacity of closest union with God, and being the appointed instrument of Christ’s humanity, she surpassed the angels, who never knew sin: she had a kind of infinitude in merit which none of them ever could have. How then can such teaching of St. Thomas be reconciled with the idea that Mary had ever been sullied for an instant with original sin? Let the theory be once admitted that Mary had been so defiled, then his two principles given above fall to the ground; admit his principles, and the Immaculate Conception is the logical result. The holy Doctor was well aware of the grace bestowed on those pre-eminent saints, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, yet he does not hesitate to place Mary incomparably beyond them, and attributes their sanctification to her as well as to her son. She must then, logically speaking, have received a greater grace than cleansing after conception.
In his exposition of the “Hail Mary” he distinctly declares the doctrine. “Thirdly, she exceeds even the angels in purity: because the Blessed Virgin was not only pure in herself, but even procured purity for others. She was most clean from fault, because she incurred neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin.”
In his “Commentary on the Epistle to Galatians,” III, lect. VI, the original text runs thus: “Of all women I have found none who was altogether exempt from sin, at least from original sin, or venial, except the most pure, and most worthy of all praise, the Virgin Mary”.
Again in his “Commentary on the Epistle to Romans”: “All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin”.
Please accept my apology to alluding that you might think Mary is lesser than Eve(I should have worded that better!) and thanks for the devotion.
BTW,The link you provided did not work.
It makes perfect sense to me that Mary would have original removed upon conception because she was to be the Mother of God and God being perfect could not join Himself and enter the world with anything less.
Please feel free to provide me with any other info regarding this.
I wish you a Blessed day
Christ is Risen!
“How then can such teaching of St. Thomas be reconciled with the idea that Mary had ever been sullied for an instant with original sin?”
Because, if we are to accept the consensus patrum, from which the Latin Church on occassion has indeed fallen away, there is no such thing as “original sin”. The Panagia of the Immaculate Conception does not respond to God’s uncreated grace in a perfect way; she simply “is” perfect, unlike all the rest of us; she is of an entirely different order of Creation who doesn’t respond to grace at all with no free will, who didn’t need a Savior; not really a human being at all and that, +SF, does violence to the Christology of The Church.
Let me ask you this, +SF. If Panagia was, from the very moment of her Conception, freed from the distortions of the sin of Adam (or, if you will, Original Sin), why did she sorrow, why did she die in the flesh? Or do you believe she never died in the flesh and will never die in the flesh? If you believe she never died in the flesh, was the Mother of our God not human? If she was not human, should she be worshipped instead of simply venerated; was she a goddess or a demi-goddess of some sort?
+SF, the simple point is that the Roman Church has dogmatized the Immaculate Conception because it had to so long as it sticks with the non-Patristic notion of Original Sin. Take away that idea, and there is simply no need for the dogma and absolutely no lessening of devotion to the Mother of God except perhaps for the hysteria caused by certain stains and half eaten cheese sandwiches.
“BTW,The link you provided did not work.”
I noticed that. I think the subscripts were wiped out by the line under the link. Go to the site and type Akathist into the little search box on the right.
Adam and Eve were born without original sin and they had free will.
Mary had a choice to accept being the Mother of God.She used her free will to accept.
Love can NOT force itself,it has to be accepted.
Of course Mary was fully human,she was also fully obedient therefore fully sinlesss-the “NEW EVE”
Dear friend,
I see no point in arguing this.
“I see no point in arguing this.”
That’s a shame, because its a very important, fundamental difference in the theologies of The Church as between the East (including most Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome) and the West, the implications of which are enormous.
Yes, I think that is very true. Of course, our "official" line is that all scripture is equally God-inspired and correct, etc., but I think many of us (including me) believe that Paul gave us among the most profound teachings (outside of Christ's mouth).
At this point, well into this long discussion among all of you about +Paul, I'm still in the same place; I just don't "like" the man. I'd rather read +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome any day.
I think I understand. At times in my apologetics here, St. James has turned up to be a royal pain in the butt too! :) I just try to go back to the basics and realize that all scripture is God-breathed, and if I'm not comfortable with the wording of some of it, TOO BAD! :) All I can do is pray to God for revelation. I know He will teach me what He wants me to know, when He wants me to know it.
The other [than Paul] authors of the NT are a different story. +John is my head and shoulders favorite from the opening words of his gospel...
Me too! :)
I don't know what +Paul was up to with his letters, unless its just what Kosta has opined and +John Chrysostomos tells me he meant. Personally, I am surprised that anyone listened to him, but then God surprises me all the time. At base, for someone like me, FK, The Church provides me with a context within which to accept and absorb what +Paul has to say, otherwise, I'd likely have stopped reading him decades ago.
This is a surprise to me. When you say "I don't know what +Paul was up to with his letters", I think "but Paul wrote most of the NT and God's revelation through him is one of the central bases of the Christian faith". :) I think along with Kosta's teachings, that I see a new perspective that I was unaware of before.
At base, for someone like me, FK, The Church provides me with a context within which to accept and absorb what +Paul has to say, otherwise, I'd likely have stopped reading him decades ago.
And this is the cause for my surprise. I'm talking about the instinct. The vibe I'm getting is that you will accept what Paul says, through the lens, because the Church says that is a good thing to do. It does not appear that you would accept Paul because you read his teachings independently, and then say "yes, that is Christ". If I am even close, that is completely alien to me. :)
All I can do is pray for these divisions to cease.
The Immaculate Conception is already a dogma. I accept that it comes from the Holy Spirit.
I,m not going to let these non Salvation issue,s divide us as a Brother in Christ with my Orthodox Brothers and Sisters. As I have said to you before..."we are united most importantly in the Eucharist".
All I can do is try and explain why I believe Mary was Fully sinless and why it makes sense to me.
personally i find the orthodox interpretation holds a lot more water, especially in not needing to create the immaculate conception to explain away the Scripural wording.
Christ is Risen!
“At times in my apologetics here, St. James has turned up to be a royal pain in the butt too! :) I just try to go back to the basics and realize that all scripture is God-breathed, and if I’m not comfortable with the wording of some of it, TOO BAD! :) All I can do is pray to God for revelation. I know He will teach me what He wants me to know, when He wants me to know it.”
I’m very much in the same place and thank God for The Church and the Fathers who tell me “TOO BAD! READ IT!” :)
” The other [than Paul] authors of the NT are a different story. +John is my head and shoulders favorite from the opening words of his gospel...
Me too! :)”
Here’s an interesting piece of history for you. In the days before the Great Schism, and long before you guys showed up, The Church forbade catechumens from reading +John because his theology was deemed too complex. Catechesis then revolved around the other three Evangelists, the Epistles and the Fathers. I tend to agree with those old timers.
“And this is the cause for my surprise. I’m talking about the instinct. The vibe I’m getting is that you will accept what Paul says, through the lens, because the Church says that is a good thing to do. It does not appear that you would accept Paul because you read his teachings independently, and then say “yes, that is Christ”. If I am even close, that is completely alien to me. :)”
I must say that my comments are just that, mine. As I said, I don’t like +Paul and never did. I don’t like to take medicine either, but the doctor tells me to take it and I have confidence he knows what he’s talking about. The Church tells me that +Paul’s writings are important for my theosis. I believe The Church. The Church preserves the works of +John Chrysostomos and has handed them on to people like me so we can accept and understand what +Paul has written.
I am put in mind of +John Chrysostomos’ Homily XX on Ephesians 22-24. This sermon, above all others by that great patriarch and saint, save for his Paschal Sermon, has had the greatest effect on my life. So much ink has been spilled over those verses and so much oppression justified by them and yet +John Chrysostomos shows us +Paul’s true meaning. Everytime I read it, it brings tears to my eyes because it shows us so forcfully the divine Love and providence and instruction of God contained in those verses and, frankly, because it has been the guide of our married life of now nearly 30 years. Here’s a short snip with advice to husbands and then a link to the sermon itself which you will find profoundly scriptural:
“And again, never call her simply by her name, but with terms of endearment, with honor, with much love. Honor her, and she will not need honor from others; she will not want the glory that comes from others, if she enjoys that which comes from thee. Prefer her before all, on every account, both for her beauty and her discernment, and praise her. Thou wilt thus persuade her to give heed to none that are without, but to scorn all the world except thyself. Teach her the fear of God, and all good things will flow from this as from a fountain, and the house will be full of ten thousand blessings.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.xxi.html
Once you’ve read the sermon you might understand why I feel the way I do about my “lens”.
Ofcourse they do.
Christ is the foundation of the church, not Peter (1Cor.3).
Peter is not first at the Council of Jerusalem.
Peter gets rebuked by Paul in Gal.2.
Peter describes Christ as the 'chief cornerstone', not himself.
Peter, having confessed Christ as the Son of God, is called 'Peter' by Christ because Peter is now part of the Rock (Christ), as Peter describes all Christians being, 'lively stones' (1Pe.2:5)
The name 'Petros' means 'little rock', the church would be built on Petra-THE ROCK
I do agree that the Papacy can be found in that chapter, in vs.23.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.