Replies

“Nothing in this doctrine even remotely implies Mary was a goddess.”

The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human. Whether she is a goddess (or the “Co-Redemptrix”) or not really is neither here nor there though many Latins seem headed in that direction.. If she wasn’t human, then Christ is no True Man.

“As you know, in 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Anthenagoras mutually lifted the anathemas, so neither consideres the other to be hereitcal nor schismatic, and both recognize the true sacraments of the other, with Christ at the center.”

That’s simply untrue. The anathemas which were lifted related to the anathemas of 1054, not to anything else. That event certainly did not end the schism. And we are not having a discussion of sacraments here.

“So, throwing accusations of heresy at Roman Catholic doctine seems to be at ends with the spirit of your Patiarchs.”

There is not a single Orthodox Patriarch who would disagree with what have written.

“These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431.”

They were? Pelagius was condemned but my quick look doesn’t indicate any adoption of the Augustinian notion of original sin. As for some of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 418, they were adopted by the Council of Trullo solely as disciplinary canons, not canons establishing The Faith. So far as I know, even Rome doesn’t accept all of them as viable today (for example, #9). As matters of discipline they accepted as binding on all The Church. They are NOT dogmatic matters of faith. They weren’t back then, even in the West, and they aren’t now. You should try to get a handle on some of these distinctions, bdeaner. They are important.

Tell us, why should we venerate someone whose sinlessness was a foregone conclusion? Why should her fiat be in any way at all spiritually inspiring?

The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human.

Another straw man argument. The Roman Catholic Church holds absolutely and without doubt that Mary was and is human, not divine.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception simply does not have the implications that you want it to have. If being without sin implied divinity, then by implication Adam and Eve would have been gods, not human beings. Clearly, Adam and Eve were human AND without sin, prior to the Fall. If they can be without sin and remain human, so can Mary. It's not brain surgery -- a pretty simple deduction.

Tell us, why should we venerate someone whose sinlessness was a foregone conclusion?

Based on your logic, we should not worship Christ because he had it easy, being without sin. I completely reject the premise of your argument. Mary suffered as a result of her obedience -- she had to watch her Son humiliated and die an agonizing death -- a choice she freely accepted by consenting to the Lord's request to bear His Son.

As for some of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 418, they were adopted by the Council of Trullo solely as disciplinary canons, not canons establishing The Faith. So far as I know, even Rome doesn’t accept all of them as viable today (for example, #9). As matters of discipline they accepted as binding on all The Church. They are NOT dogmatic matters of faith.

The issue is not whether they were dogmatic matters of faith, but the fact that no one of the Eastern Church condemned these doctrines at the time. Silence implies approval.

The anathemas which were lifted related to the anathemas of 1054, not to anything else. That event certainly did not end the schism. And we are not having a discussion of sacraments here.

You are splitting hairs. The point is that we should approach ecumenical dialogue in the same spirit as your Patriarchs this century, which has been generous, and for that many Roman Catholics are greatful and hopeful of resolving the schism that damages the Church and contradicts the wishes of Our Lord, who envisioned for us to be truly ONE holy catholic and apostolic Church. That is not a reason to abstain from the defense the Truth, of course, but there is a way to go about it with a spirit of generosity and a search for common ground rather than exaggerating doctrinal differences with straw man arguments and similar fallacious reasoning.

God bless.

bdeander: “Nothing in this doctrine even remotely implies Mary was a goddess.”

Kolo: "The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human."

With the hypothesis of God's intervention in Mary's conception by her parents (the IC), she was created as a pre-fall human exactly like Adam and Eve. However, unlike Adam and Eve, Mary never sinned. So, then, why did she die, as the Church always believed? In fact, the Eastern Church celebrates the Dormition of the Theotokos from the earliest days of the Church. It couldn't be much clearer that the east always believed that she died and as far as I know the West never contested that.

And if she didn't die, then she is immortal, and therefore divine, whether by nature or by grace, which would make her a goddess of sorts. So, why is the Catholic Church silent on this issue?

But if she did die, it was not because she sinned, but because of her fallen (mortal) human nature that is in all of us as a result of the ancestral sin. That pretty conclusively throws out the IC hypothesis.