Why Catholicism

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1178742' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:00 PM']
Just because pas is the nominative form doesn't mean I was wrong for saying "panta" (one of the plural forms). What should matter is the form used in Scripture, really, which is "pantes": "pantes gar hemarton kai husterountai tes doxes tou theou."

Now, as your dictionary entry says, "pas" means "all" or "the whole." Notice that it does not mean "each." There is a difference because "all," "the whole," or even "any" do not mean the same as "each." As I said, it's a general statement about humanity, not a statement about each person.

[color="red"]It also means every (-one).

Dashes mean they include.

So it does say everyone. Don't just take the one part of the definition you can explain, take the entire definition. It says everyone, meaning Mary.[/color]

Yes. That's what we call original sin.

Mary was preserved from it because of the merits of Christ's sacrifice, which were applied to her in anticipation.

Please read my posts in this thread.
[/quote]
As it did for Abraham as well.

That doesn't mean that Abraham didn't sin, because when you say your wife is your sister because you fear for your life, you have lied. And before you say but Abraham's wife was his sister, he said a half-truth, which I consider the worst kind of lie.

But YHWH did not judge Abraham, because Abraham's faith made him righteous.

The Bible says that Abraham believed what YHWH told him, and YHWH counted that unto himself as righteousness.

So Mary's faith did make her righteous. That doesn't mean she was sinless, it means she was righteous, which means to be right in the eyes of the lord.

It's what we call living under the blood. I know it is not a phrase in the Bible, but neither is Trinity, but let me explain.

After you repent, are baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost, than you are 'under the blood of Christ'. God sees you as righteous because you believed his testimony and accepted the sacrifice of Yeshua.

So you are saying what I am saying, in a way. YHWH choose to withhold his eyes from Mary's sin. Mary was saved from sin, as you and I are saved from sin. Through dedication to YHWH and faith in Yeshua's sacrifice. That doesn't mean we are sinless. . .

We still battle with the flesh daily.

Edited January 28, 2007 by FullTruth

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178758' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:22 PM']
As it did for Abraham as well.

That doesn't mean that Abraham didn't sin, because when you say your wife is your sister because you fear for your life, means you just lied. And before you say but Abraham's wife was his sister, he said a half-truth, which I consider the worst kind of lie.

But YHWH did not judge Abraham, because Abraham's faith made him righteous.

So did Mary's faith made her righteous. That doesn't mean she was sinless, it means she was righteous, which means to be right in the eyes of the lord.

It's what we call living under the blood. I know it is not in the Bible, but let me explain.

After you repent, are baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost, than you are 'under the blood of Christ'. God sees you as righteous because you believed his testimony and accepted the sacrifice of Yeshua. That doesn't mean we are sinless. . .

We still battle with the flesh daily.
[/quote]

Abraham did sin. No one has ever claimed that he didn't, nor did Scripture say that he didn't, nor did Scripture compare him to pure gold or to the Ark of the Covenant. Abraham has nothing to do with this argument. You are only finding other righteous people and trying to show that they were sinful, but that does not mean that all righteous people were sinful.

As for being under the blood, we are not only under, but filled with it, so that we may be purified completely (although this does not happen all at once, nor, for most, does it happen completely in this lifetime).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178758' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:22 PM']

After you repent, are baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost, than you are 'under the blood of Christ'. God sees you as righteous because you believed his testimony and accepted the sacrifice of Yeshua.

So you are saying what I am saying, in a way. YHWH choose to withhold his eyes from Mary's sin. Mary was saved from sin, as you and I are saved from sin. Through dedication to YHWH and faith in Yeshua's sacrifice. That doesn't mean we are sinless. . .

We still battle with the flesh daily.
[/quote]

We are washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb when we are baptised, but that has no effect on any subsequent sin. God does not withhold His eyes, since all things are transparent to God.

Mary was filled with grace. Sin does not exist in the same container as grace. Mary was sinless, which means she was born without te taint of original sin, in the same state as Adam and Eve before the fall.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"][b]1. Lack of a central authority. There is no Orthodox Church. I would have had to become Russian Orthodox, or Greek, or Ukrainian, or Coptic (or . . . etc.), all ethnic distinctions. (There is no Irish Orthodox Church. )[/b][/color]

This has to do with the original Sees or original rites. As you might know, originally there were 4 Sees or Rites and since then we've been mingled and mixed but there is an American Orthodox Church now too. It has nothing to do with putting race above religion, as it does that the Coptic Church was once in charge of ministering to the south, while Rome was in charge of ministering to the west, Syriac Orthodox from Lebanon as far East as Japan, and Eastern Orthodox the Northern Regions.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Orthodox Churches (plural) are identified with the country in which they developed and suffer from caesaropapism, which puts State above Church (similar to early Anglicanism and Lutheranism).[/b][/color] I wouldn't go as far as saying that it puts state government over the church, for example in Egypt, we're told to obey our religious morals before the state governments, which explains the great martyrdom.

[color="#FF0000"][b]3. Ability to cope with issues that develop over the centuries is hampered by the Orthodox inability to hold councils[/b][/color] It's important to state that we're not unable to hold councils, we just don't hold councils like those initial councils because the church as a whole [Roman, Oriental, Eastern] are not united, therefore it is a meeting between our own church or other churches in order to obtain unity, not "new" doctrine.

[color="#FF0000"][b]This has caused disparity even in the contents of the Bibles used among them[/b][/color] This has some truth but some not. The Etheopian Orthodox does have their own compilation of the Bible [they still use the book of Enoch, etc] but in regards to the official cannonization of the Bible, it's the same as the Roman Catholic. Coptics [for example] use the same books as the Roman Church does [in regards to the Bible], as a matter of fact, I use the "New Jerusalem" Bible that is a Roman Transation and it's recongized by our church.

[color="#FF0000"][b]4. No one can speak for the whole of Orthodoxy. Therefore, Orthodoxy is silent on the critical issues of the age and is irrelevant in world affairs. [/b] [/color] This is kinda a senseless post with not much historical significance to support it. Each Rite has their own patriarch, therefore each [north, east, west, south] has their own patriarch that speaks for his own. Just as Pope John Paul II spoke for the entire Roman Church [Western See], His Holiness Pope Shenounda III Speaks for the entire Coptic Church [Southern See]. Therefore the thought that Orthodoxy is a whole See and that the Catholicism is a whole See is not very enlightened in regards to History.

[color="#FF0000"][b]No one in Orthodoxy could have ended Communism as John Paul II the Great did[/b][/color] This is a senseless and frivilous claim that I'm not going to respond to because it's a waste of time and would require a great amount of time to explain the history and how Orthodoxy overcame Communism in Russia, while the Roman Church endorsed the German State, even while Hitler was in power [to which Pope John Paul II appologized on behalf of the church later for and I personally forgive them].

[color="#FF0000"][b]Where is the strong Orthodox voice in the public square on the issues of the day like abortion, stem cell research, and homosexual marriage, for example?[/b][/color] You obviously havn't heard the Bishops speak on these issues have you? The Orthodox Bishops speak very frequently about these issues, its just not reported in the West because the Roman Church is the primary focus. A few years ago a prominent Muslim leader that oppressed Christians died in Egypt and the local press there asked His Holiness Pope Shenounda III, "So where is he, heaven or hell?" and His Holiness answered, "He's with Muhammed". Is that not taking a stand? Countless Orthodox Bishops also spoke out against Isreal killing a Palestinian Family of 7 on the beaches of Gaza, unprevoked. Was that not taking a stand on human rights? We've taken countless stands, its just not reported in the West, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Orthodox Churches permit three remarriages following divorce. This is in opposition to Jesus' teaching and the Catholic position that a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved, and that remarriage in such cases is adultery.[/b][/color] This isn't true. The Orthodox positioin is that if a woman [for example] is cheated on by her husband [etc], then a divorce is permitted [based upon St. Paul's writings in the Scriptures that permit a divorce] but her husband [spouse] isn't permitted to remarry because of him being unfaithful, while she is able to remarry, however if he is repentant and she choses to stay with them, may God bless their marriage all that much more.

[color="#FF0000"][b]The Orthodox now sanction contraception (flip-flop), which is contrary to Natural Law and the purpose of marriage.[/b][/color] It's not a flip-flop, the church has NEVER taken an official position on contraceptives, it's always been a personal conviction. It's kinda funny that you brought up contraceptives, Nature Law, and abortion because the Romman Church [if I'm not mistaken] allows women, who's life is at risk, to get an abortion rather then let nature take it's course. Due to this, you don't have a right to lecture on "natural law" because not everyone is always in the position to adhere to natural law and no one is in the position to judge someone that doesn't adhere to natural law 100% of the time.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Orthodoxy has an appeal for those who love the beauty of liturgy but are opposed to the Catholic Church[/b][/color] It's not about the beauty of the liturgy at all, infact that has nothing to do with anything. Most converts convert, not because of the liturgy but because of what the church represented. We're also a Catholic Church, just not Roman. Check our official titled if you dont believe me, "Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church".

[color="#FF0000"][b]For those, I recommend that they study the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who went from Catholic to Orthodox during the Great Schism, and then came home to Rome[/b][/color] They were never considered to be "Orthodox" by us in any way shape or form.
[color="#FF0000"]
[b]The Catholic view on original sin is the one attributed to the Eastern Orthodox above. We do not believe that if Adam and Eve had premarital sex (although, that's a poor example, since they were married since Eve's creation), that we are guilty of it, too.[/b][/color] Oh my bad, thank you for the correction my friend.

[color="#FF0000"][b]YHWH is the author and so is St. Paul. YHWH inspires, St. Paul puts into words...that means that the Scriptures come from God, but also that they come from St. Paul. This is not contrary to Scripture.[/b][/color] True dat

[color="#FF0000"][b]Reza, If I understand correctly you are Coptic, you know there are things we both believe that are not explicitly stated in the bible. The word "consubstantial," to describe the relationship between the Father and Son in the council of Nicea, is foriegn to the bible, as is the word "Trinity." [/b] [/color] You're completely right about this, the terms are not supported in the Bible but the ideas are often supported in the Bible [trinity, developed by Tertullian] and definately are not contradictory to the Bible.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Greeks have personally defined that there is a difference between God's Essence and Energies, though this is not explicit in the bible nor in patristic writing.[/b][/color] This is true kinda, the different between God's two divine natures discussion was based upon Greek Pagans that were demanding questions. Due to the heavy Greek influence in the culture, it was defined but it did adhere to truths in the Bible. Jesus had a human and divine nature, those are supported by the Bible.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception may be foriegn to some Easterners but you have to remember the West has had more councils, our theology is more developed[/b][/color] I dont have a problem with "more developed", what I have a problem with is a theology that seems to have appeared out of nowhere and isn't supported with scriptures. Jesus having two natures [divine nature, and human nature that are perfect] never seperated but not mingling either didn't just come out of nowhere, people sat around and discussed it and it has roots in the scriptures. The theory that St. Mary was sinless, the Bible doesn't even appear to have hinted at, in regards to the idea.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Now to say that this doctrine came out of no where is false. What do you make of these Eastern witnesses?[/b][/color] It's a fairly new doctrine because it came after the Schism and only the Roman's adhere to it. Let me go through your quotes thou, just to explain some things.

[color="#FF0000"][b]St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350):[/b][/color] I'm going to do more research on, but if he was syriac orthodox and the syriac orthodox adhered to his words, then they are currently wrong. Let me do more research on this please.

[color="#FF0000"][b]St. John Damascene (645-750):
"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens...This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice....She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God." (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)[/b][/color] I think that St. Mary can be a "holy fetus" and not be sinless. She was nodoubt holy because she bore the Lord our Savior. "She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God", I dont see that as contradictory to her not being sinless. She was a great woman, to be exaulted and as the mother of God [Theotokos] she is near to him.

I'm not going to go through the rest because again, they don't hint at the idea that she was sinless, but that doesn't deminish her as the Theotokos.

[color="#FF0000"][b]The concept is there. It's obvious these saintly men did not think of Mary as an ordinary sinner but something much greater! [/b] [/color] I definately agree that she wasn't an "ordinary sinner", there's no dispute there but that doesn't mean that she didn't have sin, just that she was a holy woman that bore God.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Look at St John Damascene describe her as the second heaven! A heaven GREATER than the first! She is ABOVE the Cherubim and Seraphim! Is this referring to an ordinary sinner? Of course not.[/b][/color] What she did has never been seen in history, I'd definately agree to that but it was the giving birth to our Lord, not her being sinless. She preserved her virginity and "let it be so" but that doesn't make her sinless. Such Glorifying statements have been said of other Saints too. Read the life of St. Mina [3rd century Saint], St. Mohreal [3rd Century Saint] and countless others that were given promises of churches being built in their names, those that interceed through them that their prayers would be answered, etc. because of their Holiness and sacrificing themselves for Jesus Christ in Martyrdom.

[color="#FF0000"][b]But since our Lady revealed herself to be the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes, and the Holy Pontiff's solemn declaration of the dogma, we are bound to believe in it. All who accept this belief and honor the Holy Mother this way will reap many benefits[/b][/color] As I mentioned in a previous statement, I'm not convinced by alot of Roman claimed "Miracles" because I'd witnessed alot of faultiness in them also, just as I dont expect you to believe in the miracles and apparitions in the Coptic Church.

Sorry if this isn't as detailed as my others, I'm having a really crappy day today [sick and what not], my newborn daughter's sick, etc. please pray for me.

Reza

[cmotherofpirl]

Hijack here

Prayers for you and your baby girl.
Children are a precious gift of God.

Post it on the prayer board please, so more people can get on their knees.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

So, I just realized that I had never addressed the first post of this thread.

Why Catholicism over Orthodoxy?

Primarily, because Jesus established St. Peter as the head of the Apostolic Church. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have apostolic succession, but if you want the fullness of the body, you've got to have the head.

Secondarily, because of a number of side issues, namely that we are against contraception, which is a grave attack on life and on Trinitarian theology; that we are against divorce, which Our Lord condemns; and that we believe in some dogmas and doctrines the Orthodox do not believe in, which are supported in Scripture and Tradition.

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178811' date='Jan 28 2007, 06:57 PM']
[color="#FF0000"][b]Reza, If I understand correctly you are Coptic, you know there are things we both believe that are not explicitly stated in the bible. The word "consubstantial," to describe the relationship between the Father and Son in the council of Nicea, is foriegn to the bible, as is the word "Trinity." [/b] [/color] You're completely right about this, the terms are not supported in the Bible but the ideas are often supported in the Bible [trinity, developed by Tertullian] and definately are not contradictory to the Bible.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Greeks have personally defined that there is a difference between God's Essence and Energies, though this is not explicit in the bible nor in patristic writing.[/b][/color] This is true kinda, the different between God's two divine natures discussion was based upon Greek Pagans that were demanding questions. Due to the heavy Greek influence in the culture, it was defined but it did adhere to truths in the Bible. Jesus had a human and divine nature, those are supported by the Bible.
[/quote]

The whole point is, there is no reason to reject a doctrine simply because it's not explicitly stated in Scripture.

[quote][color="#FF0000"][b]Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception may be foriegn to some Easterners but you have to remember the West has had more councils, our theology is more developed[/b][/color] I dont have a problem with "more developed", what I have a problem with is a theology that seems to have appeared out of nowhere and isn't supported with scriptures. Jesus having two natures [divine nature, and human nature that are perfect] never seperated but not mingling either didn't just come out of nowhere, people sat around and discussed it and it has roots in the scriptures. The theory that St. Mary was sinless, the Bible doesn't even appear to have hinted at, in regards to the idea.[/quote]

It has been hinted through the various Marian types and writings of the early Christians. Have you looked into the sites I mentioned? It's not something that came out of thin air, it was a very developed process.

[quote][color="#FF0000"][b]St. John Damascene (645-750):
"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens...This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice....She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God." (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)[/b][/color] I think that St. Mary can be a "holy fetus" and not be sinless.[/quote]

Can she? To be holy and sinful is mutually exclusive. Now the striking thing about the passage is that St John Damascene speaks so highly of Mary as a fetus. Imagine that, how can a fetus be holy? Even before baptism, even before she bore Jesus, even before He died on the Cross... She was Holy! How is that possible? A fetus conceived immactulately can be holy.

More so, note how the Saint speaks of Mary as the Second Heaven GREATER than the first! What mystery is locked in those words! Was there any blemish in heaven? Not until the serpant came. And guess what St John Damascene says about the Second Heaven!!

[b]"The serpent never entered that Paradise."[/b]

[quote]She was nodoubt holy because she bore the Lord our Savior.[/quote]

Yes, but even before she could bear the Savior, she was holy... EVEN as a Fetus!

[quote]"She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God", I dont see that as contradictory to her not being sinless. She was a great woman, to be exaulted and as the mother of God [Theotokos] she is near to him.[/quote]

How can a sinner be above the highest choir of Angels? How can a sinner, blemished and imperfect be described as "All near to God" and "placed near God?"

You see, these words and others show a hidden understanding not yet developed about Mary's immaculate conception and sinlessness. Maybe at the time it was too hard for some to comprehend, other doctrines had to develope before hand. But it is ultimately true.

[quote]I'm not going to go through the rest because again, they don't hint at the idea that she was sinless, but that doesn't deminish her as the Theotokos.[/quote]

Well let me throw in some more:

[b]St. Augustine:[/b]
"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

[b]St. Ambrose of Milan:[/b]
"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain."

"The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One"

[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm[/url]

[quote][color="#FF0000"][b]Look at St John Damascene describe her as the second heaven! A heaven GREATER than the first! She is ABOVE the Cherubim and Seraphim! Is this referring to an ordinary sinner? Of course not.[/b][/color] What she did has never been seen in history, I'd definately agree to that but it was the giving birth to our Lord, not her being sinless. She preserved her virginity and "let it be so" but that doesn't make her sinless. Such Glorifying statements have been said of other Saints too.(snip)[/quote]

God made her the way she is precisely because she would become His mother.


God bless,
Mort

[mortify]

Reza, I found something incredibly fascinating, I hope you don't mind offering your opinion.

Apparently, the Orthodox *do* believe Mary is sinless, note the statement from Bishop Kallistos Ware (An Orthodox Bishop):

[quote]The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her [u][b]‘immaculate’[/b][/u] or [u][b]‘spotless’ [/b][/u] (in Greek, achrantos); [u][b]and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin.[/b][/u] But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ [b][u]The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter.[/u][/b] [b]In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, [u]at any rate approach close to it[/u][/b]; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.[/quote]

[b]Wow!!![/b]

Check it out: [url="http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm"]http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/en...othy_ware_2.htm[/url]

I'm not sure of the Copts, but the Antiochians also include this in their liturgy:
[b][size=3]‘Our All-Holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.’[/size][/b]

What an irony, someone off another forum said:
[quote]The Immaculate Conception kept me out of the Church until I read the Orthodox Patriarch Gennadios III's gloss on his translation of the Angelic Doctor's Summa. When he got to the section in which Thomas, using perfect Scholastic logic "disproves" The Immaculate Conception, he states, "Thomas was a wise man and, indeed, may be a Saint (he had been canonised in the West years earlier), but on this point he is wrong!"[/quote]


Anyway... I have my own theories why the Orthodox rejected the Immaculate Conception after the Catholic Church made it Dogma

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"][b]The whole point is, there is no reason to reject a doctrine simply because it's not explicitly stated in Scripture. [/b] [/color] Its not explitically stated in scripture but out of the 4 different Sees [East, North, West, South] Rome stands out like a sore thumb on this, and though the other Sees dont directly agree on everything theologically, they have kept this standard of proclaiming her to not be sinless, but a human being like the rest of us.

[color="#FF0000"][b]It has been hinted through the various Marian types and writings of the early Christians. Have you looked into the sites I mentioned? It's not something that came out of thin air, it was a very developed process.[/b][/color] It was a developed process in Roman Catholicism, but not in the church as a whole... as I mentioned, Rome is alone on this one.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Can she? To be holy and sinful is mutually exclusive. [/b] [/color] Yes she can be, we honor other Saints as being Holy, therefore simply saying someone is "holy" doesnt mean sinless.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Now the striking thing about the passage is that St John Damascene speaks so highly of Mary as a fetus. Imagine that, how can a fetus be holy? [/b] [/color] Very simply, God had prophesied about her, he knew her actions before she knew her actions and he knew that she was going to be that vessel that brought Jesus into this world in human form. That's why she was spoken so highly as a fetus. Why was Jesus spoken about so highly as a Fetus? Because Jesus was going to die for our sins, but how did we know that he wasn't going to fall to the devil [such as during the three temptations]? Because we knew the prophesies, and we knew everything that was going to come because of that.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Yes, but even before she could bear the Savior, she was holy... EVEN as a Fetus![/b][/color] Only God has counted every hair on our head and St. Mary's.

Another area that I'd like to explore is that not every word that is spoken by a "Saint" is gospel. St. Augustine spoke greatly about alot of theological positions that we don't consider to be Gospel and Tertullian spoke greatly about alot of termoniology and theology that we have chosen to keep [such as the word Trinity].

[color="#FF0000"][b]How can a sinner be above the highest choir of Angels? How can a sinner, blemished and imperfect be described as "All near to God" and "placed near God?" [/b][/color] I'd say that if a woman gave birth to Jesus Christ, regardless of her being sinless or not, she would be near him. Jesus Christ told the man that was being crucified with him, "today you'll be with me in paradise", therefore we can't speak on much more then that. Jesus told one of the most sinful men [because of the man's genuine repentance, etc] that he would be in heaven with him, how amazing is that? Therefore even if St. Mary was sinful, but made the choice to give herself [let it be so] to preserving her virginity for Jesus Christ, that individual is close to God in the best kinda way.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Well let me throw in some more:

St. Augustine:
"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."[/b][/color] As I'd mentioned St. Augustine's words are not infallible. There's other quotes of him proclaiming that St. Mary wasn't sinless either, but I assure you that only Jesus Christ can forgive our sins and can be excused by him alone.

[color="#FF0000"][b]"The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One"[/b][/color] I will address these liturgies directly in my next post but in the meantime check this out...

[quote]St. John Chrysostom, a very prominent Father and Teacher of the Orthodox Church, believed that the Theotokos sinned in a minor way when she apparently "pushed" our Lord into His first miracle at Cana. So if an Orthodox believer has trouble accepting the teaching of the complete absence of willful sin on the part of the Theotokos he will find himself in good company! But that she lives an exceptionally holy life is beyond any question.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Primarily, because Jesus established St. Peter as the head of the Apostolic Church. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have apostolic succession, but if you want the fullness of the body, you've got to have the head.[/b][/color] What about the fact that Syriac Orthodox also claim St. Peter [and can trace their liniage] back to St. Peter?

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"][b]"The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One"[/b][/color] The purpose for this is in reference to us being with Jesus Christ. Once we're with Jesus Christ, we're sinless but as I'd posted previously St. John Chrysostom believed that she had sinned during her lifetime. As I'd mentioned, it has to be put within context.

[quote name='mortify' post='1178925' date='Jan 28 2007, 06:38 PM']
Reza, I found something incredibly fascinating, I hope you don't mind offering your opinion.

Apparently, the Orthodox *do* believe Mary is sinless, note the statement from Bishop Kallistos Ware (An Orthodox Bishop):

I'm not sure of the Copts, but the Antiochians also include this in their liturgy:
[b][size=3]‘Our All-Holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.’[/size][/b]

[/quote]

That's a good question, I'm not familar with the Bishop [I know that he's not practicing bishop no more]. I can't comment on his remarks because he's not someone that I know enough about. I'm not even sure if these are his words.

In regards to the Antiochian liturgy, that doesn't even hint at the idea that she never committed sins while on earth, just that she's in heaven now and is made perfect by Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior and God.

Reza

[ronyodish]

Just a note for Roman Catholics:

There is a Coptic Church called the Coptic Catholic Church. Reza's Coptic Orthodox Church is not the one. The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, etc.), and they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.).

The Coptic Catholic Church is one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that is, Eastern Churches in full communion with the Pope of Rome. These Eastern Churches along with the Western Church together form the One Universal Church founded by Christ. Here are a couple of links with some basic info.:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholi...nd_churches.htm[/url]
[url="http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html"]http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html[/url]

God bless,

Rony

[Aloysius]

are any other saints, then, referred to as "all sinless one". by your logic, they ought to be, they are now in heaven.

the way the gospel calls Mary kecharitomene, fully graced (from the past to the present the tense indicates, distinguishing it from Stephen who was only full of grace at one specific moment in time) indicates that Mary's entire life up until that point she had been full of grace. if at any point in that past she had sinned, at that very moment she would not have been full of grace (unless God's favor rested with sin). and if she never sinned before the incarnation, there is no reason to believe she ever sinned afterwards.

Christ's words on the cross indicate that Mary is the type of the new Eve (He calls her "woman" and makes her mother of all who receive eternal life through Him). as such, Christ had to fully and totally be flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. any sin of hers would be transmitted in imperfection to Christ's body because He had to be totally transmitted through Mary's body and share in everything from her: bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh.

there was no such requirement for Mary coming from St. Ann. In fact, it was with Mary that the new creation was to begin (as Adam was first in the old creation and then Eve, Mary comes first in the new creation and then Christ) and as such she was to have a degree of seperation in her creation from the old creation. Christ was not to have any more degree of seperation in the creation of His body than Eve was to have in the creation of her body from Adam. it was a total flesh of flesh, bone of bone creation of Mary.

this is the reasoning which is most in line with the majority Christian opinion through history. it may not have always flowered into "Mary had no original sin", but all the typology was discussed by the fathers: the new Adam and the new Eve, the Ark of the Covenant. everything from the nicene crede (incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, EX MARIA VIRGINE, the incarnation is of the Holy Spirit, and the humanity is totally and fully from Mary) and the council of ephesus (the God-bearer) to the fathers and saints.

it is a minor dissenting opinion in the overall picture of Christian history that would directly deny the idea of a Mary who committed no actual sin. and everything else points directly towards a sinless New Eve bringing the sinless New Adam into the world

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178931' date='Jan 28 2007, 09:51 PM']
[color="#FF0000"][b]The whole point is, there is no reason to reject a doctrine simply because it's not explicitly stated in Scripture. [/b] [/color] Its not explitically stated in scripture but out of the 4 different Sees [East, North, West, South] Rome stands out like a sore thumb on this, and though the other Sees dont directly agree on everything theologically, they have kept this standard of proclaiming her to not be sinless, but a human being like the rest of us.
[/quote]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree

[quote]St. Augustine:
"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."[/b][/color] As I'd mentioned St. Augustine's words are not infallible. There's other quotes of him proclaiming that St. Mary wasn't sinless either, but I assure you that only Jesus Christ can forgive our sins and can be excused by him alone.[/quote]

The same can be said about any saintly or early writer, they're not infallible. Unless its solemnly defined by or in union with the Holy Pontiff.

[quote][color="#FF0000"][b]"The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One"[/b][/color] I will address these liturgies directly in my next post but in the meantime check this out...
[color="#FF0000"][b]Primarily, because Jesus established St. Peter as the head of the Apostolic Church. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have apostolic succession, but if you want the fullness of the body, you've got to have the head.[/b][/color] What about the fact that Syriac Orthodox also claim St. Peter [and can trace their liniage] back to St. Peter?[/quote]

Go back to my post on the Eastern Witness to Petrine Primacy. Every See testified to the Primacy of Rome, including Antioch.

As for the quote of St John Chrystosom (St JC) he wasn't infallible. Now, I gather St JC was referring to the fact that Mary didn't "willfully sin." I gather this from the site you reference to:

[url="http://www.htaoc.com/pastor/ask/sinless.html"]http://www.htaoc.com/pastor/ask/sinless.html[/url]

I'm a bit confused how this ties in with Bishop Kallistos Ware who explicitly says:
[b]"The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her [u]‘immaculate’[/u] or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and [u]all Orthodox are agreed[/u] in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin."[/b]

Those are pretty clear statements. "Immaculate" and "Spotless" mean no sin. The Orthodox aren't that unified apparently. Note what the author says from the site you reference:

[b]"All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception."[/b]

Now contrast this with Bishop Kallistos Ware:

[b]does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception(...)?’ [u]The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter[/u]. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely [u]affirming[/u] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it;[/b]

So who is right? I'm willing to incline Bishop Ware is being more honest here, whereas the previous quote is speaking of a personal opinion which doesn't reflect all orthodox.


I guess we can add the Orthodox not being one in mind and spirit as another point for becomming Catholic.


Adding to the confusion: "Do orthodox believe Mary is Sinless?"

[size=3][b]"I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, [u]but chose not to."[/u][/b][/size]

[url="http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=116&SID=3"]http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=116&SID=3[/url]


Just another source.

Edited January 29, 2007 by mortify

[jeffpugh]

Just a quick note, it seems that some people (no names will be mentioned) still believe that Councils 'create' doctrines. This is in fact not true, they only clarify doctrines that have been put in place by the apostles (doctrines could not be 'created' after the death of St John who was last do die, I believe but that is neither here nor there). Also, I can see why the declaration about the Immaculate Conception is sorta out there because, my Orthodox friends, you have missed out on a number of Councils (the number is not clear to me tonite. It's late for me). As a result, you have missed out on a few episodes of epic discussion and direction of our faith. Another comment I'd like to make is about being 'Catholic' in the Orthodox sense... would that not be catholic with a small 'c'? I'd appreciate comments from both sides here. Also, maybe I should address the main question myself being 'why Catholicism'. I have not been Catholic for a long time for I am almost 18 and became Catholic from Anglican at least 4-5 years ago and have recently become very fervent about the faith, mainly because of Logic. It is not something that can be explained by written or typed words but dialogue, time and grace. Over the last year or two I met a friend who has helped me along with being faithful by showing me choices, showing me logic and explaining who Jesus is and the Church and Mary... it is all remarkable! In all that we say here I just hope that we do not do anything but strengthen the bonds between Christians, because that is what my conversion(s) to the faith have been about. First was entering the Church and Her tradition, and the second was finding out what the tradition is. It takes sincere seeking and dialogue between all... even non Catholics. I engage
in dialogue with my Pentecostal friend a lot even now. he in some ways helps me strive for answers, makes me question my faith and find an answer, even if I can't give it to him straight up! Protestants (from the Lutheran et al strands) have this funny way of making us look back to scripture, balancing our focus from just Tradition and Magisterium to Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition (some people get carried away with Tradition and forget the importance of Holy Scripture. You all seem somewhat balanced in this respect). Anywho, I don't know what you all make of this but thanks be to God there are places where I can vent my thoughts to others and hope for a sincere opinion!

And on another note before I forget, no one has mentioned the tradition of the Assumption of Mary into heaven. The East believes that she went into dormition (i hope that is the right word. If not I mean fell asleep) and was taken body and soul into heaven. What a beautiful thing! I hope that nudges people in the right direction... I'm done for the night. God Bless all.

><>

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178811' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:57 PM']
[color="#FF0000"][b]The Orthodox now sanction contraception (flip-flop), which is contrary to Natural Law and the purpose of marriage.[/b][/color] It's not a flip-flop, the church has NEVER taken an official position on contraceptives, it's always been a personal conviction. It's kinda funny that you brought up contraceptives, Nature Law, and abortion because the Romman Church [if I'm not mistaken] allows women, who's life is at risk, to get an abortion rather then let nature take it's course. Due to this, you don't have a right to lecture on "natural law" because not everyone is always in the position to adhere to natural law and no one is in the position to judge someone that doesn't adhere to natural law 100% of the time.
[/quote]
Actually that is not the case:
[quote][u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u]
[b]2322[/b] From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.[/quote]
Someone else here can explain the case of ectopic pregnancies. There is some special circumstances surrounding it and abortion, etc. that I cannot explain. God bless!

Edited January 29, 2007 by thedude