Cheers!
Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
|
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
|
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
Two Comments
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
I do seem to remember that the Immaculate Conception is a point of disagreement between Latins and the East (with the East being correct :). Nevertheless, I thought it was Orthodox that Mary in fact actually committed no sin. If that it true for voluntary sins, then what would constitute an involuntary sin, and if it was involuntary why would it be proper to ask for forgiveness? In the OT it was normal and ordinary for people to be "involuntarily" unclean or unclean for a reason not considered sin in and of itself (e.g. monthly period). Is this the same thing?
At the Annunciation? I have a vague memory of there being some event concerning this involving Mary at a temple when she was three years old (I can't remember what it's called). In any case I can buy any three year old being considered sinless in deed at that point. But for Mary at the Annunciation, if she was born as the rest of us, and if she was "of age" which she seemed to be given what she said, then I would think it assumable that she must have committed "regular" voluntary sin before the Annunciation, before receiving any special grace.
Well, i myself do like the gospel of Mark, and i do try not to be verbose , but there were a few things to respond to, and rather than a lot of posts of bits and pieces, i tried to present a one time explanation, especially since such a view seemed to be seriously held.
The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
Actually the two words used 1Cor. 7:14, hagiazō, most often translated as sanctified, denoting to render holy, or clean or to consecrate, and the word from which it comes, hagios, denoting a holy thing, set apart as holy, can refer to both a positional state and a practical state. Aa regards the former, Israel is collectively called “holy” by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God. (Rm. 12:1) Paul addresses the Corinthians, whom he will shortly reprove for their carnality, as ones “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints,” (1Cor. 1:2) And as relates to children, the O.T. command (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13) that the first born of every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God is reiterated in Lk. 2:23, yet it is abundantly clear that not all that was sanctified or called holy in that sense was necessarily redeemed. But what is also manifest is that God would bless and or protect a household from physical judgment due to the presence of one believer. (Gn. 19; Josh. 6:25)
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response. In the proxy faith proof case of the palsied man, (Mk. 2:3-11) his infirmity was physical, not cognitive.
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
Jesus did not perform many either, if any, (Jn. 4:2) and likewise Paul's mission was to do the actual preaching, (1Cor. 1:17) but simply because that was the case does not mean either has a low view of it. Jesus commanded baptism, and Paul himself was baptized, (Acts 22:16) and baptism is shown to have accompanied Paul's preaching in personal conversions of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, disciples of John in Ephesus, and that of Gaius and of Stephanas. ( Acts 16:14,15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 1Cor. 1:14,15) So he did not think there was no need, and as said before, there is no real difference between moving your tongue or exercising your mind in confessing Jesus as your crucified and risen LORD, (Rm. 10:9,10) than there is in doing so by body language, in baptism. But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
If you are thinking fatalism, that is understandable, and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train. What one believers orders one's life, and salvation “no matter how you live” is neither Biblical or Calvinism or classic Arminianism, though some sadly preach that now. The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray, while the other also tends to requiring a practical holiness as an attribute of faith, not the case of salvation but that saving faith must have attesting fruit if one is to considered saved and secure, while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
As for the issue of free will, and how free mans will is as it relates to predestination, and on what basis one is elected, and reconciled that with God's declared justice, and what Rm. 9 fully means, that is the principal debate within Protestantism. As FR threads have shown!
God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.
You are giving an opinion based upon how you perceive an omnipotent, omniscient being requiring worship, and by invalid analogy manifesting a very superficial judgment, while you do not even allow that that requiring worship cannot be unselfish, yet the Biblical evidence is contrary to you. God's manifest ultimate purpose for man is not grovelling in the dust, though it is only right to reverence both superior power and virtue, and to humble yourself when you are contrary to it, but to sit with enthroned with Him by conformity to Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, the opposite for selfishness. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " (Revelation 3:21) Overall, overcoming the world, flesh and the devil is a characteristic of saving faith, (1Cor. 2:15-17; 5:4) as is having virtues those of their beatitudes.
It was the devil who presumed to “climb up some other way” in self-willed selfish exaltation, and being cast down he breathes out vengeance, from the beginning falsely accusing God of selfish motives, (Gn. 3:1-5) so Dawkins, et all, has nothing on him.
The Biblical examples they invoke can be easily reconciled with an omniscient God having a just as well as benevolent motive, which has somewhat been engaged with here before.
Further on your analogy, but in commanding worship of Him, ants actually do manifest a type of slavish worship for their own well-being. One can object against God “imposing” morality on others, but the worship/obedience people covenant to give to God is also based upon revelation of who and what He is, and what is best for man, with the opposite being making created things your god, and which manifest in a rejection of the morality which love for God requires and fosters. And the world would be an infinitely better place the more people live according to the spirit of Christ. Thus His reason for forbidding idolatry is entirely consistent with what is best for man, and God's long-suffering judgment on idolatry was linked to the immorality which it fostered, which the “people of God” also finally suffered for when they fell into it.
It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.
In this regard your perception has some substance, and while appealing to man's self-preservation can be reasonable and right if it is for their good, the motive goal in the Bible is to be that of selfless love. While such love can work towards one betterment, that does not mean that must be the motive, and as i said, mortal as Moses and Paul were willing to be damned for the sake of others.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem
That's not always the case.
Perhaps, but even when a cognitive rational man one chooses to do something out of compulsion, the only reason he can can be compelled is because of it is in the interest of what he really the loves.
Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”
Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!
Surely there is, which is unbelief such as yours. Again, if the evidence was so utterly compelling, such giving you the all extreme evidence you demand as a reason to believe, a time, then you really could not come up with excuses. Of course, then he would be a genie.
Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.
Not so, as rather than man not being born with a sinful propensity and dead in sins, and while God must draw, enable, and work to persuade, man can resist. (Prov. 1:23-25; Mt. 23:37) And what you reject is still a gift.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...
Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.
Sadly, your “wonder” is not even close to objectivity, but is like that of those wise-in-their-own-eyes souls who despise moral authority and speak evil of them, (Jude. 1:8) outside their own that is, and are committed to making God into an image like unto corruptible man, wresting texts to their own destruction.
In contrast, the God of the Bible manifests the opposite of mood swings, or a victim mentality, and His wrath is consistent with accountability and actions, and characteristically long-suffering, with what He requires of those who entered into covenant with Him, this being love for God and each other, being to their betterment and real fulfilment, while charges such as inefficiency and “wheeling and dealing” presupposes omniscience on your account, over One who is and who does make all things works together for those who love Him, (Rm. 8:28) those who love the light, not darkness of sin. (Jn. 3:19-21) Thanks be to God.
It's irrelevant. In the East, she is believed to have been cleansed of any and all sin at the Annunciation in order to become a "suitable vessel" to receive the eternal Word, and that, beinf full of grace, she never sinned since.
Since such a teaching denies the free response of man to God, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation after she had agreed to accept God's offer. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon her to make her fit to receive the Word in her womb. At that moment she became “blessed” and “full of grace.” [ Anthony M. Coniaris, What we Believe about the Saints]
The Orthodox Church holds dogmatically only two things about Mary—being ever-virgin and the Theodokos. These dogmatic beliefs are not about her but about her Son, and who he is in the Church. You have to remember that the Councils were convened to sort out the heterodox beliefs that festered in the Church regarding God himself as well as Chirst himself.
Specifically, most of the Councils dealt with heresies that in one way or another denied that Jesus Christ is both divine and human, or that Jesus and Logos are one and the same person (so-called Christologcial heresies). In order to place Christ in his proper dual theological role, it was necessary to explain that the eternal Word does not have a mother, but that through Incarnation, Mary gave birth to God who took on human nature.
Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the "Mother of God" which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct. The name Theotokos simply means the God-bearer. The child Mary gave birth to was not only a human Jewish meshiyah or christos in Greek, that is the anointed one, but rather to the Savior God Incarnate.
Other Marian beliefs, such as her spotlessness and assumption are ancient pious beliefs of the faithful , not dogmatically canonized in the East, nor doctrinally required to be recited at baptism as profession of faith.
Well, broken posts are easier to track. Given the size of your paragraphs, each would qualify as a a separate post simply because of how much relevant information you put in them. trying to answer each one of your sentences will take a week. If you were the only person debating that might even work, but I don't know if you noticed or not, I usually get half a dozen, if not more, pings a night.
So, to be fair, I have no choice but to truncate my replies in hopes that you will understand their brevity is forced.
That said, I am quote familiar with the Greek word hagiazo (to make holy) but I disagree that it can be "positional" and "practical." Holiness is a state. Something is either holy is or not.
by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God
That's Paul's babble as far as I am concerned. No man can make himself holy. Also Jewish "holiness" and Pauline idea of holiness, salvation, etc. are like night and day.
every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God
That's right. Jews are God's holy people. That's why a Jew could not own a Jewish slave. Each Jew belongs to God. They are the priestly nation. They are given 613 mitzvot to observe and the Gentiles are given seven. The OT make sit clear that the Gentiles have no role in God's plan. Only the Jews do.
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response
What "volitional response"? You don't get up one morning and decide to believe. It must be given, according to Christian apologists.
Jesus did not perform many [baptisms] either, if any
No, but that was before the Great Commission given to his disciples to baptize. I suppose Paul felt that this was not "his job." The Great Commission doesn't say "except Paul." Given Paul's own theology, water baptism was not that important, so he didn't do it. Apparently he was not aware of the Great Commission probably because it was made up a later date, just as Mark's was.
But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
That's part of the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity. Different Christian groups believe different things as regards baptism and faith. By the way, the "born again" is a mistranslation of Greek.
and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train.
Nope. Once you believe (and that is not even your doing, but God;s) no matter what you do nothing will get you thrown off the train. Nothing you do will affect your salvation. Or so the Protestants teach.
The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray
They will persevere because God wants them to. Remember the "Your will be done"? The world is as God wants it to be. Or else he is no God.
while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
Just another example of self-contradictions taught in the New Testament. Calvinists will find you verses in John to counter these without saying the Bible contradicts itself. Christianity is strained because it is an amalgam of different beliefs and traditions, a mixture of Judaism, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism, inherently incompatible traditions stitched together and then laboriously "harmonized" over centuries.
Sometimes I think the reason we don't have older version of the NT manuscripts is because they were destroyed by Christians, as new beliefs predominated.
The old saying of you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight....
New version ya don’t bring “other” Christian to a Catholic Apologist debate. : )
If every non Catholic here converted to Catholism we could open up a new Parish.
St. Marys’ of the FreeRepublic?
The Good Freeper Sheppard?
And who isn't?
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " (Revelation 3:21)
So much for no works. :)
Overall, overcoming the world, flesh and the devil is a characteristic of saving faith, (1Cor. 2:15-17; 5:4) as is having virtues those of their beatitudes.
I thought Christ overcame (and will overcome—again?) the devil already by his resurrection (and his second coming). Now you are saying we have to overcome him too? :)
It was the devil who presumed to “climb up some other way” in self-willed selfish exaltation, and being cast down he breathes out vengeance, from the beginning falsely accusing God of selfish motives
God doesn't need the devil to show his selfish motives. He is doing it himself throughout the Old Testament. After all, isn't everything made for God and his good pleasure? Doesn't he say so?
It is laughable that an angel gone viral can compete with God without God's permission or will. That's why Judaism has no devil. That is exists in Christianity has to do with Zoroastrian influence on apocalyptic Jews, of which Jesus was one by all accounts.
Isn't it the same God who says "my name is jealous"? Isn't he who throws fits and commits genocide on a biblical scale (no pun intended) because some people (who were not even Jews) worshiped "idols"?
And why are you spouting Genesis 3? The serpent in Judaism is not the Satan of Christian dualists. Satan comes back in the OT as a loyal servant of God, a son of God in fact, like the rest of the angels, that he was meant to be.
The Christians, of course, then go back and dig up verses and reinterpret them to show otherwise. The idea that Satan fell from grace is not Judaism found in the OT. Jews, logically, don't believe that an angel can rebel against God (given that angels were created as obligate servants of his).
But in the anything-goes Christian world, the devil is a "serious" treat and a "formidable" opponent to the almighty God. What a joke.
Of course, the Christian God is a good God so all the evil things must be due to the "other guy." In Judaism God gives blessings on those hwo obey him and causes evil on those who disobey him. IN other words, he is everything, the good and the evil.
And the world would be an infinitely better place the more people live according to the spirit of Christ
That may be true and valid if Christians were Jews. Judaism is about this world, Christianity is not. In the latter, this world is something we need to "overcome" for a better one that awaits the believers.
It is still petty of God, who supposedly gives to the good and wicked and is nor respecter of men, to demand that people worship him and believe in him. If you give a free gift, it is unspeakably petty to brag about it in order to receive recognition and respect. Respect is earned, not bought or forced.
I don't see any "choice" in this distinction. Why else would one "turn to God" if not because he is willing to ask for and "accept His mercy"?
I can't argue with you. That's just the best I could do to reconcile what +Isaac said. We're stuck with the fact that at some point everyone in some way turns to God and that "God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins". Therefore, why aren't all people saved? I can't resolve that based on what +Isaac said in the passage (other than splitting it up as I offered).
Try to sell selfless love with a grave as a dead end (no pun intended), and see how many followers you will have. People want something in return for this "selfless" love. That much is obvious. Every religion offers a carrot, some "reward" at the end to make it worth its while.
when a cognitive rational man one chooses to do something out of compulsion, the only reason he can can be compelled is because of it is in the interest of what he really the loves.
Oh is that what love is? Sounds more like desire? The Greek word for that is eros. That should tell you something.
Surely there is, which is unbelief such as yours.
It's not unbelief but unknowing or agnosis. It is clear to me that the God of various holy books is a man-made God, or at least God as men imagine him. Not only do I not know if God is but what he is supposed to be. I am pretty sure God is not what other people tell he is. The selfish petty God I read about is too "human" to be believable. My critique is not of God, whoever or whatever he may be, but of a man-made God I read about.
Not so, as rather than man not being born with a sinful propensity and dead in sins, and while God must draw, enable, and work to persuade, man can resist. (Prov. 1:23-25; Mt. 23:37) And what you reject is still a gift.
You know, referencing OT when it comes to our ability to save ourselves is not doing Christianity any favor because Christianity does not hold that salvation is in the hands of the believers. Even the ones who believe in works.
Rather than Proverbs, I think a better example would have been Deuteronomy 30:14 (but not Paul's corrupt version in Rom 10:8), that is if you have a good translation (the one that says "you can do it" and not those, as is usually the case, that are doctrinally "harmonized" by Christian authors).
Sadly, your “wonder” is not even close to objectivity, but is like that of those wise-in-their-own-eyes souls who despise moral authority and speak evil of them
Sadly you seem to have run out of arguments and now must depend on characterizing and judging me. the omnipotent God, according to man, has been "fixing" this world ever since the first humans misbehaved on his omniscient watch by unleashing floods, plagues, genocide, prophesies, miracles, sacrificing himself on the cross, and what not and the world is as evil and wicked as ever. You call that "not even close to objectivity"?
How many covenants (all supposedly ever-lasting) did this man-made or man-imagned God make and remake? Is he not driven to violence when someone doesn't worship him? Is he not moody and narcissistic?
In contrast, the God of the Bible manifests the opposite of mood swings, or a victim mentality, and His wrath is consistent with accountability and actions
Genesis 6:6-7 God is distraught with man's wickedness so he decides to act in Andrea Yates fashion! He didn't know this would happen? He was powerless to prevent it? He didn't see it coming? Man became wicked against God's will? It sure sounds like God got cheated (victimized) to me.
If God didn't want people to worship 'idols' why didn't he let this Spirit work on them? If he is selfless love, why doesn't he give everyone faith so he can save all, as the Bible alleges he desires? If he hates sin so much why didn't he make a world that is free of sin?
My guess is +Isaac would say because man rejects God's mercy. That is consistent with the teaching of the Church.
I would think it's relevant because if she never sinned SINCE, then that would not seem to match what is said at the Memorial service: "for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin".
Since such a teaching denies the free response of man to God, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation after she had agreed to accept God's offer. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon her to make her fit to receive the Word in her womb. At that moment she became “blessed” and “full of grace.” [ Anthony M. Coniaris, What we Believe about the Saints]
Well, IF we are going to analyze scripture with a careful emphasis on tense :) then we have to say that this completely contradicts the Gospel of Luke. To wit:
Looking at the tenses used, this appears to make it absolutely crystal clear that Mary was "full of grace" BEFORE she "agreed to accept God's offer."
Specifically, most of the Councils dealt with heresies that in one way or another denied that Jesus Christ is both divine and human, or that Jesus and Logos are one and the same person (so-called Christologcial heresies). In order to place Christ in his proper dual theological role, it was necessary to explain that the eternal Word does not have a mother, but that through Incarnation, Mary gave birth to God who took on human nature.
In those cases the Councils did mankind a great service.
Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the "Mother of God" which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct. The name Theotokos simply means the God-bearer.
I could not agree more. Thanks for the real translation. Technically correct is OK, but it sure leaves a dangerous opportunity open to draw false inferences therefrom.
Other Marian beliefs, such as her spotlessness and assumption are ancient pious beliefs of the faithful , not dogmatically canonized in the East, nor doctrinally required to be recited at baptism as profession of faith.
Even if not dogma, is the assumption commonly accepted as true among the Orthodox? When you said that it's an ancient pious belief of the faithful it made me think that virtually all Orthodox accept it as a given even if it is not required.
“Even if not dogma, is the assumption commonly accepted as true among the Orthodox?”
It is commonly accepted, at least in my experience.
“When you said that it’s an ancient pious belief of the faithful it made me think that virtually all Orthodox accept it as a given even if it is not required.”
The distinction is a very important one, FK. The fact that a given belief is widely held is quite different from saying it is a belief which is a sine qua non of being a member of The Church. The Church, as Kosta points out, teaches us very little that we MUST believe about the Theotokos, only that she is the Theotokos and that she is Ever Virgin. That’s it and both of those are dogmatic teachings ONLY because they touch on the divinity of Christ and were declared in response to heresy. All dogma, FK, every last bit of it, ought to point to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, FK, and nothing more.
The West has made multiple grave errors when it comes to dogma. On the one hand, the Church of Rome has dogmatized far too many notions in response to no heresy and which do not point to Christ and the Trinity alone. And the Protestants have chosen not to return to the few and clear dogmas of the One Church but rather to fight with Rome over innovations like the IC and Papal Infallibility and “Original Sin” or the unnecessary dogmatization of the Assumption. What a waste!
Cheers!
Cheers!
What is the difference between those that seek Gods mercy and those that do not? Are they more intelligent? More spiritual? More educated?
I am not in the habit of using English translations for accurate rendition of tense, because some Greek tense cannot be translated accurately into English, but in this case I must fully agree with you, namely that Mary appears to have been "highly favored" (full of grace) before the Annunciation, and that the way the verse is written doe snot agree with the Eastern Orthodox notion that she was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation.
The Greek tense is perfect and mood is passive, so there's no doubt that her being full of grace was completed prior, once and for all.
I will have to research this a little more in depth, but your catch appears to be spot on.
Lack of faith, paradoxically, in both cases. In those who don't seek it, obviously. In those who do seek it, the lack of faith is manifested, imo, by the fact that by asking for it they don't trust that God will do what is merciful and just.
That is an outstanding observation, Kolo mou, since we can speak of heresy in meaningful terms only with respect to matters concerning the revealed Trinitarian and Christological nature, i.e. that without which there is no Christian faith (i.e. the Nicene Creed). Purgatory,
Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility are not required for the Christian Faith to be orthodox. Insisting otherwise elevates things that are of lesser nature to the level of the divine, which is itself heresy.
Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility are not required for the Christian Faith to be orthodox. Insisting otherwise elevates things that are of lesser nature to the level of the divine, which is itself heresy.
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.