In this article, in few words I set out to definitively prove the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning the Theotokos from the Scriptures. We are covering only five key sets of passages. We will find that the Scriptures are surprisingly clear in their Orthodox Mariology. Further, we will find that false Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines do not quite fit with the obvious interpretation of these passages.
1. The idea that all of creation is Fallen in Rom 8:20-21.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The significance of the above passage is not that it is actually explicitly about the Theotokos. Rather, it teaches an important principle. Physical, inaminate creation is affected by the Fall.
2. The parallel between the Ark and Mary between 2 Sam 6:9 and Luke 1:43.
David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
“But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
The preceding parallel implies that there is a connection between the ark of the covenant and Mary. They are both footstools of God that He uses to enters the world.
3. The striking of Uzza in 1 Chron 13:10 contrasted with the proper way the Ark was transported in Num 4:5.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. (1 Chron 13:10; cf 2 Sam 6:6-8)
When the camp prepares to journey, Aaron and his sons shall come, and they shall take down the covering veil and cover the ark of the Testimony with it. (Num 4:5)
The preceding is important (especially in light of the rest of Num 4, especially 4:15) that the ark is not to be touched lest it be defiled. This is the whole reason it was transported covered with curtains. This is at the same time typologically connected to Mary. Many Protestants (though this would not include the magisterial Reformers) who would argue that Mary was not perpetually a virgin or that she committed sin would essentially be violating the typological principle that the ark was undefiled.
4. The Tabernacle (Ex 40:29 LXX)/Temple (2 Chron 7:2-3)/Mary (Luke 1:35) was “overshadowed” by God Himself.
And Moses was not able to enter into the tabernacle of testimony, because the cloud overshadowed (ἐπεσκίαζεν) it, and the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord. (Ex 40:29 LXX/ Ex 40:35 MT)
And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house. When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord on the temple, they bowed their faces to the ground on the pavement, and worshiped and praised the Lord. (2 Chron 7:2-3)
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει) you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)
The preceding passages are important, because they definitively demonstrate two things.
First, the “overshadowing” event during the annunciation is meant to purposely parallel God’s indwelling of the Temple/tabernacle as evidenced by not only the picture being the same, but the same Greek word found in both Ex 40:29 LXX and Luke 1:35. Second, if one pays careful attention, the overshadowing event occurs first and then the Lord fills the Temple/tabernacle/Mary.
This is because the overshadowing is a prepatory, divine purification that makes the subject of the overshadowing capable of containing God. The Temple and tabernacle, made of matter “subjected to futility,” needed such a purification though the inaminate objects which composed these things committed no sins. In the same way, the Theotokos, made of postlapsarian flesh, needed a like purification. This is why the church fathers speak of the “(pre)purification” of Mary at the time of the annunciation. Further, this is why we have passages such as Luke 2:35 which pertain to the Theotokos having doubts at the crucifixion, an event that exhibits her postlapsarian nature–a nature that had to be purified at the time of conception to prevent the exposure of Jesus to anything “impure.”
Roman Catholics, who falsely teach the Immaculate Conception, confuse the purity of the Theotokos with a misapprehension of her origin, which was in sin. In so doing, they do not apply the typological parallel of the ark and temple’s purification.
5. Rev 6:10, Mark 12:25, Rev 8:3 and 2 Kings 5:26 prove that the saints can and do pray for us.
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev 6:10)
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Mark 12:25)
Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. (Rev 8:3)
Then he said to him, “Did not my heart go with you when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you?” (2 Kings 5:26)
The preceding does not specifically prove that the Theotokos herself prays for us, but if she is a saint it would defy comprehension that she would not. In Rev 6:10 we have a literal example of saints praying to God on behalf of the persecuted. In Mark 12:25 we have the teaching that the saints “are like angels in heaven” who we know present prayers to God as we see in Rev 8:3. Lastly, saints like Elisha in 2 Kings 5:26, even when alive in their fallen bodies, have gifts such as clairvoyuence and have awareness of conversations far away from their physicial location.
Hence, Bibilically there can be no doubt that the saints pray for us and that they can hear our prayers. Due to the Theotokos being the only saint who acted as God’s undefiled footstool, as well being God’s mother to which He was obedient in the flesh (Luke 2:51), Orthodox believe Mary is set apart as our chief intercessor before God.
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
The miraculous events at Fatima and Guadalupe are 100 percent proof of two things. 1. The Theotokos endorses the Catholic Church. 2. The Eastern “Orthodox” are wrong. All your subjective commentaries and opinions are trash. You reason like a Protestant when you appeal to Scripture. Remember, this guy Craig uses his secular name, not his patron saints name (obviously influenced by Modernism), and I saw him in a video wearing a Def Leppard shirt. Give me a break.
Citing what are entirely likely frauds is not the best form of argumentation along with ad hominems, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
I agree that ad hominems are bad and it is unbecoming of a Christian to say: “you reason like a Protestant when you appeal to Scripture. Remember, this guy Craig uses his secular name, not his patron saints name (obviously influenced by Modernism), and I saw him in a video wearing a Def Leppard shirt”, but I would strongly disagree that Fatima could possibly be fraud. See this for more information https://thecatholicofhonor.wordpress.com/2020/08/30/fatima-an-optical-allusion-or-a-miracle/
For the record, my name in the Orthodox Church is Patrick!
According to this definition, I probably also count as a modernist. There was some traditionalist Catholic who said he respected you guys for preserving your heritage (i.e. not shortening the mass and translating everything into the vernacular).
1 John 3:8 says that he who sins belongs to the devil. Therefore if Mary committed even just one sin then she cannot fulfill prophecy of Gen 3:15 that says both the woman (i.e. Mary) and her seed (i.e. Jesus) are in enmity with the devil. The difference is Jesus is sinless because of His own power as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, while Mary became sinless by grace of God. Most Christians believe that we sin because we inherit original sin (or ancestral sin in Eastern Orthodoxy) from Adam. If Mary was sinless then she must be immaculately conceived by act of God, neither by her own power nor by her own will – that explains why she called God as her Saviour (Luke 1:47)
Orthodox do not believe Mary sinned, as explicitly stated in the article. The ark never sinned, but was still composed of matter subjected to futility.
But how can she never sinned if she was not conceived imaculately?
It is possible she never sinned without being immaculately conceived but then why did God treat the woman and her seed in Gen 3:15 differently, i.e. the seed was conceived immaculately but the woman is not.
Sin is an overt act, a concession of the will. To avert a proensity towards a sin is a meritorious act. You naturally have concupiscence. When an opportunity for vainglory comes your way, but you purposely cooperate with the grace of God and purify your mind and think of something humble and virtuous instead, this is a meritorious act on your behalf.
So, the immaculate conception not only is a solution to a non-problem (it does not make one a sinner to turn from sinful propenisities any more than the ark was defiled because it was made of corruptible matter). Further, it robs Mary of her merit, as there is nothing meritorious about not sinning with a prelapsarian body and soul. Mary’s will always cooperate with God, which allowed her to overcome the disadvantages of her common, fallen birth. This is the Orthodox teaching.
You wrote “Sin is a concession of the will”, “You naturally have concupiscence” and “it robs Mary of her merit”. Based on the first two, then it is possible for any of us not to sin if we will it.
You last quoted statement implies that Mary merits her salvation by her sinlessness – if this the case then her salvation is no longer by grace.
The ark was made from corruptible matter – well, and so were the contents of the ark!
The Theotokos cooperated with the will of God and the beginning of a good will is by grace, so I’d save that salvation in such a context is by grace alone.
But why she is the only one who can be sinless?
Two ecumenical councils state Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sinless from the womb.
Can you be specific? Which council and which decree?
Not quoted in decrees. The Council of Ephesus and the Council of CHalcedon (quoting the Council of Ephesus) in its first session quote St Athanasius third book against the Arians, the 33rd paragraph. No father objected it. They simple cited it as true.
The paragraph states:
Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God ; nevertheless ‘death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression Romans 5:14;’ and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature.
I have soft copy accessible through Logos.com of the book by Hefele: A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. 3 has the English translation of all statements of 16 sessions of Chalcedon Council. Session 1 was held in Oct 8 of 451 AD.
So far I am unable to find the text you quoted. Are you sure you gave me correct information?
yes, you will have to use fr price’s translation for the verse i gave you. you need the complete minutes.
translation differs from translator to translator but they should convey the same thing. I cannot find even the word “Jeremiah” in the text of session 1 of Chalcedon council, which exist in your quotation. Who is Fr Price and if his translation available online can you provide the link?
Vivator, the complete minutes are not available online. The complete minutes of Ephesus for example are $175, I have them write in front of me. There, it’s on p. 262, par 54 verse 4 of Session I/June 22nd Session. It is part of the reading of several fathers which thecouncil uses as proof of what the doctrinal teaching of the Church is. Among the books cited are several (it is believed) Apollinarian forgeries which contain orthodox teaching. So, we do not accept these teachings simply because of whom they are ascribed to (because Apollonarius is a heretic) but because their content was approved by the council.
Being that Discourse 3, Par 33 of Against the Arians is online, you can read the statement yourself there. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
Below is the text of the first session of Ephesus council, copied and pasted from Hefele: A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. 3.
The text does mention three statement made by Athanasius but none of them refer to his work (Discourse 3 Against the Arians) you quoted. The council of Ephesus dealt with heretical teaching of Nestorius, not that of Arius (Arianism). Hence there is no reason why it quoted the above work of Athanasius.
SEC. 134. First Session, June 22, 431.—Presidency and Number of those present
There was still wanting one of the superior metropolitans (patriarchs), namely, John of Antioch. His bishops, he said, could not leave their dioceses before Renovation Sunday (Dominica in Albis), and then it would take them twelve days to travel to Antioch, and from thence to Ephesus thirty-nine, so that they could not arrive until some days after Pentecost. At last (just about Pentecost2) John came into the neighbourhood of Ephesus, and sent to Cyril a letter, which is still extant, full of friendliness, setting forth that the length of the road and the death of several of their horses had delayed the journey, but that nevertheless he was close at hand, and would appear at Ephesus in five or six days. In spite of this they waited sixteen days;4 and then two of the metropolitans of the patriarchate of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis, came and repeatedly declared that “John had bid them say that they were no longer to defer the opening of the Synod on his account, but, in case it should be necessary for him to delay longer, they were to do what was to be done.” From this they inferred that the Patriarch John was intending to avoid being personally present at the condemnation of his former priest and friend Nestorius. Cyril and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate opening of the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th day of the Egyptian month Payni (= June 22) 431, in the cathedral of Ephesus, which, with great suitableness for that assembly, was dedicated to the God-bearer, and named after her. On the day before, several bishops received a commission to go to Nestorius and invite him to the session, in order to give an account of his statements and doctrines. At first he replied, “I will consider it.” When, however, a second deputation, sent on the 22d of June by the Synod, then opening, came to him, his residence was, by command of Candidian, surrounded with troops, who prevented the bishops, by threats of blows, from entering, and Nestorius sent them word that “he would appear as soon as all the bishops were assembled.” The Synod now, for the third time, sent off some bishops to him; but these received no further answer, and were treated with insolence by the soldiers on guard in and around the house.
At an earlier period, sixty-eight Asiatic bishops, among whom were, in particular, Theodoret of Cyrus and the two above-mentioned metropolitans of Apamea and Hierapolis, in a letter to Cyril and Juvenal, had requested that they would be pleased to defer the opening of the Synod until the arrival of bishops from Antioch. Now, however, the imperial commissioner, Candidian, himself appeared in the place of assembly, in order to have the imperial decrees read, and to protest against the immediate opening of the Synod.3 His demand, that they should wait four days longer, remained disregarded, and the first solemn session began under the presidency of Cyril, who, as is expressly stated in the Acts, also represented the Pope. No fewer than 160 bishops were present from the beginning,5 and when (still at the first session) the document of deposition came to be subscribed, their number had increased to 198. Particularly were there twenty of those sixty-eight Asiatic bishops who had gone over to the side of the Synod, as is clear from a comparison of their names with the subscriptions of the synodal Acts.7 The first thing which was done at the Synod was the reading of the imperial letter of convocation to all the metropolitans (see above, p. 40). That they should begin with this had been proposed by the Presbyter Peter of Alexandria, who acted as senior notary during the whole Synod, and externally controlled the arrangement of the business. Thereupon Bishop Memnon of Ephesus pointed out that sixteen days had elapsed beyond the limit appointed for the opening; and Cyril explained that, even in accordance with the express command of the Emperor, they must without delay begin with the transactions respecting the faith. Thereupon reference was made to the first invitation sent to Nestorius on the previous day, and directly afterwards the second and third deputations, already referred to, were sent to him, and the reports of the bishops who had returned were received.2 As Nestorius decidedly declined to appear, they proceeded, on the motion of Juvenal, to an examination of the point of doctrine in question, and began by reading the Nicene Creed. They next proceeded to the reading of the second letter which Cyril, as we saw, had a long time before addressed to Nestorius, in which he had explained the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ (see above, p. 21). To the question of Cyril, whether this letter of his agreed with the contents of the Nicene Creed, all the bishops present answered, and among them 126 in short speeches still preserved (explanatory of their votes), in a manner entirely affirmative and consentient, and for the most part full of commendation for Cyril. It then came to the turn to read the letter which Nestorius had sent in answer to the letter of Cyril just mentioned (see above, p. 21), and after thirty-four bishops, in explaining their votes, had declared emphatically its non-agreement with the Nicene faith, all the bishops cried out together: “If any one does not anathematize Nestorius, let him be himself anathema: the true faith anathematizes him, the holy Synod anathematizes him. If any one has communion with Nestorius, let him be anathema. We all anathematize the letter and the doctrines of Nestorius. We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine. We all anathematize the impious (ἀσεβῆ) Nestorius,” and so forth.
Afterwards there were two other documents read, namely, the letter of Cœlestine and the Roman Synod (p. 25 f.), and that of S. Cyril and of the Alexandrian Synod to Nestorius; and the four clerics whom Cyril had sent to deliver that document to Nestorius were examined as to the result of their mission. They gave the information, with which we are already acquainted (see above, p. 34), that Nestorius had given them no answer at all. In order, however, to be quite clear as to whether he still persisted in his error, two bishops, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene, who were personal friends of Nestorius, and had during the last three days been in habitual intercourse with him, and had endeavoured to convert him from his error, were questioned on oath respecting the matter. They announced that, unfortunately, all their efforts with him had been in vain.
In order, however, to submit the doctrinal point in question to a thorough investigation, and in the light of patristic testimony, at the suggestion of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, a number of passages from the writings of the Fathers of the Church were now read, in which the ancient faith respecting the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ was expressed. These were statements of the opinions of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria († 311), of Athanasius, Pope Julius I. († 352), Pope Felix I. († 274), Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria († 412), of Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople († 426), and Amphilochius of Iconium († 394). All these early authorities knew nothing of the Nestorian separation of the Godhead and manhood, but, on the contrary, taught the true incarnation of the Logos. The venerable martyr, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, said: “God the Logos was made flesh, and born of the Virgin’s womb;” but Athanasius used frequently and unhesitatingly the expression θεοτόκος, contested by Nestorius, and says: “As the flesh was born of the God-bearer Mary, so we say that HE (the Logos) was Himself born of Mary.” And in a second passage Athanasius strongly blames those who (exactly like Nestorius) say that “the suffering and crucified Christ is not God the Logos;” who distinguish between Christ and the Logos, and do not confess, and do not acknowledge, “that the Logos, inasmuch as HE assumed a body from Mary, was made man.” And in a third passage Athanasius teaches that “the Logos was in truth, in the full sense of the word (not θέσει = by adoption, external connection), made man, otherwise HE would not be our Redeemer.” In agreement with this Pope Julius said: “There are not two sons, one true who assumed the man, and another the man who was assumed by God, but an only-begotten God in heaven, and an only-begotten God on earth.” Even Pope Felix I., who lived more than a century and a half before Nestorius, rejected his error, when he wrote: “We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, that HE is the eternal Son and Word of God, and not a man assumed by God, distinct from that (Word). For the Son of God did not assume a man, so that this was distinct from Him, but HE, the perfect God, was at the same time perfect man, made flesh of the Virgin.” Less striking are the passages from Cyprian and Ambrose; but Gregory of Nazianzus is again quite explicit: “We do not sever the man from the Godhead, but declare both to be one and the same who at the beginning was not man, but God, and the only Son of God, before all time and without all corporeity, but who at the end of the ages assumed man for the sake of our salvation. We confess that HE is one and the same, divine and earthly, visible and invisible, and so forth, at the same time, so that through the whole man, who is at the same time God, the whole man, who has fallen into sin, is created anew.” The seven anathematisms, too, which Gregory of Nazianzus appends to this passage, are entirely anti-Nestorian, and the very first of them anathematizes those who do not call Mary θεοτόκος, and the fourth those who hold that there are two sons, the one eternal from the Father, and a second from Mary. Further, the passage selected from Basil sounds as if it had been written with reference to Nestorius; for it says: “The immeasurable and infinite God, without being capable of suffering (in Himself), by assuming flesh combated death, in order by His own suffering to deliver us from liability to suffering.” To the same effect, in fine, speak also Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople, Amphilochius of Iconium, and Theophilus of Antioch, “that God was born and died.”
In opposition to these patristic passages there were next read twenty passages, some longer and some shorter, from the writings of Nestorius, in which his fundamental views, which we have presented above connectedly, were expressed in separate parts and in concreto.
The last document which was produced at this first session was the letter of Capreolus, Archbishop of Carthage, in which he asks them, on account of the war in Africa (consequent upon the invasion of the Vandals), to excuse his own inability to be present, or to send any of his suffragan bishops. Besides, he said, the Emperor’s letter of invitation had not reached him until Easter 431, and thus too late; and Augustine, whose presence the Emperor specially wished, had died some time before. He (the archbishop) therefore sent only his deacon Bessula, and prayed the Synod to tolerate no novelties whatever in matters of religion. In this he does not refer expressly to Nestorius, but he unmistakeably indicates that he reckons his doctrines among the unauthorized novelties. The Synod gave its approval to this letter of the African bishop, and proceeded at once (the intermediate speeches are not known to us) to the condemnation of Nestorius. The sentence is as follows: ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος εἶπε· Πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις μήτε ὑπακοῦσαι βουληθέντος τοῦ ἀσεβεστάτου Νεστορίου τῇ παρʼ ἡμῶν κλήσει, μήτε μὴν τοὺς παρʼ ἡμῶν ἀποσταλέντας ἁγιωτάτους καὶ Θεοσεβεστάτους ἐπισκόπους δεξαμένου, ἀναγκαίως ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν δυσσεβηθέντων αὐτῷ. Καὶ φωράσαντες αὐτὸν ἔκ τε τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, καὶ ἐκ τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρτίως παρʼ αὐτοῦ ῥηθέντων κατὰ τήνδε τὴν μητρόπολιν καὶ πρόσμαρτυρηθέντων, δυσσεβῶς φρονοῦντα καὶ κηρύττοντα, ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ συλλειτουργοῦ Κελεστίνου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τῆς ‘Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησίας, δακρύσαντες πολλάκις, ἐπὶ τὴν σκυθρωπὴν κατʼ αὐτοῦ ἐχωρήσαμεν ἀπόφασιν. Ὁ βλασφημηθεὶς τοίνυν παρʼ αὐτοῦ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὥρισε διὰ τῆς παρούσης ἁγιωτάτης συνόδου, ἀλλότριον εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν Νεστόριον τοῦ ἐπισκοπικοῦ ἀξιώματος καὶ παντὸς συλλόγου ἱερατικοῦ; that is: “As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Urged by the canons (c. 74, Apostol.), and in accordance with the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.”
As we have already remarked above, this judgment was in the first place subscribed by 198 bishops who were present. Some others afterwards took the same side, so that altogether over 200 subscribed.
The session had lasted from early in the morning into the night, and the assembled population of Ephesus waited the whole day to hear the decision. When this was at last known, there arose an universal rejoicing; they commended the Synod, and solemnly accompanied the members, particularly Cyril, with torches and censers to their houses. The city was also illuminated in many places. This is joyfully related by Cyril in one of the three letters which he despatched at that time to the members of his Church of Alexandria, and to the monks of Egypt.
On the next day the sentence which had been pronounced was sent to Nestorius himself in a very laconic edict. In the superscription he is called a new Judas, and in the text it is said briefly: “He must know that, on account of his impious doctrines and his disobedience to the canons (because he had not appeared in answer to the citations), he had been, on the 22d of June, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws, deposed by the holy Synod, and expelled from the body of the clergy.”
In two other similarly curt letters of the same date, the one to the collective people, the other to the clergy of Constantinople, the Synod announced that which had been done, and required the latter to watch carefully over all the property of the Church of Constantinople, so as to be able to give an account of it to him who should, in accordance with the will of God and the indication (νεύματι) of the Emperor, become bishop of that city.
Cyril, as president of the Synod, wrote at greater length to his friends and agents in Constantinople, the Archimandrite Dalmatius and several (certainly Egyptian) bishops and priests, and related to them the whole course of the session, from the citation of Nestorius to his deposition, with the request that they would take care that no false rumours on the subject should go abroad. It was reputed that Count Candidian had already sent such false information (to the Emperor); whereas the Synod had not yet completed its full report (together with the Acts) to the Emperor.
It quoted Athanasius because in that text, the idea that it was God who suffered (the theopaschite idea) is probably what they found relevant. I hope you are not arguing the text itself is irrelevant and we can disregard Athanasius’ teaching.
I am not arguing the text of Ephesus council. Athanasius did write that Jeremiah and Joh the Baptist (and others) was sinless in Discourse against the Arians, but his statement is never adopted as official teaching of the Church, either the East or the the West.
If Mary was born with Original sin like us, as you claimed, then why she is the only one who cannot sin? Was she a super-woman? You deny her Immaculate Conception because it robs “her merits” from her. This sounds like semi-pelagianism, i.e. both grace and our free will work together as independent (and equal) entities. Her Immaculate Conception, in fact, will give all glory to God as He is the One who made her born not with Original Sin and that is why she had no inclination to sin. Once born she still had free will to choose either to sin or not to sin and by grace she chose the latter freely.
Dear Craig Truglia: Could you fulfill a promise, and obtain these books for yourself from Amazon.com on the question, controversy regarding Christian Mariology, what is it? From the different specific views of Roman Catholicism, Greek-Russian Orthodoxy, and European and American Evangelicalism vs. European Reformation Protestantism on the ever-virginity of Mary, etc., other topics on the Blessed Mother of God; could you possibly go on Amazon, etc. and read: obtain these 2 books: Fr. Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception; and Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck: Aiparthenos: On the Ever-Virginity of Mary. Etc. The book by Kappes mentions St. Mark of Ephesus (Orthodox), Gregory Palamas (Orthodox), and Thomas Aquinas (Aristotelian). Take care. In Erie PA. Scott Robert Harrington. Please see: WordPress.com Scott Robert Harrington Saint Andrew of Valaam Association. God bless you always. Amen.
Vivator: Trusting in human reason and rationalism will not produce the Revelation of God (Scripture in Church Tradition: Orthodox Tradition, 7 Ecumenical Councils, Greek and Latin Orthodox Church Fathers, Syriac Orthodox Church Fathers, Georgian Church Fathers, Armenian Fathers before the Armenian schism after 451 AD; THE RUDDER, the 8th Ecumenical Council, Good Pope John VIII, 879-880 AD); will not produce the truth about the Ever-Virgin Mary, the Mother of GOD. (GOD the Son). We need to believe what the Church says the Scripture means, not the Frankish Papacy (Europe, 1840 AD and following), nor the Protestant Reformers. See: Fr. Andrew Phillips. Orthodox England. Filioque and Humanism.
You wrote “We need to believe what the Church says the Scripture means, not the Frankish Papacy (Europe, 1840 AD and following), nor the Protestant Reformers” Do you mean the Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or does it also include the Western Church before 1840 AD? Whichever it is, you may believe so and I do respect it, but it does not mean everybody must agree with you.
God is Who God is. He does not require people to figure Him out for themselves based upon their own personal subjectivist opinions. He says, “Your thought are not My thoughts’ your ways are not My ways”. The Church, like Christ, is what it is, regardless of men’s opinions about it. It is as clear as mathematics, and cannot be disproven nor rationalized: 2 and 2 always make for, no more, no less. The true Church is the Orthodox Church. Whether anyone assents to or agrees with this, it matters not. For those who reject this, the Church, the eternal loss is eternally theirs, not the Churches. For the gates of hell ) (the evil mouths of Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants) shall not prevail ever against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. Members of the Orthodox Church may barely be saved; what will become of the eternal souls who fall into the humanism, atheism, polytheism, semi-Sabellianism, subordinationalism, Binitarianism of Charlemagne’s FILIOQUE? The West is sinful, and needs to repent of her genocide against Constantinople, 1204-1261 AD, and against 500,000 Orthodox Serbs whom the Croatian Catholic priests slaughtered in mass genocide: the Nazi Fascist Catholic Creatian Ustashe. Jasenovac. World War II. The War Criminals, Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, and Catholic Adolf Hitler.
You cited Isaiah 55:8 and wrote “it is clear as mathematics … The true Church is the Orthodox Church”.
First Isaiah 55:8 has nothing to do with your decision to opt for the Orthodox Church, unless you claim and can prove that God personally told you so.
Second you don’t need mathematics to choose your church.
The West in sinful? You think ALL Orthodox Christians are always holy, blameless and not sinful? Have you heard the name Rasputin and the butcher of Balkan?
God bless both of you
I would disagree about Pope Pius XII. His being evil is fake history. I am also fairly sure that Hitler did not consider himself Catholic during WW2. But if we are really going to decide which Church is true on that account, certainly the original Christian Church is quite false. One twelfth of all the bishops betrayed God to death and committed suicide immediately afterward.
I believe the Orthodox Church to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I do respect your opinion even though I disagree with that
My Orthodox name is “Patrick.”
I know. I was trying to make a point about the wrong way to argue with people, showing the words of a fellow Catholic in order to be fair.