> Dean Perkins: Thanks for this interposition. Would you accept the idea that the term 'brother/sibling' can also (as it does) refer to Jesus 'step siblings'? Historically the Church has always held that these were indeed the children of St Joseph by a former marriage. That makes perfect sense. Blessings. GDVW+ > > Not to throw a wrench in the works but even though I believe the BVM was > pure and should be honored, I do believe that Jesus had brothers and > sisters and they came the normal way after He was born. Guess some of the > protestant influence rubbed off on me. > > Bill+ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: The Rev. Fr. Johann W. Vanderbijl III > To: faithandlife@... > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:43 PM > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > There are so many things I am tempted to say here, especially with > regard to the East rejecting this doctrine while still maintaining that > the Blessed Virgin was sinless...but as this is not my area of > experitise I would rather not dive in too deep. But let me say as a > neophyte in this debate that I cannot comprehend the objection to the IC > that St. Mary was then the Second Adam - the IC specifically states that > she was retroactively rendered without original sin by the sacrifice of > Christ...not by her own merits or any other such thing...she could thus > not have been the Savior as she still needed a Savior like us all...I'm > not saying that this is to be believed by all and sundry - only that it > is as valid an opinion, speculation/theory as that of Augustine and > others. > > Then again, I may just be unscholarly and stupid...not the first time > and certainly not the last. > > Johann+ > > The Rev. Fr. Johann W. Vanderbijl III, Rector > The Anglican Church of St. George the Martyr > 427 Batesville Road > Simpsonville, SC 29681 > cranmer@... > www.stgeorge-re.org > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rev. Dr. Derrick Hassert > To: faithandlife@... > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:47 PM > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > In light of the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic statement tacitly > accepting the Marian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the > related ideas concerning her bodily assumption into Heaven, as well as > in light of the fact that many modern Anglicans are open to these > speculations (as is evident in this discussion), I think several > factors need to be considered pertaining specifically to the > Immaculate Conception: > 1) This is not a "Catholic" doctrine; it is not accepted by the East > nor by the West during the period of the Ecumenical Councils; > 2) The Orthodox reject this doctrine, > 3) The Old Catholics rejected this notion; > 4) Early Anglo-Catholics rejected this notion as "un-Catholic" and > heretical. > > Its modern acceptance by many Anglicans is therefore noteworthy, > troubling, and unfortunate. Per the Old Catholic rejection of the > Immaculate Conception, the Fourteen Theses state: > > We reject the new Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the > Blessed Virgin Mary, as being contrary to the tradition of the first > thirteen centuries according to which Christ alone is conceived > without sin. > > Early Anglo-Catholic rejection of the notion of the Immaculate > Conception is usually tempered by accepting notions of Mary's > perpetual virginity and high degree of sanctity. Even so, Westcott's > statements in his dogmatic theology text Catholic Principles > illustrates the continuing problems with the doctrine in a manner > similar to the Old Catholic reflection: > > The first example of a papal definition of doctrine made independently > of a council occurred in 1854, when, under Jesuit influence, Pope Pius > IX declared that the doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was "preserved > in the first instant of her conception from all stain of original sin > . . . was revealed by God, and is therefore to be firmly and > steadfastly believed by all the faithful." We must be careful to note > exactly what this doctrine means and involves. Anglican Churchmen do > not deny that the Blessed Virgin may have been so sanctified by the > Holy Ghost, that she was preserved from actually committing sin, > though this is merely a pious opinion; nor do Anglicans dispute the > Catholic tradition of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. > What the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception affirms is, that she > did not inherit original sin, a sinful nature, the taint which has > been transmitted from Adam; and if this be true, then it would seem to > follow that the Blessed Virgin, and not our Lord, is the starting > point of our redemption; the beginning of the new humanity, the second > Adam; and that the inherited taint of sin was cut off by Mary, not by > Christ; and that from Mary we inherit the new nature, rather than from > Christ. Now of this doctrine, there is not the slightest hint in the > Bible; and when it first began to be taught, it was controverted and > disputed. St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, taught > the contrary; and the whole Greek Church has always repudiated it. It > virtually contradicts one of our Lord's unique attributes, namely, > that He alone was born without taint of sin. If this doctrine be true, > then salvation begins with the Blessed Virgin, rather than with > Christ; and yet this doctrine was proclaimed in 1854, as a dogma > divinely revealed. > Another point of concern would be that through the Immaculate > Conceptions as the Romans teach it that you could argue that > Christ's humanity, the humanity he took on in order to redeem it > (kai o logoV sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin; St. John 1:14), > need not be subject to the suffering (hunger, thirst, pain---the > wounds of the Fall still in the flesh) and death that resulted > from the Fall if Mary were cleansed from every taint of Original > Sin at her conception and then did not sin throughout her life > (was she able not to sin, or not able to sin due to her arguably > perfect human nature?). If Mary is the New Adam (so to speak), > rather than Christ, our new nature and redemption is brought to > us not by Christ, but by the Virgin: "If this doctrine be true, > then salvation begins with the Blessed Virgin, rather than with > Christ" (Catholic Principles, Westcott, 1902). Then all of the > Roman titles that have been allotted to the Virgin Mary would be > accurate and valid and we're bordering on Christological heresy > to the point of making Jesus superfluous. In short, the > Immaculate Conception is an un-Catholic doctrine that contradicts > the Scriptures. > > DH+ > > "rector@..." <rector@...> wrote: > "How was He without sin?" First, the Word tells us that he was > without sin, > how, I would not assume to guess or speculate, other than to say > that and > this is again according to Augustine "Christ's birth was unqiue > insofar as > He did not need to be born again because He did not pass over from > sin, to > which He was never subject. In iniquity He was not conceived, nr in > sin > (Ps 50:7) was He nourished in His mother's womb, because the Holy > Spirit > came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her; > therefore > the Holy One born of her is called the Son of God (Lk 1:35) -- and > again > according to Augustine's understanding "under such a shadow burned > with no > heat of that concupiscence in conceiving her holy offsrping." How??? > I > guess that is a God thing that "Farther along we'll know more about, > Farther along we'll understand why." > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: cranmer@... > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:26:54 -0400 > To: faithandlife@... > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > True, the Word became flesh...but, as Scripture says, He was made as > we > are, YET without sin...and that's not the only verse...St. Paul > speak of > Him Who knew no sin...and John says that in Him there is no sin...if > the > flesh He took upon His Divine self was corrupt, how was He without > sin? > > > > From: "rector@..." > > Date: 2006/10/24 Tue PM 12:39:56 EDT > > To: faithandlife@... > > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > > Again Sir, your scholarship is very muchly appreciated. > > > > Original Message: > > ----------------- > > From: Rev. Dr. Derrick Hassert cranmerandlaud@... > > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:19:35 -0700 (PDT) > > To: faithandlife@... > > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > > > > Amen. The Immaculate Conception argument below is circular at best > and a > > Christological heresy at worst. Christ lived a sinless life in > order to > > redeem humanity, but he needed to have "sinless DNA" so His life > and > > sacrifice and their merits were retroactively applied to Mary in > order > than > > He might lead the sinless life? Is this the best justification for > this > > teaching. A "good enough" theory that cannot be shown from > Scripture, has > > no consensus of the Fathers, and is rejected by the entire Eastern > Church? > > Sorry, I won't be adding the word "Immaculate" to the BCP feast of > the > > Conception. > > > > What was not assumed could not be redeemed. Are we forgetting the > Gospel > > of John? The Word became flesh (sarkos) and dwelt among us. Christ > assumed > > our humanity in its fallen state and through the union with the > Godhead > > perfected it. The teaching that it was already "perfect" before > the > > hypostatic union pretty much negates Christ's work, except for the > > sacrifice of His death on the Cross. God did not "shield Jesus > from sin" > > like a parent shielding his son from television--the Word made > flesh > > confronted and conquered sin in His Life and upon the Cross; He > wasn't > kept > > from it. I'd suggest reading The Trinitarian Faith by T.F. > Torrance and > his > > survey of the Fathers on this matter. > > > > DH+ > > > > "rector@..." wrote: > > Without being disrespectful, that sounds like a devised argument > -- what > > does the Word teach us for goodness sakes? The Magnificat, the > thank > > offering of the Blessed Virgin, the Church's central sacrifice at > Evensong, > > is a mother's song of giving thanks for the Word made Flesh, a > triumph of > > grace, and a prelude of glory and yet speaks of her own need for a > Saviour. > > The Eastern Church was never endorsed the Immaculate Conception. > Thus God, > > retroactively applied the sacrifice of Jesus, at what point, the > doctrine > > holds that she was sinless from the moment of her Conception and > thus free > > from original sin. Read St. Thomas Aquinas as a starter. > > Jack > > Original Message: > > ----------------- > > From: cranmer@... > > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:05:46 -0400 > > To: faithandlife@... > > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > > > > I must be honest - I do not understand the "Queen" bit, but I am > reading a > > lot on the subject seeing that it comes up ever so often...I am > also > > talking to Dwight (the soon to be RCC priest) who is fast becoming > a good > > friend. I suppose her being the Mother of the King of kings does > kind of > > make her a queen... > > > > BTW, I do understand the teaching on the Immaculate Conception a > lot > better > > than I ever did before since talking to Dwight. He said (and I > hope I > > represent his statements fairly) that as Jesus did not have an > earthly > > father, His DNA was exclusively from St. Mary...as we believe He > was a > > sinless and perfect human being, this DNA would have had to have > been > > sinless and perfect. Thus, God (retroactively applying the > sacrifice of > > Jesus for the sins of the world to St. Mary) acted upon her at the > point > of > > her (natural) conception to deliver her from original sin. Thus > she was > > still "saved by grace" like the rest of us, but just at conception > rather > > than after birth. > > > > I can buy that - God obviously did something to shield Jesus from > original > > sin - this theory is as good as any other I think. > > > > Johann+ > > > > > > > > > > > > From: GMSpencer@... > > > Date: 2006/10/24 Tue AM 10:45:48 EDT > > > To: faithandlife@... > > > Subject: Re: Re: [FaithandLife] Rosarian Thoughts 2006 > > > > > > "My understanding of Revelation 12 is that this is a typical > Hebraic > > multi-image - i.o.w. the Woman is at once Israel (12 Patriarchs), > the > > Blessed Virgin (she brings forth the Child) and the Church > (persecuted and > > protected etc.). However, one must also remember that the chapter > > divisions are not in the original - this the Woman may very well > also be > > the Ark which, in my understanding, was a type of Mary - both bore > the > Word > > and the Manna, both were overshadowed by the Shekina glory (or > Holy > Ghost), > > both were taken into the Judean hills for a period of three months > and > > greeted by joyous leaping (David and John the Baptist), etc. - at > least > > that was the understanding of some the Early Church Fathers." > > > > > > Excellent. This is probably exactly how the early Fathers took > that > > image. Our Lady is also a type of the Church. The Fathers seem not > to get > > to dogmatic on the specific interpretation of this sort of iconic > thing in > > Scripture. And as we know this book, the Revelation, was not > easily > > accepted by the early Church, especially by the Eastern Church. > But let's > > say that the image is one of our Lady. How does one move from this > image > of > > her with a crown of 12 stars to the "Queen of Heaven?" > > > gms+ > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things > done > > faster. > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ > countries) for 2¢/min or less. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate. > com > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > ----------------------------------------- Catholic Financial Services Send and Receive all online Payments And Donations No Merchant Account Required! https://www.catholicfs.org/