Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

As pointed out to you repeatedly:

1. Ineffabilis Deus talks about exemption from the stain of Original Sin.
2. The “stain” of Original Sin, that sinful aspect of the consequences of the ancestral sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace.

The language is appropriate the theology.

How can you separate the stain of Original Sin from Original Sin itself. If you do not have the stain, what else do you have?

 

[ConstantineTG]

1 See above.
2. What event has to be applied? At what point in time was it beyond the power of God to bestow grace?

If God is not limited by time, why is it just Mary who was exempted from Original Sin? Why not Adam and Eve? Why not Abraham? Why not Moses?

 

[dvdjs]

I think I have already explained it one hundred bajillion times.

But you mistaken notions of the Catholic thinking have also been explained a bajillion times.

A. God is beyond time, but we’re not

Those who died before Christ were only saved at the time Christ died and “descended unto the dead”.

Not sure exactly what you mean by “saved”. But, in any case, Mary did not die before Christ. And since when did the IC become about being “saved”?

If God was indeed time travelling, then He shouldn’t have sent Adam out of paradise, instead He should just have asked him to stay and receive the merits of what Christ was going to do a few millenia later.

You may think you have better ideas about the way God coul d apply his omnipotence, but that is really shaky ground.

 

[dvdjs]

To say that Jesus couldn’t be in the womb of that ‘contaminated by sin’ is to deny the power of Grace. If That is the case, how does the Spirit purify us of our sins? He can’t inhabit a sinful nature, so how can he make us pure? This idea makes salvation impossible. We are automatically damned because we are contaminated, and therefore uninhabitable for God. It is God who heals, but he is incapable of healing us.

Actually the idea is to affirm the power of Grace.

The Patristic sense was that the ark that contained the uncontainable, the human that gave birth to divine essence had to be pure. I suppose one could argue this point, but I am not sure why bother to haggle with the Fathers over this.

The IC says that this purification occurred through the power of grace.

 

[dvdjs]

How else would Christ heal and deify a nature stained by sin without actually assuming it? That which is not assumed is not healed and all that jazz.

So the sinless one was stained by sin He could heal sin? Not at all.

 

[Mickey]

I suppose one could argue this point, but I am not sure why bother to haggle with the Fathers over this.

Why indeed…because the IC doctrine is not patristic.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t see how you can assert that she was full of Grace before the Incarnation.

The Byzantine liturgy of the Entrance of the Theotokos clearly points to an earlier moment.

The Orthodox are often accused of semipelagianism.
I have a problem with this kind of argument because it seems that everything is forced to fit so that it sounds good. Mary was full of grace, therefore she never sinned, therefore she must have received a particular grace at conception to protect her from sinning. If you disagree with the conclusion you are a pelagian. It’s all wrapped up nicely.

Actually, in modern polemics against the IC some sounf fully pelagian.

As I have been pointing out, it is superfluous. The Son is the source of Grace, so it is superfluous to argue that he needed to be preserved by sanctifying Grace, that comes apart from the incarnation. It is redundant as well because the idea is that he is the source of this Grace in a roundabout way. The incarnation is the source of the Grace given to Mary, and consequently that given to Christ to keep his nature pure. It is a perfect loop.

But tradition testifies to a purification before the incarnation.

I don’t think though that the CC asserts that Jesus would have had a corrupt nature If the IC didn’t occur. Even if Mary would have sinned, it wouldn’t imply that Jesus’ nature would be stained by OS, or lack Grace. So I think this is a superfluous argument we are having. I agree with this.

 

[neokarny]

So the sinless one was stained by sin He could heal sin? Not at all.

Not sure that’s really what I was saying.

 

[dvdjs]

I disagree that sexual reproduction is the actual cause of propagating original sin through conception, but I don’t disagree that humans inherit original sin at conception (beginning of life, and as such they necessarily have human nature, and so original sin).

I don’t see how two baptized humans without original sin can sexually pass on original sin to their offspring. They can’t inherit a condition from their parents that their parents no longer have to pass on. The only responses I can see are: 1) the parents still have it in some way to pass on, or 2) the child gets it from some other means.

It is not possible to respond reasonable without your explaining what you mean by Original Sin.

But wouldn’t EC’s agree with the other Eastern Churches on these matters? Unless they’re not allowed to inherit their traditions.

What a hoot. In stark contrast to you remarks, another poster who identifies as Orthodox denies the very concept of Original Sin within Orthodoxy. But I have posted links to Orthodox Confessions and Catechism that follow RC teaching on Original Sin rather precisely. Moreover, Metropolitan Kallistos has published that the RC teaching is acceptable in Orthodoxy; his Synod has not protested. I think it is fair to say, that it is almost impossible not to lie within the teachings of EOrthodoxy on this matter.

 

[dvdjs]

How can you separate the stain of Original Sin from Original Sin itself. If you do not have the stain, what else do you have?

Hmmm
Already answered this several times. Shall I repost the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that spells this out in simple terms yet again? Will you read it this time?

 

[dvdjs]

If God is not limited by time, why is it just Mary who was exempted from Original Sin? Why not Adam and Eve? Why not Abraham? Why not Moses?

I cannot say why God adopted the plan of salvation that He did. I will not say that he was powerless to do otherwise, or powerless to do what we say that He did.

 

[dvdjs]

Not sure that’s really what I was saying.

Sorry, typed to hastily.
I meant “So, unless…” And of course I hope that is not what you meant. The point is: it is important to be precise in reading/writing about sin, versus human nature.

 

[neokarny]

Sorry, typed to hastily.
I meant “So, unless…” And of course I hope that is not what you meant. The point is: it is important to be precise in reading/writing about sin, versus human nature.

You’ll have to excuse my imprecision on this subject as my knowledge is more focused on the Christological aspects with partial relation to the atoning work, but rather minimal in regards to sin/original sin.

 

[neokarny]

another poster who identifies as Orthodox denies the very concept of Original Sin within Orthodoxy.

Probably just anti-Western nonsense. I’ve even seen a seminarian dogmatize the word “ancestral sin” against “original sin,” and denounce “original sin” as heresy. IOW, he refused to even use the same word as Western non-Orthodox as if it can only mean the Reformed belief or something. I’m surprised folks like that don’t condemn “stole” as heresy and only use “epitrachelion.”

 

[dvdjs]

Probably just anti-Western nonsense. I’ve even seen a seminarian dogmatize the word “ancestral sin” against “original sin,” and denounce “original sin” as heresy. IOW, he refused to even use the same word as Western non-Orthodox as if it can only mean the Reformed belief or something. I’m surprised folks like that don’t condemn “stole” as heresy and only use “epitrachelion.”

Thank you so much for this irenic post.
BTW, I have taken to calling my necktie as my epitrachelionm, as I were it for my certain “official duties” at work, and it goes right around my trachea. But I insist on hand-painted icons.

 

[neokarny]

Thank you so much for this irenic post. Nice to hear from EOs from the old country.

Sorry to disappoint, but I’m just an American convert. There are actually a few of us out there on the internet that aren’t sensationally reacting against the West, even if we can be hard to find sometimes.

BTW, I have taken to calling my necktie as my epitrachelionm, as I were it for my certain “official duties” at work, and it goes right around my trachea. But I insist on hand-painted icons.

But were those hand-painted icons from Mt. Athos and done fully according to the proper canonical standards? If not, anathema.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If God is not limited by time, why is it just Mary who was exempted from Original Sin? Why not Adam and Eve? Why not Abraham? Why not Moses

What time zone does God live in? You have His address?

She found favor with God. He knew her before She was in her mothers womb? Biblically?

Jeremiah - 1:4- “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart”

Course this is the prophet referred to in verse. Still the same this applied to the Incarnation of the Word of God? Or no?

 

[dvdjs]

Sorry to disappoint, but I’m just an American convert. There are actually a few of us out there on the internet that aren’t sensationally reacting against the West, even if we can be hard to find sometimes.

I was talking about Ohio.

But were those hand-painted icons from Mt. Athos and done fully according to the proper canonical standards? If not, anathema.

Painted, not written, at Mt St Macrina.

 

[Peter_J]

I haven’t been posting a whole lot in this thread, but …

If God is not limited by time, why is it just Mary who was exempted from Original Sin? Why not Adam and Eve? Why not Abraham? Why not Moses?

There was no need to exempt Adam and Eve from Original Sin, since it didn’t yet exist when they were created. (I can’t really say “when they were conceived”.) Naturally, they were free of Original Sin, until they sinned.

 

[ConstantineTG]

She found favor with God.

So I guess Noah was also immaculately concieved.

Genesis 6:8
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Jeremiah - 1:4- “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart”

Oh, did you even bother to read the entire Chapter 1 of Jeremiah to know that this verse refers to Jeremiah? I thought it was only Protestants who isolate verses from their context?