Catholic dogma and the Oriental Tradition

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marc Anthony,

Interesting.

It seems due to Vico’s reply that with a simple change in the theological understanding behind the dogma of the assumption the controversy would cease.

I wonder why the Eastern Churches don’t adopt this position (as in, the position that Mary was ssumed bodily into Heaven BEFORE her death)?

Because there’s absolutely no patristic support for it in the Western, Eastern or Oriental Churches?

We have to remember that something requires dogmatization only when it is challenged. The idea that Mary died physically has no history of debate in the Church. The history of the Feast of the Assumption clearly equates it with the Feast of the Dormition, which refers to both her physical death and translation into heaven. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, its article on the Assumption clearly states that the feast was traditionally kept as an “anniversary of our Lady’s death.”

The idea that Mary never died is a novelty that exists only in the Latin Catholic Church (I’m not saying that it is Magisterial, only that there are many in the Latin CC who believe it). You propose that the controversy would cease if the East only “change its theological understanding” (I know it is not your intention, but it is on the face a rather condescending suggestion). First of all, there is no controversy over the matter in the East or Orient, only among Catholics in the West. Secondly, the controversy would just as easily cease - and more correctly IMO - if certain Catholics in the West repudiate their novelty in the matter.

There is also a very serious dogmatic consequence on a belief that Mary did not die. Death is an inherent aspect of human nature. If Mary did not die, then she cannot be said to have possessed human nature. If she did not have a human nature, then Jesus did not acquire our human nature from her. Which is heresy.

What do you think?

Blessings

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Dear brother Marc Anthony,

Because there’s absolutely no patristic support for it in the Western, Eastern or Oriental Churches?

We have to remember that something requires dogmatization only when it is challenged. The idea that Mary died physically has no history of debate in the Church. The history of the Feast of the Assumption clearly equates it with the Feast of the Dormition, which refers to both her physical death and translation into heaven. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, its article on the Assumption clearly states that the feast was traditionally kept as an “anniversary of our Lady’s death.”

The idea that Mary never died is a novelty that exists only in the Latin Catholic Church (I’m not saying that it is Magisterial, only that there are many in the Latin CC who believe it). You propose that the controversy would cease if the East only “change its theological understanding” (I know it is not your intention, but it is on the face a rather condescending suggestion). First of all, there is no controversy over the matter in the East or Orient, only among Catholics in the West. Secondly, the controversy would just as easily cease - and more correctly IMO - if certain Catholics in the West repudiate their novelty in the matter.

There is also a very serious dogmatic consequence on a belief that Mary did not die. Death is an inherent aspect of human nature. If Mary did not die, then she cannot be said to have possessed human nature. If she did not have a human nature, then Jesus did not acquire our human nature from her. Which is heresy.

What do you think?

Blessings

I think that is an excellent answer that adequately addressed my questions. Thanks!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey

Mardukm:

the Oriental understanding of Original sin is practically identical to the Western understanding

Are there any Oriental Orthodox here to corroborate this?

Several things distinguish the Oriental from the Eastern Tradition on Original Sin:

1. Original Sin is an inherited stain/ blemish/ scar (one can use other appropriate words).
2. This stain consists of the absence of Original Holiness and Original Justice, resulting in spiritual death (separation from God). This stain is removed by Baptism, re-establishing union with God.
3. The sine qua non and primary effect of Original Sin is spiritual death/ separation from God, not physical death.

COPTIC ORTHODOX:
The consequence of Adam’s sin is not guilt but death and the corrupt nature. Death means being separated from God. Adam and Eve’s disobedience made them both dead. A dead person cannot give life. Therefore, we are born dead, and it is only through baptism that we are born again regaining the image of God, which Adam had enjoyed before his fall.
suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=341&catid=278

No one is born Christian because every newborn baby is born with the original sin of Adam and Eve. But the person becomes Christian after Baptism (getting rid of the inherited sin).
Fr. Rueiss Awad, St. George and St. Rueiss Coptic Orthodox Church Sunday School Program (Grade 10), 78

The Orthodox believe that baptism is the way to receive salvation, purification, justification, renewal of life and membership in the Body of Christ
copticorthodoxcollege.com/templates/template.aspx?articleid=18&zoneid=5

ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC:
As original sin is universal, and the need for release from it is universal, therefore the Church wisely and justly allows infants to receive the Grace which cleanses them from the stains of the original sin and gives them, in their innocency, the equipment to fight victoriously against sin…Indeed, if we knew the nature and effect of the thing called Sin we would surely feel a sincere sorrow, because sin is the greatest of all evils with dreadful results. Ill health, poverty, and other material evils last for only a certain time; at death these evils will all come to an end.
Bishop Kaloustian, Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church

In Baptismal Rite of the Armenian Apostolic Church contains the following instruction:
‘What does this child request’?
The Sponsor shall answer:
Faith, hope, love and baptism, (Havadk, Hooys, Ser, yev Mgurdoutiun)
To be baptized and justified, to be cleansed of sins, to be freed from demons and to serve God.
armenianchurchjacksonville.com/baptism.htm

SYRIAN ORTHODOX:
The Sacrament of Baptism wipes away the scars of the (inherited) Original Sin and qualifies the baptized to become a member of the Holy Church.
Fr. Mathai Varkey Puthukkunnathu, Vicar, St. Ignatius Elias III Syrian Orthodox Church, Atlanta, Georgia, “The Baptism of Jesus,” Shroro, Vol 2, Issue 2 (Jan, 2006)

Because we were baptized in His name, we were born through the water and Spirit a second birth from heaven, and we were justified and sanctified to be children of God by grace, and heirs to His heavenly kingdom…Sin is very awful indeed and leads to eternal death. The Apostle James said: and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (Jas. 1:15). For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Therefore when sin overtakes a person, he becomes overwhelmed with apprehension, anxiety, guilt and instability. In fear and trepidation, He expects severe punishment as a consequence for what he has committed. But thanks be to God for sending His Son, Who became an atonement for us by His death on the Cross, thus abolishing sin by His resurrection from among the dead. In so doing, He reconciled us with His heavenly Father, Who wants us to be at peace with heaven in order to be worthy to inherit the kingdom of God. For we have been justified from the original sin when we were buried with Christ in Baptism, even to death, and rose with Him to a new life.
1997 Patriarchal encyclical of His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Supreme Head of the universal Syrian Orthodox Church.

Eastern polemics and apologetics normally don’t view Ancestral Sin as an inherited stain that is removed by baptism, but depicts it in terms of the consequences (i.e., concupiscence and physical death). Also, the doctrine of Original Justice is often downplayed or altogether missing. Note especially HH Ignatius Zakka’s teaching that sinfulness causes anxiety/fear leading to death, whereas many Easterns today teach that death causes anxiety/fear leading to sinfulness.

These distinctions are not intended to deny that there are sections within EO’xy that possess an understanding of Original Sin that is more consistent with the Western (Catholic, not Protestant) and Oriental Traditions. Nor are these distinctions intended to diminish the idea that Original Sin also refers to the first sin (disobedience) of Adam and Eve, which the Oriental, Eastern, and Western Traditions have in common.

NOTE: certain OO will deny that the Western Catholic and Oriental understandings of original sin are practically identical, but those that do so base the denial on one thing - the common Orthodox misconception that the Western Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin is an inheritance of Adam’s guilt for his personal sin. Sans that misunderstanding, the Western and Oriental teachings on Original Sin are indeed practically identical.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

NOTE: certain OO will deny that the Western Catholic and Oriental understandings of original sin are practically identical

**Most **will claim that–because it is not identical.

 

[mardukm]

**Most **will claim that–because it is not identical.

Are there any Oriental Orthodox here who can corroborate this?

Recently, the EO criticized HE Bishoy (Coptic Orthodox) for his statements on Original Sin that sounded too Augustinian for their taste. It reinforces what I have stated elsewhere that the polemic EO understanding of “unity” is simply uniformity.:tsktsk:

Pretty hypocritical, IMO.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Brother Dvdjs, as an Eastern, would likely follow St. Palamas in the belief that God made Mary with flesh that was new.

Then he does not adhere to the doctrine as set forth by Rome. St Gregory had a uniqiue understanding of a complete genealogical purification of Our Lady’s ancestors.

I, as an Oriental, believe that Mary’s flesh was transformed at the Annunciation.

Then you also do not adhere to the doctrine of the IC. Interesting.

It doesn’t matter.

Indeed. That is why nothing should have been dogmatized.

 

[Mickey]

Are there any Oriental Orthodox here who can corroborate this?

I asked first. :tsktsk:

You are not Coptic Orthodox–so I do not count you as speaking for them.

If there are any here—let them be heard.

 

[mardukm]

Then he does not adhere to the doctrine as set forth by Rome. St Gregory had a uniqiue understanding of a complete genealogical purification of Our Lady’s ancestors.

Then you’ve never actually read St. Palamas on the matter. Check out the “St. Palamas and the IC” thread.

Then you also do not adhere to the doctrine of the IC. Interesting.

Says the cow to the horse.

Indeed. That is why nothing should have been dogmatized.

The truth of it does not depend on it being dogmatized. EO have certain beliefs that are not dogmatized, but are considered to have dogmatic status nonetheless (e.g., Essence/energies distinction, beliefs about the afterlife, etc.).

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I asked first. :tsktsk:

You are not Coptic Orthodox–so I do not count you as speaking for them.

If there are any here—let them be heard.

Still no proof, I see. That’s to be expected.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Then you’ve never actually read St. Palamas on the matter. Check out the “St. Palamas and the IC” thread.

Indeed I have many times… and so have you.

Says the cow to the horse.

Says the beaver to the groundhog.

The truth of it does not depend on it being dogmatized.

Amen, brother!

 

[Mickey]

Still no proof

I can find many quotes and give multiple websites of the opposing view–just as you have done. I have been through this before. You will just accuse me of polemics.

Let us wait for the Coptic Orthodox to chime in before you begin your campaign of accusing me of having no proof.

 

[mardukm]

Indeed I have many times… and so have you.

So can you give us a direct quote from St. Palamas that there was a “complete genealogical purification?”

Your silence will be a sufficient response.

Says the beaver to the groundhog.

Amen, brother!

Amen, brother. The IC is a truth.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I can find many quotes and give multiple websites of the opposing view–just as you have done. I have been through this before. You will just accuse me of polemics.

No proof, huh? Understandable.

Let us wait for the Coptic Orthodox to chime in before you begin your campaign of accusing me of having no proof.

So why did the EO criticize HE Bishoy’s statements?uch:

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Your silence will be a sufficient response.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans
conceptionis”, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.
curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

 

[marlo]

Well, what he believes is the similar to the IC, he just dont know the fullness of the truth yet.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans
conceptionis”, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.
curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

 

[Mickey]

Well, what he believes is the similar to the IC…

Actually…it is quite different than the 19th century Latin doctrine. But hey, no one is infallible.

 

[mardukm]

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the
hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed
an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand,
Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he
believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans
conceptionis”, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as
any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the
stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as
far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God
progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and
each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis
telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a
spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.
curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

That’s a nice interpretation. You claim you’ve read it. Care to offer us any direct quotes from St. Palamas to support your claim that he taught a “complete genealogical purification?”:coffeeread:

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

That’s a nice interpretation.

I see that you reject Fr Lev’s comments. I read St Gregory as did Fr Lev.

But then again, you do not believe in the IC either since you have already stated your belief in Our Lady being purified at the Annunciation.

 

[Mickey]

That’s a nice interpretation.

It’s better than yours!

 

[Mickey]

Care to offer us any direct quotes from St. Palamas to support your claim that he taught a "complete genealogical purification?

I must say that I find it fascinating that you devote so much of your time and effort on hinging your apologetic for the Latin IC on St Gregory. I have read his sermons on “The Entry” and “The Dormition”…but I have not read his sermons on “The Nativity of the Theotokos” and the “Annuciation”.

I see that he surely alludes to the geneology theory with statements such as:

The flow of generations and circumstances journeys to the destination of that new mystery wrought in her; the statutes of the Spirit provide beforehand types of the future truth.A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary

and

In this manner, the choice of the future Mother of God, beginning with the very sons of Adam and proceeding through all the generations of time, through the Providence of God, passes to the Prophet-King David and the successors of his kingdom and lineage.
Discourse on the feast of the Entry of the More Pure Lady Theotokos into the Holy of Holies

---

And although I could never be convinced that St Gregory ever believed in a type of Latin IC…I would surely love to read his other two sermons on “The Annuciation” and “The Nativity of Our Lady”.

I cannot seem to find them on the net.