Catholic vs Orthodox Immaculate conception? Why does it matter who is right?

[jtwp5]

From my understanding, Catholics believe Mary was conceived without original sin. While the orthodox believe she was purified before birth but not conceived without it. I guess the important question is why does it matter? What difference does it make?

I don’t know, I’m catholic, I’ve been struggling with my faith. Recently listened to a talk about Mary, the Rosary, and exorcisms. You have all of these Marian apparitions, at least in Catholic Church. I have so many wounds, especially related to males, it’s hard for me to turn to God. It seems a lot easier to turn to Mary, I did a consecration a year or so ago. Growing to trust Jesus more. Just all these father wounds and peer wounds make me want to withdraw. Feels like there’s nothing I hold against Mary, I pray for her to lead more closer to her son.

I guess I don’t like to be challenged in views, there are other things I disagree with orthodox on, had one tell me they can’t pray with other Christians, only orthodox…But did Jesus refuse people who came to him? “You’re not X so go away”. I get so upset over all this division. Catholic vs Orthodox, Protestant vs Catholic, Christian vs Muslim, Political Parties, Governments, Nations, Ethnicity, etc.

Felt a bit on fire awhile ago and now just feel crestfallen and hard to not despair. Seems hard to find who to trust. X says this, Y says this, Z says this. Catholics right? Orthodox? Neither? Why does it matter?

 

[Wesrock]

Your summary of the Orthodox position on Mary being without sin is incorrect. They hold that no “cleansing” was necessary at all. Their theology on Original Sin is articulated differently. That said I do think some Orthodox polemics mischaracterize the Latin theology.

 

[Genesis315]

The problem is most EO’s have shifted on original sin in the last couple centuries or so. Now, they only believe it to be concupiscence, death, sickness, etc. not a deprivation of justice or something that needs to be cleansed for salvation. This view indeed makes the IC pointless.

This wasn’t always so. The Catholic conception of original sin was never at issue at the reunion Councils because we were in agreement (much more minor issues like purgatorial fire were objected to by EOs at those Councils).

For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the EO patriarchates agreed to the following justification of infant baptism, founded on the understanding of original sin they held in common with the Roman Church:

And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

To add to my post above,here’s a Catechism that was used for a long time in the EO world:

Question 20.
What is Original Sin ?

Answer.

Original Sin is the Transgression of that Law of God which was given to Adam, the Father of all Men, in these "Words {Gen. ii. 17), Of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shall not eat ; for in the Day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die. This original Sin spreadeth over all human Nature ; forasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. Wherefore by one Adam Sin hath passed into us all. And we are conceived and born with this Blemish, as the Scripture teacheth us {Rom. v. 12), By one Man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin ; and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned. This hereditary Sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any Repentance what-ever, but only by the Grace of God, through the Work of Redemption, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, in taking upon him our Flesh and pouring out his precious Blood. And this is done in the Mystery of holy Baptism; and whosoever is not a Partaker thereof, such an one remains unabsolved from his Sin, and continueth in his Guilt, and is liable to the eternal Punishment of the divine Wrath : As it is said {John iii. 5), Verily, verily, I say unto you, that except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

(The approval of this Catechism by the four traditional EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in council states: “this book is in perfect accordance with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and with the sacred Canons; that it contains nothing contrary to the Church: and we declare, assembled in Synod, that every pious and orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Apostolic Church of the East, ought to read this book, and not to reject it.”).

Mary’s total immaculateness is clear when this view of original sin was the common one. It remained common among Greeks and especially Russians into the 19th century. There were even confraternities in her conception’s honor. For example, in consecrating themselves to the Mother of God, members of the Immaculate Conception confraternity of Polotsk professed, “promise to honor, all the days of my life, your immaculate and most pure conception.”

 

[Vico]

… Why does it matter?

I read in “Saint Mary the Virgin Mother of God” by (Coptic) Oriental Orthodox Pope Shenouda III that the Holy Spirit has sanctified the depository of The Virgin during the pregnancy with Christ so Chriat would be conceived without the impurity of the original sin. He correctly states that this is different than the Catholic belief.

In Catholic teaching is was not necessary that the Blessed Virgin Mary be free from all stain of original sin from the first moment of here conception, rather it was fitting as the Mother of God.

It is important since it is a dogma of faith.

 

[Genesis315]

Sorry to spam this thread, but just wanted to add this article from an EO priest on this topic, that admits its belief in the EO world, with only later opposition becoming more common.

The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church | Eclectic Orthodoxy

 

[ReaderT]

The problem is most EO’s have shifted on original sin in the last couple centuries or so. Now, they only believe it to be concupiscence, death, sickness, etc. not a deprivation of justice or something that needs to be cleansed for salvation. This view indeed makes the IC pointless.

This wasn’t always so. The Catholic conception of original sin was never at issue at the reunion Councils because we were in agreement (much more minor issues like purgatorial fire were objected to by EOs at those Councils).

Absolutely, totally false. The Orthodox Church has never taught that we bear the guilt of Adam’s sin; we experience the consequences of it.

In Orthodox materials, if the term “original sin” is ever used, it refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the consequences of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” is synonymous with “first" - “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in the same way as “the original iPhone” refers to the “first iPhone.”

In the West, humanity not only bears the consequences of the “original sin” but is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve alone are guilty of their willful action.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It seems to me that the difference between the Catholic and EO position on this issue comes down to semantics. Same with Purgatory and the Filioque. Like someone once said, where’s the beef?

 

[Lucy_1]

There are some minor differences between Orthodox and Catholic, but if you’re feeling burnt out, let the theologians hash it out, you don’t need to worry about it. Our world is very polarized right now, and that can be discouraging. It is important to respectfully and with good will move toward truth, and it’s something that isn’t common. You’re right that it is important to love and accept people, and that is what Jesus did.

But practically speaking, you’re doing fine. Just focus on your faith, and don’t worry about semantic arguments. Keep praying to Mary.

 

[ReaderT]

It seems to me that the difference between the Catholic and EO position on this issue comes down to semantics. Same with Purgatory and the Filioque. Like someone once said, where’s the beef?

I think it’s more than semantics, and there are some very grave implications:

RC position is that everyone is conceived with original sin on their soul. This creates big problems for babies that die in miscarriage / stillbirth. Where do they go? Theologically they can’t go to heaven unbaptized and in sin. It is possible that God does a miracle and save them, but nobody can be certain - “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” (CCC 1261). From one parish’s website: “The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism … are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.”

Orthodox say they go to heaven, full stop.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[catholicray]

My question then respectfully, is why do Orthodox baptize babies? Wouldn’t it be quite unnecessary? Could you explain please or perhaps PM me as to not derail this thread. Thank you.

 

[Anesti33]

In the West, humanity not only bears the consequences of the “original sin” but is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt is involved.

False. We do not bear the guilt of Original Sin.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[404] How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state .294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

[405] Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[ReaderT]

I have heard those ideas too, but the issue is that all of those are speculative, nothing definite. All the while, even a few months ago I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa say on EWTN that “God is not going to violate His own law.” I believe those were his exact words. He eventually concluded we could hope but not be sure that miscarried babies go to heaven. Can’t we just say they do because God isn’t an evil despot who requires the literally impossible for salvation?

False. We do not bear the guilt of Original Sin.

Anesti, I don’t see anything in the articles you provided that says the contrary.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Anesti, I don’t see anything in the articles you provided that says the contrary.

Not even this?

[405] Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice

 

[susand]

My dear, what you say is very moving, and my heart goes out to you. You are absolutely right, all these divisions are not the intent of our Good God. Nor is the “Battle of the Sexes” that pits women against men, and men against women. I am old enough to remember that idea becoming part of American social consciousness in the sixties.

But you have been hurt by individual people, not a whole sex. Please do not let anyone keep you from seeking healing from God, Who loves you with the deepest love. He came, through the “yes” of Mary, to walk with you. He accepts you, with all your beauty and your needs. He died for you, through our sins, including the sins of those who have hurt you. And He rose from the dead to give you the greatest gift of all – His very Life. He wants you to be with Him forever.

Because of your beauty, the devil hates you. Don’t listen to him. He is the enemy of all human beings, and all are under attack. Even those who hurt you. The more you can forgive them, the more you actually rise from the dead with Him, the more you will be like God Himself, Who is Love and is calling you to love with all the strength of your wounded heart.

My dear, I will pray for you. That is, I will join my prayers to those of all the saints in Heaven, who also love you, and have been with you through your sufferings and pain. Bless you.

 

[Wesrock]

Genesis315:

The problem is most EO’s have shifted on original sin in the last couple centuries or so. Now, they only believe it to be concupiscence, death, sickness, etc. not a deprivation of justice or something that needs to be cleansed for salvation. This view indeed makes the IC pointless.

This wasn’t always so. The Catholic conception of original sin was never at issue at the reunion Councils because we were in agreement (much more minor issues like purgatorial fire were objected to by EOs at those Councils).

Absolutely, totally false. The Orthodox Church has never taught that we bear the guilt of Adam’s sin; we experience the consequences of it.

In Orthodox materials, if the term “original sin” is ever used, it refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the consequences of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” is synonymous with “first" - “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in the same way as “the original iPhone” refers to the “first iPhone.”

In the West, humanity not only bears the consequences of the “original sin” but is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve alone are guilty of their willful action.

The “guilt” isn’t a personal guilt, just the lack of the original holiness and justness forfeited by Adam. Baptism sanctifies the individual, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is just that married was sanctified from the moment of her conception, created holy and just by the grace of God.

 

[Wesrock]

Orthodox say they go to heaven, full stop.

Have they said this always and everywhere?

 

[ReaderT]

ReaderT:

Anesti, I don’t see anything in the articles you provided that says the contrary.

Not even this?

[405] Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice

Not even that. The entire document mentions nothing about us not being guilty. Actually it says we are “implicated in Adam’s sin”. The definition of implicate is “show (someone) to be involved in a crime.”

We were in the crime. We are bearing the punishment. We are guilty.

The “guilt” isn’t a personal guilt, just the lack of the original holiness and justness forfeited by Adam.

I don’t believe that’s what the document says. The document says we were involved in the crime (see directly above, my reply to ioannes_pius)

Then perhaps the Catechism could definitively say “The miscarried and stillborn go to heaven” (period) instead of what Fr. Mitch and the Catechism do say, which is essentially, “no guarantees!”

 

[ReaderT]

Have they said this always and everywhere?

Yes. We follow the line of Saint John Chrysostom: “We baptize infants, though they are not defiled by sins, so they too may be given holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ and membership in Him.”

 

[Wesrock]

ioannes_pius:

ReaderT:

Anesti, I don’t see anything in the articles you provided that says the contrary.

Not even this?

[405] Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice

Not even that. The entire document mentions nothing about us not being guilty. Actually it says we are “implicated in Adam’s sin”. The definition of implicate is “show (someone) to be involved in a crime.”

We were in the crime. We are bearing the punishment. We are guilty.

What’s the Orthodox justification for bearing the consequences of Adam’s sin? Why should we at all?