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

[Anesti33]

It is your claim and therefore your responsibility to show us Catholic teaching about the “guilt” of original sin, without inferences or assumptions. (So to speak.)

 

[ReaderT]

It is your claim and therefore your responsibility to show us Catholic teaching about the “guilt” of original sin, without inferences or assumptions. (So to speak.)

It is in my last reply to you: The catechism says all men are “implicated (definition: involved in the crime) of Adam’s sin.” That is the very meaning of “guilt”: “the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.”

 

[ReaderT]

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

We have no choice. Adam was made to rule over the God’s creation (Genesis 1:28: “Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the heavens, and every living thing that moves on the earth”). When Adam failed, all of creation suffered and was affected with death and decay - not only animals but our bodies also. This is why Romans says “creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed”, i.e. when creation will be renewed at the end of time.

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, the “guilt” is different. It’s not a personal fault. In Latin it is not a “culpa” but a “reatus” (Trent uses “reatus” for original sin, not “culpa”–the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this abundantly clear as well), even though both are often translated as “guilt” in English. Even the EO Catechism I cited earlier also uses the English word “guilt.” In any event, the EO sources I cited are both clear that baptism is “for the remission of sin” even in those without actual sin and the remission of hereditary/original sin is necessary for salvation. Many modern EOs now disagree with this, as you yourself demonstrate. But, as I demonstrated, it was not always so.

 

[ReaderT]

Yeah, the “guilt” is different. It’s not a personal fault.

I don’t see where I typed “personal” in the thread. Anesti claimed “[Catholicism teaches] we do not bear the guilt of Original Sin” and I showed that Catholicism teaches you do bear guilt. Whether it’s “personal” is another matter.

Even the EO Catechism I cited earlier also uses the English word “guilt.”

That Catechism was written by a Moldavian priest (Mogila) who lived in Ukraine, spoke Romanian, wrote in Slavonic, and the edition you cite was “attributed” (what does that mean?) to a “Philip Lodvel” and edited by yet another person. That word could be anything by this point, especially with all those Anglican editors in the mix. By the way, the editors also said Lodvel attended “the Russian Church in London, where he also received the prayer-oil.” Prayer oil? What is that? Never heard that term in my life. Shows how much these editors had an understanding of Orthodoxy.

You also have to take into account the citations I brought up (Saint John Chrysostom who said clearly “infants are not defiled by sin”).

 

[twf]

Yet your quote clearly says that baptism confers something… special graces of adoption and holiness etc… graces that Adam lost for himself and his descendants (though it also goes beyond those lost graces)… communion with the divine life of the Trinity. That’s really what the Immaculate Conception is about… that’s the most important aspect. The Holy Spirit was with Mary even in the womb. From the first moment of her conception, she had all those graces the rest of us receive at baptism.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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! ”

First of all, if unborn babies do go to limbo, it is not an “inferno of eternal damnation”. If it exists, if this happens, if it is hell, it is not a hell of suffering nor of punishment, rather it is the outermost fringes — the “limbus” — where the only thing “bad” about it, is not being able to behold Almighty God in the beatific vision. And even then, it is debatable whether the babies even “know” they are missing out on anything at all — a state of natural happiness, not supernatural happiness, but they don’t miss what they don’t know they don’t have.

Secondly, the Church cannot just “make up” doctrine and put it in the Catechism, or establish levels of certitude that simply aren’t there. Things are either true or they are false, we either know them or we don’t know them. The Catechism reflects what is already true, and expresses it the best way the Church knows how. Nothing more. We are not like the LDS whose prophets receive “continuing revelation”.

 

[ReaderT]

Yet your quote clearly says that baptism confers something… special graces of adoption and holiness etc… graces that Adam lost for himself and his descendants (though it also goes beyond those lost graces)… communion with the divine life of the Trinity.

There’s a difference between growing in holiness and avoiding (or getting rid of) sin. Though a baby hasn’t committed sin, it can still grow closer to God through baptism & eucharist. Adam and Eve didn’t have any sins either (for a little time) but they still needed to grow closer to God (and they didn’t).

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

That’s really what the Immaculate Conception is about… that’s the most important aspect. The Holy Spirit was with Mary even in the womb. From the first moment of her conception, she had all those graces the rest of us receive at baptism.

I thank you for your interpretation, @twf, and I don’t mean any offense, but I have to go with what’s on official Vatican paper and not what someone says the IC is really about. The CCC says we’re all involved in Adam’s crime (including the unborn) and we bear guilt.

 

[ReaderT]

First of all, if unborn babies do go to limbo, it is not an “inferno of eternal damnation”. If it exists, if this happens, if it is hell, it is not a hell of suffering nor of punishment, rather it is the outermost fringes — the “limbus” — where the only thing “bad” about it, is not being able to behold Almighty God in the beatific vision. And even then, it is debatable whether the babies even “know” they are missing out on anything at all — a state of natural happiness, not supernatural happiness, but they don’t miss what they don’t know they don’t have.

To me Limbo was always theologically impossible. God is infinite and created humans to exist perpetually and grow closer to Him throughout all eternity. (Likewise, those in hell go farther away from Him throughout all eternity.) Something other than this is not human nature. Limbo, which stops someone at a certain point of happiness (“natural” but not “supernatural”) and allows no growth in either direction seems incompatible with humanity.

Secondly, the Church cannot just “make up” doctrine and put it in the Catechism, or establish levels of certitude that simply aren’t there. Things are either true or they are false, we either know them or we don’t know them. The Catechism reflects what is already true, and expresses it the best way the Church knows how. Nothing more. We are not like the LDS whose prophets receive “continuing revelation”.

How about this, then: “The unborn go to heaven because God is not a despot that requires the literally impossible for salvation.” Simple.

 

[Neithan]

Catholic: We and the Orthodox essentially believe the same thing on this issue because of this, this this and this.

Orthodox: No! Absolutely Not. Totally wrong. Ridiculous! Outrageous. We believe completely different things because this and this and this, this this.

Etc. so on it goes. It’s been like this for the last few decades, generally.

 

[njlisa]

Here’s an explanation of the Orthodox position on original sin.

Here’s another Orthodox explanation about the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness.

It’s over my head. But I hope some of you find these links helpful.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

How about this, then: “The unborn go to heaven because God is not a despot that requires the literally impossible for salvation.” Simple.

But by the same reasoning, every child below the age of reason (commonly understood to be around age 7, but I really don’t think it happens “all at once”, it’s a gradual thing) is saved, because it would be literally impossible for them to make a rational human choice for or against God. As far as that “threshold”, where a child ceases to have sort-of-reason but not true reason, and has full reason, I really don’t know. No one does.

Don’t get me wrong, I hope they are. But I cannot prove that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Never said it was read my other comments I explained what Limbo is.
[/quote]

I realize you didn’t say it was, I was just trying to clarify the scenario, and lay out the reasoning, “covering all the bases”.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Well put. I find it disturbing that some people tend to, out of a spirit of what I call “recentism”, treat the CCC as though it were “one big mega-encyclical about everything”, with a sentiment of “scratch everything you ever read before, this is all you need to be thinking about”.

 

[ReaderT]

But by the same reasoning, every child below the age of reason (commonly understood to be around age 7, but I really don’t think it happens “all at once”, it’s a gradual thing) is saved, because it would be literally impossible for them to make a rational human choice for or against God. As far as that “threshold”, where a child ceases to have sort-of-reason but not true reason, and has full reason, I really don’t know. No one does.

Don’t get me wrong, I hope they are . But I cannot prove that.

Orthodoxy doesn’t have an age of reason - if we did, what about those born with intellectual disabilities: do we never commune them because they can’t “make a rational human choice for or against God”? How about someone who is injured and loses mental functions - do they get essentially “excommunicated”?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

But by the same reasoning, every child below the age of reason (commonly understood to be around age 7, but I really don’t think it happens “all at once”, it’s a gradual thing) is saved, because it would be literally impossible for them to make a rational human choice for or against God. As far as that “threshold”, where a child ceases to have sort-of-reason but not true reason, and has full reason, I really don’t know. No one does.

Don’t get me wrong, I hope they are . But I cannot prove that.

Orthodoxy doesn’t have an age of reason - if we did, what about those born with intellectual disabilities: do we never commune them because they can’t “make a rational human choice for or against God”? How about someone who is injured and loses mental functions - do they get essentially “excommunicated”?

If I am not mistaken, traditionally in Catholicism, severely mentally handicapped people were not allowed to receive any sacraments, other than baptism, as they could not be said to possess reason, and their salvation was viewed as assured. That has been “tweaked” somewhat in recent times, a change I wholeheartedly support. Actually, viewed through the eyes of eternity, someone who is too mentally disabled ever to commit a mortal sin, or possibly even any sin at all, is more fortunate than any of us ever will be. The worst thing in the world is sin — not mental disability.

 

[twf]

I think the gist of what I was saying is expressed in the Catechism here…note that in these paragraphs, there is more emphasis on her holiness and unique graces from the first moment of conception than there is on the removal of “the stain”:

[490] To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” ( Panagia ), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

 

[ReaderT]

Thank you for the citation @twf. It may be interesting to know that “Immaculate” comes from the Latin “im” (not) and “macula” (stain) - as in, human souls are stained but hers wasn’t. The CCC does talk a lot about graces, you’re right, but it seems the doctrine can never be separated from that “stain”, that “black mark” on each of us from original sin.

 

[twf]

t may be interesting to know that “Immaculate” comes from the Latin “im” (not) and “macula” (stain) - as in, human souls are stained but hers wasn’t.

In that sense, I think you could read / use the title in a way that works within Orthodox theology. At Lourdes, Our Lady told St. Bernadette “I am the Immaculate Conception”. When I first came across this as a new Catholic, it struck me as very odd. Why was the Theotokos, in this vision, identifying her very being with her conception? But I believe she wasn’t so much referring to the event as her very nature as a conception / creature (we are all "conceptions) who is immaculate…without stain…which is another way of saying Panagia as referenced in the above Catechism quotes.