Conception of the Theotokos

[Cecilianus]

It has to do with what you posted because it goes both ways. You may claim it is a misunderstanding of the Latin view of Original Sin, but it certainly demonstrates a difference in the view of original sin since it is unnecessary according to the eastern view.

If there is such a misunderstanding in what it is, then it seems to be an issue in how Catholics are explaining it to us in the east. I just go by what I understood growing up, and by what Catholics have explained to me. Is the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin so convoluted that it can’t be easily explained to someone who holds much of the same theology?

Any doctrine of the ancestral sin is hopelessly convoluted - I have had as much difficulty trying to make head or tail out of Romanides as you have out of the Catholic doctrine. The Catholic doctrine makes perfect sense to me; I guess you have to be raised on it.

For a Roman Catholic, if we hear someone say that they don’t need a doctrine of Original Sin, we hear that you are espousing Pelagianism. If that’s not what you’re doing, then you do need a doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin for a Catholic is simply the statement that Pelagianism is a heresy.

 

[Ghosty]

It has to do with what you posted because it goes both ways. You may claim it is a misunderstanding of the Latin view of Original Sin, but it certainly demonstrates a difference in the view of original sin since it is unnecessary according to the eastern view.

But I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, nor am I saying that Latins don’t misunderstand the Eastern view. What the Latins aren’t doing, at least in this discussion, is developing faulty theology in response to their misunderstanding of the Eastern view of Original Sin. I hate to see Eastern theology twisted in response to a misunderstanding.

If there is such a misunderstanding in what it is, then it seems to be an issue in how Catholics are explaining it to us in the east. I just go by what I understood growing up, and by what Catholics have explained to me. Is the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin so convoluted that it can’t be easily explained to someone who holds much of the same theology?

Actually, in this particular case I don’t think the error is in how the tradition is defined, though perhaps individual Latins don’t explain it well (guilt, IMO, is a poor choice of words in modern English, but it is correct according to the original meaning). I don’t know what your tradition was growing up, and I don’t know how well catechised you were if you were Latin Catholic, so I can’t speak to your experience. All I can say is that what I’ve seen is a twisting of Eastern theological tradition in response to the Immaculate Conception, even though the Immaculate Conception itself is not antithetical to the Eastern tradition, and in fact originates in it.

This is not to say that I haven’t seen the same thing happen among Latins, just not in the case of the Immaculate Conception. My hair has certainly curled when I’ve heard some Latins deny Divine Participation in response to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Theosis and the sharing in the Divine Energy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[crazzeto]

In the medieval West much of the opposition to the IC was on the basis that Original Sin is transmitted by the concupiscence inherent in any sexual act itself (marital or otherwise). This isn’t an Eastern view (the unfortunate tendencies towards angelism present in people like St. Gregory of Nyssa are because of their bias against anything smelling like corruptibility or mutability, not because sexuality was regarded as inherently dirty), and it’s one rejected by the Western Church’s more mature theological understanding today (e.g., Theology of the Body).

Yes this was a popular theory back then in the West as any form of pleasure for a great period of time was looked upon with suspicion. I.e. many a pious monk would bring ashe with them where ever they went, so they could make bland any meal presented to them by well meaninged lay folk, and thus to their thinking avoid the sin of gluttony.

Similar was the view of sexuality, that the pleasure of sexuality might drive you to sin must then follow that sexuality is inherently sinful. Again, this is not something ever taught by the Church proper, rather a popular theory held at the time. It has since gone by the wayside as you state.

God bless,

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex,

I understand your point but I would put forward that there is a similarity at the point of creation. Adam and Eve committed original sin yes, but at the point of creation they were equally without original sin as Mary.

Mary is superior because she went on to never commit actual sin.

From the Eastern Christian POV, there is still no similarity since Mary was especially sanctified by the Holy Spirit at her Conception in a way Adam and Eve were not.

If by “Original Sin,” one means an inherited “stain of sin” (which the Eastern Churches categorically reject), then yes, you are right.

But if by Original Sin we mean the impact of Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience on our nature which we inherit from them, then in Mary’s case a) she never had any sin on her soul b) she was sanctified to the nth degree at her Conception c) she did die, so in terms of the Eastern Patristical tradition, in THAT sense she did have Original Sin - but not, God forbid, in any sense of “sinful stain” and d) that impact on her was entirely mitigated by the abundant Grace she was sanctified with i.e. she did not feel pain in giving birth to Christ and experienced a “sweet, falling asleep” in death.

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

From the Eastern Christian POV, there is still no similarity since Mary was especially sanctified by the Holy Spirit at her Conception in a way Adam and Eve were not.

If by “Original Sin,” one means an inherited “stain of sin” (which the Eastern Churches categorically reject), then yes, you are right.

But if by Original Sin we mean the impact of Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience on our nature which we inherit from them, then in Mary’s case a) she never had any sin on her soul b) she was sanctified to the nth degree at her Conception c) she did die, so in terms of the Eastern Patristical tradition, in THAT sense she did have Original Sin - but not, God forbid, in any sense of “sinful stain” and d) that impact on her was entirely mitigated by the abundant Grace she was sanctified with i.e. she did not feel pain in giving birth to Christ and experienced a “sweet, falling asleep” in death.

Alex

Are you suggesting that somehow Mary does suffer the effect of original sin? I don’t see how you can argue this, with out acknowleging that she indeed inherited the sin. You can’t inherit the consequence with out the condition. There for Mary was born full of Grace, with out original sin, there for without the effect as well.

This is not to say one can not choose to sin anyhow. Adam and Eve suffered on conqupisense, their nature was not fallen. They still sinned, as a result any created being can conseivably sin. The angels can, we know this (Lucifer), so can we, even with out the fall.

Mary did not sin, by her own doing but only in the sense that she cooperated with the immence grace given to her by God to start with. That Grace of which she was full was the lack of Original Sin.

 

[Nine_Two]

For a Roman Catholic, if we hear someone say that they don’t need a doctrine of Original Sin, we hear that you are espousing Pelagianism. If that’s not what you’re doing, then you do need a doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin for a Catholic is simply the statement that Pelagianism is a heresy.

We do have a doctrine regarding the Original Sin, however it doesn’t require Mary to be conceived in any special way. I’ll be quite honest, I’ve heard supposed members of the Orthodox Church express Pelagian sentiments, but at the same time, I’ve heard them from people who claim to hold strictly to Augustine’s teachings on Original Sin. Simply because I don’t believe that guilt is passed on from generation to generation does not mean I believe I can get to God through my own means.

 

[Nine_Two]

But I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, nor am I saying that Latins don’t misunderstand the Eastern view. What the Latins aren’t doing, at least in this discussion, is developing faulty theology in response to their misunderstanding of the Eastern view of Original Sin. I hate to see Eastern theology twisted in response to a misunderstanding.

Fair enough, I can agree on that.

Actually, in this particular case I don’t think the error is in how the tradition is defined, though perhaps individual Latins don’t explain it well (guilt, IMO, is a poor choice of words in modern English, but it is correct according to the original meaning). I don’t know what your tradition was growing up, and I don’t know how well catechised you were if you were Latin Catholic, so I can’t speak to your experience. All I can say is that what I’ve seen is a twisting of Eastern theological tradition in response to the Immaculate Conception, even though the Immaculate Conception itself is not antithetical to the Eastern tradition, and in fact originates in it.

Actually I agree the Immaculate Conception is not antithetical to Eastern Tradition (although originating there certainly doesn’t make it correct. ), however I do see it as unnecessary to believe Mary was created special. I personally disagree with it but won’t hold belief in it against someone else. What I do have an issue with is the requirement to believe it held by the Latin Church, which is antithetical to the Eastern Tradition.

This is not to say that I haven’t seen the same thing happen among Latins, just not in the case of the Immaculate Conception. My hair has certainly curled when I’ve heard some Latins deny Divine Participation in response to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Theosis and the sharing in the Divine Energy.

Yes, nothing worse than someone embracing heresy in the name of explaining away another tradition.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually I agree the Immaculate Conception is not antithetical to Eastern Tradition (although originating there certainly doesn’t make it correct. ), however I do see it as unnecessary to believe Mary was created special. I personally disagree with it but won’t hold belief in it against someone else. What I do have an issue with is the requirement to believe it held by the Latin Church, which is antithetical to the Eastern Tradition.

While I do believe in the Immaculate Conception, I actually agree with you on pretty much everything else you say here. I don’t see the need for it to have been elevated to the level of Dogma, though I do understand the reasons and the benefit the teaching has in highlighting true Christian anthropology.

Likewise I believe that St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb, and that fact has important revelations about God’s relationship with man, but I don’t think it needs to be Dogma. I don’t question the right of the Church to Dogmatize things, but I do question the prudence of certain things. For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about the Assumption, which we all believe in absolutely.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

. For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about the Assumption, which we all believe in absolutely.

But in the Orthodox Church the Assumption isn’t required belief, although in my experience the vast majority of Orthodox Christians accept it, and I’m in agreement, despite my acceptance of it, I would oppose any attempt to make it dogma in the East, and if the Orthodox and Catholic Communions were to merge I would want the Catholic Church to make it clear that such a belief isn’t required (I have no issue with it being a “prefered” belief though).

 

[Cecilianus]

What’s wrong with defining something we know to be true? The definition of a dogma is the occasion of joy, as it was at Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and at the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy - the victory of truth over error, and of certainty over doubt.

Sorry, I’m not very ecumenical. I don’t think we should hold back from preaching the truth because it offends someone.

 

[Ghosty]

What’s wrong with defining something we know to be true? The definition of a dogma is the occasion of joy, as it was at Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and at the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy - the victory of truth over error, and of certainty over doubt.

Sorry, I’m not very ecumenical. I don’t think we should hold back from preaching the truth because it offends someone.

It’s just that it’s silly to Dogmatize something that is a simple fact and not a serious ground of dispute. Now the Immaculate Conception is a bit of a gray area because there are some Protestant heresies about the human condition that it addresses indirectly, but the Assumption is clearly not a Dogmatic issue.

Like I said about St. John the Baptist, we all believe he was Sanctified in the womb, and that’s the traditional view, and while it might say something about God’s Grace and how He saves infants, but it’s not a Dogmatic issue the way the nature of the Trinity is, at least not at this point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

What’s wrong with defining something we know to be true? The definition of a dogma is the occasion of joy, as it was at Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and at the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy - the victory of truth over error, and of certainty over doubt.

Sorry, I’m not very ecumenical. I don’t think we should hold back from preaching the truth because it offends someone.

Dogma should be those things required for salvation. Whether something is “truth” or not isn’t reason for dogma. Should the Church be dogmatizing all the scientific theories found to be truth? Should the existance of Black Holes, Gravity, or anything like that be made into dogma? You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides.

 

[Vince1022]

Dogma should be those things required for salvation. Whether something is “truth” or not isn’t reason for dogma. Should the Church be dogmatizing all the scientific theories found to be truth? Should the existance of Black Holes, Gravity, or anything like that be made into dogma? You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides.

The Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not required for salvation. Salvation is possible regardless of whether one adheres to those teachings.

The Church teaches authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, not science. Whether or not a given true teaching is taught dogmatically, or infallibly, is very dependent on circumstances.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not required for salvation. Salvation is possible regardless of whether one adheres to those teachings.

The Church teaches authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, not science. Whether or not a given true teaching is taught dogmatically, or infallibly, is very dependent on circumstances.

If they are not required, what’s the point? The bulls proclaiming them seem to state lack of belief in them is pretty dire.

 

[Nine_Two]

Although the further point is raised, if the Church only teaches authoritatively on faith and morals, why has it tried to teach on science in the past? Did it overstep its bounds?

 

[Vince1022]

If they are not required, what’s the point? The bulls proclaiming them seem to state lack of belief in them is pretty dire.

They are true. That’s what the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches. Catholics are bound to adhere to these teachings.

The Catholic Church does not teach salvation depends on one’s belief in those dogmas.

 

[Vince1022]

Although the further point is raised, if the Church only teaches authoritatively on faith and morals, why has it tried to teach on science in the past? Did it overstep its bounds?

The Church teaches infallibly only on matters regarding faith and morals. The Church teaches authoritatively on all kinds of things.

Yes, the Church overstepped her bounds in the past regarding science.

 

[Ghosty]

The Church teaches infallibly only on matters regarding faith and morals. The Church teaches authoritatively on all kinds of things.

Yes, the Church overstepped her bounds in the past regarding science.

This is WAY off-topic, but in the interest of fairness let’s keep in mind that Galileo was challenging the authority of Scripture, so the Church was dealing with theology when it got involved in his controversy. Also, Galileo was indeed wrong in his proofs of the Copernican theory; the rotation of the Earth does not cause the tides.

That doesn’t justify the Roman Inquisition ruling on scientific matters in its defense of Sacred Scripture, however.

Peace and God bless!

 

[crazzeto]

Dogma should be those things required for salvation. Whether something is “truth” or not isn’t reason for dogma. Should the Church be dogmatizing all the scientific theories found to be truth? Should the existance of Black Holes, Gravity, or anything like that be made into dogma? You can argue that the Church has no place in science, but that certainly didn’t stop the Church from condemning Galileo for insisting the rotation of the Earth causes the tides.

Incorrect, Dogma’s are about addressing the problem of heresy. It’s not about defining what is necessary for salvation.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

This is WAY off-topic, but in the interest of fairness let’s keep in mind that Galileo was challenging the authority of Scripture, so the Church was dealing with theology when it got involved in his controversy. Also, Galileo was indeed wrong in his proofs of the Copernican theory; the rotation of the Earth does not cause the tides.

That doesn’t justify the Roman Inquisition ruling on scientific matters in its defense of Sacred Scripture, however.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you, Ghosty:

The article titled, The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua, is really good and can be found at catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp