D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for an excellent series of posts, Ghosty.
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
Thank you for the kind words, both Dvdjs and Mardukm.Case in point - Interesting thing about St. Maximovitch’s rhetoric. EO apparently claim that the economy of salvation is effected through synergy - Grace and cooperation with it. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, when Catholics say that Mary received Grace from the moment of her conception, EO become Protestant in their thinking - all of a sudden, the Grace Mary received has been transformed to irresistable Grace in the Orthodox mind, whereby her free will was lost, and she was no longer able to sin.
To repeat, great post, brother Ghosty.
Blessings,
Marduk
This is an interesting point you raise about St. Maximovitch’s objection, and one I’ve never thought of before. Now that you mention it, I’ve seen his objection raised all over the place, and yet it does completely contradict both the Latin and Byzantine ideas of Grace.
So I turn this around to those who use this objection: what about Mary having Grace from her conception would prevent her from having free will?
Peace and God bless!
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Come on Ghosty, you know better than that (or at least you should)! The objection is not that she lacked free will, but that if she was born without the corruption of ancestral sin then she wouldn’t have had the same propensity to sin the rest of us do.
In Christ
Joe
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I’d like to thank both Ghosty and Marduk for a whole lot of posts in a number of different threads that I’ve learned a lot from over the past couple of days - may God grant them many years!
My understanding of the most striking difference between East and West regarding the Immaculate Conception is that the East regards Mary’s death before her Assumption as dogma, whereas the West regards it as theologemounon - I was told in RCIA before I was received into the Church that in defining the dogma the Pope went to great pains to avoid specifying whether she died or not, because we DO NOT KNOW (as the good Father quite dogmatically stated) whether she did or not) - and most Western theologians say that she did not have to die (because death is a consequence of sin) but chose to in order to unite herself to her Son.
It seems to me from the Pope’s words that Mary was indeed free from the NECESSITY of death, which the Orthodox would not seem to agree with, because death is the stain of Original Sin. It also seems that St. Gregory Palamas’ solution of “progressive gracing” would eliminate the Eutychianism implied by “separating her from the rest of humanity” (which I see as problematic not because it makes Mary unable to transmit her humanity to Jesus - human nature was tarnished, not abolished, by the Fall, and I have a hard time seeing the Orthodox adopt such a Calvinistic view - but because it makes Sts. Joachim and Anna unable to transmit their humanity to Mary in the fullest sense, which brings us back to the heresy condemned by Pope Benedict XIV).
This solution brings about its own problem, though:
What kind of “gracing” did this involve? For that matter, in what sense were Adam and Eve in the state of grace? Theosis only comes through the Incarnation - even though Adam was in both the image and likeness of God, it could not have been the same thing as the divinization that we can come to via Christ, because God had to become man for men to become gods. The Roman Catholic doctrine of a natural perfection to man is really the only way I can see to solve this problem (and it also provides a handy solution to the problem of unbaptized infants and the invincibly ignorant, etc.) - and it allows for a progressive “gracing” of the ancestors of the Theotokos right up to the Immaculate Conception. Following Romano Guardini, I see a threefold theosis of the Blessed Virgin - at her Immaculate Conception, at the Annunciation, and at her final glorification in Heaven (celebrated by the Fifteenth Mystery of the Rosary).
My understanding of the most striking difference between East and West regarding the Immaculate Conception is that the East regards Mary’s death before her Assumption as dogma, whereas the West regards it as theologemounon - I was told in RCIA before I was received into the Church that in defining the dogma the Pope went to great pains to avoid specifying whether she died or not, because we DO NOT KNOW (as the good Father quite dogmatically stated) whether she did or not) - and most Western theologians say that she did not have to die (because death is a consequence of sin) but chose to in order to unite herself to her Son.
It seems to me from the Pope’s words that Mary was indeed free from the NECESSITY of death, which the Orthodox would not seem to agree with, because death is the stain of Original Sin. It also seems that St. Gregory Palamas’ solution of “progressive gracing” would eliminate the Eutychianism implied by “separating her from the rest of humanity” (which I see as problematic not because it makes Mary unable to transmit her humanity to Jesus - human nature was tarnished, not abolished, by the Fall, and I have a hard time seeing the Orthodox adopt such a Calvinistic view - but because it makes Sts. Joachim and Anna unable to transmit their humanity to Mary in the fullest sense, which brings us back to the heresy condemned by Pope Benedict XIV).
This solution brings about its own problem, though:
What kind of “gracing” did this involve? For that matter, in what sense were Adam and Eve in the state of grace? Theosis only comes through the Incarnation - even though Adam was in both the image and likeness of God, it could not have been the same thing as the divinization that we can come to via Christ, because God had to become man for men to become gods. The Roman Catholic doctrine of a natural perfection to man is really the only way I can see to solve this problem (and it also provides a handy solution to the problem of unbaptized infants and the invincibly ignorant, etc.) - and it allows for a progressive “gracing” of the ancestors of the Theotokos right up to the Immaculate Conception. Following Romano Guardini, I see a threefold theosis of the Blessed Virgin - at her Immaculate Conception, at the Annunciation, and at her final glorification in Heaven (celebrated by the Fifteenth Mystery of the Rosary).
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
It’s not about God’s grace being irresistible, it’s about the supposed removal of her propensity to sin. That is one of the reasons the Immaculate Conception is objectionable, because it removes from her the struggle with sin and thereby lessens her virtue.Case in point - Interesting thing about St. Maximovitch’s rhetoric. EO apparently claim that the economy of salvation is effected through synergy - Grace and cooperation with it. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, when Catholics say that Mary received Grace from the moment of her conception, EO become Protestant in their thinking - all of a sudden, the Grace Mary received has been transformed to irresistable Grace in the Orthodox mind, whereby her free will was lost, and she was no longer able to sin.
To repeat, great post, brother Ghosty.
Blessings,
Marduk
In Christ
Joe
M
Mojo674
Guest
I asked this very question about the Immaculate Conception to the Dean of the Seminary who has a Sacred Theology Doctorate. The Byzantine Catholic Church takes this stance. I will include the whole reply which is rather lengthy BUT it has all of our Beliefs, he is an expert:
"The basic difference is how to read Romans 5 on the subject of the consequences for all humanity of Adam and Eve’s sin. The Greek tradition reads Genesis and Paul literally and sees the consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin to be the loss of our original incorruptibility with the result that we are now mortal (the “garment of skin” of Genesis). Fear of death fuels the selfishness and bitterness that encourages everyone after Adam and Eve to make sinful choices too (but the Greek tradition upholds the abiding, essential goodness of human reason–we can know and choose the good). We inherit an economy of death-driven sinfulness.
Roman Catholicism, beginning with Augustine, insisted that original sin caused “spiritual death”–the rupture of human relationship with God. Roman Catholicism further teaches that human beings have been corrupted by original sin such that our ability to know and choose the good is severely damaged. Further, Roman Catholicism teaches that every human being after Adam and Eve inherits a state of guilt by the fact of being born in the normal human way.
So, for Roman Catholics, Mary, who was born in the normal human way, needs to be lifted out of this original sin situation at the moment of her conception–otherwise by their reasoning she too would be guilty rather than all-pure. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that God intervened at the moment of Mary’s conception to free her from original sin, based on the merits Jesus would earn by his death on the Cross, which of course, could only happen if he had a pure human mother. The fancy word is “prolepsis”–God intervened “proleptically.” In the extreme, this isolation of Mary from original sin leads some Roman Catholics to assert that Mary never actually died–since death is a consequence of original sin. When Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption in 1950, he left this question open.
The Orthodox position holds that Mary was born with the normal human capacity for good, was raised by good parents, raised in the sanctified environment of the temple from the age of 3, progressed in holiness and was able to make a free “Yes” to God’s invitation to become the Mother of the Son of God. So liturgical texts call Mary “all pure” “incorrupt” “spotless” and “without stain” without any reference to original sin (as understood by Romans) at all.
Whatever God needed to do to prepare Mary to be the Mother of His Son was done in the instant of her hearing and accepting God’s invitation–the Holy Spirit “came upon her” and made her the sanctified vessel of the nativity of God’s Son.
The Roman Catholic version (in a rather understated way) is what you read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but the Orthodox version is what you pray when you celebrate the feasts of the Conception by St Ann, the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entrance into the Temple and the Dormition. The Orthodox version of original sin is on every page of the Lenten Triodion.
Your question goes right to the heart of the discomfort of being Byzantine Catholic. Orthodoxy was excluded and our Church had no voice (and really couldn’t imagine itself having any independent voice) when the Immaculate Conception was defined. We’re making progress in rediscovering our own theological autonomy. Any future union with Orthodoxy will involve revisiting this very basic issue of original sin and my sense is that Roman theologians would gladly accept the Orthodox view as more biblically based and just a simpler clearer reading of the evidence.
Until then? We are formally bound by the definition of the Immaculate Conception as Catholics; we effectively experience these mysteries from the Orthodox perspective because we use the same liturgical books. It all comes down to Catholicism and Orthodoxy coming together calmly and as equals to agree on the extent of papal authority. This problem of doctrinal definition will be resolved when that question is resolved. Until then, we’re kind of sitting in the middle ducking bullets from both sides."
"The basic difference is how to read Romans 5 on the subject of the consequences for all humanity of Adam and Eve’s sin. The Greek tradition reads Genesis and Paul literally and sees the consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin to be the loss of our original incorruptibility with the result that we are now mortal (the “garment of skin” of Genesis). Fear of death fuels the selfishness and bitterness that encourages everyone after Adam and Eve to make sinful choices too (but the Greek tradition upholds the abiding, essential goodness of human reason–we can know and choose the good). We inherit an economy of death-driven sinfulness.
Roman Catholicism, beginning with Augustine, insisted that original sin caused “spiritual death”–the rupture of human relationship with God. Roman Catholicism further teaches that human beings have been corrupted by original sin such that our ability to know and choose the good is severely damaged. Further, Roman Catholicism teaches that every human being after Adam and Eve inherits a state of guilt by the fact of being born in the normal human way.
So, for Roman Catholics, Mary, who was born in the normal human way, needs to be lifted out of this original sin situation at the moment of her conception–otherwise by their reasoning she too would be guilty rather than all-pure. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that God intervened at the moment of Mary’s conception to free her from original sin, based on the merits Jesus would earn by his death on the Cross, which of course, could only happen if he had a pure human mother. The fancy word is “prolepsis”–God intervened “proleptically.” In the extreme, this isolation of Mary from original sin leads some Roman Catholics to assert that Mary never actually died–since death is a consequence of original sin. When Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption in 1950, he left this question open.
The Orthodox position holds that Mary was born with the normal human capacity for good, was raised by good parents, raised in the sanctified environment of the temple from the age of 3, progressed in holiness and was able to make a free “Yes” to God’s invitation to become the Mother of the Son of God. So liturgical texts call Mary “all pure” “incorrupt” “spotless” and “without stain” without any reference to original sin (as understood by Romans) at all.
Whatever God needed to do to prepare Mary to be the Mother of His Son was done in the instant of her hearing and accepting God’s invitation–the Holy Spirit “came upon her” and made her the sanctified vessel of the nativity of God’s Son.
The Roman Catholic version (in a rather understated way) is what you read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but the Orthodox version is what you pray when you celebrate the feasts of the Conception by St Ann, the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entrance into the Temple and the Dormition. The Orthodox version of original sin is on every page of the Lenten Triodion.
Your question goes right to the heart of the discomfort of being Byzantine Catholic. Orthodoxy was excluded and our Church had no voice (and really couldn’t imagine itself having any independent voice) when the Immaculate Conception was defined. We’re making progress in rediscovering our own theological autonomy. Any future union with Orthodoxy will involve revisiting this very basic issue of original sin and my sense is that Roman theologians would gladly accept the Orthodox view as more biblically based and just a simpler clearer reading of the evidence.
Until then? We are formally bound by the definition of the Immaculate Conception as Catholics; we effectively experience these mysteries from the Orthodox perspective because we use the same liturgical books. It all comes down to Catholicism and Orthodoxy coming together calmly and as equals to agree on the extent of papal authority. This problem of doctrinal definition will be resolved when that question is resolved. Until then, we’re kind of sitting in the middle ducking bullets from both sides."
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yet the document that declares the Assumption says that Mary may not have died but that the pope was of the school of thought that she did die. It left open the option for Catholics to believe that she did not.This is an example of the same problem of denial of error leading to error. The very same document that says Mary was conceived Immaculately also says she died. So does unanimous Tradition. Yet some Latins, in the interest of defending the doctrine, deny that Mary died.
G
Ghosty
Guest
You are basically saying that Grace is irresistable in saying this. Just because she has Grace doesn’t mean she can’t sin or be tempted. On the contrary, Satan could conceivably go after her all the more, just as he did Eve.
I know you don’t believe that having Grace eliminates the temptation of Satan, so why do you make such arguments?
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Where does it say that she may not have died? I may have missed it.
I still say that the reasonable belief is that she did die, even if it’s not strictly necessary.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Mojo674: Where in the Lenten Triodion does it say that fear of death leads to sin? I know it says that the lack of fear of death leads to sin, but I’ve never seen where it says the opposite.
Fear of death (and the judgement it brings) is what turns us to repentence, according to the Liturgy of the Day of the Last Judgement, for example.
I’m not saying it’s not in there (I’ve not read/heard the whole thing), just that I’ve never experienced anything about death leading to sin in what I have read/heard. Perhaps you, or someone else who’s knowledgable, can help me out, and show me where this notion is found in our Liturgy?
Peace and God bless!
Fear of death (and the judgement it brings) is what turns us to repentence, according to the Liturgy of the Day of the Last Judgement, for example.
I’m not saying it’s not in there (I’ve not read/heard the whole thing), just that I’ve never experienced anything about death leading to sin in what I have read/heard. Perhaps you, or someone else who’s knowledgable, can help me out, and show me where this notion is found in our Liturgy?
Peace and God bless!
D
dvdjs
Guest
Good grief.
First: Where do you get this supposition about the removal of her propensity to sin?
The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way:
This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain
Wow. Our virtue is not our victory in our struggle. If we have any virtue it is our cooperation with divine grace, freely given.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I agree, Jesus himself was tempted by Satan. It means that human nature can be tempted.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Dvdjs: I think he just means her natural inclination to sin, not her ability. Still, lacking the propensity to sin doesn’t mean that temptations can’t arise, it just means that she didn’t have the strong, internal pull to sin that others do.
St. Maximovich goes beyond this, though, in saying that by the Immaculate Conception she would have lacked the ability to sin, which is an absurd notion.
Looking at the issue of propensity (internal tendency) to sin, however, we can see that the argument that lacking it lessens virtue doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Propensity to sin is not conquered by our efforts alone, but by our cooperation with Grace, and it is cooperation with Grace that is virtue. Mary perfectly cooperated with God’s Grace, and was therefore full of every virtue; she did not receive Grace because she was already full of every virtue. By St. Maximovich’s logic, Christ would be the least virtuous person to have ever lived, since He clearly did not struggle with any internal tendency towards sin and evil. Virtue isn’t some mere human achievement, it is conformity to God in theosis, and as people become more conformed to God in virtue, their tendency to sin lessens, though external temptations might certainly become worse as Satan struggles all the more against the good.
If Mary had no work at all in her union with God, it could be argued that she was an automaton and lacked virtue, but lacking the tendency to sin is not the same as not having to always cooperate with God and grow in conformity to Him, not having to work the good in the world, and not having to grow ever closer to God in Love and union. Her life was still a work and walk with God, and that is what virtue consists of. She had nothing to boast of in herself, of course, but then humility is the foundation of virtue, not a lessening of it.
Here’s a link to an Orthodox explaination of virtue.
Peace and God bless!
St. Maximovich goes beyond this, though, in saying that by the Immaculate Conception she would have lacked the ability to sin, which is an absurd notion.
Looking at the issue of propensity (internal tendency) to sin, however, we can see that the argument that lacking it lessens virtue doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Propensity to sin is not conquered by our efforts alone, but by our cooperation with Grace, and it is cooperation with Grace that is virtue. Mary perfectly cooperated with God’s Grace, and was therefore full of every virtue; she did not receive Grace because she was already full of every virtue. By St. Maximovich’s logic, Christ would be the least virtuous person to have ever lived, since He clearly did not struggle with any internal tendency towards sin and evil. Virtue isn’t some mere human achievement, it is conformity to God in theosis, and as people become more conformed to God in virtue, their tendency to sin lessens, though external temptations might certainly become worse as Satan struggles all the more against the good.
If Mary had no work at all in her union with God, it could be argued that she was an automaton and lacked virtue, but lacking the tendency to sin is not the same as not having to always cooperate with God and grow in conformity to Him, not having to work the good in the world, and not having to grow ever closer to God in Love and union. Her life was still a work and walk with God, and that is what virtue consists of. She had nothing to boast of in herself, of course, but then humility is the foundation of virtue, not a lessening of it.
Here’s a link to an Orthodox explaination of virtue.
Peace and God bless!
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes. Sorry to be unclear, I was referring to eastern and western Catholics. My apologies.Eastern Catholics perhaps. The Orthodox do not.
In Christ
Joe
M
mardukm
Guest
Beautifully put brother Ghosty.
Mary was in the exact same state as Adam and Eve. So how or why does Mary suddenly lose the potential that Adam and Eve had? Eastern Orthodox utilize a logic that goes against the Traditional teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
How ironic (among many ironies of Orthotox rhetoric against Catholic teachings) that another oft-heard Orthodox argument against the IC is that it makes her less human. But which position really makes Mary less human -
(1) the Catholic teaching that her sinless state was the result of cooperation with Grace which she possessed from the first moment of her existence, or
(2) the Orthodox belief that Mary was all-virtuous on her own and was rewarded with Grace only at the Annunciation?
When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I held that very belief that Mary received her Graces at the annunciation, and that she was more virtuous than all others precisely because she was able to be virtuous by her own effort. In my ignorance, I did not realize that such a position was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council - it is known as Pelagianism.
As I’ve always stated, I’ve never had to reject any of my Coptic Tradition when I became Catholic. That includes this one. I still do believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation, Graces which she did not receive at any other time, particularly the Grace enabling her to bear Divinity itself. But I “now” realize that Mary must have received Grace before this time, because it is only through cooperation with Grace that she could have possibly been Panagia.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would like to add that one of the more popular Eastern beliefs about the Original State is that Adam and Eve, while not possessing or subject to Original Sin, and therefore lacking the propensity to sin, had an equal capacity to fall or cooperate with God in theosis.Propensity to sin is not conquered by our efforts alone, but by our cooperation with Grace, and it is cooperation with Grace that is virtue. Mary perfectly cooperated with God’s Grace, and was therefore full of every virtue; she did not receive Grace because she was already full of every virtue. By St. Maximovich’s logic, Christ would be the least virtuous person to have ever lived, since He clearly did not struggle with any internal tendency towards sin and evil. Virtue isn’t some mere human achievement, it is conformity to God in theosis, and as people become more conformed to God in virtue, their tendency to sin lessens, though external temptations might certainly become worse as Satan struggles all the more against the good.
If Mary had no work at all in her union with God, it could be argued that she was an automaton and lacked virtue, but lacking the tendency to sin is not the same as not having to always cooperate with God and grow in conformity to Him, not having to work the good in the world, and not having to grow ever closer to God in Love and union. Her life was still a work and walk with God, and that is what virtue consists of. She had nothing to boast of in herself, of course, but then humility is the foundation of virtue, not a lessening of it.
Mary was in the exact same state as Adam and Eve. So how or why does Mary suddenly lose the potential that Adam and Eve had? Eastern Orthodox utilize a logic that goes against the Traditional teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
How ironic (among many ironies of Orthotox rhetoric against Catholic teachings) that another oft-heard Orthodox argument against the IC is that it makes her less human. But which position really makes Mary less human -
(1) the Catholic teaching that her sinless state was the result of cooperation with Grace which she possessed from the first moment of her existence, or
(2) the Orthodox belief that Mary was all-virtuous on her own and was rewarded with Grace only at the Annunciation?
When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I held that very belief that Mary received her Graces at the annunciation, and that she was more virtuous than all others precisely because she was able to be virtuous by her own effort. In my ignorance, I did not realize that such a position was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council - it is known as Pelagianism.
As I’ve always stated, I’ve never had to reject any of my Coptic Tradition when I became Catholic. That includes this one. I still do believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation, Graces which she did not receive at any other time, particularly the Grace enabling her to bear Divinity itself. But I “now” realize that Mary must have received Grace before this time, because it is only through cooperation with Grace that she could have possibly been Panagia.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Marduk,
In fact, Mary was not in the same state as Adam and Eve - our ancient parents committed Original Sin through their disobedience to God directly. They passed onto us a weakened humanity as a result of their sin.
Mary was not guilty of the sin of disobedience of Adam and Eve. She was sanctified at her Conception because of the role she would play in the Incarnation and our salvation. That did not exempt her from death, although it was so gentle that it was merely a “falling asleep.”
She never had any sin on her soul, but was All-Holy. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this, so affirmed St John Maximovych who simply disagreed with the Latin view on Original Sin. He himself had an amazing devotion to the Mother of God, and he would often have a very large icon of Her strapped around his neck etc.
No need to introduce views about the Orthodox POV that just don’t amount to anything significant.
Alex
In fact, Mary was not in the same state as Adam and Eve - our ancient parents committed Original Sin through their disobedience to God directly. They passed onto us a weakened humanity as a result of their sin.
Mary was not guilty of the sin of disobedience of Adam and Eve. She was sanctified at her Conception because of the role she would play in the Incarnation and our salvation. That did not exempt her from death, although it was so gentle that it was merely a “falling asleep.”
She never had any sin on her soul, but was All-Holy. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this, so affirmed St John Maximovych who simply disagreed with the Latin view on Original Sin. He himself had an amazing devotion to the Mother of God, and he would often have a very large icon of Her strapped around his neck etc.
No need to introduce views about the Orthodox POV that just don’t amount to anything significant.
Alex
C
crazzeto
Guest
Just to clarify, to believe the IC and that Mary was Full of Grace even at conception does not follow that her birth was in anyway not “natural”. Rather it implies something speacial about her spiritual state from the time of conception, that when this natural conception occured that it was with out the stain of original sin, and there for she was full of grace from the start.
I know that some Doctors of the Church once postulated that given a natural birth, the IC would then be impossible because it was theoriezed that the “sin” necessary would thus negate the possiblity of the IC. This of course is a flawed theory, as we know that there is no sin in usual marital relations, as was once believed by many (but never taught by the Church).
C
crazzeto
Guest
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.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
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.I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything I posted. I’m talking about the fact that the Eastern Orthodox arguments presented here don’t actually address the Immaculate Conception and demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Latin teaching of Original Sin. There are also serious inconsistancies in a stance that says that “Original Sin” is mortality/death.
You can’t object to something you don’t understand, and putting up faulty propositions in opposition to a non-existant belief only leads to error.
As for the Immaculate Conception, it may not be necessary from an Eastern perspective, but it’s certainly been upheld by some great Eastern, post-Schism Saints like St. Gregory Palamas, so I’m quite comfortable accepting it, without having to accept any uniquely Western notions about Original Sin.
Peace and God bless!
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?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
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).
- Status