Diferences on Mary between EO and RC

[babochka]

dallas_r:

Yeah, this is because the EO stress the great importance of the title “Theotokos”, meaning Mother of God.

That’s included, but “carrier” or “bearer” is probably closer.

Recently, at least in some eastern, “mother of God” has been replaced with Theotokos in they hymns for this reason.

So today, we have not a word of slavonic, but this one word of greek . . .

hawk

That’s because it is difficult to translate. English and most other western languages lack a single verb that gives the same sense as the Greek. The Slavonic would be Богородица/Bogoroditsa, which is “God-bearer”.

 

[dochawk]

The Slavonic would be Богородица/Bogoroditsa, which is “God-bearer”.

That.

Now why “Theotokos” is being inserted rather than “Bogoroditsa” is an interesting question on its own . . .

hawk

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

Theotokos (Mother of God or literally One who Brings forth, as in giving birth to, God) was defined in the 3rd Ecumenical Council & is certainly the most common usage in Divine Liturgy & prayers for Mary.

Another common way to refer to Mary is Panagia which means All Holy One.

And also Immaculate One.

These terms are used by Orthodox & Catholic Churches alike.

 

[dochawk]

Theotokos (Mother of God or literally One who Brings forth, as in giving birth to, God) was defined in the 3rd Ecumenical Council & is certainly the most common usage in Divine Liturgy & prayers for Mary.

Oh, absolutely.

But there is the word “Bogoroditsa” in Slavonic, used liturgically for a millennium. What I don’t understand is why we’re suddenly using the greek when translating the Slavonic into English.

Church Slavonic was invented and created for liturgy, designed to translate the greek into it in a way mutually intelligible to the various slavonic tongues. A slavonic church using the greek instead is kinda of odd . . . the greek used an appropriate word; the slavonic word is defined by what is meant.

i feel like i gained a master’s degree in theology after reading this post

Wow–they gave me a whole week to assimilate the equivalent of a MS in quantitative genetic as an Economics graduate student . . .

The similarity between Orthodoxy & Catholicism is that Mary is Immaculate since her conception.

but that’s not a difference.

That dogma is in response to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin–which itself is not dogma in the RCC! The EO and EC also hold that Mary was born without sin, as the individual stain of sin is foreign to the Eastern conception of Original Sin.

The Orthodox do not dispute the Mary was born without sin. Rather, they scratch their heads at making it a dogma, no differently than if the RCC declared that “2+2=4” was a dogma.

And they are also miffed at an individual church purporting to expound dogma on it’s own, and would probably dispute that, even if the formula of Vatican I on infallibility is correct, that its requirements were followed-=but that’s a separate issue from the theology of the IC.

hawk

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

That dogma is in response to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin–which itself is not dogma in the RCC! The EO and EC also hold that Mary was born without sin, as the individual stain of sin is foreign to the Eastern conception of Original Sin

You’re right. Though considering St. Augustine held the same view of the pre-divided Church, namely before Catholicism & Orthodox split, which other Church Fathers also held, personally I began to wonder and then eventually came to the conclusion that the modern-day Orthodox view of Original Sin must have been heavily influenced by Islam, who teach everyone is born free from sin. I noticed in my 15 years in the Orthodox Church, that the Greeks, my ancestral Church, essentially teach everyone is born free from sin & at some point after birth they end up sinning and they were under Muslim occupation for 400 years; while the Russians hold more closely to the Catholics on the issue of Original/Ancestral Sin and their Church was established Before the Great Schism and their country was never dominated by Islam.

 

[straykat]

Too much theology to wrap my head around! Some of it taken too far through church history, poking and prodding at great mysteries (Original Sin or thinking God is subject to man’s pathetic little magnifying glass i.e. nature of Trinity).

All I know is that we should follow Christ, and if we love him, keep his commandments. That he gave his Mother for us, as the last thing he could give in his normal earthly incarnation, and we should honor her as such. She is both caretaker and a model for us to follow. I wouldn’t really call that “worship” per se. The Protestant view, however, never sat well with me at all. They don’t even treat their own earthly mothers in a careless manner, so I think they’re hypocrites in this.

 

[pacloc]

However if Moses did not obey we could have Jesus as well, If u start to reckon all the carachters who had to obey You can call co whatever to Abraham Moses and so on

Well also Jude was necessary for salvation, Pilato too. I honor the queen of the universe but necessary for salvation only is God. Is my opinion not trying to offend anybody

The problem with this is that these other people did not give birth to God! We are all important in our own way and God has foreseen us all, but in His Providence, He chose the Holy Virgin Mary from all eternity to be the vessel by which He would become part of the creation, raising lowly man, to the heights of God. This was the purpose before we were even created. Knowing that the Holy Virgin is God’s living temple, we know she is greater than even the Holy Cherubim and Seraphim. There was not and could not be another person that would give birth to God the Word. This is a poor speculation to think so and is not part of either the Orthodox or RCC theology.

 

[pacloc]

as the individual stain of sin is foreign to the Eastern conception of Original Sin.

I’m not sure what you mean, but we do believe that we each inherit original sin, which is more a deprivation than an actual thing. It is called a stain but is more the lacking of life spiritual and physical to an extant. So the consequences are physical death and a distance from God. But we are not as pessimistic as the West, knowing as St. Gregory the Theologian says, that God only punishes us for our own good, so there is a lesson to be learned being born in this condition, that is very capable of attaining life, spiritual and physical.

the modern-day Orthodox view of Original Sin must have been heavily influenced by Islam, who teach everyone is born free from sin.

This is not correct. It is mainly Americans that don’t understand original sin, because it is hard to understand, that some falsely teach that we are born without sin. They most likely mean to say that we have no guilt for the sin of spiritual disease known as concupiscence, but that we have it is definitely supposed to be taught by all Orthodox. If you read writings that have been translated from Greek Bishops in the modern age, you will see that they definitely teach original sin. I would not make such a wild opinion that somehow Muslims that have tortured our Holy Saints somehow infected the Church with its heresies without more proof than an assumption.

 

[Miguel25]

I like what u say, But is not -“poor” speculation is philosophical reasoning. And Mary was not special by herself but because God created her that way, God could chose any woman and make her like mary. So God could created whoever he woulded want and with any carachteristics.

And the angels are superior to human. You just have to take a look how the prophets and even the apostle John did when did see an angel. Moreover these creatures did not need a saviour and the book of hebrews in order to dignify Jesus it says that he was made superior to the angels, cause they are the most holy creatures after God.

 

[Miguel25]

Orthodox have the biblical view that is to say they believe in fallen nature. Thats what the bible teaches. Original sin is a term that comes from neoplatonic philosophy reasoning and speculation. I agree 100% with the orthodox on that.

 

[dochawk]

I’m not sure what you mean, but we do believe that we each inherit original sin, which is more a deprivation than an actual thing.

I mean that the Eastern view of original sin does not include personal guilt in the way the west does.

hawk

 

[dvdjs]

With few exceptions, in the icons of the EO Church, Mary is portrayed together with Her Son and not alone.

I think that your emphasis is off.

In light of her unique closeness to Christ and her singular role in salvation history, she is most commonly depicted with Christ.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s included, but “carrier” or “bearer” is probably closer.

Carrier or bearer would have been rendered phoros, not tokos. Taken literally that was decided to be heresy. Closer is “birth-giver” of God. The sense, in modern English is biological mother, not surrogate mother of God.

 

[AlNg]

I think that your emphasis is off.

In light of her unique closeness to Christ and her singular role in salvation history, she is most commonly depicted with Christ.

Do you think so?

https://ourladyoftahoe.org/tag/our-lady-of-guadalupe/

Our Lady of Guadalupe - Face Print 5X7

A Prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

our-lady-divine-mercy090 - Happy Little Homemaker

Do You Make an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? — Integrated Catholic Life™

Immaculate Heart of Mary Statue 37"

https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/our-lady-of-guadalupe-feast-day-facts-celebration-ideas/

Mother Mary Prophecies at Fátima and Medjugorje

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima11.htm

https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/forms/WEB102

 

[dvdjs]

Do you think so?

We were talking of the Eastern tradition and the basis of it.

 

[AlNg]

We were talking of the Eastern tradition and the basis of it.

Here is what I claim:

1. In the EO tradition, Mary is generally depicted with Her Son.
2. In the RC tradition, this is not as generally true as it is in the EO tradition, since Mary is oftentimes depicted alone in the RC tradition.
   There are a few exceptions.

 

[pacloc]

God could chose any woman and make her like mary. So God could created whoever he woulded want and with any carachteristics.

This is not Orthodox teaching. God does not override our freewill. The Holy Virgin had the same potential that we all have, yet she was the greatest of all mankind and all creation. God foreseeing this from all eternity graced her to become the Mother of God. No one else could take that place.

And the angels are superior to human. You just have to take a look how the prophets and even the apostle John did when did see an angel. Moreover these creatures did not need a saviour and the book of hebrews in order to dignify Jesus it says that he was made superior to the angels, cause they are the most holy creatures after God.

Yes, kind of. The Holy Virgin surpasses them because she contained He who is not containable. So since Christ is greater than the Heavens, The Holy Virgin is called “Wider than the Heavens”. The angels do not share this aspect and bow down to Her. The angels eagerly await the happening of God with man, because they were partly made for the purpose of man.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the western view is somewhat misrepresented on this point. When it comes to “guilt” there is a difference between the actual guilt (Latin: culpa) for committing an actual sin and the guilt (Latin: reatus) in the sense of inherited deprivation for original sin. It is the latter word that Trent uses on this point. A such, the Catechism, citing to Trent, says the following:

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.

This is something that needs to be remitted for salvation. I don’t want to speak for pacloc, but he seems to be saying the same thing. The denial of this aspect of original sin by some modern EOs seems to be a novelty, as pacloc notes. It is explicit in older catechisms and synodal professions of faith. It was also never an issue at the reunion Councils, even when much more minor issues were.

 

[pacloc]

I agree with you are saying but this one part I think would have to be explained a little more.

This is something that needs to be remitted for salvation

This would be the norm, but for those that die as infants or without baptism because of various situations as not being exposed to Christianity, we would not want to guess at their salvation. I have heard an Orthodox Priest that said he actually liked the RCC teaching of Limbo, because it was a good way to explain that it is unknown what happens to a lot of people. We continue to pray for them as if their salvation is possible. Do you know if the Western Church was known for saying that non baptized infants and children had to be in hell? I believe they did, but would like to make sure. I don’t think this teaching was ever popular in the East.

 

[Dorothy]

God is outside of time, and He knew in advance that Mary would say yes.

And being “full of grace” she pondered much and always chose the will of God, and because of that she suffered much.

She is our spiritual Mother, given to us at the foot of the cross.