Diferences on Mary between EO and RC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miguel25

Guest
Which are the diferences regarding the Virgin Mary between EO and Rc?

I read a Bishop saying that we catholic are worshiping her…
 
EO don’t exactly have a doctrine of “original sin”. It’s called Ancestral Sin, and slightly different. So they also have no need to talk about the Immaculate Conception…

But the results are the same. Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos), Ever Virgin, without sin.
 
They can and usually view her very similarly. What is defined as necessary in the Orthodox Church seems to be the normal view of most Catholics, but it seems that Catholics allow for a lower view of the need for her. We view her as the only means of our salvation and so honor her as such, meaning that without her we are not saved. Also all creation receives God’s grace through her. We do believe in original sin, but still do not teach the immaculate conception because we do not believe her to have been in the same condition as man before the fall. Although she was sinless, she was still purified further by The Holy Spirit before Christ was conceived.
 
Mediatrix and coreedemer? Some times I think the problem is philosophical. Ofc she was the key but God could chose others I think.
 
What you’ve said is what I’ve understand the Orthodox Church to teach.

However, I think many Catholics would deem Mary necessary for salvation - I being one of them. Her “fiat” is eternal and opened the door to salvation. We must honour her!
 
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
 
I hope so bro. And 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
 
Is even appropiate. In spain there are too much rc ppl who miss the point. Good for the orthodox. And well that priest should explain better.
 
The Blessed Virgin Mary has many titles.

https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/Litanies/Loreto.htm

Holy Mary,
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins, .
Mother of Christ, .
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother most admirable,
Mother of good counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Savior,
Mother of the Church,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David, .
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of Heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of angels,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without
Original Sin,
Queen assumed into Heaven,
Queen of the holy Rosary,
Queen of families,
Queen of peace…
 
It’s not.

That phrasing tends to come from those claiming it as the “final” dogma revealed at Fatima.

Their stridency and insistence on this make some of us shudder, and contemplate the H-word.

hawk
 
So I dont have to believe in it? Cause I dont…im worried now
 
Miguel25 said:
So I dont have to believe in it? Cause I dont…im worried now
Click to expand...
Believe in which?

Co-redemptrix? No, absolutely not.

Virgin birth or born without sin? Dogma on the first, east and west; dogma on the second in the west, and obvious on the “water’s wet” level in the east with no need for dogma (Augustinian individual guilt is not consistent with Eastern theology, nor is it western dogma, even though there is a dogmatic response to it).

hawk
 
pacloc said:
but it seems that Catholics allow for a lower view of the need for her. We view her as the only means of our salvation and so honor her as such, meaning that without her we are not saved.
Click to expand...
You are correct, the Catholic Church does not view Mary as necessary for salvation… God alone is absolutely necessary.
 
AlNg said:
With few exceptions, in the icons of the EO Church, Mary is portrayed together with Her Son and not alone.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is because the EO stress the great importance of the title “Theotokos”, meaning Mother of God. This is the widely used title for Her, comparable to how us Catholics use “The Blessed Virgin”. Because Theotokos is the main title, they always try to depict Her with Jesus, usually as an infant.

This is an interesting thread.
 
dallas_r said:
Yeah, this is because the EO stress the great importance of the title “Theotokos”, meaning Mother of God.
Click to expand...
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
 
i feel like i gained a master’s degree in theology after reading this post

i need 48 hours or so to process… thank you
 
Last edited:
Neither Catholics nor Orthodox worship Mary.

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

The difference is that in Catholicism it is Infallible defined: “the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin” VS in Orthodoxy, the “how” is not Infallibily defined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top