Do Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[narrowpath]

So…let me see if I have this.

Adam fell, an lost the Grace of God. Because of this loss of grace, we are also subject to the ‘passions’ (lust, greed, as well as hunger, pain, etc). We do not, however, inherit Dam’s guilt, just the effects of his sin, the loss of grace. Jesus took the fallen human nature and purified it through the divine nature, and so was not a sinner, not subject to the corruptible passions.

Mary, as Theotokos did not sin in her life. But do EO’s and EC’s believe that Mary was also subject to the corruptible passions, so, tempted even if she did not actually sin? If so, was this by a direct act o race from God?

Or, if they do not believe that she was subject to the corrutible passions, was this then by God’s grace?

 

[jimmy]

So…let me see if I have this.

Adam fell, an lost the Grace of God. Because of this loss of grace, we are also subject to the ‘passions’ (lust, greed, as well as hunger, pain, etc). We do not, however, inherit Dam’s guilt, just the effects of his sin, the loss of grace. Jesus took the fallen human nature and purified it through the divine nature, and so was not a sinner, not subject to the corruptible passions.

Mary, as Theotokos did not sin in her life. But do EO’s and EC’s believe that Mary was also subject to the corruptible passions, so, tempted even if she did not actually sin? If so, was this by a direct act o race from God?

Or, if they do not believe that she was subject to the corrutible passions, was this then by God’s grace?

Jesus was the only one who was not subject to the corruptible passions due to the fact that He is a divine person and has a divine will. Since He is a divine person it is the one will of God that is in control and so there was no gnomic will. My understanding of it though is that the corruptible passions directly follow on the incorruptible passions. Hunger and thirst and fear are the cause of the corruptible passions like lust and greed. Man subjugates spiritual things to material things as a result of his hunger and fear of death. It is not determined that every man will be lustful or greedy but it is practicaly inevitable. It is possibly that a person could remain pure and so we have an example like the Theotokos who remained immaculate.

Remember as I mentioned above that the Byzantine tradition does not recognize an absolute pure nature of man. So it is by Grace because man always has some relation to Grace, even after the fall even if there is a distinction from the relationship that there was before the fall or that after the resurrection. Grace is always drawing man to God but we remain free at all times. So it is ot necessary that there be a special act of Grace that grants Mary a special Grace to protect her from sin.

 

[narrowpath]

Oh, okay. So the Theotokos had the same grace applied to all men, however, she responded to it ALL THE TIME, never sinning. She never followed the passions which many others follow.

 

[mardukm]

Jesus was the only one who was not subject to the corruptible passions due to the fact that He is a divine person and has a divine will. Since He is a divine person it is the one will of God that is in control and so there was no gnomic will.

I am thinking this is not an orthodox understanding, brother. There is no admixture between Christ’s human and divine natures, nor the human and divine wills. There is perfect agreement between them, but it is dangerous to say (IMO) that “the one will of God is in control.” I have not found the idea that Jesus was not subject to the corruptible passions due to the fact of his divinity in the Fathers. His divinity was not the CAUSE of Him not sinning. He seriously and truly used his full and free HUMAN will to resist sin and remain pure. I think that is the point of the whole mystery of the Incarnation, the whole mystery of the Divine condescension.

My understanding of it though is that the corruptible passions directly follow on the incorruptible passions.

Can you explain this statement a bit more?

Hunger and thirst and fear are the cause of the corruptible passions like lust and greed. Man subjugates spiritual things to material things as a result of his hunger and fear of death. It is not determined that every man will be lustful or greedy but it is practicaly inevitable. It is possibly that a person could remain pure and so we have an example like the Theotokos who remained immaculate.

That is also my understanding, except for one thing. I would say that, as far as immediate causes, Hunger, thirst and fear are a direct result of the physical effects of original sin (on ourselves and our surroundings). Lust and greed, on the other hand, are the direct result of the stain of original sin - i.e. the spiritual consequences of original sin, the lack of grace in our souls. Mary and Jesus never had the stain of original sin. So though they experienced such things as hunger, thirst, and fear, it never did lead to lust and greed. Of course, they were using their free will to resist the temptation to lust and greed. Not having evil inclinations simply means that the lust and greed is not inherent in their souls. I think the difference between fallen humanity, on the one hand, and Mary and Adam and Eve (and Jesus, of course), on the other, is that fallen humanity naturally has disordered inclinations like lust and greed due to original sin. Fallen humanity, even in the absence of the external/ physical effects of original sin, possesses such inclinations as lust and greed. The other group, on the other hand, did not have these disordered inclincations. In the absence of factors outside themselves, such disordered inclindations would not exist. However, this does not mean that Satan cannot put situations in front of them whereby they might be tempted to disobey God. In those cases, their use of free will is necessary to remain pure and align themselves to God.

Remember as I mentioned above that the Byzantine tradition does not recognize an absolute pure nature of man. So it is by Grace because man always has some relation to Grace, even after the fall even if there is a distinction from the relationship that there was before the fall or that after the resurrection. Grace is always drawing man to God but we remain free at all times. So it is ot necessary that there be a special act of Grace that grants Mary a special Grace to protect her from sin.

This is the Oriental and Latin teaching as well, I believe. On this point, there is complete agreement. The excesses you speak of on the matter have come from western Protestants, not Latin Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

This is the Oriental and Latin teaching as well, I believe. On this point, there is complete agreement. The excesses you speak of on the matter have come from western Protestants, not Latin Catholics.

marduk, the Latin teaching is that Mary was granted a special Grace to protect her from the stain of OS. It is stated right in the decree on the IC.

Regarding the wills of Christ. Yes there are two seperate wills of Christ but it is not Nestorianism or some kind of schitzophrenia. There is one acting subject and that is the divine hypostasis or person. The human will always remains subject to the divine will which is shared by the Father and the Son.

I can’t really elaborate on the idea that the corruptible passions follow the incorruptible passions. I haven’t read all that much on the issue. That was just my impression after reading some EO theology.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

marduk, the Latin teaching is that Mary was granted a special Grace to protect her from the stain of OS. It is stated right in the decree on the IC.

From all the documents I’ve read on the matter, and comparing it to the Church’s teaching on Original Sin, I came to the conclusion that the Grace Mary received at the IC is nothing more nor less than the grace we receive at Baptism. The only thing “singular” (the word used by the dogma, not “special”) about it was that it was given to her at the moment of her conception, whereby it became a preventive Grace, instead of a remedial Grace. But as far as the TYPE of Grace, it really is no different from the Grace we receive at Baptism. If you will look at Trent’s teaching of Original Sin, you will discover that the Grace of Baptism makes us “pure, without STAIN…” just like Mary at her conception.

There is also something else that just doesn’t seem right when you say that Mary did not require a “special Grace” from your rationale that we are always moved by Grace. If you say this, then aren’t you in fact denying the necessity of Baptism? I mean, if we are ALL always moved by Grace, what use is it for US to have the “special Grace” of Baptism?

Regarding the wills of Christ. Yes there are two seperate wills of Christ but it is not Nestorianism or some kind of schitzophrenia. There is one acting subject and that is the divine hypostasis or person. The human will always remains subject to the divine will which is shared by the Father and the Son.

Being “subject to” the Divine Will seems to me to be different than saying that “the ONE WILL of God is in control.” The former suggests volitional submission, while the latter suggests that the human will is merely subjugated, and not truly and fully free. Perhaps the issue is just your wording, not necessarily your belief…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

From all the documents I’ve read on the matter, and comparing it to the Church’s teaching on Original Sin, I came to the conclusion that the Grace Mary received at the IC is nothing more nor less than the grace we receive at Baptism. The only thing “singular” (the word used by the dogma, not “special”) about it was that it was given to her at the moment of her conception, whereby it became a preventive Grace, instead of a remedial Grace. But as far as the TYPE of Grace, it really is no different from the Grace we receive at Baptism. If you will look at Trent’s teaching of Original Sin, you will discover that the Grace of Baptism makes us “pure, without STAIN…” just like Mary at her conception.

There is also something else that just doesn’t seem right when you say that Mary did not require a “special Grace” from your rationale that we are always moved by Grace. If you say this, then aren’t you in fact denying the necessity of Baptism? I mean, if we are ALL always moved by Grace, what use is it for US to have the “special Grace” of Baptism?

Yes, that is what I have concluded from my reading of the western theology. That is not the Byzantine perspective though. As I mentioned above the Byzantines don’t believe there is a stain that is handed on from Adam and Eve. They also don’t believe in an idea of pure nature that is completely seperate from the divine nature, even after the fall. Man always chooses his sins, you are not born into them. And so Mary could concievably remain pure without some special act of God.

Being “subject to” the Divine Will seems to me to be different than saying that “the ONE WILL of God is in control.” The former suggests volitional submission, while the latter suggests that the human will is merely subjugated, and not truly and fully free. Perhaps the issue is just your wording, not necessarily your belief…

Blessings,
Marduk

There is only one acting subject in Christ and that is the divine hypostasis. The human will doesn’t submit to the divine will. To say that the human will voluntarily submits to the divine will is a form of nestorianism. The Byzantine Tradition atleast has developed its interpretation of Chalcedon within a Cyrillian context. If we want to say that the Byzantine Christology is the same as that of the Latin and the Oriental we can point to the 11th and 12th century disputes in the Greek Church. There was a dispure that was similar to this with Eustratius who placed the human nature in a position of servitude to the divine nature. He was condemned in 1117 at a council in Constantinople. His possition was that, “The humanity assumed by Christ not only was distinct from His divinity but found itself in a position of “servitude”; it was in a position of “worshiping God,” of being “purified,” and to it alone belongs the human title of high-priest, a term unsuitable to God. In condemning the opinions of Eustratius, the synod reiterated the decisions of the Fifth Council against the Christology of the Three Chapters Byzantine Theology, John Meyendorff, p.39].”

 

[mardukm]

Yes, that is what I have concluded from my reading of the western theology. That is not the Byzantine perspective though. As I mentioned above the Byzantines don’t believe there is a stain that is handed on from Adam and Eve. They also don’t believe in an idea of pure nature that is completely seperate from the divine nature, even after the fall. Man always chooses his sins, you are not born into them. And so Mary could concievably remain pure without some special act of God.

That’s very interesting. I did not know that the Byzantines believe that our souls did not suffer any loss of holiness due to the Fall. So the Byzantines think that humanity AFTER the Fall is as spiritually pure in God’s eyes as humanity BEFORE the Fall, and the Fall had no deleterious effects on our souls? I mean - since the STAIN of original sin is defined in the Latin Church as the SPIRITUAL CONSEQUENCES of original sin, then to say that there is no stain handed on would be equivalent to saying that there are no spiritual consequences that were handed on. I already knew that Byzantines assign to physical death a much greater prominence as an effect of Original Sin, but I never knew it was to the exclusion of any kind of spiritual detriment to the soul. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Or perhaps it is just a matter of terminology?

There is only one acting subject in Christ and that is the divine hypostasis. The human will doesn’t submit to the divine will. To say that the human will voluntarily submits to the divine will is a form of nestorianism. The Byzantine Tradition atleast has developed its interpretation of Chalcedon within a Cyrillian context. If we want to say that the Byzantine Christology is the same as that of the Latin and the Oriental we can point to the 11th and 12th century disputes in the Greek Church. There was a dispure that was similar to this with Eustratius who placed the human nature in a position of servitude to the divine nature. He was condemned in 1117 at a council in Constantinople. His possition was that, “The humanity assumed by Christ not only was distinct from His divinity but found itself in a position of “servitude”; it was in a position of “worshiping God,” of being “purified,” and to it alone belongs the human title of high-priest, a term unsuitable to God. In condemning the opinions of Eustratius, the synod reiterated the decisions of the Fifth Council against the Christology of the Three Chapters Byzantine Theology, John Meyendorff, p.39].”

I don’t believe what I stated comes close to what Eustratius was saying. I stated that the human and divine wills are distinct, with no admixture, but are united perfectly. I am very uncomfortable with saying, “one will in control.” I would rather say, “two wills as one in perfect agreement.” Do you see what I am getting at?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

That’s very interesting. I did not know that the Byzantines believe that our souls did not suffer any loss of holiness due to the Fall. So the Byzantines think that humanity AFTER the Fall is as spiritually pure in God’s eyes as humanity BEFORE the Fall, and the Fall had no deleterious effects on our souls? I mean - since the STAIN of original sin is defined in the Latin Church as the SPIRITUAL CONSEQUENCES of original sin, then to say that there is no stain handed on would be equivalent to saying that there are no spiritual consequences that were handed on. I already knew that Byzantines assign to physical death a much greater prominence as an effect of Original Sin, but I never knew it was to the exclusion of any kind of spiritual detriment to the soul. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Or perhaps it is just a matter of terminology?

I wouldn’t say there are no spiritual consequences but there is no stain that is handed on.

I don’t believe what I stated comes close to what Eustratius was saying. I stated that the human and divine wills are distinct, with no admixture, but are united perfectly. I am very uncomfortable with saying, “one will in control.” I would rather say, “two wills as one in perfect agreement.” Do you see what I am getting at?

Blessings,
Marduk

It sounded like you were saying that the human will voluntarily submits to the divine will. There is not an equality between the human and the divine in Christ. Christ’s human and divine will’s are always in agreement but that is not because they are equal or that they act on equal terms. Rather it is because humanity is enhypostasized into the second person of the Trinity. The hypostasis/person is the acting subject. Christ’s two natures don’t act seperately and come into agreement. It is the divine person who acts.

 

[Ghosty]

Jimmy: I don’t believe your statements accurately reflect Byzantine belief at all. All of the great Byzantine Saints speak of the “tarnishing of the Divine Image” in Man, and this is precisely what “stain” means in Latin theology. Here are some quotes from the Orthodox Wiki:

St. Gregory Palama taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.

and:

It isn’t only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us.

This personal distance from God is also the “stain” taught in Latin theology, as it refers to the darkness brought about by being far from Divine Light.

Many Eastern Orthodox reject the term “stain” without understanding it, but when you look at the actual Byzantine tradition, as handed down in the Liturgy and by the Saints, you will quickly see that the “stain” is most certainly believed in.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy: I don’t believe your statements accurately reflect Byzantine belief at all. All of the great Byzantine Saints speak of the “tarnishing of the Divine Image” in Man, and this is precisely what “stain” means in Latin theology. Here are some quotes from the Orthodox Wiki:

and:

This personal distance from God is also the “stain” taught in Latin theology, as it refers to the darkness brought about by being far from Divine Light.

Many Eastern Orthodox reject the term “stain” without understanding it, but when you look at the actual Byzantine tradition, as handed down in the Liturgy and by the Saints, you will quickly see that the “stain” is most certainly believed in.

Peace and God bless!

The view of OS that I have spoke of in this thread where it causes death and through that a gnomic will is that of Orthodox theologians like Meyendorff. He portrays it as the view of most of the saints including Maximus. I am confident in Meyendorff as a source for the development of Byzantine Theology but we aren’t going to get anywhere in a discussion whether this is historically the Byzantine tradition by quoting Meyendorff or Orthodoxwiki. And I really don’t know the sources well enough to say what is most accurate.

 

[Ghosty]

The view of OS that I have spoke of in this thread where it causes death and through that a gnomic will is that of Orthodox theologians like Meyendorff. He portrays it as the view of most of the saints including Maximus. I am confident in Meyendorff as a source for the development of Byzantine Theology but we aren’t going to get anywhere in a discussion whether this is historically the Byzantine tradition by quoting Meyendorff or Orthodoxwiki. And I really don’t know the sources well enough to say what is most accurate.

I strongly recommend reading Byzantine Saints themselves rather than the writings of Meyendorff. While his work is generally commendable, it belongs to the “neo-Palamite” school of thought that is very recent in origin. Neo-Palamism doesn’t even directly reflect St. Gregory Palamas’ own teachings on the matter, as can be seen by Palamas saying that we inherit the “tarnished image” (St. Gregory Palamas also taught that Mary is the “Mediatrix of all Grace”, and the Immaculate Conception, just as an interesting aside).

Reading actual Byzantine theology from history presents a very different picture than what you’ll find in the work of Meyendorff, and I recommend reading the original sources before reading the works of neo-Palamite theologians, who had an admitted agenda of distancing Byzantine theology from Latin traditions (often regardless of whether or not these Byzantine beliefs were original to the Byzantine tradition, such as the Immaculate Conception which was translated from the Byzantine world to the West over a period of many centuries).

Peace and God bless!

 

[narrowpath]

The Church’s teaching on the IC from he catechism:

**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. **
So the Latin Church teaches hat Mary was given a special grace. From what it says about the Eastern Fathers’ teaching, they seemed to think so too…

 

[Formosus]

"Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. " - Patriarch Lubomyr Husar

 

[jimmy]

I strongly recommend reading Byzantine Saints themselves rather than the writings of Meyendorff. While his work is generally commendable, it belongs to the “neo-Palamite” school of thought that is very recent in origin. Neo-Palamism doesn’t even directly reflect St. Gregory Palamas’ own teachings on the matter, as can be seen by Palamas saying that we inherit the “tarnished image” (St. Gregory Palamas also taught that Mary is the “Mediatrix of all Grace”, and the Immaculate Conception, just as an interesting aside).

Reading actual Byzantine theology from history presents a very different picture than what you’ll find in the work of Meyendorff, and I recommend reading the original sources before reading the works of neo-Palamite theologians, who had an admitted agenda of distancing Byzantine theology from Latin traditions (often regardless of whether or not these Byzantine beliefs were original to the Byzantine tradition, such as the Immaculate Conception which was translated from the Byzantine world to the West over a period of many centuries).

Peace and God bless!

If you are claiming that Meyendorff is dishonest with his approach then you should back it up. The Orthodoxwiki claims that Gregory spoke of a stain but what were Gregory’s actual words on the issue? Meyendorff also claims that the Byzantine Tradition from its foundation spoke of OS as death. He explains this in context of a neo-Chalcedonian Christology or a Cyrillian interpretation of Chalcedon. I am willing to read the writings of the Byzantines. The little I have read of St. Maximus seems to back up Meyendorff’s assertion. Maximus speaks of death, corruption and subjection to the passions as the result of the Original Sin. He doesn’t speak of a stain, atleast from what I read.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

If you are claiming that Meyendorff is dishonest with his approach then you should back it up. The Orthodoxwiki claims that Gregory spoke of a stain but what were Gregory’s actual words on the issue? Meyendorff also claims that the Byzantine Tradition from its foundation spoke of OS as death. He explains this in context of a neo-Chalcedonian Christology or a Cyrillian interpretation of Chalcedon. I am willing to read the writings of the Byzantines. The little I have read of St. Maximus seems to back up Meyendorff’s assertion. Maximus speaks of death, corruption and subjection to the passions as the result of the Original Sin. He doesn’t speak of a stain, atleast from what I read.

Do you know what Latins refer to when they speak of “stain?” Before I can believe that a certain Eastern writer doesn’t speak of “stain,” I would first like to understand what YOU believe the word “stain” means in Latin theology. From there we can see if you are really representing Byzantine theology properly (though I’ll admit you have no doubt read more of Byzantine theology than me).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

If you are claiming that Meyendorff is dishonest with his approach then you should back it up. The Orthodoxwiki claims that Gregory spoke of a stain but what were Gregory’s actual words on the issue? Meyendorff also claims that the Byzantine Tradition from its foundation spoke of OS as death. He explains this in context of a neo-Chalcedonian Christology or a Cyrillian interpretation of Chalcedon. I am willing to read the writings of the Byzantines. The little I have read of St. Maximus seems to back up Meyendorff’s assertion. Maximus speaks of death, corruption and subjection to the passions as the result of the Original Sin. He doesn’t speak of a stain, atleast from what I read.

I’m not claiming that Meyendorff is dishonest, I’m just pointing out that his school of thought is very new in Eastern Orthodoxy, and that this has to be taken into consideration when viewing it as having any authority. You yourself have said that you’ve read little of the actual sources of Byzantine theology, so what basis do you have in making any claims about it? You’ve read Meyendorff, but have you read the Eastern Orthodox catechisms that were printed for centuries before he came along, where they spoke of Original Sin exactly as it’s defined at Trent? Have you actually read St. Gregory Palamas? Have you read the works that Meyendorff cites of St. Maximos?

On this forum alone there have been countless citations of Orthodox teachings prior to the 20th century that support Latin views, from the Council of Jerusalem, to the catechism of Peter Mogila, which was the standard of Eastern Orthodox teaching for much longer than Meyendorff has even been around (approximately 300 years, to be exact, compared with less than 100). If you have the actual sources, I’ll be happy to look over them and discuss them with you; if you’re simply going off the words of modern theologians like Meyendorff then I stand by my recommendation that we go to the actual sources of Byzantine theology: the Saints and the Liturgy.

I will also say that I won’t say more of Byzantine theology than I am taught by my own pastor and Bishop; I won’t bring in Latin arguments about the matter.

Also, as Mardukm points out, what you’re describing as St. Maximos’ view is the Latin teaching of the “stain of Original Sin”. You seem to be arguing against something you haven’t really taken in fully.

On a final note, if you really want to take Cyrillian theology into account, it’s best to go back to St. Athanasius, whom St. Cyril relied on for his explaination of our nature and our inheritance from Adam. St. Athanasius says this:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

Does sin follow from death, or death from sin, according to St. Athanasius? Or, earlier in the same work (On the Incarnation):

This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: “God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world.” When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment.

Our nature is subject to “corruption” and death, but by sin Adam removed the Grace of God (the Light of Divine Life) that shielded us from this natural corruption. If death were the cause of sin, and not visa versa, how could death gain a foothold by sin? Rather, the cause of our corruption is prior to death: it is the removal/absence of God’s Grace. Our embracing of this corruption certainly causes us to spiral further downward, but death itself is the result, not the cause. The absence of Grace causes us to fall to death, as I’ll repeat St. Athanasius’ own words “for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created.”

I won’t call Meyendorff a liar, but you tell me if his explaination accurately reflects the writings of at least this most important Eastern Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Do you know what Latins refer to when they speak of “stain?” Before I can believe that a certain Eastern writer doesn’t speak of “stain,” I would first like to understand what YOU believe the word “stain” means in Latin theology. From there we can see if you are really representing Byzantine theology properly (though I’ll admit you have no doubt read more of Byzantine theology than me).

Blessings,
Marduk

The Laitn idea of stain is basically what Anselm stated, the loss of original justice or holiness. The council of Trent speaks of it in its decrees on Original Sin. You could also define it as the loss of sanctifying Grace.

I’m not claiming that Meyendorff is dishonest, I’m just pointing out that his school of thought is very new in Eastern Orthodoxy, and that this has to be taken into consideration when viewing it as having any authority. You yourself have said that you’ve read little of the actual sources of Byzantine theology, so what basis do you have in making any claims about it? You’ve read Meyendorff, but have you read the Eastern Orthodox catechisms that were printed for centuries before he came along, where they spoke of Original Sin exactly as it’s defined at Trent? Have you actually read St. Gregory Palamas? Have you read the works that Meyendorff cites of St. Maximos?

First, is there a problem with the delatinization that some EO theologians are trying to do? Part of de Lubac’s motivation in his reappropriation of the sources was that he thought the neo-thomist theologians of the 17th-20th centuries had distorted the theology and led to errors dividing between the spiritual and natural realms. Was he wrong to skip over the neo-Thomists? You could look at the EO resourcement and say it isn’t consistent with what many of their saints have said. You could also do the same with the resourcement in the west.

I have read some of St. Maximus and he does have a strong emphasis on the passions and on death. I haven’t read a whole lot of his writings partly because there aren’t a whole lot of his writings in print in English and I can’t read St. Maximus’ Greek. The vast majority of what is in English are the spiritual texts in the Philokalia and other translations.

On this forum alone there have been countless citations of Orthodox teachings prior to the 20th century that support Latin views, from the Council of Jerusalem, to the catechism of Peter Mogila, which was the standard of Eastern Orthodox teaching for much longer than Meyendorff has even been around (approximately 300 years, to be exact, compared with less than 100). If you have the actual sources, I’ll be happy to look over them and discuss them with you; if you’re simply going off the words of modern theologians like Meyendorff then I stand by my recommendation that we go to the actual sources of Byzantine theology: the Saints and the Liturgy.

Yes, I have seen those sources but you can’t really limit the Byzantine theology to them. For a long time many EO bishops had studied in western schools. Some studied in protestant schools while others studied in Catholic schools.

It could be pointed out that many saints in the Latin Church denied certain doctrines like the Immaculate Conception but that would not be an accurate generalization of all of Catholic saints. The question is not simply what the 18th century Orthodox thought in the Jerusalem patriarchate or whatever. It is more a question of what is the general trend of theology within Byzantium. We can discuss these various sources and try to determine where they fit in the tradition but the tradition can not be bound by them.

I would like to discuss the sources. Do you have access to the volume of St. Maximus’ writings published by SVS press in the popular patristics series?

I will respond to the Athanasius stuff later. I need to go through the sources. Can you give a more complete citation for the quotes? I would like to check them out in their context.

 

[chrisb]

The Laitn idea of stain is basically what Anselm stated, the loss of original justice or holiness. The council of Trent speaks of it in its decrees on Original Sin. You could also define it as the loss of sanctifying Grace.

But with regards to the Doctrine of Original Sin, it would appear Dogmatized by the Councils (both at the regional synod level and also by two Ecumenical Councils. In my inquiry into ‘modern’ Orthodoxy I find weird inconsistencies with the Councils and their own Theologians which really concerned me and ultimately kept me from further inquiry.

The Councils on Original Sin:

Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema.

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: “Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.

These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. They were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787. These Canons were and ‘must not to be understood otherwise than as the catholic and apostalic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.’

Teachings of an Orthodox Theologian:

Nor does this resemble the works of Simeon the New Theologian (i.e. The First-Created Man, Seven Homilies) who clearly presents the ‘orthodox’ teaching of “Original Sin”…

In the present life no one has the divine power in himself to manifest a brilliant glory, and there is no one who is clothed with glory before humility and disgrace; but every man who is born in this world is born inglorious and insignificant, and only later, little by little, advances and becomes glorious.

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I find the underlined very concerning for the modern Orthodox argument that Original Sin was understood in some vague philosophical way as it appears to be now by modern Orthodox apologists. Even if we look to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius we find comparing our original state of grace in immortality with a new state in death needing ‘rebirth’ to renew. I simply don’t find the “modern” Orthodox apologetic in history and that really concerns me because they appear to have emphasized the Cappadocian Fathers over the consensus of the whole faith in order to present an alternative to historic Catholic Theology. Now I don’t pretend to think that everything in the Catholic Church is as it has always been… but I do get the feeling that “modern” Orthodoxy has artificially contrived distinctions in order to appeal to modern sentiment concerning these teachings (particularly that of modern liberal protestant views concerning the need for Baptism etc.).

 

[Ghosty]

First, is there a problem with the delatinization that some EO theologians are trying to do? Part of de Lubac’s motivation in his reappropriation of the sources was that he thought the neo-thomist theologians of the 17th-20th centuries had distorted the theology and led to errors dividing between the spiritual and natural realms. Was he wrong to skip over the neo-Thomists? You could look at the EO resourcement and say it isn’t consistent with what many of their saints have said. You could also do the same with the resourcement in the west.

What exactly is your point? We’re not talking about the Western resourcement movement, and I don’t see any relevance for it in this discussion. It looks like you merely want to muddy the water by bringing up possible problems in Latin approaches, rather than sticking with the topic at hand.

As for whether or not there is a problem with the approach of “delatinization”, in some cases there can be. The major problem with the approach of people like Meyendorff is that they have a tendency to downplay or overlook Byzantine traditions that have become associated with the West, such as the Immaculate Conception which was taught by St. Gregory Palamas, and upheld by the Russian Church until the Nikonian Reforms. Rather than go back to what was believed by Byzantines prior to Western influence, an attempt has been made to “reconstruct” a new Byzantine theology, drawing on supposed points of divergence from the West.

Just one example is that of St. John of Damascus, who wrote in Book Four of “The Orthodox Faith”:

Further, observe that by baptism we cut off all the covering which we have worn since birth, that is to say, sin, and become spiritual Israelites and God’s people.

He says that we have “worn sin” from birth, not that death leads us to sin. In fact, in all of his writings he always refers to death as the consequence of sin, and not the other way around. This is true Byzantine theology, by the last of the Early Fathers and the author of the earliest complete “systematic catechism”. This is not from St. Augustine, or any other Western Saint or writer, and it’s just a single example from the most prominent Byzantine theologian of the first millenium.

So my problem with Meyendorff’s approach is that in his admitted program of “purging Latinization” from the Byzantine tradition, he also tends to purge, or at least overlook, true Byzantine teachings in favor a very narrow and new approach. This isn’t to say that there isn’t talk of death leading us to sin (in both the West and the East), but that it was never the central focus of Original Sin. It is the chief consequence in Byzantine theology, to be sure, but it’s rarely represented as the forerunner of sin, except in the few places that Meyendorff grabs hold of and tries to turn into the “whole, authentic tradition” on Original Sin.

I would like to discuss the sources. Do you have access to the volume of St. Maximus’ writings published by SVS press in the popular patristics series?

I can purchase it, assuming the information isn’t available in my own books of his. What works in particular are you thinking of?

Peace and God bless!