Do Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brother,

this is the same concern i have when i posted a document by an Orthodox Traditionalist Vladimir Moss in which his understanding of Original sin is the same with the Catholic view, I’m wondering if our EC brethren did change their view and followed the Orthodox?

thanks
marlo
mardukm said:
Alithos Anesti!

Dear brother Fritzz,

I have been discussing this matter over at an Orthodox website, and I just found out something that blew my mind away. An EO poster told me that the difference between the EO and Catholic view is the different conception of Original Sin. I told him my understanding as an Oriental Orthodox in communion with Rome is no different from my understanding when I was an Oriental Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, and then asked him what he thought the difference was. In reply, stated he understood Original Sin as taught by St. Palamas, and then he provided the following quote:

Brother, this blew me away! This is so different from what I have been hearing from EO and some EC on the matter. The latter have all stated that the PRIMARY result of the Original Sin is PHYSICAL death and fear of it is the result of all manner of sin. But here we see St. Palamas teach a view that is completely in line with the Catholic and Oriental understanding - THAT THE PRIMARY RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL SIN IS SPIRITUAL DEATH, NOT PHYSICAL DEATH. It is interesting that St. Palamas did in fact explicitly hold to a belief in the IC of Mary. There seems to have been a change in the teaching of the EO since the time of Palamas. I am thinking it occured in the 19th century as a result of the controversy over the IC. At that time, polemics sought to distance itself as far as possible from the IC which, prior to that time, had been an almost unanimous belief among the EO Fathers. I am surmising that this change in the teaching on Original Sin was spurred by the IC controversy. Given what I know now about what St. Palamas actually taught, I really feel that MODERN EO’xy has really broken from its roots. For many months now, I have been noticing more and more that MODERN EO’xy in several areas of teaching is rather different from HISTORIC EO’xy, MODERN EO’xy being more a child of reactionary anti-Catholicism than being a genuine development from historic EO’xy.

I would love to hear comments from you, both with regards to what I wrote, and with regards to the quote from St. Palamas.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
It;s both and. lol.

Adam’s sin caused death on multiple levels simultaneously: Physical and Spiritual.

All born after adam are subject to the principle of decay. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is really quite spiritual. It’s why we can’t do anything truly virtuous.

I believe that none of us are born Guilty of adams sin, but we all bear the consequences: Death in totality. The moment of our existence is a lesson in simultaneously growing and dying. In the case of the Panagia, she was sanctified and set aside from her beginning to be theotokos, the God-Bearer. She was pure, immaculate and holy in the sense that she, being filled from the beginning with the grace of God, never sinned and maintained her virginity. However, the unanimous consent is that she did die. This means she WAS subject to the effects of the original sin. While she may be Holy from the womb, I have no doubt that her holiness must have required some effort on her part, because otherwise she could not be virtuous.

Virtue can only exist where there is something to overcome. If it was no effort for her, she did not acquire virtue because she would have no choice. It sort of just happened, making her something other than human.

SO:

A. Th Virgin Mary is not guilty of Adam’s Sin.
B. Th Virgin Mary, through her cooperation with the abundant grace of God never capitulated to sin
C. She was truly virtuous because she died; She is then subject to the power of death and had to make SOME effort, even if infintesimal to be considered virtuous.
D. She tasted death.
E. She was subject to the consequences of original sin.
F. She was assumed within three days of her death.
 
Gregory_I said:
However, the unanimous consent is that she did die. This means she WAS subject to the effects of the original sin. While she may be Holy from the womb, I have no doubt that her holiness must have required some effort on her part, because otherwise she could not be virtuous.
Click to expand...
She was not subject to any effect of OS.

Death takes on a new meaning in the New Covenant and since Jesus wouldn’t rob her of any glory, He (most likely) allow the Immaculate one to taste death and further her glory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church **1009 **Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.
 
This is getting to theologically deep for the average catholic I think we need a Doctor of the Church to come and give us a diagnosis and carefully explain things… Calling Dr Aquinas Dr Aquinis
 
Death is what it is regardless of your attitude as you approach it. You are no less physically dead for faith than not. And physical death is a consequence of adams Sin, and Mary DID die. She was Assumed, indicating her great holiness, But she died, no question.
 
Gregory_I said:
Death is what it is regardless of your attitude as you approach it.
Click to expand...
Not for the Christian. We welcome death, it is the bride’s chamber where your soul prepares to meet the bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
 
Jesus also died a mortal death, but was without Original Sin. We have to be very careful how we make these distinctions lest we trample on authentic Christology.

Mortality is a result of Adam’s sin, yes, but that doesn’t mean that mortality isn’t a natural part of our human nature. We can be protected from it by Grace, but owing to our physical natures we are subject to physical death. Christ chose to embrace that aspect of our nature inspite of His Grace, and there’s nothing saying that others couldn’t undergo a similar occurance.

Peace and God bless!
 
mardukm said:
I just found St. Gregory Palamas’ Sermon relating to the IC, for anyone interested:

orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Some very interesting points:
  1. He says Mary was sinless by nature.
  2. He says Mary’s sinlessness is the cause of the sinlessness of Christ’s own human nature.
  3. He says that there is a lineage of holiness from Adam that culminated with Mary, the all-holy Theotokos.
Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
#1 & 2 is what I was always taught in Catholic schools, but not sure about #3.

On #2, it is the human nature alone of Jesus that it refers to. He inherits his human nature from Mary - whether sinless or sinful…which one makes more sense?

And, nemo dat quat non habet…she must be sinless to pass along that human nature to her son.
 
Ghosty said:
Jesus also died a mortal death, but was without Original Sin. We have to be very careful how we make these distinctions lest we trample on authentic Christology.

Only because He took OUR sinfulness…which resulted on HIS death for US. Not because he inherited the “death sentence”. We also believe He gave His life up, He didn’t die…which to me means no one can take life away from Life Himself…He must surrender it.

Mortality is a result of Adam’s sin, yes, but that doesn’t mean that mortality isn’t a natural part of our human nature. We can be protected from it by Grace, but owing to our physical natures we are subject to physical death. Christ chose to embrace that aspect of our nature inspite of His Grace, and there’s nothing saying that others couldn’t undergo a similar occurance.

Then, what about Enoc and Elijah? I don’t think death is an inherent part of human nature…but rather the result of sin. I thought that’s what the catechism taught, no? We were created to live forever with God in the garden. No disease, no death. We even had access to the Tree of Life, to become like God, but chose the wrong tree out of mistrust of God…and here we are…😦

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
 
Hi Sunflower!
Sunflower15 said:
And, nemo dat quat non habet…she must be sinless to pass along that human nature to her son.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why.

Did Anna have to be sinless to pass along that human nature to her daughter?

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
 
Only because He took OUR sinfulness…which resulted on HIS death for US. Not because he inherited the “death sentence”. We also believe He gave His life up, He didn’t die…which to me means no one can take life away from Life Himself…He must surrender it.
Click to expand...
I never said he inherited a death sentence, I said that by virtue of his human nature He could be mortal. Gregory was saying that mortality is purely a result of sin, but if that were so then Christ could not have died unless He was a sinner. Christ could not take on our sins in such a sense.

As for saying that Christ didn’t die, but rather gave His life up, that is pure semantic nonsense. Yes, He gave His life up, but the only reason He could do so was because human nature is mortal on its own. God could not have “given up” His Divine Life because Divine Life is truly immortal by nature.
Then, what about Enoc and Elijah? I don’t think death is an inherent part of human nature…but rather the result of sin. I thought that’s what the catechism taught, no? We were created to live forever with God in the garden. No disease, no death. We even had access to the Tree of Life, to become like God, but chose the wrong tree out of mistrust of God…and here we are…😦
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing what we were made for with our nature. A knife is not made to rust, it is made to cut, ideally forever. By virtue of what it is made of it can rust without proper care, however, and that is part of its nature. Humans are not made to die, and with proper Grace we are immortal, but without that Grace we are left to our basic nature which is mortal. Here’s what St. Athanasius said:
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.
Click to expand...
Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
I never said he inherited a death sentence, I said that by virtue of his human nature He could be mortal. Gregory was saying that mortality is purely a result of sin, but if that were so then Christ could not have died unless He was a sinner. Christ could not take on our sins in such a sense.

Isn’t it precisely that which He did? [take up our sins to die for us & pay the wages of sin so we don’t have to? [/COLOR]

As for saying that Christ didn’t die, but rather gave His life up, that is pure semantic nonsense. Yes, He gave His life up, but the only reason He could do so was because human nature is mortal on its own. God could not have “given up” His Divine Life because Divine Life is truly immortal by nature.

No, I don’t think it’s semantics…we are talking about the realm of possibility…it IS impossible to kill Life itself…no one can take it from Him…and He made it clear He was giving it up.

Well…even if human life were not mortal on its own, it would accept the potentiality of mortality…that would be sufficient for Him to be able to die, without the necessity of saying human nature is mortal categorically.

The Incarnation is one of those mysteries that defy reason…not just in its mortality/immortality…but even on the issue of creator/creature… How on Earth did the Creator become a creature?

You seem to be confusing what we were made for with our nature. A knife is not made to rust, it is made to cut, ideally forever. By virtue of what it is made of it can rust without proper care, however, and that is part of its nature. Humans are not made to die, and with proper Grace we are immortal, but without that Grace we are left to our basic nature which is mortal. Here’s what St. Athanasius said:

I agree these aren’t exactly the same…however, you are saying humans are not made to die…AND that human nature is mortal in and of itself…that’s a contradiction. Something is not “made” to do the opposite of its intrinsic nature…at least not by a rational God.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
 
I agree these aren’t exactly the same…however, you are saying humans are not made to die…AND that human nature is mortal in and of itself…that’s a contradiction.
Click to expand...
It’s not a contradiction at all. A car is not made to break down and rust apart, but it will do so of its own nature if left alone. It must be specially maintained aside from its own nature in order to serve its purpose. A knife is not made to rust, but it must be cleaned and maintained in order for it to not fall to its nature; in order to serve its purpose of cutting it must be oiled and sharpened.

Human nature is made of matter and spirit, and will come apart (die) if left to its own nature. It is by Grace that we are elevated above our mortal nature in order to reach our purpose. This does not make God irrational, it simply means that God used mortal material to make immortal beings, and elevates them above their mortality through Divine Grace. This is precisely what St. Athanasius said, and it’s also what the Catechism teaches:
[1008](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1008.htm’)😉 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.573
Click to expand...
We are mortal by nature, but destined to not die by God’s Grace. It is impossible to say that our nature is not mortal; again, if our nature was not mortal it would not be possible for Christ to die, since He had no sin whatsoever, and He was Divine and human. The Divine Nature can not die, so His ability to die came from His sinless human nature, and therefore mortality is not strictly an alteration to the fundamental human nature.
Isn’t it precisely that which He did? [take up our sins to die for us & pay the wages of sin so we don’t have to? [/COLOR]

Absolutely not, Christ did not become a sinner. That’s an utterly blasphemous idea!

Peace and God bless.
Click to expand...
 
Dear sister Sunflower,

Brother Ghosty is absolutely correct, and has given some great analogies to explain it. Here is a basic rundown of the Alexandrine understanding of Original Sin as best represented by Pope St. Athanasius, and faithfully taught by the Catholic Church (and the OO Churches):
  1. Adam was made by God mortal and corruptible. That is, he was BY NATURE, mortal and corruptible. However, he was given from the moment of his Creation (i.e., Adam) the GRACE OF IMMORTALITY/incorruptibility.
  2. Adam BY GRACE was able to be in communion with the Holy Ones (of course, that means God). Catholics call these particular Graces Original Holiness and Original Justice, and the maintenance of those Original Graces is called SANCTIFYING GRACE, different from the Grace of Immortality/incorruptibility.
  3. Adam, BY NATURE, also had the perfect use of Reason, and also NATURALLY had a rational understanding of his immortality in God.
When Man fell, three things occurred:
  1. Man lost the Grace of Immortality and the Grace of Incorruptibility. These are, strictly speaking, the main components of what are called the TEMPORAL.PHYSICAL consequences of Oriignal Sin. Thus, Man was subject to his NATURAL state of PHYSICAL death and corruptibility.
  2. Man lost the Graces of Original Holiness and Original Justice. These are, strictly speaking, the main components of what are known as the SPIRITUAL consequences - or the STAIN - of Original Sin. This is the direct cause of SPIRITUAL DEATH, or separation from God.
  3. Man’s natural powers were darkened or wounded. I.e., his reason became disordered, and the vision of his immortality was darkened. This is what is known as CONCUPISCENCE. Concupiscence is, strictly speaking, a spiritual consequence, since its effects are spiritual (i.e., they lead to sinful actions) and is thus included in the definition of the "stain" of original sin.
What Mary received at the IC were a cancellation of effects #2 and #3 above. In other words, exactly as the dogma states, NO STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN touched her soul.

However, Mary did not receive the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility at the IC. She did not receive these particular Graces until her Dormition/Assumption. Some Fathers taught that she actually received these particular Graces (of immortality/incorruptibility) at the Annunciation.

It is this NATURAL state that Christ inherited from Mary. That is why Christ was ABLE TO DIE.

What Christ’s death and resurrection did - what it WILL DO for us/ what it did for the Blessed Virgin - is put us in a state that is GREATER than even what Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve were immortal and incorruptible by Grace. In distinction, at the Resurrection of the Dead in the Endtime, we will become NATURALLY immortal/incorruptible. Our bodies, as St. Paul taught, will actually BE TRANSFORMED. As stated, these Graces were received by Mary at her Dormition/Assumption.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Sunflower15 said:
And, nemo dat quat non habet…she must be sinless to pass along that human nature to her son.
Click to expand...
Can you give a magisterial teaching that states that human nature is sinful? I thought that was a Protestant invention. I’m pretty sure that what the Catholic Church teaches (which is the same as the OO understanding) is that sin wounds human nature, not that sin is IN human nature. We are by nature GOOD, not sinful.

I am not aware of any Catholic Magisterial (or even popular) teaching that states that Mary passed on sinlessness to Christ. That’s almost blasphemous, IMO, as if Christ needed any creature to be sinless. What Christ inherited from us is simply the NATURAL state of Adam and Eve, which, by his death and resurrection, will be TRANSFORMED to immortality and incorruptibility.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
  1. Adam, BY NATURE, also had the perfect use of Reason, and also NATURALLY had a rational understanding of his immortality in God.
Click to expand...
OOPS! I forgot a VERY important addition. Adam, BY NATURE, also had free will.

Blessings
 
Feast of St.Matthias today ( atleast on the Church calendar of the West ) - a saint and Apostle may be esp. to be venerated in our own times that calls for the virtues that counteract the traits of the one whom St.Matthias was to replace - esp. the virtue of trust .

Our ever present temptations to trust in what we falsely consider as ‘ours’ - money, power , traditions and which inturn can lead to loss of all hope , esp. in the One who is the source of all good which even include His trust in us - that we are capable of trusting in Him , capable of forgiving, of being led by the Shepherd …

The trust in the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception - is it not God’s own proclamation of trust in The Woman !

And His Church too being led up into the higher realms of trust - His Mother and our Lord Himself having shown us The Way !

May the prayers of the saints and Apostles, of St.Matthias be with us all !
 
The increasing trust and autonomy The East is being granted - could that too not be a fruit of the the trust in the Marian Dogmas !

May The East too be able to trust and reciprocate with wisdom and humility , esp. in the critical areas that the powers of evil have esp. targeted to attack !

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us !
 
Ghosty said:
Absolutely not, Christ did not become a sinner. That’s an utterly blasphemous idea!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that I would say that Jesus became a sinner…not in those words, but somehow, He had to assume our sins in order to pay for them, no? I’m thinking, for example, of the OT image of transferring sins to an ox or lamb to be sacrificed in expiation for sins of humans. The sins were symbolically transferred to the animal, or the sacrifice wouldn’t pay for the sins, but one cannot say that the lamb “sinned”.

If Jesus was the Lamb who took our sins to be expiated, then our sins were upon Jesus though He was sinless Himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top