Eastern Catholics and the Immaculate Conception

[mardukm]

Not too many people understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Latin understanding itself is NOT inimical to the Eastern/Oriental understanding. Why? Because the Latin teaching of the IC only reaches to the SPIRITUAL conception of Mary, not her PHYSICAL conception. Thus, that Mary died a physical death is NOT PRECLUDED by the Western teaching.

It is uncharitable for some to say that those Easterns and Orientals who believe in the dogma of the IC have been Latinized. Far from it, such Easterns and Orientals (including myself) believe it BECAUSE the tenets of that dogma are themselves not inimical to Eastern/Oriental theology IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It is impossible for an Eastern or Oriental (Catholic, that is) to reject the dogma of the IC based on the merits of the dogma itself. Thus, if it is rejected by an Eastern or Oriental, it can only be by virtue of misunderstanding or ignorance of the actual teaching. Thus, though I appreciate brother Chaldean Rite’s zeal for the Catholic Faith, I truly doubt the charge of heresy would apply.

Brother Rony - that poem is reminiscent of St. Ephrem’s writings on the Blessed Virgin.

Blessings,
Marduk
*
**Note from Moderator: *This conversation was split from another thread. Please see this thread for the original conversation on original sin and grace.

 

[Peter_J]

It is impossible for an Eastern or Oriental (Catholic, that is) to reject the dogma of the IC based on the merits of the dogma itself. Thus, if it is rejected by an Eastern or Oriental, it can only be by virtue of misunderstanding or ignorance of the actual teaching.

That’s quite a generalization!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

                 Originally Posted by **mardukm**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3815754#post3815754)                 
             * It is impossible for an Eastern or Oriental (Catholic, that is) to reject the dogma of the IC based on the merits of the dogma itself.** Thus, if it is rejected by an Eastern or Oriental***, it can only be by virtue of misunderstanding or ignorance of the actual teaching.

That’s quite a generalization!

Indeed, the only other option is that they are disobedient and put the conscience above that of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Generally speaking, if someone disagrees with you, it’s presumptuous to respond, Your disagreeing with me can only be the result of misunderstanding or ignorance.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Generally speaking, if someone disagrees with you, it’s presumptuous to respond, Your disagreeing with me can only be the result of misunderstanding or ignorance.

Have you ever had an argument with someone? What do you suppose is the better and more Christian response that is likely to lead to peace?

1. “It is a misunderstanding and I forgive you. Let’s start over and see if we can’t come to an agreement.”
2. “You did it on purpose and you are condemned.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wjp984]

Here is my understanding. If the Latin View of Original Sin is used where one has the stain of sin at birth, then since we believe Mary was given the grace by God to be sinless, this would include being born without Original Sin unlike eveyyone else, therefore leading to the dogma of the Immacuate Conception.

However, if the Eastern view of Original Sin is used where Original Sin is not a stain at birth but rather the fact that we all will age and die a physical death, therefore causing us to sin in fear of our own motality, then Mary was not completely free of Original Sin. While Mary was indeed given a tremendous amount of grace more than anyone else so that she never sinned in her lifetime, she still physically aged and supposedly died before being assumed into Heaven.

If believing the Immacuate Conception strictly means believing Mary is free from Original Sin, then according to the Eastern theology, this would not be true.

To my knowledge, there is no requirement to believe one concept of Original Sin over the other but only that Mary was sinless and that we all have a sinful nature in need of Jesus for salvation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wjp984,

Here is my understanding. If the Latin View of Original Sin is used where one has the stain of sin at birth, then since we believe Mary was given the grace by God to be sinless, this would include being born without Original Sin unlike eveyyone else, therefore leading to the dogma of the Immacuate Conception.

However, if the Eastern view of Original Sin is used where Original Sin is not a stain at birth but rather the fact that we all will age and die a physical death, therefore causing us to sin in fear of our own motality, then Mary was not completely free of Original Sin. While Mary was indeed given a tremendous amount of grace more than anyone else so that she never sinned in her lifetime, she still physically aged and supposedly died before being assumed into Heaven.

If believing the Immacuate Conception strictly means believing Mary is free from Original Sin, then according to the Eastern theology, this would not be true.

To my knowledge, there is no requirement to believe one concept of Original Sin over the other but only that Mary was sinless and that we all have a sinful nature in need of Jesus for salvation.

My point is that Easterns and Orientals do not have to make any accomodations in their/our belief on original sin to accept the dogma of the IC. If we just let go of the semantics (i.e., the term “original sin”) and focus on the doctrinal intention of the matter, then there need not be disunity on the matter in any way, form or fashion. For certainly, the dogma of the IC does not deny that Mary died.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wjp984]

However, why believe something that is not necessary to believe? The doctrine of the Immacuate Conception was an infallible teaching for all Roman Catholics since under the Latin concept of Original Sin it is necessary to believe Mary was sinless including at birth. Eastern Christians already believed that about her long before this dogma was stated and since it is not applicable to their theology what is the point of it?

I am Latinized Eastern Catholic and I have no problem believing the Immacute Conception from the Western concept of Original Sin and I have no problem belieiving there is not any need for it according to Eastern Theology. I was in fact Latinized in my thinking that it was for whatever reason wrong to not believe the IC since I did not know there were different acceptable understandings of Original Sin but now I do. What I now realize is that there is not a need for Latinization in the Byzantine Rite. I appreciate both rites and I would hope both use their appropriate theologies and are free to do so.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wjp984,

However, why believe something that is not necessary to believe?

The standard Eastern/Oriental rhetoric on the matter is NOT “why believe something that is not necessary to believe.” Rather it is, “we do not need a pronouncement from the Pope to tell us to believe something we ALREADY believe.”

Are you saying that you feel free to disbelieve the doctrinal content of the dogma of the IC? What we are free to not accept is the exact terminology. But I don’t believe we are free to reject the dogma itself.

Can you please clarify your position?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wjp984]

My possition is that I still have much to learn on the issue since it wasn’t until recently that I have made an attempt at understanding the Eastern perspective. Therefore, perhaps someone else can help out. However, I do not think it is essential to believe in the IC as an Eastern Catholic as it is not necessary. There is no dogma to reject since as I stated, I do not think it is part of Eastern Theology. I do not deny the IC from a Western perspective.

If you are you stating that Eastern Catholics have to hypothetically think of the situation in which they believed people are stained with sin at birth and Mary therefore was spared, then sure, of course it would be imparitve to believe that as part of believing Mary was forever sinless. However, this hypothetical is not a part of Eastern Theology so what’s the point? EC do not reject the IC per se, but it just is not applicable to them.

I also don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that it is not necessary for the pope to tell us something we have already believed all along. Was it necessary for the pope to tell the people who already did not believe in abortion or birth control? No, but it still needed to be said. The pope needed to proclaim the doctrine of the IC to make sure all Catholics understand Mary was forever sinless including at birth.

 

[mardukm]

EC do not reject the IC per se, but it just is not applicable to them.

I have heard this claim before, but only rarely. I do not understand it and would appreciate an explanation. How can a dogma pronounced by the Pope ex cathedra not be “applicable” to the Eastern Catholic Churches? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I beg for an explanation.

Perhaps you are basing your statement on the idea of a “stain of original sin.” Perhaps you are claiming that since that terminology is not contained in Eastern theology, the dogma does not apply to you. But that would not be the case. If you study what the Latin texts teach on the term “stain of original sin,” it will become immediately evident that the idea behind the term is indeed contained in Eastern theology. The term “stain of original sin” refers to nothing more nor less than the spiritual wound that we received as a result of the disobedience of our first parents. This spiritual wound has resulted in two things - 1) concupiscence, and 2) physical mortality. Once you investigate the matter (which I know you are eager to do), you will find that the difference between the Latin and Eastern conception is merely that the Latins focus MORE on #1, while the Easterns focus MORE on #2. My main point is that both Latins and Eastern accept BOTH results of the spiritual wounding in our respective theologies. It is merely that there is more of an EMPHASIS about one than the other in the respective theologies. But, to repeat, there is by no means a rejection of #2 by the Easterns. or #1 by the Latins.

In any case, I would appreciate a further clarification of your position, in light of my first paragraph above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wjp984]

Interesting, if the Eastern concept of Original Sin also involves the stain of sin at birth then of course Eastern Catholics would be bound to believe the Immacuate Conception. However, based on the other thread and a good link given which I basicallly just memorized the arguments from and formed my own analysis, this does not appear to be the case. I have plenty of time now that it is summer so if you know other sources online I don’t mind reading them to get a better understanding.

Oh, and I already stated my opinion. In brief I believe that Mary was sinless from birth without any stain of sin born with the indewlling of the Holy Spirit and an extraordinary amount of grace, and that she continued to be sinless throughout her life, aged and died and was assumed into Heaven. From a Western Point of view belief in the IC is necessary but I respect the fact that according to Eastern theology, a different terminology is used which means the same thing.

Here is the link that someone else posted by the way. It seemed convincing to me.
east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Sin

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wjp984,

Interesting, if the Eastern concept of Original Sin also involves the stain of sin at birth then of course Eastern Catholics would be bound to believe the Immacuate Conception. However, based on the other thread and a good link given which I basicallly just memorized the arguments from and formed my own analysis, this does not appear to be the case. I have plenty of time now that it is summer so if you know other sources online I don’t mind reading them to get a better understanding.

I did not say that the Eastern concept of Original Sin involves the stain of sin at birth. I am saying that “the stain of sin” is a peculiarly LATIN theological term, but that the MEANING of the term is identical to the EASTERN concept of a spiritual wound. Does that clarify it?

You asked for some online sources. Do you mean online sources to demonstrate that the Latin “stain of sin” is identical to the Eastern “spiritual wound?”

BTW, it might interest you to know that in the early Church, the idea of a “stain of sin” was not restricted to the Latin Fathers. It was also used by the Cappadocian Fathers - I will provide quotes from you later (but it might be “later” as in this weekend)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[maryatipton]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Byzantine liturgy reveals what we believe about the conception of Mary:

In you, O woman full of grace, the Angelic choirs,
And the Human race - All creation rejoices.
For He who is our God from before all ages
took flesh from you and became a child.
He made your womb a throne, and greater than the heavens.
O sanctified temple, Mystical paradise, and glory of Virgins!
In You, O woman full of grace, all creation rejoices.

In a Mysterious way, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. When he took flesh from Mary and became a man, He did not lose any of His divine nature.

Sin is the absence of God. Therefore, through Grace, Mary’s flesh would have to be free from sin in order for Jesus to become man through her. It’s really amazing when you start analyzing it from the point of view of biological maternity and how physically bonded a mother and child really are.

It’s just a different way of expressing the Immaculate Conception.

In Christ,
Through the Theotokos,

Marya

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Marya,

The Byzantine liturgy reveals what we believe about the conception of Mary:

In you, O woman full of grace, the Angelic choirs,
And the Human race - All creation rejoices.
For He who is our God from before all ages
took flesh from you and became a child.
He made your womb a throne, and greater than the heavens.
O sanctified temple, Mystical paradise, and glory of Virgins!
In You, O woman full of grace, all creation rejoices.

In a Mysterious way, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. When he took flesh from Mary and became a man, He did not lose any of His divine nature.

Sin is the absence of God. Therefore, through Grace, Mary’s flesh would have to be free from sin in order for Jesus to become man through her. It’s really amazing when you start analyzing it from the point of view of biological maternity and how physically bonded a mother and child really are.

It’s just a different way of expressing the Immaculate Conception.

I have read the apologetic from the Latins that the flesh Christ took from his mother must necessarily be completely pure from the beginning from the moment of conception because from the first moment God formed her in the womb of her own mother St. Anna, God had already determined that she was to be the Mother of our Lord.

I thought to myself, “well, that’s logical.” Before, my belief in that argument was purely intellectual. It has taken your own testimony to place that belief in my heart, as well. I thank you deeply for that grace.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[maryatipton]

Marduk,

Praise God! It truly is breathtaking when we begin to realize how much God loves us and how much dignity he has bestowed upon the human body. When we let the words of the liturgy penetrate us, our hearts and minds become enlightened as to the mystery and wonder of God, and the glory He is calling us to.

Here, also, is the Tropar from th Divine Liturgy for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God by St. Anne:

Today the bonds of childlessness are loosed,
for God has heard the prayers of Anne and Joachim.
He promised against all hope that they would give birth to a divine virgin from whom the Indescribable would be born as man,
the Same Who ordered the Angels to sing to her:
“Hail, O Woman full of grace; the Lord is with you!”

Marduk, I see that you are Coptic. Which liturgy do you use? Are you familiar with the Akathistos hymn?

All for His Kingdom,

Marya