Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[Ghosty]

Jimmy:

Mary isn’t really a model for us though because she never recieved the temptations which we recieve. She was preserved from all sin and consequently the orientations toward sin which we are subject to. Why would we look to her as a model?

Where does the IC teach that Mary didn’t have temptations? Christ Himself was tempted, after all. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that Immaculate Conception means that she was not tempted, and could not sin. She was preserved from sin by Grace, yes, but so are we all when we abide with God and resist temptation; we never avoid sin on our own power, without the Grace of God.

It seems that you’re finding problems with things that aren’t actually part of the IC teaching. I, too, have problems with Mary being set apart from humanity, and not having temptations, and not being capable of sin, and if those things were part of the IC I would reject it as a teaching. Fortunately, however, they have no place in the IC, so while I reject those errors, I find no conflict with the IC teaching itself.

Yeshua:

Attack? The IC is a doctrine created centuries after the Syriac tradition had been flourishing. Then, our saints are looked on retroactively and used to support this 15th century proclamation. And we are attacking? I would say that violence comes when people takes advantage of our Saints’ words and abuses our ancestors beliefs. Forgive me for defending my people from being taken advantage of.

I don’t think this is an appropriate response to my words at all. I myself said that the Syriac Fathers can’t be used to directly support the IC. When the writings of the Syriac Fathers are used to imply that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation, however, I think that is equally a twisting of Tradition.

It is one thing to defend the Syriac tradition and point out that it doesn’t make the claims others are asserting (and I have also said as much), it’s another to use the Syriac Fathers to say that Mary certainly wasn’t Immaculately Conceived (they are silent on the question), or imply that she was a sinner prior to the Annunciation.

Mary does have the same nature as us, thus her exception from the rest of humanity at the moment of her creation affects her role in a Syriac’s practice and theology, which is why the tradition and the IC are incompatible.

I think you are placing far too much stock in the idea that Mary somehow has a different nature if she was conceived immaculately. By your reasoning, a Baptized person and an un-Baptized person have different human natures, since one is cleansed and the other is not. Is that what you believe? If not, then how can you claim that Mary being “Baptized from her conception” gives her a different nature? If so, then where do you find justification that there is a fundamental alteration of what it means to be human in Baptism?

Though she was immaculate and pure she was human, with our shared nature and free will to sin.

This is not at all incompatible with the Immaculate Conception, but is rather quite in line with it. It sounds more like you’re arguing against an opinion put forward by a few theologians, rather than against the IC itself.

I believe in the Immaculate Conception, and that Mary was tempted, and had the free will to choose sin, that she had a perfect human nature. I believe that she was Glorified at the Annunciation, and further Glorified at her Assumption, where she was crowned with eternal Glory as Queen of Heaven and all Creation. I believe that, by the Grace of God, she persisted in Holiness throughout her life, and never fell out of Grace. None of these things

Peace and God bless!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

yeshua is not saying that she is no longer human but that you have seperated her from the rest of humanity.

I didn’t separate her, it was God’s doing.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman
This is the only enmity God establishes down the ages. This enmity is total, complete and fierce. Where the woman is, there can be no serpent, and where the serpent is, the woman is not…“The serpent never entered that Paradise.”

You have put her into a position where she can’t even understand us and vice versa because she hasn’t even really experienced the fall.

On the contrary, She, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, lived life more fully and understands human nature more so than the rest of us:
**Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
**With your reasoning, not even Christ himself, in His adorable human nature, can understand us…

She is not a model for living the Christian life and seeking God because she was conceived with everything already given to her.

She was more faithful than all the Apostles, Priests, Prophets, Martyr’s and Confessors put together. She is the mold of God. The difference between God and Mary is infinite, and in the same regard, the different between Mary and all the rest of us, for lack of a better word, is infinite as well.

**273 **Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and was able to magnify the Lord: “For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

 

[jimmy]

Anyone who wants to get a Syriac perspective on Mary which is probably pretty much that of St. Ephrem should read the homilies of St Jacob of Serug on Mary published by SVS press. The first homily starts off with praise of Mary for her purity and because of the fact that she was the most immaculate or pure of any other in creation. It then goes on and speaks of the Annunciation. In it he speaks of Mary returning to the garden and the state of Eve at the point of the Annunciation when she consents to the word of Gabriel. The thing is that if you were to read the first half of the homily but skip the second you would think Jacob supported the IC dogma but when you read the second you realize that his view is more that Mary did what she kept the law as well as she could and remained pure but she didn’t return to the state of the prefall Eve until the Annunciation.

 

[Hesychios]

Macula is a Latin word. It means spot. Obviously it is a loaded term when used in Latin theology (being a code word for sin), just as it might be a loaded term in medicine or the science of eye care.

Equally obviously, if Syriac, Coptic or Greek Fathers are quoted as using the term immaculate (meaning then, without a spot), it is an interpretation of what they really did say.

One can only surmise what they might have meant if the words they used are substituted with a Latin term pregnant with meaning by the translators, instead of directly into English from Syriac or Greek.

The complicating factor is that at least since Augustine (possibly sooner, circa 5th century) the Latin church has largely believed that one is born in a state of super sin due to Adam’s Fall, this is the Big Original Macula, or stain on the soul. The mode of transmission of this sin, and the reason for it, are debatable and seemingly has been subject to reinterpretation over time.

But this so-called Original Sin was regarded by Augustine as a cause of certain damnation for all people, the effects of which are only removable through baptism. In a sense there is an assumption that if one is not baptized, and has not demonstrated a desire for this baptism, one cannot be saved due to Adam’s mistake. This notion is not actually held in much of the east which did not adopt this type of rationalization, but clearly this kind of state seems a very reprehensible condition to be in when one is going to bear the savior of all mankind.

What we have is a paradox (in the basic western idea) of one born in this sin, but not being baptized, is not saved (ergo bound for hell) according to later pronouncements of the church. Even though the actual person, the culprit who committed the actual Original Sin (and is certainly most culpable) is considered already saved and now presumably enjoying heavenly bliss according to widespread eastern thinking.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Дионисий.jpg/250px-Дионисий.jpg

Adam and Eve in the process of being pulled out of hell

If the Latin understanding of original sin is not present in eastern thinking, it is very difficult to grasp what kind of sin Saint Mary of Nazareth, the Theotokos, was supposedly conceived and born free of. It cannot be any kind of damnable state, because the assumption of it is not there.

Certainly she was (and is) not considered to be a flagrant sinner, she has always been quite highly regarded, and repeatedly praised as an heroine of the highest order. But I think the best way of describing this state of her sinlessness is an act of sheer human will on her part, not a Divine intervention.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy:

Where does the IC teach that Mary didn’t have temptations? Christ Himself was tempted, after all. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that Immaculate Conception means that she was not tempted, and could not sin. She was preserved from sin by Grace, yes, but so are we all when we abide with God and resist temptation; we never avoid sin on our own power, without the Grace of God.

It seems that you’re finding problems with things that aren’t actually part of the IC teaching. I, too, have problems with Mary being set apart from humanity, and not having temptations, and not being capable of sin, and if those things were part of the IC I would reject it as a teaching. Fortunately, however, they have no place in the IC, so while I reject those errors, I find no conflict with the IC teaching itself.

Part of the immaculate conception is that she was preserved from even the hint of sin that she would be preserved from the temptations from within. I think that within the Thomist tradition there is a distinction between sins that come from within as we all experience and those which come from without as Christ experienced. We experience temptations because of our nature but the fact is that Mary has been completely preserved so she doesn’t even have these temptations.

 

[jimmy]

Here is part of the homily which I mentioned above by St. Jacob of Serug about Mary. Sorry but they are rather long. In the first part he spends several pages praising the beauty of Mary and how pure she is and that she is without any comparison.

She alone is humble, pure, limpid and without blemish,so that she was deemed worthy to be his mother and not another.He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil,nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.And she allows no thought for luxury,nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.…………….She was most fair both in her nature and in her will,because she was not sullied with displeasing desires.…………….If there had been a spot in her soul or a defect,He would have sought for Himself another mother in whom there is no blemish.……………The beauty of Mary is beyond measure,because another who is greater than she has not arisen in all the world.Jacob of Serug On The Mother of God, p.23-27]St. Jacob then goes into a discussion of the descend of Gabriel whom he calls ‘the Watcher’. In this he praises Mary for questioning Gabriel and not simply submitting to the word which he speaks in her ear as Eve submitted to the word of the serpent. In the next section he goes on to speak of how through Mary the debt of Eve is destroyed. Then he goes on to speak of how the Holy Spirit descended before Christ to purify Mary.

 

[jimmy]

This matter requires powers of the mind more sublime than usual;it requires merciful love to speak of it without dispute.A search for salvation in the word of the Watcher!Why ever was it necessary for the Holy Spirit to come before the Only-begotten?First the Spirit and then the Power dwelt in the pure one,as he said to her: “The Spirit will come and the Power will descend.”The Power of the Most High is the Son who from the Most High,that One who dwelt in her that He might come to birth inthe flesh.He is the Messiah, the Power of the Father, as it is written;before this the Holy Spirit came within Mary.In this way, the Watcher announces to her that he had come from the house of the Father:“The Spirit will come and then the Power of the Most High will descend.”Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary,to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.He sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women;He freed her from that curse of sufferings on account ofEve, her mother.She was summoned that she might be the Mother of the Son of God;the Holy Spirit had sanctified her and so dwelt within her.The Spirit freed her from that debt that she might be beyond transgression when He solemnly dwelt in her.He purified the Mother by the Holy Spirit while dwelling in her, that He might take from her a pure body without sin.Lest the body with which He clothed Himself according to nature be sullied,He purified the Virgin by the Holy Spirit and then dwelt in her.The Son of God wanted to be related to her,and first He made her body without sin.

The Word had descended that He might become flesh; on this account,

by the Spirit He purified the one from whom He had

become flesh,

so that He might become like us in everything when He descended,

except for this: that his pure body is without sin.

He, God, wanted to be like a son of man;

by the Spirit, He purified one virgin and made her his Mother,

so that He might become a second Adam from God for the world,
Continued

 

[jimmy]

to give assistance to that first one whom the serpent had​

brought low;

that when He entered to make judgement with the prince of the world,

in man He might not find sin, which opens the door to death.

The Son of Man while not being subject to judgement,

He, Himself God, goes out into the world from the daughter of man.

On this account, that holy one of renown and most blessed one, the pure Virgin, He sanctified with the Spirit.

He made her pure, limpid, and blessed

as that Eve, before the serpent spoke with her.

He bestowed on her that first grace which her mother had, until she ate from the tree which was full of death.

The Spirit who came made her like Eve of old,

though she did not hear the counsel of the serpent nor his hateful speech.

In that condition where Eve and Adam were placed,

before they sinned, He placed her and then descended in her.

That adoption of sons which our father Adam had,

He gave to Mary by the Holy Spirit, while dwelling in her.

As our father generated our mother without marital union,

she also generated because she was as Adam before he

sinned.

The Holy Spirit, which had blown on Adam’s face

and generated Eve, she also received and gave birth to a Son.

That purity which was in Adam, Mary also acquired,

by the Spirit who came and she gave birth without impulse of lust.Jacob of Serug On The Mother of God, p.34-36]

Jacob of Serug On The Mother of God, Mary Hansbury, trans. and Sebastian Brock. SVS Press, CrestwoodNY, 1998.]

In this passage you can see how Mary is returned to the state of Adam and Eve at the Annunciation. She is praised highly for her life previously but at the Annunciation she returned to that state which Eve had.

Sorry about the long quote but I didn’t want to leave anything out.

 

[jimmy]

Certainly she was (and is) not considered to be a flagrant sinner, she has always been quite highly regarded, and repeatedly praised as an heroine of the highest order. But I think the best way of describing this state of her sinlessness is an act of sheer human will on her part, not a Divine intervention.

This seems to be the opnion of St. Jacob in the homily I quoted above. He says this,

This is beauty, when one is beautiful of one’s own accord;

glorious graces of perfection are in her will.

However great be the beauty of something from God,

it is not acclaimed if freedom is not present.

The sun is beautiful but it is not praised by spectators,

because it is known that its will does not give it light.

Whoever is beautiful of his own accord and possesses beauty,

on this account he is truly acclaimed if he is beautiful.

Even God loves beauty which is from the will;

He praises a good will whenever this has pleased Him.

Now this virgin whom, behold, we speak of her story

by means of her good will, she was pleasing and was

chosen. Jacob of Serug On The Mother of God, p.27]
Chaldean Rite:

*She was more faithful than all the Apostles, Priests, Prophets, Martyr’s and Confessors put together. She is the mold of God. The difference between God and Mary is infinite, and in the same regard, the different between Mary and all the rest of us, for lack of a better word, is infinite as well.

**273 ***Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and was able to magnify the Lord: “For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

This is the only thing I will adress in your post. My statement was coming from the perspective that the IC is true. If Mary was never tempted in the same way others have been then she can not be said to be the model. The model of what? She did not live the same type of life we live so what is she the model of? The only thing she becomes the model of is what a virtuous person looks like after they have been perfected.

 

[jimmy]

She was more faithful than all the Apostles, Priests, Prophets, Martyr’s and Confessors put together. She is the mold of God. The difference between God and Mary is infinite, and in the same regard, the different between Mary and all the rest of us, for lack of a better word, is infinite as well.

**273 **Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and was able to magnify the Lord: “For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

This is the only thing I will adress in your post. My statement was coming from the perspective that the IC is true. If Mary was never tempted in the same way others have been then she can not be said to be the model.

 

[dvdjs]

MC Steenberg, of some scholarly reputation, wrote at monachos.net (20-10-2003):

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed…

… there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was ‘protected from sin’ from ‘before her birth’, specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn’t sin, but that she couldn’t sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

He also discusses points of disagreement (which involve the typical misunderstanding of what Original Sin means in the West). But I think it interesting that an Orthodox scholar writes these comments - rather diametrically opposed to those on this thread - about Jacob of Serug.

 

[jimmy]

MC Steenberg, of some scholarly reputation, wrote at monachos.net (20-10-2003):

He also discusses points of disagreement (which involve the typical misunderstanding of what Original Sin means in the West). But I think it interesting that an Orthodox scholar writes these comments - rather diametrically opposed to those on this thread - about Jacob of Serug.

From what I have read of St. Jacob, what the person you quote says contradicts him. St. Jacob makes it very clear that Mary could sin and that it was her free will that makes her beautiful as I quoted in my last post. She was pure because she willed to do good. I think St. Ephrem’s theology is along the lines of St. Jacob’s.

Sebastian Brock, one of the pre-eminent Syriacists and responsible for many of the modern translations and explanations of the writings of St. Ephrem(scholar for scholar ), speaks of the theology of Ephrem and Jacob and says basically that they believed that Mary was purified and returned to the state of Eve at the Annunciation.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, you and Steenberg clearly disagree.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

This is the only thing I will adress in your post. My statement was coming from the perspective that the IC is true.** If Mary was never tempted in the same way others have been then she can not be said to be the model**. The model of what? She did not live the same type of life we live so what is she the model of? The only thing she becomes the model of is what a virtuous person looks like after they have been perfected.

Who has ever suggested that she was not tempted like us? What gives you the right to say that? Thats a pretty big slap in her face IMO.

 

[jimmy]

Who has ever suggested that she was not tempted like us? What gives you the right to say that? Thats a pretty big slap in her face IMO.

You are the one who is saying that so you are the one slaping her in the face. That is the implication of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You are the one who is saying that so you are the one slaping her in the face. That is the implication of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

No, it isn’t my friend. Your “scholarly” interpretation is seriously flawed in this inference from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which all true Catholics believe in. Seek guidance on this one.

 

[jimmy]

No, it isn’t my friend. Your “scholarly” interpretation is seriously flawed in this inference from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which all true Catholics believe in. Seek guidance on this one.

You need to quit with your patronizing attitude. It is really offensive. You are self-righteous and need to quit with your accusations. You can’t simply have a discussion? You have to make accusations? If you can’t simply make a counter arguement then what is the point of discussing this?

Ghosty, with my above reference to Thomism and a distinction in temption I am simply going from memory of a class on biblical studies where the professor mentioned the distinction in reference to the pre-fall state. He was speaking of the nature of man before the fall. He mentioned that before the fall man could only be tempted from outside himself.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You need to quit with your patronizing attitude. It is really offensive. You are self-righteous and need to quit with your accusations. You can’t simply have a discussion? You have to make accusations? If you can’t simply make a counter arguement then what is the point of discussing this?

Sometimes feelings can be hurt when it comes to the truth. I can accept this.

6 And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. 7 And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? 8 But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings.

• St.Ambrose (d.379) refers to Mary as “free from all stain of sin”.[5]
• St. Severus, Bishop of Antioch (d.538) states: “She [Mary]… .formed part of the human race, and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.”[6]
• St. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem (d.638), refers to Mary’s pre-purification at conception, addressing the Virgin: “You have found the grace which no one has received… No one has been pre-purified besides you.”[7]
• St. Andrew of Crete (d.740) tells us that the Redeemer chose “in all nature this pure and entirely Immaculate Virgin.”[8]
• Theognastes of Constantinople (c. 885) writes: “It was fitting indeed that she who from the beginning had been conceived by a sanctifying action…should also have a holy death…holy, the beginning…holy, the end, holy her whole existence.”[9]

1. St. Ambrose, Exposito in Psalm 118, Sermon 22, n. 30, PL 15, 1599.
   6. St. Severus, Hom. cathedralis, 67, P0 8, 350.
   7. St. Sophronius, Orat in Deiparae Annunt., 25, PG 87, 3246-3247.
   8. St. Andrew, Hom. 1 in Nativ. Deiparae, PG 97, 913-914.
   9. Theognostes, Hom. in Dorm. Deiparae, Patrologia Orientalis (PO) Greffin-Nau,
   16, 467.

 

[Nicholas82]

Sometimes feelings can be hurt when it comes to the truth. I can accept this.

You sure do ‘tell it like it is’! You should have you own talk show or something.

 

[NancyCNM]

Hmm. Reading trough the posts it occurs to me that folks like to argue,er,?discuss? just for the sake of doing it. I wish I had so much time on my hands!

In answer to the original question- of course Eastern Catholic’s are Catholic. No big theological treatises from me.

In answer to another question poised somewhere along this thread. I DO feel the need to tell people I am Eastern Catholic. AND that my children are Eastern Catholic.

I do this not because of any type of “superiority” related issue. In the part of the country where I live, most folks have no idea what an “Eastern Catholic” is. So when my kids - and I- invariably make the sign of the cross “backwards” to their point of view, or my little ones cross their arms to receive communion, but don’t say “Amen”,there tends to be lots of confusion, and sometimes tears. Especially in a Latin Rite Diocese that insists on a solid 2yrs of preparation before first communion, then another 2 years of preparation for confirmation. One priest knows us and understands, and I hope every week that he is the one to be at mass that day!

So anyhow, I think the original question is most often asked OF US, by Latin Rite Catholics- many of whom honestly have no idea that there are more traditions in the Church than their own.

BTW- Prayers for ANYONE who has a calling to be a religious, no matter what the rite! I think knowledge of all the traditions can only be a help and not a hinderance!

Nancy
cnmnancy@yahoo.com