Eastern Concept of Original Sin and Grace

  • Thread starter Thread starter BennyBoy89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BennyBoy89

Guest
I was wondering what exactly are the theological differences between the Western and Eastern Church’s views of original sin and grace. Does anyone know where I could learn more?

On a side note: is the difference in the concept of original sin the reason the East doesn’t proclaim the Immaculate Conception as dogma?
 
BennyBoy89 said:
On a side note: is the difference in the concept of original sin the reason the East doesn’t proclaim the Immaculate Conception as dogma?
Click to expand...
Those Eastern Catholics who deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are heretics.

Don’t be fooled to believe otherwise.
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Those Eastern Catholics who deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are heretics.

Don’t be fooled to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
Seems to me we’ve been over this before. (Perhaps you’re familiar with the term “baiting”?)
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Those Eastern Catholics who deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are heretics.

Don’t be fooled to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware that they deny it, but merely don’t define it because of a different concept of original sin. I don’t want to start a debate about the Immaculate Conception. I just want to know more about Eastern theology.
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Those Eastern Catholics who deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are heretics.

Don’t be fooled to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
I’m rather offended by that remark. Have you looked into what the view of Original Sin is from the Eastern side of things? That same view that the East has on it, is the same that it has been, regardless of whether or not your particular Church (Chaldeans) have adopted the Western view. The Chaldeans believed as the other Eastern Churches believe. I don’t know if the accepting of the IC and Original Sin as seen by Rome is the same all across the board with Chaldeans, or is only done by a few.

Both East and West believe the same thing, but come to it from different angles. I know that you mean well, but you come off as very rude, arrogant, and maybe even ignorant of what the Eastern views are. The Catholic Church allows for this diversity of thought, whether you like it or not. Both views are completely allowed, because if you seriously and honestly look into both sides, they mean the SAME, but express them differently.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
BennyBoy,

If you follow this link, it will take you to a section of Dr. Anthony Dragani site which has 3 FAQs on Original Sin (#3 is closest to your question) and then 2 on the Immaculate Conception.

He writing from a Byzantine perspective. I’m not terribly familiar with the Maronite, Chaldean, etc., perspectives so I’ll leave it to someone else to say whether those are different from what Dr. Dragani says.

Blessings,
Peter.
 
Elias Howayek (1899-1931)
One of his greatest achievements was the erection in cooperation with the apostolic Delegate, of the church, statue and center of Our Lady of Lebanon in Harissa, in 1906-1908, in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the declaration by the Holy see of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception Mary Mother of Christ. The statue of the Blessed Virgin erected on the hill of Harissa, is one of the most striking statues in the world, erected on the top of one of the most beautiful hills.

The Maronites, being wonderful examples of great devotees of Our Lady of Lebanon, are firm believers and are docile to the teachings of the Church. Here we see the Maronite Patriarch honoring the Immaculate Conception (Our Lady). Enough said. Either take it or leave it. If you think you know better than the Patriarch, then tell your bishop that; he’ll straighten you up.

God Bless.
 
Chaldean Rite,

I’m starting to think Harpazo was wrong when he said that you mean well. It’s looking to me like you are just out to pick a fight.
 
Peter_J said:
BennyBoy,

If you follow this link, it will take you to a section of Dr. Anthony Dragani site which has 3 FAQs on Original Sin (#3 is closest to your question) and then 2 on the Immaculate Conception.

He writing from a Byzantine perspective. I’m not terribly familiar with the Maronite, Chaldean, etc., perspectives so I’ll leave it to someone else to say whether those are different from what Dr. Dragani says.

Blessings,
Peter.
Click to expand...
As a very Latinized Eastern Catholic, this was a very informative link. I think I can now easily believe either understanding and since I am Eatern Catholic might be interested in finding out more about the East now that I have time in the summer. Is there anything else on the internet on the topic? If gas were not so expensive I probably would go to a Divine Liturgy more often, well that and the fact that there isn’t a choir makes it less appealing to me.
 
Thanks, wjp. I consider Dr. Dragani one of the best sources for information on the Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite.

(On a side note, it’s too bad that there don’t seem to be too many resources on the internet for Syriac and Oriental Catholics; but it is very gratifying to see the recent increase in discussions of Syriac Catholic topics on this forum.)

God bless,
Peter.
 
Chaldean Rite, as great a man as Mar Elias Howayek was, the Maronite Church was theologically very very latinized up until the most recent times in which it has attempted to undo these forced latinizations. Using him as an example of Eastern acceptance of a latin theology is not the most honest approach to the issue. As far as I can gather, the Immaculate Conception, as defined by the latin church, relies completely on a Western concept of Original sin. I beleive this is why in Eastern Churches, at least among the faithful of them, there is doubt as to whether or not the IC is a legitimage expression of the Truth under the varied Eastern theologies. Now if you think it is , rather then attacking those who disagreee, you could formulate theologically using your theological Tradition (Chaldean i assume) to show that the IC is not incompatible with the East Syriac theology.
 
Hi Formosus,

Let me say first that I haven’t changed my mind about what I said to Chaldean Rite (I mean when I told him “It’s looking to me like you are just out to pick a fight.”) Nevertheless, I believe I do share his underlying concern: If on the one hand the Pope is saying “IC is a truth which has been dogmatically defined”, and at the same time some who are in full communion with him (whether Maronites, Chaldeans, or whoever else) are saying “IC not only isn’t a dogma, it isn’t even a legitimage expression of the truth (under the varied Eastern theologies)”, then that’s a real problem, isn’t it?
 
I’m not terribly familiar with the . . . Chaldean . . .
Click to expand...
Peter J,

Just speaking from a Chaldean perspective. There is a very popular Chaldean epic on Marian devotion which calls attention to the significance of Mary’s role in salvation history. It is given in a poetic style, a late 19th century poetry by Dawidh Kora, which means David the blind (physically). The poetry was translated and edited in 1992 by Fr. Sarhad Jammo (today’s Bishop Mar Sarhad of the Western US Eparchy) and Dr. Basil Najar.

The Chaldean Epic of Mary has a section on the Immaculate Conception which goes like this:
Mary is the Immaculate Conception

In the last days
The Lord, the Word came
Born of the Blessed Mary
To save humanity

The world was saved
Its wound was healed
Endowed with life and peace
And cleansed in the Immaculate Mary

Not even a drop or a stain
Of the Original Sin
Was found in the conception of the Virgin Mary
From the moment of her creation

From the moment He created her
He guarded her from all evil
The Creator glory be to Him
Miraculously made her

It is astonishing
How the Blessed Mary was created
She was born of a man and a woman
But without the stain of sin

He guarded her body and soul
From everything that stains nature
No harm ever reached her
Not for a twinkle of an eye

From the moment of her conception
This pure person
Not even for a moment
was allowed to be defiled

Since the time and hour
When He introduced her into our race
The Heavenly Father preserved her
From all the devil’s harm.

He preserved her from all harm
And adorned her for His Son
To humiliate the devil
And save the world​

There is some good information written in 1998 by Bishop Mar Bawai Soro (the bishop whose diocese have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church recently), as then part of the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East:

prounione.urbe.it/pdf/f_prounione_bulletin_n54_fall1998.pdf (it’s a long pdf file)

There is a section on pages 11-13 called: On the Immaculate Conception of Mary. His treatment of the issue represents the traditional theological understanding of the Church of the East, from which our Chaldean Catholic Church of the East, as well as, our separated sister Assyrian Church of the East, have emerged. He concludes the treatment in saying the following:

Thus there is considerable evidence of the convergence of the truth taught by the Church of the East and by the Papal Pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception. True there are distinct differences in philosophical and terminological constructs used to convey this theological and dogmatic truth. These differences can be ascribed to our human limitations and perhaps they are not totally irreconcilable, especially since both traditions hold that the sinlessness and the holiness of Mary are due to a unique preservative divine act.​

If you go to our website kaldu.org and look at the Western US Eparchy 2008 Calendar, this info. is listed on December 8: “Memorial of Mary the Immaculate (Day of Liturgical Observation)”

In 2007, the Calendar used to say on December 8: “Feast of the Immaculate Conception”

My guess is that the rephrasing in English between 2007 and 2008 was meant to emphasize the immaculateness of Mary over her entire existence, and not just to p(name removed by moderator)oint it to a moment in her existence (conception). This is just a guess on my part.

God bless,

Rony
 
Peter_J said:
Seems to me we’ve been over this before. (Perhaps you’re familiar with the term “baiting”?)
Click to expand...
I don’t think he is baiting. He is stating a simple truth. The Catechims defines the post baptismal denial of an article of faith as heresy. The proper word that describes a person who is guilty of the sin of heresy is heretic. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an article of faith. Therefore, any Catholic who denies the Immaculate Conception, is a heretic. Now I don’t think Chaldean Rite (or my self for that matter) is accusing any particular Catholic here of being a heretic; nor is he calling into question the orthodoxy or Catholicity of any particular poster. He is just providing a general concept that is quite in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. To avoid the sin of heresy a Catholic must profess the truth of the Immaculate Conception.
 
East_and_West said:
I don’t think he is baiting. He is stating a simple truth. The Catechims defines the post baptismal denial of an article of faith as heresy. The proper word that describes a person who is guilty of the sin of heresy is heretic. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an article of faith. Therefore, any Catholic who denies the Immaculate Conception, is a heretic.
Click to expand...
None of which was asked about in the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top