Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility

[TP2]

I will show how all 3 of these Teachiings are taught by The Orthodox Churches. Oh, there may be great pain to some to find out and many may even cut hairs seeking to diffuse them, but they are all taught. The Only and Sole difference is that The Catholic Church has Defined them. The Orthodox has not. And yes friends. I will prove to you unequivacally that Orthodoxy does believe and even practice today the Truth of Infallibility.

Everytime a person is Declared a “SAINT” by the Orthodox Church, this is an Infallible act. What is an Infallible act? When a Teacher or Minister or Bishop or Pope Declare that something is Confirmed in Heaven with absolutely no doubts to the Community. So when an Orthodox Bishop declares a person is a “Saint” they can be prayed to and whether they like it or not. It is an Infallible Act. Period. Exclamation Point!

About The Immaculate Conception this is true of the Eastern Writers of Mary The Mother of God. I will show you that in their writing in the first thousand years they called Mary “Spotless”…etc…Immaculate is another way of using the word “Spotless”. Eastern Fathers called her as “The New Eve”… Well, if the “First Eve Sinned”, Their must have been a difference in calling Mary as “The New Eve”… and that was because of her Purity and spotlessness… I will quote The Eastern Fathers Later on this.

Purgatory…** If anyone goes to an Eastern Orthodox Funeral they will see much praying for the person who died.** That’s great! But why are they praying if they always state that they don’t believe in Purgatory? Well, that’s again, one of those splitting hair moments. To cut this one to the chase is simple. You pray to God for someone to get better, to be healed and when someone dies. Why? Because they are leavng this earth and may need final purification. That is called and again, defined by The Catholic Church as Purgatory, a place or state of final purification. Again. Catholics defined it. Orthodox didn’t. That is why there is no longer any need to discuss these matters among the Patriarchs when coming to the table for Dialogue with Catholics.

I will express much more as the topic proceeds and if there is interest. Peace and good Will to All !!!

 

[Bluegoat]

1. I don’t think the EO has ever said that the Church isn’t infallible.
2. Using the same word does not mean using it in the same way. You need to show that they share the same doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not just that they called her immaculate.
3. First of all, there are many reasons to pray for one who died. God is not bound by time, so prayers for the dead could be efficacious even without a temporary stop between our life on Earth and our final destination.

Secondly, see point two. You have to show that the EO understanding is the same as the Catholic one. That would especially include things like temporal punishment for sin which according to the CC is the purpose of purgatory.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Dear TP2,

Father bless! I’m sure that your intentions here are honorable, but this thread belongs in the non-Catholic religions section, not the Eastern Catholicism section. I humbly request that it be moved.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[jonnyws]

About The Immaculate Conception this is true of the Eastern Writers of Mary The Mother of God. I will show you that in their writing in the first thousand years they called Mary “Spotless”…etc…Immaculate is another way of using the word “Spotless”. Eastern Fathers called her as “The New Eve”… Well, if the “First Eve Sinned”, Their must have been a difference in calling Mary as “The New Eve”… and that was because of her Purity and spotlessness… I will quote The Eastern Fathers Later on this.

I think the difference is more than you give credit for here. Although you are right to point out that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe Mary to be sinless the Western Church has declared that the Mother of God was created sinless by the grace of Christ whilst the East maintains that she was sanctified after conception. The Western Church understands sin as being both physical and spiritual, the East understands sin as purely spiritual with physical effects. Hence the two traditions come to differing conclusions.

Not being Orthodox I can’t speak for the Orthodox so please correct me if I’m wrong. Rrom my understanding of it the East sees Mary as Immaculate but does not understand why she must be conceived Immaculate. The problem is not with the fact that Catholicism believes Mary to be sinless but rather that the East sees no reason for promulgating a dogma stating she was created sinless when, inside of their tradition, they see no link between created being and sin.

However in the West we understand being as being intrinsically sinful as a result of the fall. We also believe that being and action are wholly unified (JPII wrote a great book called ‘The Acting Person’ that covers this). Therefore for us if Mary is to perform the Immaculate action that is the Fiat at the Annunciation she must have an Immaculate being, hence by the merits of Christs Death and Resurrection she is created that way.

I’m sure there will be disagreements on both sides here but I would say that the truth underlying the debate is universal, namely that Mary preformed an Immaculate action (freely choosing to bare the Word) and that Mary was sinless. What differs is how that is expressed within two divergent philosophical and theological traditions - the truth remains the same, the expression differs. In that sense I agree with the OP, however the Immaculate conception debate is not concerned with Mary’s sinless state but with how that state came about.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the difference is more than you give credit for here. Although you are right to point out that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe Mary to be sinless the Western Church has declared that the Mother of God was created sinless by the grace of Christ whilst the East maintains that she was sanctified after conception. The Western Church understands sin as being both physical and spiritual, the East understands sin as purely spiritual with physical effects. Hence the two traditions come to differing conclusions.

Not being Orthodox I can’t speak for the Orthodox so please correct me if I’m wrong. Rrom my understanding of it the East sees Mary as Immaculate but does not understand why she must be conceived Immaculate. The problem is not with the fact that Catholicism believes Mary to be sinless but rather that the East sees no reason for promulgating a dogma stating she was created sinless when, inside of their tradition, they see no link between created being and sin.

However in the West we understand being as being intrinsically sinful as a result of the fall. We also believe that being and action are wholly unified (JPII wrote a great book called ‘The Acting Person’ that covers this). Therefore for us if Mary is to perform the Immaculate action that is the Fiat at the Annunciation she must have an Immaculate being, hence by the merits of Christs Death and Resurrection she is created that way.

I’m sure there will be disagreements on both sides here but I would say that the truth underlying the debate is universal, namely that Mary preformed an Immaculate action (freely choosing to bare the Word) and that Mary was sinless. What differs is how that is expressed within two divergent philosophical and theological traditions - the truth remains the same, the expression differs. In that sense I agree with the OP, however the Immaculate conception debate is not concerned with Mary’s sinless state but with how that state came about.

Yes, the debate is over how she is sinless - not the fact of her sin-less-ness. In Orthodoxy they do not understand Original sin in quite the same way, and they do not see baptism as being required to forgive us the guilt of original sin, only to graft us onto the vine of Christ. With God’s Grace, then, she was able to never sin through her whole life, thus remaining immaculate.

But the Western Church has usually understood that we are all stained by sin, which is why we baptize for the washing away of original sin even for babies. But if the Western Church wants to maintain Mary was actually sinless, they need a way for her to avoid this original sin as well. That is why they developed the doctrine of the immaculate conception, to explain how Mary was sinless even before she obtained the remission of original sin through Christ’s death.

 

[TP2]

Yes, the debate is over how she is sinless - not the fact of her sin-less-ness. In Orthodoxy they do not understand Original sin in quite the same way, and they do not see baptism as being required to forgive us the guilt of original sin, only to graft us onto the vine of Christ. With God’s Grace, then, she was able to never sin through her whole life, thus remaining immaculate.

But the Western Church has usually understood that we are all stained by sin, which is why we baptize for the washing away of original sin even for babies. But if the Western Church wants to maintain Mary was actually sinless, they need a way for her to avoid this original sin as well. That is why they developed the doctrine of the immaculate conception, to explain how Mary was sinless even before she obtained the remission of original sin through Christ’s death.

Again, a perfect example of splitting HAIRS!!!

 

[TP2]

I think the difference is more than you give credit for here. Although you are right to point out that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe Mary to be sinless the Western Church has declared that the Mother of God was created sinless by the grace of Christ whilst the East maintains that she was sanctified after conception. The Western Church understands sin as being both physical and spiritual, the East understands sin as purely spiritual with physical effects. Hence the two traditions come to differing conclusions.

Not being Orthodox I can’t speak for the Orthodox so please correct me if I’m wrong. Rrom my understanding of it the East sees Mary as Immaculate but does not understand why she must be conceived Immaculate. The problem is not with the fact that Catholicism believes Mary to be sinless but rather that the East sees no reason for promulgating a dogma stating she was created sinless when, inside of their tradition, they see no link between created being and sin.

However in the West we understand being as being intrinsically sinful as a result of the fall. We also believe that being and action are wholly unified (JPII wrote a great book called ‘The Acting Person’ that covers this). Therefore for us if Mary is to perform the Immaculate action that is the Fiat at the Annunciation she must have an Immaculate being, hence by the merits of Christs Death and Resurrection she is created that way.

I’m sure there will be disagreements on both sides here but I would say that the truth underlying the debate is universal, namely that Mary preformed an Immaculate action (freely choosing to bare the Word) and that Mary was sinless. What differs is how that is expressed within two divergent philosophical and theological traditions - the truth remains the same, the expression differs. In that sense I agree with the OP, however the Immaculate conception debate is not concerned with Mary’s sinless state but with how that state came about.

Why can’t the Orthodox just accept an Orthodox Tradition of Mary and Western Catholics a Western Tradition of her? Why is this so difficult? How could there be a Dormition if Mary had any personal sin? How?

 

[TP2]

Dear TP2,

Father bless! I’m sure that your intentions here are honorable, but this thread belongs in the non-Catholic religions section, not the Eastern Catholicism section. I humbly request that it be moved.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

You are entitled to your humble opinin, then. As a Catholic, my concern remains in the Catholic Sphere which entail the Orthodox as well. Why do we have to separate eachother because we cannot even talk to eachother about issues I consider similar to conversation? Why do we have to always divide conversations into a separate collumn especially if they have consequence to present CATHOLIC/Orthodox Dialogue?? How is this not allowed to be visited here where everyone can discuss these issues together?? What would keep an Orthodox to sya the same thing in the Non Orthodox forum? Why not just open these issues to everyone? Where is the fear of presenting these “same” Truths albeit presented uniquely theologically diversely but which I believe are encountered by both Churches. My point here is to bring a convergence not divergence of doctrines.

 

[TP2]

1. I don’t think the EO has ever said that the Church isn’t infallible.
2. Using the same word does not mean using it in the same way. You need to show that they share the same doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not just that they called her immaculate.
3. First of all, there are many reasons to pray for one who died. God is not bound by time, so prayers for the dead could be efficacious even without a temporary stop between our life on Earth and our final destination.

Secondly, see point two. You have to show that the EO understanding is the same as the Catholic one. That would especially include things like temporal punishment for sin which according to the CC is the purpose of purgatory.

Excuse me? What are you trying to say in question 1?

The EO has said an individual Bishop **does not have the Power of Infallibility **yet that is exactly what he does when he declares a person a Saint in Heaven.

What is a reason to pray for the dead other that they are not in heaven and certainly don’t need or want it in hell. You have totally lost the point. Yes, we all get it that God is not bound by Time. So where does that leave the SOUL, no pun?? Stuck in between “Time”? That’s not Heaven and that’s not Hell. Purgation is a consequence for sin. Time and place can cease to exist. We will not enter heaven unless we are purified from all sin. Purgatory accomplishes that.

 

[Vico]

…With God’s Grace, then, she was able to never sin through her whole life, thus remaining immaculate.
…That is why they developed the doctrine of the immaculate conception, to explain how Mary was sinless even before she obtained the remission of original sin through Christ’s death.

The doctrine is more subtle than that, and very specific, based upon Duns Scotus, “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin”. The “stain of original sin” is the usual state of being born lacking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (God’s Grace).

 

[Bluegoat]

The doctrine is more subtle than that, and very specific, based upon Duns Scotus, “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin”. The “stain of original sin” is the usual state of being born lacking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (God’s Grace).

Your explanation is more eloquent than mine - I was just trying to put the doctrine in the context of different understandings of original sin - to show why the OC has no need for the doctrine at all. I think actually they would say that no one was born lacking the indwelling of the HS.

But apparently all this is just splitting hairs. Though if that is true, one wonders why the CC would declare it as necessary to be believed, especially knowing the Eastern view, which has been around as long as the Western one, doesn’t require it.

In any case, it is incorrect to say the OC believes this doctrine, although they believe she was without sin.

 

[Hesychios]

… That is why they developed the doctrine of the immaculate conception, to explain how Mary was sinless even before she obtained the remission of original sin through Christ’s death.

I call it a ‘bug fix’.

 

[Bluegoat]

Excuse me? What are you trying to say in question 1?

The EO has said an individual Bishop **does not have the Power of Infallibility **yet that is exactly what he does when he declares a person a Saint in Heaven.

What is a reason to pray for the dead other that they are not in heaven and certainly don’t need or want it in hell. You have totally lost the point. Yes, we all get it that God is not bound by Time. So where does that leave the SOUL, no pun?? Stuck in between “Time”? That’s not Heaven and that’s not Hell. Purgation is a consequence for sin. Time and place can cease to exist. We will not enter heaven unless we are purified from all sin. Purgatory accomplishes that.

It seems you don’t know what it means to be outside of time. If you pray for a person that has died, God, being outside of time, can make your prayer efficacious before the time that the person died. He could choose to bestow a little extra Grace last Tuesday, for example. Where the soul “is” is irrelavent.

In any case, that is somewhat academic, because that is not how most Orthodox understand it as far as I know - many (all?) believe that souls after death awaits the final judgement. Some even seem to think there may be some sort of purification. But they reject the idea of making this doctrine rather than pious opinion, and the need to “pay off” a debt of temporal sin, or that we can pay off someone else’s debt or have it excused based on a treasury of merit.

The OP said that he wanted to show that the OC actually believed all the doctrines that the CC does. That is clearly not true.

 

[Vico]

Your explanation is more eloquent than mine - I was just trying to put the doctrine in the context of different understandings of original sin - to show why the OC has no need for the doctrine at all. I think actually they would say that no one was born lacking the indwelling of the HS.

But apparently all this is just splitting hairs. Though if that is true, one wonders why the CC would declare it as necessary to be believed, especially knowing the Eastern view, which has been around as long as the Western one, doesn’t require it.

In any case, it is incorrect to say the OC believes this doctrine, although they believe she was without sin.

That which is lacking at birth is the “stain of original sin” in the Latin terms. The consequences of “the original sin of Adam and Eve” inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant.

It is not necessary to do that which is not needed, so infants are baptised to give the gifts which are lacking. It may not come as a surprise that infant baptism is done that infants can become the dwelling places of the Spirit.

Saint John Chrysotsom writes in his Baptismal Instruction 3:6:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

The preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that she was endowed with these gifts from the first moment of her conception.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The EO has said an individual Bishop **does not have the Power of Infallibility **yet that is exactly what he does when he declares a person a Saint in Heaven.

No it’s not. No single bishop has inherit infallibility and neither does a group of bishops. Individual bishops err and councils of bishops err. Infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole not to one of it’s individual organs.

A bishop or a council speaks infallibly only when it reflects the faith already held by the Church as a whole (clergy and laity together). That is precisely how a recognition of sainthood works. The Holy Spirit works through the Church as a whole and inspires the people (clergy and laity) to begin to venerate that person as a saint. Only after that popular acclamation by the people do the bishops go on to formally recognize the fact that the person is already a saint and is already held as such by the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Bluegoat]

That which is lacking at birth is the “stain of original sin” in the Latin terms. The consequences of “the original sin of Adam and Eve” inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant.

It is not necessary to do that which is not needed, so infants are baptised to give the gifts which are lacking. It may not come as a surprise that infant baptism is done that infants can become the dwelling places of the Spirit.

Saint John Chrysotsom writes in his Baptismal Instruction 3:6:

The preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that she was endowed with these gifts from the first moment of her conception.

Two thoughts:

The first is that although I often hear modern Catholics argue this understanding of original sin, I think that it represents a real change in emphasis in Catholic doctrine. For example, original sin is the reason Catholisism has generally been unwilling to positivly affirm that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, unlike the Orthodox Church. And in fact they are still willing to affirm this. If it is not the case that the infant bears the guilt, or stain of sin, then why not? And honestly, it isn’t what I read in Catholic theology through the ages (of course this is also what my Church teaches, so I am not pointing any fingers here.)

Secondly, I think you are saying the same thing but in different words. The stain of original sin, as you put it, seems to mean a lack of Grace, which needs to be infused at baptism. Thus Mary, to be Immaculate, must somehow have had access to that without being baptized, and before the birth of Christ.

But as far as I understand ( Hesychios can correct me) even using this kind of language, the Eastern view differs. Grace is not lacking in an infant, it is not stained by anything. God’s Grace is imputed to all for all time, it was never taken away. So there is no need to develop an explanation of how Mary can be immaculate. She is without sin at birth and through Grace remains so.

 

[Vico]

Two thoughts:

The first is that although I often hear modern Catholics argue this understanding of original sin, I think that it represents a real change in emphasis in Catholic doctrine. For example, original sin is the reason Catholisism has generally been unwilling to positivly affirm that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, unlike the Orthodox Church. And in fact they are still willing to affirm this. If it is not the case that the infant bears the guilt, or stain of sin, then why not? And honestly, it isn’t what I read in Catholic theology through the ages (of course this is also what my Church teaches, so I am not pointing any fingers here.)

Secondly, I think you are saying the same thing but in different words. The stain of original sin, as you put it, seems to mean a lack of Grace, which needs to be infused at baptism. Thus Mary, to be Immaculate, must somehow have had access to that without being baptized, and before the birth of Christ.

But as far as I understand ( Hesychios can correct me) even using this kind of language, the Eastern view differs. Grace is not lacking in an infant, it is not stained by anything. God’s Grace is imputed to all for all time, it was never taken away. So there is no need to develop an explanation of how Mary can be immaculate. She is without sin at birth and through Grace remains so.

“Grace is not lacking in an infant”

As you know, we inherit the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, death, both in physical and spiritual ways, without any personal fault. In the Eastern view “We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.” – Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: James Clark and Co., 1957), pp. 85-86, 87.

Although there is a difference in the terminology used in Eastern teaching or tradition compared to the Latin, it nevertheless remains true that infant baptism is practiced, by tradition, and that it is necessary, as Saint John Chrysotsom stated that infants are baptised: “that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit”.

We need sanctification and justice, which are what are described as grace in the Latin doctrines, so there is essential agreement about the need for baptism to provide what is missing for an infant or adult.

Please refer to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America statement on Infant Baptism:
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067

 

[TP2]

Respond to the quote of Bluegoat. Grace is not lacking in an infant, it is not stained by anything. God’s Grace is imputed to all for all time, it was never taken away. So there is no need to develop an explanation of how Mary can be immaculate. She is without sin at birth and through Grace remains so.

If that is what your saying, then there is no sin. That slams in the face of the very reason Jesus went to The Cross for. Sin starts with the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Are you basically saying that an Infant is “Immaculately” conceived? hmmmmm…I thought we were discussing Mary was. Otherwise your thought-ful pattern becomes chaotic. If Grace is Not Lacking in an Infant, whatare you really trying to say? The Infant is Sinless? Really now? I don’t believe you really believe that for a moment.

So how do we get past the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception? By recognizing that “ALL HAVE SINNED…” Because then, The Immaculate Conception is a pretty solid “concept”…

Ya can’t have it both ways. Sin is sin. If we all have sinned, then Mary as “The New Eve”, kinda makes more sense and is well spoken of by The Fathers of both East and West. Clearly the first 2 portion of writings don’t spell out the Immaculate Conception BUT they differentiate exact opposite of “EVE” and who was EVE? She was Immaculately created. So what is the issue again?

Justyn Martyr— 145ish AD"Jesus became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus---- 170ish AD
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

 

[TP2]

I call it a ‘bug fix’.

I just call it “ignorance”…

 

[TP2]

No it’s not. No single bishop has inherit infallibility and neither does a group of bishops. Individual bishops err and councils of bishops err. Infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole not to one of it’s individual organs.

A bishop or a council speaks infallibly only when it reflects the faith already held by the Church as a whole (clergy and laity together). That is precisely how a recognition of sainthood works. The Holy Spirit works through the Church as a whole and inspires the people (clergy and laity) to begin to venerate that person as a saint. Only after that popular acclamation by the people do the bishops go on to formally recognize the fact that the person is already a saint and is already held as such by the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Nice loophole, I think. You say that person is made a Saint because they reflect the Councils of The church? Who decides that? Who can measure by The Church’s Faith in Absolute certainty that by a Council’s standards that person is in Heaven?? What else can a bishop decide using that line of thought? Maybe that someone was not a True Orthodox Christian? Are you sure yyou want to go that route? Your Bishops still have to make that decision and that decision is called an infallble one. How else can anyone be sure? If a bishop can claim someone is in Heaven because of point “A”, how is it that he can claim to be able to claim he is 100% certain that person really did? **Explain how an EO bishop can make it certain someone is in heaven, unless he exercises Infallibilty in that moment short of receiving a revelation from that person from heaven? **
When anyone can declare anything “is” in heaven, that’s called an act of infallibilty only in your church ironically any bishop can make that declaration… What a paradigm? So how do you mean “NO”?

When a bishop declares in your Church that a person is in Heaven, what do you call that? A maybe? A Possibility? How about “Infallibly”? Sounds more clear. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Or else why do you declare anyone in heaven? Either the Orthodox get special revelations or it exercises Infallibilty by declaring someoen is IN HEAVEN… How else??? You explain to me why I can show many Saints canonized by EO’y AFTER the 7th Ecumenical Councils. Please… I really want to know how you can be 100% certain someone is in heaven and not call it “INFALLIBILTY”?