For ORTHODOX: Why is IC heresy?

[jimmy]

The purpose of the IC is to explain why Mary never sinned. If it were as simple as saying that Mary recieved baptism at conception you should be able to point to many people who were baptized and then lived many years without committing a sin, even venially. She was not subject to the passions because as the definition asserts her soul was protected from OS by a superabundance of Grace. OS never touched her soul. She was as Mary except she died.

In effect, you are claiming that Mary is different from us simply because she received the grace of baptism before anyone else. Why does the Catholic side have to prove anything she is NOT claiming. Catholics are not claiming that Mary did NOT die; Catholics are not claiming that Mary’s body became incorruptible; Catholics are not claiming she was deprived of free will, etc.

Latins are saying that she was not subject to the passions. Underlying all this is your distinction between the spiritual conception and the natural conception. Mary died because OS touched her flesh but she did not sin because it did not touch her soul.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

• If Baptism wipes out the effects of original sin, then why do we still sin?
• If Baptism wipes out the effects of original sin, then why do we still die?
• If Baptism wipes out the efffects of original sin, then how can you say we still have free will?

baptism doesn’t wipe out all the effects of original sin, we are left with the stain of original sin. the Blessed Virgin was conceived without any stain of sin. therefore, her death was voluntary to conform herself to Christ.

since the orthodox believe that the BVM died, they believe she was like us in all things except sin.

 

[jimmy]

baptism doesn’t wipe out all the effects of original sin, we are left with the stain of original sin. the Blessed Virgin was conceived without any stain of sin… therefore, her death was voluntary to conform herself to Christ.

since the orthodox believe that the BVM died, they believe she was like us in all things.

That would be logical but that does not fit with mardukm’s anthropology. He seperates the natural conception from the spiritual conception and says that the IC regards the spiritual conception. Your approach seems to assume an approach to Original Sin from the perspective of the whole human nature as I am approaching it.

 

[mardukm]

therefore, her death was voluntary to conform herself to Christ.

With all due respect, that is a theologoumenon to explain why she died. It is not dogma. What I believe, which is nothing contrary to the dogma of the IC, is that her body was not incorruptible and THAT is the reason she died.

since the orthodox believe that the BVM died, they believe she was like us in all things.

That is what Orthodox believe, but it runs counter to the simultaneous belief that Mary never sinned. So it is not true that she was like us in ALL things. Mary never sinned. We do.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The purpose of the IC is to explain why Mary never sinned. If it were as simple as saying that Mary recieved baptism at conception you should be able to point to many people who were baptized and then lived many years without committing a sin, even venially.

That is not a problem with the patristic understanding of original sin. Once again, read the debates between St. Augustine and the Pelagians. The Third Ecumenical Council fully supported St. Augustine. It is incumbent upon you as an apostolic Christian to give heed to the arguments that lent support to the Third Ecumenical Council’s condemnation of the Pelagians, who denied the doctrine of original sin.

She was not subject to the passions because as the definition asserts her soul was protected from OS by a superabundance of Grace. OS never touched her soul. She was as Mary except she died.

Latins are saying that she was not subject to the passions. Underlying all this is your distinction between the spiritual conception and the natural conception. Mary died because OS touched her flesh but she did not sin because it did not touch her soul.

You are making some good distinctions here, and I thank you for that. The idea that Mary was not subject to the passions is a particularly Latin understanding of the dogma of the IC. As an Oriental, my understanding is that Mary, since her body was still subject to death, was indeed subject to the passions. Nevertheless, she possessed a superabundance of grace to resist them. Now, when I say “subject to the passions,” I do not mean that she was, as St. Paul stated, in slavery to them, as people normally are. What I am saying is that she EXPERIENCED THEM, but because of the superabundance of grace in her, she was able to resist them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

From the discussion so far, it seems to me that the only viable reason for the Orthodox to claim that the dogma of IC is a heresy is because of the Latin Church’s belief in original sin.

However, the Latin Church’s belief in original sin was formulated by St. Augustine during his debates against the Pelagians, it THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ACCEPTED ST. AUGUSTINE’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PELAGIANS AND ADJUDGED THE PELAGIANS AS HERETICS THEREBY.

So it seems to me that for the EO to oppose the dogma of the IC based on the Latin Church’s understanding of original sin is nothing less than to oppose the Third Ecumenical Council.

For the EO to be consistent, if they really insist that there is a difference between the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin, and the Latin understanding of original sin, they must at least admit that the early Church knew of this distinction, yet pronounced, by its support of St. Augustine, that it was not a matter that could separate the Churches.

Hence, unless anyone else has anything to add to the matter, it appears that the dogma of the IC cannot possibly be considered a heresy, and cannot thereby be used by the Orthodox as a basis for separation (nor for a disgruntled Eastern or Oriental Catholic to leave the Catholic Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That would be logical but that does not fit with mardukm’s anthropology. He seperates the natural conception from the spiritual conception and says that the IC regards the spiritual conception. Your approach seems to assume an approach to Original Sin from the perspective of the whole human nature as I am approaching it.

Next week, I will prove to you that the Fathers distinguished the physical conception (I did not say “natural conception”) from the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment). Contrary to your perception, this was not a purely Latin scholastic belief, but was a patristic belief. I specifically stated that his was a belief reflected among the Fathers of the “Middle Ages.” I’m not sure what you think the term means, but scholars normatively assign the “Middle Ages” as involving the period of the 5th century onwards.

Like I said, I don’t have time for reserach right now, but I will have time towards the end of next week, and I will demonstrate to you that the distinction is a patristic teaching, and not merely a Latin belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is not only about her body. If her soul was protected and the original sin did not touch her soul then she is different from us whether she suffered death or not.

It’s senseless to claim that just because Mary had the grace that we obtain at baptism before anyone else, then she is somehow “not like us.” St. John the Baptist also obtained the grace of baptism before anyone else (except Mary). So he is also “not like us,” correct? You need to do better than that.

The fact that she suffered death is only an added difficulty to the idea that she was protected from original sin. The assumption is that original sin adheres to the soul only and and the body only experiences the effects. So you are able to say that Mary was free from Original Sin because she was given a superabundance of Grace at the moment of conception but at the same time her body still dies. However the fathers never made this distinction. In Baptism, it is not simply your soul that is promised resurrection but your whole human person. You are burried with Christ that you may rise again with Him. It is not simply your soul, but your whole person which is saved through baptism.

The reason you say this is because you have misread and misunderstood the dogma. The dogma does NOT say that Mary was preserved from original sin PERIOD. The dogma says SPECIFICALLY that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin. The STAIN of original sin is specifically defined as the lack of perfect holiness that each of us are born with. It does not refer to physical corruption.

Once again, if the Orthodox have a problem with the dogma of the IC, then they should say what that is. But so far, all we see is that they have a problem with their OWN MISconception of the dogma, not the dogma itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I just wanted to recap the most pertinent argument so far:

Catholic position:
The dogma of the IC refers to Mary’s spiritual conception, not her physical conception.

Non-Catholic response:
You cannot separate the spiritual and physical conceptions. If you say one is immaculate, the other one must also be immaculate, and therefore, Mary cannot die. But she did, therefore, she had the stain of original sin.

Catholic response:
The physical and spiritual elements of our nature can indeed be considered distinctly, not only at our (1) conception, but also (b) throughout our lives, and also (c) at our death. The first is evident from the fact that the Church during the Middle Ages believed that the spiritual conception (i,e., ensoulment) occured at a later time than the physical conception (which I will prove later in the week). The second is evident from the fact that though baptism removes the stain of original sin (which is the same grace that St. John the Baptist received, except at an earlier time in life, and the same grace that St. Mary received, except at an even earlier time in life), our bodies are still subject to corruption. The third is evident from the fact that though our bodies die, our souls live on.

If non-Catholics claim that the grace received by Mary at her conception automatically means that she would not physically die, then, they must also believe that the grace we receive at our baptism means that we will never physically die. The fact of the matter is that the grace we receive at baptism is NO DIFFERENT from the grace Mary received at the moment of her conception.

Conclusion: The non-Catholic argument is inconsisent, illogical and meritless. The dogma of the IC is not a heresy, and cannot be used as a basis for separation between the Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

1. It was dogmatized by the the Pope. Some Orthodox ,I believe, are perfectly fine with accepting it as a theological opinion but not some belief necessary for salvation.

Thank you for bringing up this point. It is an important one. The dogma actually does not say it is necessary for salvation. The dogma, AFAIK, simply places a sentence of excommunication on one who does not believe it.

Given all we know about the Catholic Church’s understanding of and teaching on extra ecclesiam sulla nullus, I don’t think it can be stated that lack of belief in the dogma would result in a loss of salvation, unlike the Christological dogmas. And I believe the Catholic Church has formally pronounced on the notion of an hierarchy of beliefs, where some beliefs are are more necessary than others for the sake of salvation. I know I’ve read that somewhere, though I don’t have time to research the quotation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Volodymyr]

Orthodox church does not call Mother of God sinless, calls her most-holy, pure, spotless, but not ever used sinless - Jesus Christ is the sole sinless. Mother of God is spotless and holy but with a sinful human nature - like ours - so not “sinless” like is God-Man Jesus Christ.

Creation of the body and soul of a man. Holy St. Ioann Damaskin wrote that the body and soul of Adam, and Eva the first people were created at one time, together, and not, as foolishly alleged Origen, one before the other - there was no creation of man “in parts” St. Ioann spoke that man is a single being and not the product of a collection of parts. Therefore, he insists that the soul and body are created at same time. Precisely God creates not a soul and a body, but creates immediatelyand uniquely a new man!. For the Holy Church fathers there is this characteristic recognition of the complete unity of the human nature.

 

[YADA]

The purpose of the IC is to explain why Mary never sinned.

No the purpose of the Immaculate Conseption was to keep mary free of the stain of Original Sin … not to explain why Mary never sinned. Mary certainly had free will [as did Adam and Eve and all created persons] to choose to turn towrds God or away from God - to sin or not to sin.

While I know that St. paul syas that “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God” … I believe that too much emphasis is made upon the word “all” …

Enoch was born with the stain of original sin [concupiscience] or whatever the term the EO or other Christians want to use … yet he “walked all his days with the Lord” and was taken directly to Heaven without suffering death … This suggsts that even though he was born into the fallen state, he was abe to turn away from sin and love God for his entore life, thus he was saved from death and taken directly to heaven. Beng taken directly to heaven also means he must not have sinned becasue nothing unclean can enter into Heaven …

Similarly Elijah was assumed into heaven in the fiery Chariot … less clear whether he died and his body was taken or he was taken alive …

The Immaculate Conception preserved [Saved] Mary at the moment of her conception [in the same way we are saved by Baptism] from that original fallen state so that she woud not pass on that “sinful fallen state” that is a part of the human condition to Jesus … who is like us [human] in every way except Sin …

Jesus did not need Baptism … even though he was Baptized by John … Jesus was fully human [as Adam and Eve were] but un-stained by the first act of defiance that follows you and me …

It is not necesary to be Immaculately Concieved to be able to turn away from sin … we all have that choice!

 

[dvdjs]

The dogma does NOT say that Mary was preserved from original sin PERIOD. The dogma says SPECIFICALLY that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin. The STAIN of original sin is specifically defined as the lack of perfect holiness that each of us are born with. It does not refer to physical corruption.

This point is worth emphasizing, as it is missed a bit by many of the Catholic posters, and thus understandably confused by others. From the Catholic Encyclopedia. catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782

. In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized ; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum . Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo , and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

In the Catholic doctrine, Mary’s exemption from the* hereditary stain* does not imply exemption from death or concupiscence; it does not imply a change of nature, or a loss of free will.

 

[mardukm]

Orthodox church does not call Mother of God sinless, calls her most-holy, pure, spotless, but not ever used sinless - Jesus Christ is the sole sinless. Mother of God is spotless and holy but with a sinful human nature - like ours - so not “sinless” like is God-Man Jesus Christ.

That’s a distinction without a difference. The God-Man is the only one who was NATURALLY sinless. Mary, though sinless, was not NATURALLY sinless, because it was a grace given to her by God.

Creation of the body and soul of a man. Holy St. Ioann Damaskin wrote that the body and soul of Adam, and Eva the first people were created at one time, together, and not, as foolishly alleged Origen, one before the other - there was no creation of man “in parts” St. Ioann spoke that man is a single being and not the product of a collection of parts. Therefore, he insists that the soul and body are created at same time. Precisely God creates not a soul and a body, but creates immediatelyand uniquely a new man!. For the Holy Church fathers there is this characteristic recognition of the complete unity of the human nature.

First, St. John Damascene was combatting Origen’s idea of the PRE-existence of souls. Bringing that concept into the discussion is a straw man.
Second, the Damascene was speaking specifically of the creation of the first man (Adam) (De Fide Orthodoxae, Chap. 12), not about the generation of each human being.
In a good portion of his writings, the Damascene consistently makes distinction between the soul and the body, where certain things are faculties of the soul alone, some are faculties of the body alone, and some are shared by both.
It’s no use for some here to claim that the two cannot be distinguished when one speaks of the human person.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This point is worth emphasizing, as it is missed a bit by many of the Catholic posters, and thus understandably confused by others. From the Catholic Encyclopedia. catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782

In the Catholic doctrine, Mary’s exemption from the* hereditary stain* does not imply exemption from death or concupiscence; it does not imply a change of nature, or a loss of free will.

Thank you brother!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Thank you for bringing up this point. It is an important one. The dogma actually does not say it is necessary for salvation. The dogma, AFAIK, simply places a sentence of excommunication on one who does not believe it.

Given all we know about the Catholic Church’s understanding of and teaching on extra ecclesiam sulla nullus, I don’t think it can be stated that lack of belief in the dogma would result in a loss of salvation, unlike the Christological dogmas. And I believe the Catholic Church has formally pronounced on the notion of an hierarchy of beliefs, where some beliefs are are more necessary than others for the sake of salvation. I know I’ve read that somewhere, though I don’t have time to research the quotation.

I just wanted to inform everyone here of the degrees of excommunication recognized within the Catholic Church:

Minor Excommunication: Deprivation of the Sacraments
Excommunication: Removal from the body of the Church Militant
Anathema: Removal from the body of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant
Anathema Maranatha!: Sentence of damnation at the Judgment seat.

Some non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend that the Dogma of the IC contains an Anathema or an Anathema Maranatha!. In fact, unlike other dogmas in the Catholic Church, the dogma of the IC contains only a sentence of excommunication, not an Anathema nor an Anathema Maranatha! The same with the dogma of the Assumption.

The mere fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church recognizes an hierarchy of beliefs within her Tradition, where some are more necessary for salvation than others. With regards to the Marian dogmas, that is immediately evident from what I stated above.

I also wanted to add that the dogma in no way imposes an obligation to believe that the Immaculate Conception IS a dogma. It simply imposes an obligation to believe it. I know of several Orthodox (and some Eastern Catholics) who accept the teaching, but merely as theologoumenon (a most prominent one being Bishop Timothy Ware). AFAIK, accepting the teaching, yet merely as theologoumenon, does not place one under the proscription of the dogma (since the belief that the dogma requires still exists). I am sure my fellow Catholics will correct me if I am wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I just wanted to inform everyone here of the degrees of excommunication recognized within the Catholic Church:

Minor Excommunication: Deprivation of the Sacraments
Excommunication: Removal from the body of the Church Militant
Anathema: Removal from the body of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant
Anathema Maranatha!: Sentence of damnation at the Judgment seat.

Some non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend that the Dogma of the IC contains an Anathema or an Anathema Maranatha!. In fact, unlike other dogmas in the Catholic Church, the dogma of the IC contains only a sentence of excommunication, not an Anathema nor an Anathema Maranatha! The same with the dogma of the Assumption.

The mere fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church recognizes an hierarchy of beliefs within her Tradition, where some are more necessary for salvation than others. With regards to the Marian dogmas, that is immediately evident from what I stated above.

I also wanted to add that the dogma in no way imposes an obligation to believe that the Immaculate Conception IS a dogma. It simply imposes an obligation to believe it. I know of several Orthodox (and some Eastern Catholics) who accept the teaching, but merely as theologoumenon (a most prominent one being Bishop Timothy Ware). AFAIK, accepting the teaching, yet merely as theologoumenon, does not place one under the proscription of the dogma (since the belief that the dogma requires still exists). I am sure my fellow Catholics will correct me if I am wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is the page from Bp Ware’s book “Orthodox Church” where he says the following re: the IC

(emphasis mine)

“The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox
Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.”

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P1B.HTM#1HW

 

[wynd]

The reason you say this is because you have misread and misunderstood the dogma. The dogma does NOT say that Mary was preserved from original sin PERIOD. The dogma says SPECIFICALLY that she was preserved from the STAIN of original sin. The STAIN of original sin is specifically defined as the lack of perfect holiness that each of us are born with. It does not refer to physical corruption.

Once again, if the Orthodox have a problem with the dogma of the IC, then they should say what that is. But so far, all we see is that they have a problem with their OWN MISconception of the dogma, not the dogma itself.

Hi mardukm,

Where is it defined that the “stain of original sin” is something different than “original sin” itself? In my mind the former is a metaphor that means the same thing as the latter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wynd,

Hi mardukm,

Where is it defined that the “stain of original sin” is something different than “original sin” itself? In my mind the former is a metaphor that means the same thing as the latter.

I was thinking the next time I was going to post in this thread was to post the proof I mentioned earlier that the belief that the spiritual conception could be differentiated from the physical conception is a patristic belief instead of a merely Latin scholastic belief. I have not yet finished my research.

But you pose a good question. Here’s the answer.

The definition of original sin per se includes:
(1) The sin of our first parents;
(2) The sin of disobedience;
(3) The effects of original sin.

Under the heading of “the effects of original sin,” one has:
(a) Death of the body;
(b) Death of the Soul (i.e., separation from God);
(c) Concupiscence;
(d) the Stain of Original Sin or absence of original holiness.
See brother dvdjs’ previous post from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter.

In Catholic jargon, sometimes the term “original sin” refers to “the sin of our first parents” only; sometimes, it refers to “the sin of disobedience” only; sometimes, it refers to “the effects of original sin” only. When one speaks of inheriting original sin, it refers only to (3), with (a), (b), (c) and (d) all included in the definition.

The definitive understanding of original sin was given by the Council of Trent. I do not cite the modern Catechism because some might say, “that’s just a modern Catholic understanding, and it has changed over the years.” I cite the Council of Trent to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Church has never changed. I believe the documents of the Council of Trent on original sin can be found online. Sorry I don’t have time for the research.

The distinction between “original sin” and “the stain of original sin” (i.e., absence of holiness) can be obtained from a schema on the Faith that was prepared at Vatican I, but was unfortunately not voted on due to the Council’s prorogation because of impending war:

“But man, ungrateful to his Creator and Father, freely violated God’s command…he lost holiness and justice for himself and for us, and … handed down to the entire human race not only death and corporal punishment, but sin, the death of the soul… transmitted to all his children by propagation, not by imitation. This is what the Church has always taught and what the Council of Trent defined.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I wanted to add that it is at the Council of Trent that the “stain” of original sin is first mentioned. It states that the Sacrament of Baptism makes every person “innocent, without stain, pure, no longer hateful, but beloved sons of God.”

This proves the fact that the grace given to Mary at her IC is no different from the grace given to every person at Baptism. Conclusively, it is simply baloney (no offense to baloney-lovers) for non-Catholics to claim that Mary is different from us SIMPLY because she received the grace of baptism before anyone else.

Blessings,
Marduk