General Eastern Catholic Questions

[Vico]

As for Purgatory, you will find different beliefs. There are those in the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” camp who simply reject Purgatory. However, like the Orthodox, they still believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious in some way. On the other hand, there are Eastern Catholics who believe that they are bound to accept Purgatory as a matter of dogma.

The Catholic Church is united in hierarchy, sacraments, and dogma, regardless of the various traditional theological statements.

For example, from the Union of Brest (1596 Poland), the reunion forming the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, states:

“We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

 

[RyanBlack]

The Catholic Church is united in hierarchy, sacraments, and dogma, regardless of the various traditional theological statements.

I haven’t said otherwise. I was simply giving information about the OP about the variety of beliefs one might encounter among individual Eastern Catholics.

 

[RyanBlack]

For example, from the Union of Brest (1596 Poland), the reunion forming the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, states:

“We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

I have read this statement before. However, I know for a fact that there are individual Eastern Catholics who do not believe in Purgatory, but who still offer prayers on behalf of the dead.

 

[Vico]

I have read this statement before. However, I know for a fact that there are individual Eastern Catholics who do not believe in Purgatory, but who still offer prayers on behalf of the dead.

Ryan, I was not presenting the commonalities of the church as something you did not believe. Sorry if it seemed so.

One can accept a teaching as true without it being in their rite. There is simply no use of it in their tradition (at least yet). So this could apply to both purgatory and indulgences, for example, for some Churches.

There are two ideas that make up indulgences, also not an Eastern teaching:

1. That the church has power to bind and loosen sins (mystery of confession)
2. That prayer for the faithfully departed is helpful.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I know I am Orthodox and not what is here called Eastern Catholic, but I just wanted to say that I have never been able to understand how the Theotokos died if she never sinned at all. The wages of sin is death, and she died. If she was sinless in every way, wouldn’t she have lived eternally? Just thinking out loud and probably making the original poster more confused.

 

[dvdjs]

I know I am Orthodox and not what is here called Eastern Catholic, but I just wanted to say that I have never been able to understand how the Theotokos died if she never sinned at all. The wages of sin is death, and she died. If she was sinless in every way, wouldn’t she have lived eternally? Just thinking out loud and probably making the original poster more confused.

We do not become mortal by committing a sin - what sins have been committed by stillborn infants? We inherit mortality as part of the legacy of the ancestral sin; the wages of that sin is the mortality of the human race.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alveus Lacuna,

I know I am Orthodox and not what is here called Eastern Catholic, but I just wanted to say that I have never been able to understand how the Theotokos died if she never sinned at all. The wages of sin is death, and she died. If she was sinless in every way, wouldn’t she have lived eternally? Just thinking out loud and probably making the original poster more confused.

I’ll offer you four solutions, which I’ll call Alexandrian, Biblical, Latin, and Protestant (these are descriptive names I chose, not that they are formally recognized nomenclatures).

ALEXANDRIAN SOLUTION:
According to the great Pope St. Athanasius, physical death was part of human nature even before the Fall. In other words, God made man mortal. Before the Fall, man was immortal not by nature, but by Grace. When Adam and Eve sinned, man lost the Grace of immortality, and was then left only with his inherent animal nature that was subject to death and corruption. Each of us die not because each of us sins, but because our first parents sinned and lost the Grace of Immortality for all their children.

BIBLICAL SOLUTION:
Biblically speaking, one cannot take the scriptural statement, “all died because all have sinned” literally, because Scripture tells us that Enoch and Elijah did not die. Scripture itself admits exceptions – obviously according to God’s Grace – so the case of Mary should come as no surprise.

LATIN SOLUTION:
“All died because all have sinned” refers to spiritual death – i.e., separation from God. That spiritual death is the primary result and essence of Original Sin has always been the teaching of the Western (and Oriental) Fathers, as well as of numerous early Eastern Fathers. Mortality and corruption are also consequences of the Original Sin (i.e., the sin of Adam and Eve), but those things are part of our nature. They are not stains. The stains of Original Sin are the spiritual, not physical, consequences. The dogma of the IC only teaches that Mary was preserved from the stain (i.e., the spiritual consequences) of Original Sin, not from the physical consequences.

PROTESTANT SOLUTION:
Many Protestants believe in what is known as the federal headship theory of original sin. In Adam, all have died, and because of Adam all have sinned. We all die not because we each sin, but because Adam sinned. So the fact that Mary died or could die is not necessarily a result of Mary personally sinning, but is rather a consequence of the sin of our first parents that was passed on to all of humanity.

It should be obvious that some of these solutions are not mutually exclusive.

The dilemma of the modern Eastern teaching (I say “modern” because I think we need to admit that there are some Easterns who have a concept of Original Sin that is more akin to the Western/Oriental understanding) is that “Original Sin” is not really sin, but is rather the consequence of the first sin of Adam and Eve, which involves physical death. The only sin that the biblical teaching “for all have sinned, therefore all have died” could possibly refer to according to the modern Eastern understanding is ACTUAL sin. Since Mary did not have actual sin, it is a quandary to modern Easterns how Mary could have died.

The Western and Oriental Traditions have a solution, but I personally do not know the solution from the modern Eastern perspective. I started a thread in the “Non-Catholic Forum” a few months ago asking this question, but no EO responded. Perhaps we can get some answers in this thread.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dvdjs,

We do not become mortal by committing a sin - what sins have been committed by stillborn infants? We inherit mortality as part of the legacy of the ancestral sin; the wages of that sin is the mortality of the human race.

I’ve heard many EO assert (and rather strongly) that no one pays for the sin of our first parents. If my death is merely a consequence of the sin of our first parents, then I am paying for their sin. That is why, according to them, the biblical teaching “for all have sinned therefore all die” must necessarily be referring to personal sin.

I suspect that is what brother Alveus Lacuna is trying to get at (though I ask for his correction if that is not what he is saying).

I also think this is one of the problematic issues of the diminution (even disappearance) of the concept of the Justice of God in some Eastern circles.

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm: I believe that Mary died because she inherited a corrupt human nature. Before the sin of Adam and Eve, people did not die because they were united with God, who is life itself. By choosing to sin they separated themselves from God, and introduced sin, corruption, and death into the world. As a result of this, their ancestors inherited a fallen nature and lived in a world where they no longer lived through grace. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, those who are united to him by faith and love participate in his resurrection and will be raised incorruptible at the last day. The Holy Theotokos, as a result of being born subject to the effects of the fall, died as all people do (with exception to those that God chose to take with him prior to death). While I agree that she was as holy as is possible for a human being born into a corrupt world, I see no reason to speculate that she was born in a state different than that of the rest of humanity.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

Mardukm: I believe that Mary died because she inherited a corrupt human nature. Before the sin of Adam and Eve, people did not die because they were united with God, who is life itself. By choosing to sin they separated themselves from God, and introduced sin, corruption, and death into the world. As a result of this, their ancestors inherited a fallen nature and lived in a world where they no longer lived through grace. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, those who are united to him by faith and love participate in his resurrection and will be raised incorruptible at the last day. The Holy Theotokos, as a result of being born subject to the effects of the fall, died as all people do (with exception to those that God chose to take with him prior to death). While I agree that she was as holy as is possible for a human being born into a corrupt world, I see no reason to speculate that she was born in a state different than that of the rest of humanity.

I accept your statement here, except, of course, the last two sentences.

First, there is no speculation on the matter. There is a clear and distinct testimony from the Fathers since the third century on the total purity of Mary throughout her entire existence. The only speculation is in regards as to how Mary came to be without the stain of Original Sin (i.e., separation from God). The dogma of the IC does not settle that matter. The dogma only affirms the non-speculative portion of the constant patristic witness - that Mary indeed was always, from the first moment of her existence to her death, spiritually pure in the eyes of God, by God’s own Grace.

I often hear/read Eastern Orthodox apologists say, “Mary is not the great exception, but the great example.” But there is actually absolutely no patristic support for that concept. Mary is indeed the great exception in all of creation, not only by virtue of her utterly unique role in the plan of salvation, but also by virtue of her utterly sinless life.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

I’ve heard many EO assert (and rather strongly) that no one pays for the sin of our first parents. If my death is merely a consequence of the sin of our first parents, then I am paying for their sin. That is why, according to them, the biblical teaching “for all have sinned therefore all die” must necessarily be referring to personal sin.

My understanding of that position is a little different. They agree that we inherit a penalty, but would object to that idea that penalty could include a judgement unto death, absent our cooperation with grace through the sacraments.

I also think this is one of the problematic issues of the diminution (even disappearance) of the concept of the Justice of God in some Eastern circles.

Mostly it’s an internet phenomenon.

 

[dvdjs]

The Holy Theotokos … was as holy as is possible for a human being born into a corrupt world…

You may say that, but that is not not what Orthodoxy says. In Orthodox liturgy the THeotokos is called all-holy and immaculate, and do so repeatedly.

I see no reason to speculate that she was born in a state different than that of the rest of humanity.

That is an arguable point, as long as you ignore the question: how is it that she could be all-holy and immaculate?

 

[dcointin]

This website describes the Immaculate Conception as follows:

“The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings” [bold added by me]
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

It explicitly states that the stain of original sin is “a corrupt nature”. I cannot accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as an Eastern Orthodox because it would distort the dogma of the redemption. If the Theotokos was born without ancestral, sin, i.e. without a corrupt human nature, then Christ would not have assumed this nature in his incarnation, sanctified, and redeemed it. St. Athanasius says in “On the Incarnation”: “Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection.” If Christ assumed a nature that is different than our own, then we are still under the power of sin, death, and the devil, which was his key argument against the Arians.

To answer the question of how the Orthodox can believe that the Theotokos is immaculate if we do not believe that she was free from ancestral sin: I would like to quote “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Fr. Michael Pomazansky on the subject:

“The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of the grace that was poured out on her, ‘Thou has found grace with God,’ the Archangel said to her in his greeting: ‘thou has found,’ that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God the Word to earth. The coming down of the Holy Spirit (‘the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee’) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.”

 

[dvdjs]

You need to understand precisely what is meant by original sin or the stain of original sin by the Latins, apart from the various consequences of the ancestral sin.

You should check out the Catholic Encyclopedia article. newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Here is a particularly relevant passage:

Nature of original sin

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). 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 Latin terms, in the immaculate conception, we are talking about the deprivation of sanctifying grace. The Theotokos could not have been all-Holy and immaculate without it. Indeed this is just what Fr. Michael Pomazansky is saying: his comments - specifically including the time before the annunciation, and presumably fromt he beginning of her bodily existence, are in fact a very nice summary of the dogma of the Immaculate conception.

The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature

The first part of this sentence is fine, but the second part needs tweaked. Our corruption is a consequence of the ancestral sin and is a manifestation of the privation of sanctifying grace, but it is that privation which is the stain referred to in the dogma of the IC.

 

[dcointin]

Would you say then that Mary did inherit a corrupt human nature?

 

[dvdjs]

Would you say then that Mary did inherit a corrupt human nature?

I am leary of this phrase: what exactly do you mean? The distinction between the Western, Catholic sense of it is fairly subtle, as I have heard it described by writers knowledgable in both traditions. So, if you mean that she was mortal, subject suffering, concupiscent, then yes. If you mean, in the sense of reformed, totally depraved, then no.

 

[dcointin]

By corrupt I mean inclined toward sin and subject to suffering and death. I agree that a significant aspect of ancestral sin is the loss of union with God, or in Latin terms “sanctifying grace” or “original justice”, but my concern is with the ontological change within human nature that resulted from the fall. What I’m trying to do is translate the Latin dogma into Orthodox dogma, so to speak, and see if there’s a difference in terminology or emphasis, or a real difference in theology.

 

[dvdjs]

By corrupt I mean inclined toward sin and subject to suffering and death.

Yes these are consequences of the ancestral sin, but, following the CEncyc, not the hereditary stain of original sin from which the Theotokos is preserved from through the IC.

 

[dcointin]

I can completely accept the idea that the Theotokos was born with sanctifying grace and therefore without original sin as the Catholic Church understands it, as long it is understood that this does not imply that she was born without a corrupt human nature. Do you think that the catholic.com article is misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception since it states that she “was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings”?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I can completely accept the idea that the Theotokos was born with sanctifying grace and therefore without original sin as the Catholic Church understands it, as long it is understood that this does not imply that she was born without a corrupt human nature. Do you think that the catholic.com article is misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception since it states that she “was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings”?

The Immaculate Conception states that the Blessed Mother was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. This means she does not have a “corrupt human nature” (ie: suffer from concupiscence ) as the rest do (except Our Lord).