How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[ConstantineTG]

This thread is a perfect example of why, on another thread recently, I lamented that Easterns say things like “we don’t believe in Original Sin”, and “death is the primary consequence of the Fall”. When these things are said, and especially when they are presented with false characterizations of Latin theology, it makes Byzantine theology look confused, self-contradictory, and schizophrenic. This statement by ConstantineTG:

is almost perfect, and it’s also absolutely identical to the Latin theology (it’s almost verbatim from St. Thomas Aquinas, in fact). The only slight clarification I’d make to it is that Grace isn’t part of human nature, but that human nature is designed to be Graced, much like a oil and gasoline are not part of the nature of a car, but a car can’t function properly according to its nature without them.

Often times theologians, especially of the Russian tradition it seems, will emphasize mortality as if it is something foreign to humans that came from the Fall, but this opens much bigger theological problems than it resolves. Most importantly, Christ was obviously mortal yet He was not Fallen. His mortality was not compelled, to be sure, but His human nature was capable of death despite having no sin and no absence of Grace. If death is something utterly foreign to unFallen human nature this should not be possible, and it’s not something that can simply be brushed aside by “it’s a mystery of Faith”.

Since we can easily surmise that death is an aspect of human nature, just as engine-lockup is an aspect of “car nature” though properly cared for neither nature will experience this inherent potential, the objection often raised to the Immaculate Conception that Mary died doesn’t stand. As we see with Christ, dying does not rule out having an unFallen nature, and so it can’t be used against the Immaculate Conception. On the flip side, the fact that Mary did not experience birth pains can’t be used as proof of the Immaculate Conception because there is no reason to attribute such a miracle to a lack of Original Sin when it could simply be “part of the package” of such a miraculous Virginal Conception and birth. God could have preserved her from pain simply as a special gift.

The most we can say in favor of the Immaculate Conception is that it is fitting that the Mother of God should be most pure from the beginning, filled with every Grace from the beginning of her existence. It’s not necessary, but it certainly fits with the other Glories Christ heaped on His mother. Compared with being the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, and Mediatrix of Divinity, an Immaculate Conception is really small potatoes if you think about it. Against the Immaculate Conception we really can’t make any solid arguments other than that it wasn’t universally attested to in Apostolic Tradition; for 2000 years it has been a matter of speculation and debate in both the East and West, with great Saints and Fathers on both sides of the issue.

Personally I believe strongly in the Immaculate Conception, but I don’t believe it should have been Dogmatized both because of this historical debate between the Saints, and the fact that it has little theological import to the foundation of the Faith. Nothing of our theology and relationship with God changes whether the Immaculate Conception is true or not, and therefore I personally can’t justify making it a Dogma. I wasn’t asked, however, and I believe it anyway because I believe it’s precisely the kind of thing God would do for His mother.

In short I believe that Easterns, whether Catholic or Orthodox, shoot themselves in the foot by arguing against the Immaculate Conception on theological grounds, as all these attacks on the teaching actually rebound back on Christ. The only real attack that can be made is that the Immaculate Conception isn’t strictly necessary, however fitting, and it has never been a settled matter in the Apostolic Tradition.

Peace and God bless!

The issue with the Immaculate Conception really is how Original Sin is defined in the West. Otherwise, everything else is agreeable in Eastern Theology.

Growing up Roman Catholic, now that I am moving East I do see the nuances on how Original Sin is defined and the complexity of it applied to the Immaculate Conception. In fact, sometimes I wonder why the West made it so complicated in the first place.

 

[Ghosty]

No. People are born with original sin, that is the Western definition. Eastern theology doesn’t believe people are born with something or anything.

You’re still misrepresenting Western teaching. Original Sin is a privation of something, not a something. In the East we believe we are born withh precisely the same privation.

Peacee and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Catholics don’t accept all of the Ecumenical Councils? Looks like I’ve got a great deal left to learn. Can you point me to a good article on the issue of Eastern Catholicism and the Ecumenical Councils?

As far as the Eastern Churches are concerned, we accept ALL Ecumenical Councils. All 7 of them. The other councils deemed Ecumenical by Rome are seen as Western councils. They tackled Western issues and had nothing to do with the East. So it can’t really be Ecumenical if its only concerned with one part of the Church.

 

[dvdjs]

Eastern theology doesn’t believe people are born with something or anything.

Of course it does, where do you get this stuff?

 

[Marybeloved]

No. People are born with original sin, that is the Western definition. Eastern theology doesn’t believe people are born with something or anything.

You said clearly that people are born without Grace, yet they were meant to be born with Grace- That’s original sin in Western theology!- Absence/lack of Grace where it should be: Why insist on perpetuating a misconception of Western theology?

People who say that original sin is personal fault that we’re born with are representing a false idea- It’s not true of the West at all: For us, it’s absence of sanctifying grace in the soul.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

The issue with the Immaculate Conception really is how Original Sin is defined in the West. Otherwise, everything else is agreeable in Eastern Theology.

The way original sin is defined in the West is exactly what you described before: Absence of Grace. The only “issue” here is that you want to insist on a false understanding of Western theology perpetuated by Eastern Polemicists instead of trying to understand what the Latin church actually teaches

Growing up Roman Catholic, now that I am moving East I do see the nuances on how Original Sin is defined and the complexity of it applied to the Immaculate Conception. In fact, sometimes I wonder why the West made it so complicated in the first place.

The West did not make it complicated: Eastern misunderstanding of the West is what makes it complicated; a misunderstanding of the West that you appear totally attached to.

Peace!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is exactly the definition of original sin! And yet Easterns insist all the time that they don’t believe in original sin!

Peace!

Dear Friend,

Which “Easterns” insist that they don’t believe in Original Sin? You’ve opened up a whole new area of theological research that I didn’t know existed!

We “Easterns” do have problems understanding what Latin Catholic theology really means by “inherited guilt” (how could we inherit the personal guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience? How is that possible?). This, to us, seems to be a carry-over from aspects of St Augustine’s theology and is entirely foreign to the school of the Cappadocian Fathers.

But for us “Easterns,” Original Sin is the death that we inherit as a consequence of Adam’s sin of disobedience and the damaged (but not completely) human nature where it is darkened and in a state of rebellion against God via concupiscence.

The Christian East has ALWAYS believed and affirmed and liturgically celebrated the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God as “All-Immaculate” and “All-Holy” and it was the East that began liturgically celebrating the feast of the Conception of Mary in the womb of St Anne - which means the East celebrated Mary as a Saint at the moment of her Conception.

Only in the Roman Catholic West was the opinion allowed that Mary was born with the inherited guilt of Original Sin until the Pope declared the dogma of the IC in the 19th century.

So without ever defining it dogmatically, the East has always glorified Mary as without ANY sin whatever because God sanctified her and poured out His Grace upon her from her Conception.

In addition, we also celebrate the Conception of St John the Baptist which also means that he was sanctified at his Conception in view of the great role he would play in salvation history - again without dogmatic definition.

Locally, we have the feast of the Nativity of St Nicholas which too suggests he was sanctified before he was born. We celebrate the dormition of St John the Evangelist/theologian into heaven, body and soul which likewise suggests a tremendous level of Grace for that great Saint of God.

And all this without dogmatic definition but based on the “lex orandi - lex credendi” principle.

The East never had to suffer any controversies about human nature and Grace as occurred in the West, especially with respect to Protestantism.

In fact, the Immaculate Conception doctrine would never have had to have been defined if the West had this same Eastern theological outlook.

The idea of “exemptions” is simply foreign to the East.

Alex

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m sorry, Friend, but you’ve just presented a whole mix of misrepresentations here that illustrate precisely what you were attempting to refute in your response to me

Dear Friend,
Which “Easterns” insist that they don’t believe in Original Sin? You’ve opened up a whole new area of theological research that I didn’t know existed!

I have no idea whether you’ve been reading this thread entirely or other threads on this fora at all, but there are plenty of Eastern Christians that deny belief in Original sin- The archives here are full of them!- I’d be quite surprised at any one who claimed surprise at the fact that many Easterns deny this belief! :shrug:This denial has already been expressed in this same thread!

We “Easterns” do have problems understanding what Latin Catholic theology really means by “inherited guilt” (how could we inherit the personal guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience? How is that possible?). This, to us, seems to be a carry-over from aspects of St Augustine’s theology and is entirely foreign to the school of the Cappadocian Fathers.

The same old misrepresentation- Nothing new under the sun. All you have to do is read this thread alone to understand what the Latin church teaches by the doctrine of original sin. The West uses the words, stain, guilt, sin, to describe the general condition of fallen man- BUT it does NOT mean personal fault as one would have for personal sins. Original sin is absence of grace, a consequence of Adam’s sin that we do indeed inherit though we did not eat the fruit ourselves…

But for us “Easterns,” Original Sin is the death that we inherit as a consequence of Adam’s sin of disobedience and the damaged (but not completely) human nature where it is darkened and in a state of rebellion against God via concupiscence.

And that is exactly what it is to Latins as well. Privation of Grace = separation = death.

The Christian East has ALWAYS believed and affirmed and liturgically celebrated the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God as “All-Immaculate” and “All-Holy” and it was the East that began liturgically celebrating the feast of the Conception of Mary in the womb of St Anne - which means the East celebrated Mary as a Saint at the moment of her Conception.

Good to know.

Now, if you could turn your attention to your fellow Easterns who deny this, then this point will be put to good use rather than wasted on me who already affirms both this truth and this history unflinchingly.

Only in the Roman Catholic West was the opinion allowed that Mary was born with the inherited guilt of Original Sin until the Pope declared the dogma of the IC in the 19th century.

Really? So all these Orthodox who affirm that Mary was in fact no different from any of us, had no special privileges are really Roman Catholic, no?

So without ever defining it dogmatically, the East has always glorified Mary as without ANY sin whatever because God sanctified her and poured out His Grace upon her from her Conception.

Wonderful! Now tell this to your fellow Eastern Christians on these boards who proclaim that in fact no such thing happened.

In addition, we also celebrate the Conception of St John the Baptist which also means that he was sanctified at his Conception in view of the great role he would play in salvation history - again without dogmatic definition…And all this without dogmatic definition but based on the “lex orandi - lex credendi” principle.

I’m sure you know that Western christians also believe in and celebrate St. John the Baptist’s sanctification- not at conception, by the way, but at the visitation when he was in his mother’s womb. You seem to think that Roman Catholics only believe and celebrate defined dogma- I have no idea where you got that impression, it’s just another misrepresentation-but that’s your business. I’m not going to get into an argument about it here.

The East never had to suffer any controversies about human nature and Grace as occurred in the West, especially with respect to Protestantism.

Good! So you know why the IC was defined- yet that doesn’t stop you from insisting on the same old misrepresentations of Western teaching, does it?

In fact, the Immaculate Conception doctrine would never have had to have been defined if the West had this same Eastern theological outlook.

Probably not… But then again, we would might also have the same types of theologies that persist in modern Eastern theology if it weren’t defined. Theologies denying both original sin, and the Immaculate conception and going so far as to assert that Christ had a fallen nature- all in the “holy” cause of disproving the West!

The idea of “exemptions” is simply foreign to the East.

Funny you should say that right after expounding on exemptions yourself! Tell me, how many people do you know were filled with Grace at conception? .

Peace!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wonderful! Now tell this to your fellow Eastern Christians on these boards who proclaim that in fact no such thing happened.

It seems like you’re the one who’s not listening on what the Eastern praxis on the matter is. Like I said, the only thing disagreeable with Eastern theology on the Immaculate Conception is the concept of original sin. Otherwise, everything else is agreeable. You will not find a well catechized Eastern Catholic or Orthodox who would say the Theotokos wasn’t pure and immaculate from conception to dormition.

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems like you’re the one who’s not listening on what the Eastern praxis on the matter is. ** Like I said, the only thing disagreeable with Eastern theology on the Immaculate Conception is the concept of original sin.** Otherwise, everything else is agreeable.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Original sin is the ABSENCE of Grace in newborns!!! What exactly in Absence of Grace do you disagree with? Do Easterns believe that babies are born with Grace contrary to what **you **earlier affirmed right here in Black and white?

Tell us what exactly about the doctrine of original sin is disagreeable to you and the “Eastern Praxis”? Are you genuinely not understanding or just refusing to understand because it dismantles your assumptions about Western theology?

 

[Ghosty]

I’ll repeat what I said earlier:

This thread is a perfect example of why, on another thread recently, I lamented that Easterns say things like “we don’t believe in Original Sin”, and “death is the primary consequence of the Fall”. When these things are said, and especially when they are presented with false characterizations of Latin theology, it makes Byzantine theology look confused, self-contradictory, and schizophrenic.

We are seeing a classic example of this in this thread. We have some Easterns insisting on the Immaculate Conception, some Easterns denying the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin altogether, Easterns blatantly misrepresenting Latin theology in order to distinguish between East and West, ect. Frankly it’s a little embarrassing.

 

[Formosus]

To be fair Ghosty, while the CCC does say that Original Sin is a deprivation of holiness, it also describes it saying

“…he[Adam] has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted,…” -CCC 403

So the language used by the Romans here, is a bit vague and can lead to Easterners easily misinterpreting what the Romans mean here by “transmitted to us a sin.” The passage’s context shows that they mean a condition where we are born deprived of God’s sanctifying Grace, but it could be understood as some sort of inherited guilt as well.

 

[Cavaradossi]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Original sin is the ABSENCE of Grace in newborns!!! What exactly in Absence of Grace do you disagree with? Do Easterns believe that babies are born with Grace contrary to what **you **earlier affirmed right here in Black and white?

Tell us what exactly about the doctrine of original sin is disagreeable to you and the “Eastern Praxis”? Are you genuinely not understanding or just refusing to understand because it dismantles your assumptions about Western theology?

I’m not so sure that we can know if the unbaptized are without the grace of God. Their ability to accept the grace of God is certainly damaged because of concupiscence, but I’m not so sure about them being totally deprived of the grace of God. If that were the case, nobody would convert to Christianity in the first place.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not so sure that we can know if the unbaptized are without the grace of God. Their ability to accept the grace of God is certainly damaged because of concupiscence, but I’m not so sure about them being totally deprived of the grace of God. If that were the case, nobody would convert to Christianity in the first place.

I’m sorry, my friend, but with due respect, that is a Red-herring. We are talking about Grace in a specific manner- meaning the beginning of Eternal life in the soul, communion with the Blessed Trinity. Jesus said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him,* And we will come to him and make our abode in him…Unless you Eat my flesh…you have no life in you, connection of baptism and Eternal life/kingdom of God etc*. Was he just making conversation? If we were to speak about grace in the manner you do in this post, then of course, every single person accesses grace in this world or there would be no way to find truth or to do good- God is after all, everywhere. But Grace in Christianity has a more specific deeper meaning or the sacramental system is all just pointless ritualism.

My Q: Do you believe that the indwelling of God in a baptized person frequenting the sacraments is the same as in an unbaptized person?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Marybeloved,

All I have said is that Latin theological terminology can LEAD one to the said misrepresentations of what Latins actually do believe (I have read through this entire thread, haven’t been on the forum for a while, but I did read it through - I was taught somewhat differently when I attended an RC college however).

If I have misrepresented anything in Latin theology, I apologise most profusely! Truth be told, I’ve spent more of my time reading Latin theology than Eastern (yes, it’s true). I am happy to learn that the absence of grace is what Original Sin in the West is.

However, this is surely not all there is to the Western version of Original Sin. And here is where we come to a distinction between East and West. If Original Sin truly were simply an absence of Grace then why, for starters, is the dogma stated as being an “Immaculate Conception?” Why not “Holy Concepton” (as obtains in the East)? “Immaculate” surely posits that the Mother of God was born without the “stain of sin.” And nomatter how modern RC theology might be able to “dance” around this, we are still left with the impression (misrepresented as I’m sure it is) that she was prevented from contracting Original Sin.

The East does indeed affirm Original Sin (there are no Easterns who deny Original Sin - no one here or anywhere has said that).

That is why the East affirms that by dying, as the Most Holy Mother of God did and as our liturgy celebrates, the Virgin Mary was never exempted from Original Sin - meaning the fallen state that we inherit from Adam i.e. death.

The fact that John the Baptist, St Nicholas and John the Theologian/Evangelist are celebrated as holy at their conceptions also do not mean they were ever “exempted” from Original Sin (that they died).

The sanctification of Mary at her Conception as the East celebrates means that she never had any sin on her soul because of the great holiness by which God anointed her at the time of her Conception and in which she grew throughout her life and even after her death. This does NOT mean that she did not contract Original Sin i.e. that she did not die.

This is why the West’s IC dogma that states that she was conceived without Original Sin sounds nonsensical in Eastern ears not only because we have always acclaimed her as All Holy and Ever-Immaculate to begin with, but also because we honour her Dormition or death in the Lord Who took His Mother body and soul to heaven. If she died, then she contracted Original Sin understood not as any kind of “stain of sin.”

East and West therefore do not have the same understanding of Original Sin and I still say that my understanding of the Western idea of Original Sin is closer to what Trent taught than the modern notions forwarded by RC theologians (or “apologists”). Your own explanation of Original Sin gives this away.

This is also why the dogma of the IC as stated by Rome is a Latin theological statement that just doesn’t work in Eastern theology. What is “De Fide” about it is the fact that Mary never sinned and was always “full of Grace.” The understandings around that are completely different in East and West.

I would humbly suggest that you are applying Latin theological a priori’s to trying to understand Eastern theology. You could charge me with doing the same thing and you would probably be right. But that doesn’t get either of us ahead in properly assessing East and West.

Alex

 

[Marybeloved]

Alexander Roman ,

I’m sorry my friend, but you simply have not yet understood Latin teaching on this question. At this point, I’m tired of playing and replaying that same record I’ve been playing here. I’ll just reproduce parts of the page on original sin on the online Catholic encyclopedia and hope you can get something from it.

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).

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

Peace, my friend!

 

[Marybeloved]

However, this is surely not all there is to the Western version of Original Sin. And here is where we come to a distinction between East and West. If Original Sin truly were simply an absence of Grace then why, for starters, is the dogma stated as being an “Immaculate Conception?” Why not “Holy Concepton” (as obtains in the East)? “Immaculate” surely posits that the Mother of God was born without the “stain of sin.” And nomatter how modern RC theology might be able to “dance” around this, we are still left with the impression (misrepresented as I’m sure it is) that she was prevented from contracting Original Sin.

There’s no “dancing around”. There’s just long held (and dare I say, cherished) assumptions in the East about what the West believes and teaches.

That is why the East affirms that by dying, as the Most Holy Mother of God did and as our liturgy celebrates, the Virgin Mary was never exempted from Original Sin - meaning the fallen state that we inherit from Adam i.e. death.

Yes she was! She never experienced the privation/absence of grace in her soul, which the latins call “stain”- She was most definitely exempt from it.

The fact that John the Baptist, St Nicholas and John the Theologian/Evangelist are celebrated as holy at their conceptions also do not mean they were ever “exempted” from Original Sin (that they died).

We in the West do not hold that St. John the Baptist was sanctified at conception- your post is the first I’ve ever seen/heard of it. We hold that he did suffer the privation-aka stain, until the Visitation of Our Lady with Christ in her womb, when St. John was sanctified while still in his mother’s womb.

The sanctification of Mary at her Conception as the East celebrates means that she never had any sin on her soul because of the great holiness by which God anointed her at the time of her Conception and in which she grew throughout her life and even after her death.

This is precisely the exemption we speak of. Mary never at any moment tasted the privation/lack of sanctifying Grace.

This does NOT mean that she did not contract Original Sin i.e. that she did not die.

You’re equating one of the consequences of the original sin with the sin itself. Besides- Our Savior died and he most certainly had no original sin, so this point doesn’t have any real weight to it.

This is why the West’s IC dogma that states that she was conceived without Original Sin sounds nonsensical in Eastern ears…

Only to those Eastern ears that have/cling to a deformed understanding of the doctrine as taught in the West.

Peace!

 

[James924]

In case this helps:

From Pope Saint Pius X’s Catechism (1908):

41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone?

A. This sin is not Adam’s sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam’s sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?

A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

43 Q. Do all men contract original sin?

A. Yes, all men contract original sin, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, who was preserved from it by a singular privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour.***

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m sorry, my friend, but with due respect, that is a Red-herring. We are talking about Grace in a specific manner- meaning the beginning of Eternal life in the soul, communion with the Blessed Trinity. Jesus said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him,* And we will come to him and make our abode in him…*Unless you Eat my flesh…you have no life in you, connection of baptism and Eternal life/kingdom of God etc. Was he just making conversation? If we were to speak about grace in the manner you do in this post, then of course, every single person accesses grace in this world or there would be no way to find truth or to do good- God is after all, everywhere. But Grace in Christianity has a more specific deeper meaning or the sacramental system is all just pointless ritualism.

My Q: Do you believe that the indwelling of God in a baptized person frequenting the sacraments is the same as in an unbaptized person?

I don’t see how we can possibly know if the indwelling of God is different between a baptized person and an unbaptized person. Christ tells us that God causes the sun to shine upon and rain to visit the just and unjust alike. Does God not then visit His grace upon all men in likewise manner? I don’t think that the sacraments are some sort of means of distributing grace; they are more of a means of changing us at an ontological level, restoring our lost manner of existence (before the fall) by transforming us and healing our damaged ability to enter into communion with God. Hence, we can’t know if an unbaptized heathen has a closer union with God than one who takes the sacraments often, as the one who takes the sacraments often still has the freewill to reject God’s grace, just as the unbaptized heathen has the freewill (damaged albeit) to accept God’s grace. We would have to be able to see inside their hearts.