A
Augustus24
Guest
If Eastern Catholics dont believe in inherited guilt, ie Original Sin, then how do Eastern Catholics accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a de fide doctrine of the Catholic faith?
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It depends. I’ve seen some Eastern Catholics who accept it without much thought (the type who would say, “it’s foreign to our theology, but it’s true”), some who try to restate the Western doctrines on original sin and the Immaculate Conception in Eastern terms, and some rather rebellious ones who flat out reject it (I have one Melkite in particular on my mind, although he tends to think that the Roman Church is in error on every major East-West issue, so I always wonder why he remains in union with Rome,
). If you are looking for somebody to restate the IC in Eastern terminology to show how the two might be compatible—and from the nature of your question, I suspect that might be the case—Marduk is probably the guy on this forum you’re going to want to find.
D
dvdjs
Guest
“inherited guilt, ie Original Sin”? Probably wise to get over this fuzzy idea, before venturing into the area of Immaculate Conception.
A
Augustus24
Guest
Isnt “Original Sin” the doctrine that we are born with the guilt from Adam’s sin as well as a general sinfulness?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I don’t really think inherited guilt is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it was historically, but most of the Catholics I know have denied that the RCC teaches inherited guilt, so I will take them at their word.
A
Augustus24
Guest
Thanks, man I am totally confused.
Edit: In the other thread, Mardukm cleared up my misunderstanding of “guilt”.
E
Elizium23
Guest
When you refer to “a general sinfulness” you might be thinking of concupiscence, a concept taught by the Church, which is the tendency of human beings to sin. The Catechism says, in part,
I would be interested to hear how the East views concupiscence, and what name(s) it uses for this concept.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
Sounds a lot like what we would call “passions” in the Orthodox Church. Although, I think we tie passions (intense human desires) to death entering into the world through Adam’s sin, rather than a general sinfulness being put on all mankind. This is one reason why we don’t have the Immaculate Conception as one of our dogmas/doctrines. I could be wrong??
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I don’t know why they shouldn’t. It’s de fide, and so is belief in original sin as defined by the Council of Trent.
We are deprived of sanctifying grace bc of original sin (that’s the guilt we inherit), and our nature has been wounded (i.e we have a tendency to sin) because of Adam. That’s what original sin is. Christ didn’t have it because he is God, and Mary didn’t have it because of God’s grace (it was proper that Christ’s mother wouldn’t have original sin). This means that both had sanctifying grace when they were conceived and didn’t have a tendency to sin.
If an Eastern Catholic denies this, I’ll be confused as to why.
God bless.
We are deprived of sanctifying grace bc of original sin (that’s the guilt we inherit), and our nature has been wounded (i.e we have a tendency to sin) because of Adam. That’s what original sin is. Christ didn’t have it because he is God, and Mary didn’t have it because of God’s grace (it was proper that Christ’s mother wouldn’t have original sin). This means that both had sanctifying grace when they were conceived and didn’t have a tendency to sin.
If an Eastern Catholic denies this, I’ll be confused as to why.
God bless.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Not an Ecumenical Council we accept.
Not so much deny, but that in our praxis there is a different way of understanding this. So much so that in our praxis it isn’t necessary to exempt the Theotokos from anything at her conception because there is nothing to exempt her from.We are deprived of sanctifying grace bc of original sin (that’s the guilt we inherit), and our nature has been wounded (i.e we have a tendency to sin) because of Adam. That’s what original sin is. Christ didn’t have it because he is God, and Mary didn’t have it because of God’s grace (it was proper that Christ’s mother wouldn’t have original sin). This means that both had sanctifying grace when they were conceived and didn’t have a tendency to sin.
If an Eastern Catholic denies this, I’ll be confused as to why.
God bless.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Like I said, Eastern theology states that The Fall affected our very nature. We are not born with “original sin”, rather we are born in a fallen nature that is the result of The Fall. Mary was filled with God’s grace from conception so that even with her sharing our nature, she does not sin.Hm. Interesting.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Well, I agree depending upon what you mean by fallen nature. I believe the Fall affected our nature if you mean we now have a tendency to sin bc of Original sin. If you mean fallen nature in the sense that Martin Luther used it, then I don’t agree.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Here is an Eastern Orthodox perspective:
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware says, *“Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”*However, he also says this:"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.Link.
The thing about Orthodox and original sin that has to date still confused me is whether they think baptism of infants does anything but “incorporate into the Church” the infant. If that is the case, then I do not believe the Orthodox would consider it an important matter one way or the other if the infant is baptized since there is no stain of original sin to be cleansed.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware says, *“Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”*However, he also says this:"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.Link.
The thing about Orthodox and original sin that has to date still confused me is whether they think baptism of infants does anything but “incorporate into the Church” the infant. If that is the case, then I do not believe the Orthodox would consider it an important matter one way or the other if the infant is baptized since there is no stain of original sin to be cleansed.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
Swiss Guy,
Could you please explain what you mean by “fallen nature in the sense that Martin Luther, who I have to say was a great heretic himself, used it.” Not being Roman Catholic I don’t think I know the difference between how the Latin Church sees this term from the way the reformers (God have mercy on their souls) used it. Thanks!
The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
(Although I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I think I have a pretty good grasp at Roman Catholic theology (not Eastern Catholic, as I think it is pretty clear I’m confused about that!
))Anyway, in Catholic theology, Adam, by committing the Original Sin, lost sanctifying grace for him and all of his descendents (besides Mary and Christ). Adam also “wounded” human nature by giving all humans (besides Mary and Christ) a tendency to sin, which is called concupiscience. However, with prevenient grace given (first) by God without any merits by the individual, they can (second) cooperate with that grace and eventually receive eternal salvation.
In Lutheran and Reformed theology, they claim that Adam, not only depriving his future descendents of sanctifying grace (usually including Mary), also changed human nature making it “fallen”, because now we have no ability to turn towards God, even with the help of grace. The only way to be saved is by God to save us without our cooperation.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
Let us pray for the souls of these reformers, that they may find mercy from God on the day of judgement!(Although I’m not a Roman Catholic yet, I think I have a pretty good grasp at Roman Catholic theology (not Eastern Catholic, as I think it is pretty clear I’m confused about that!
Anyway, in Catholic theology, Adam, by committing the Original Sin, lost sanctifying grace for him and all of his descendents (besides Mary and Christ). Adam also “wounded” human nature by giving all humans (besides Mary and Christ) a tendency to sin, which is called concupiscience. However, with prevenient grace given (first) by God without any merits by the individual, they can (second) cooperate with that grace and eventually receive eternal salvation.
In Lutheran and Reformed theology, they claim that Adam, not only depriving his future descendents of sanctifying grace (usually including Mary), also changed human nature making it “fallen”, because now we have no ability to turn towards God, even with the help of grace. The only way to be saved is by God to save us without our cooperation.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Perhaps the Orthodox have preserved an appreciation of the sacraments that has suffered a lot of violence in the west.
Without babtism, the person is not going to receive the grace necessary to go to heaven, because they are not incorporated into the body of Christ, which is His Church.
Without baptism, the person cannot partake of the sacraments, such as holy communion, that will nourish the life of the soul and mark the person as a sheep of Christ’s fold.
The focus is not so much the removing of sin as on the reception of grace.
No grace = no salvation.
This is a different focus than: sin = no salvation.
I hope our Orthodox bretheren can help me out. I am somewhat reluctant to venture a Catholic’s eye view of this.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Assuming that they are within God’s mercy (i.e not in hell).
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
A non-baptized person cannot receive God’s graces which includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I think East and West pretty much agrees on that. Because of our defective nature as a result of the Fall, we have no ability to receive God’s graces until we are baptized.
- Status