How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[ConstantineTG]

(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.

I think you got it correctly. The fallen nature is concupiscence to sin. Grace of course enables us to turn to God, that is why we are baptized, to heal the wound of our nature and enable us to receive the Holy Spirit and God’s graces through the Sacraments.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

This is very good as far as my limited understanding can take me. Baptism enables us to receive grace. That is why no baptism = no grace = no salvation. Although sometimes I ponder, because Christ was able to save those born before his time on earth. So there may yet be hope for innocents such as children who die without baptism. Remember that the Holy Innocents were slaughtered before baptism. And yet they are holy.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think you got it correctly. The fallen nature is concupiscence to sin. Grace of course enables us to turn to God, that is why we are baptized, to heal the wound of our nature and enable us to receive the Holy Spirit and God’s graces through the Sacraments.

If this is true, then why, as you say, do Eastern Catholics not accept the immaculate conception if there is nothing to exempt her from? This is what is confusing me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If this is true, then why, as you say, do Eastern Catholics not accept the immaculate conception if there is nothing to exempt her from? This is what is confusing me.

The fallen nature of man is already the consequence of the fall, and we are born into this nature. To be born in and of this world is to be born in this nature.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The fallen nature of man is already the consequence of the fall, and we are born into this nature. To be born in and of this world is to be born in this nature.

So what you’re saying is that Christ and Mary had a fallen nature and a tendency to sin?

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Assuming that they are within God’s mercy (i.e not in hell).

All are within the reach of God’s mercy. We know not who is or is not in hell, and it is pointless to speculate on it. Pray for them as you would pray for all mankind. Just because they might be in Hell, does that negate you from praying for them? Since you know not, condemn not, but pray a lot.

 

[Warrenton]

If this is true, then why, as you say, do Eastern Catholics not accept the immaculate conception if there is nothing to exempt her from? This is what is confusing me.

I have a very helpful little book called “Life of the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos.” It is an Orthodox book and contains much information that is now difficult to find in Catholic sources.

Modernism, you know.

Anyway, the book explains that what Romans call “original sin” Greeks prefer to call “human nature” or “fallen nature.” We Romans think about sin as part of our essence, while Greeks think of it as the nature we live in. Sin is all around us, we can’t escape it. Why is sin all around us? Because Adam and Eve let Satan into the world.

Think of this way: In the Roman mind, sin is “inherited” in the way a genetic trait is inherited. In the Greek mind, sin is “inherited” in the way you inherit your parent’s house when they die.

This determines how we look at the Blessed Virgin: Romans say that God purified the Blessed Virgin while she was in the womb of her mother, Anna. Greeks say God purified her while she was alive, by strengthening her will to resist sin. Greeks say if God removed the tendency to sin (basically, took her out of the “house” Adam built) she never would have even faced temptation, never would have known the struggle with sin.

Caveat: if anyone wants to debate with a Greek, be prepared to argue on the basis of not only what Greeks say, but what Latin fathers said as well.

It’s a hard issue. Personally, I think both doctrines are expressing a very, very similar truth and that the real issue is how we talk about grace. Grace, as St. Paul teaches us, is a tremendous mystery.

 

[Warrenton]

We know not who is or is not in hell, and it is pointless to speculate on it. Pray for them as you would pray for all mankind. Just because they might be in Hell, does that negate you from praying for them? Since you know not, condemn not, but pray a lot.

100 points for this.

PS: I sometimes wonder if the Protestant - Catholic rift would draw smaller if we referred to him as “Father Martin?”

 

[ConstantineTG]

So what you’re saying is that Christ and Mary had a fallen nature and a tendency to sin?

Mary was filled with grace at her conception thus protecting her from concupiscence.

 

[Warrenton]

Although sometimes I ponder, because Christ was able to save those born before his time on earth. So there may yet be hope for innocents such as children who die without baptism.

I view our teachings on this more as commentary on what is knowable than that what God actually does.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I view our teachings on this more as commentary on what is knowable than that what God actually does.

I agree. That is why it just happens in my mind

And even if my pondering proves to be right, a lot of it is ultimately left to what God wants to do.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

100 points for this.

PS: I sometimes wonder if the Protestant - Catholic rift would draw smaller if we referred to him as “Father Martin?”

My good sir, that might make the rift bigger!

Although I must say that I sometimes get a giggle out of referring to good ol’ Marty as “Saint Martin Luther, Doctor and Reformer”. People get all wide eyed! “NO NO NO! Don’t call him a saint, for we are all saints! Please refer to Luther’s Works, volumes 45-60 to understand what I mean.”
When I then point out that they are essentially treating him as a saint, they are flabbergasted. I’m a horrible person.

I digress. Back to the actual conversation!

 

[Warrenton]

I agree. That is why it just happens in my mind

And even if my pondering proves to be right, a lot of it is ultimately left to what God wants to do.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

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.

Might I ask for a further clarification? Under this explanation, when God filled Mary with Grace from conception, did that then restore her nature to the state of human nature before the sin of Adam and Eve? Because to me it seems that is the essential part of the Immaculate Conception.

If you say that Mary’s nature, through God’s Grace at her conception, was not restored to such a state, does that not ruin Jesus and Mary as a Biblical type of Adam and Eve? With Adam and Eve being the first humans who said no, condemning all to death, while Jesus and Mary as two humans (yes, Jesus was Divine, but also human) who said yes and brought us to new life?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Might I ask for a further clarification? Under this explanation, when God filled Mary with Grace from conception, did that then restore her nature to the state of human nature before the sin of Adam and Eve? Because to me it seems that is the essential part of the Immaculate Conception.

No, it did not. Because she still had to pass through death in this life (Dormition) before she was perfected and received her Glorified Body and then assumed into heaven.

If you say that Mary’s nature, through God’s Grace at her conception, was not restored to such a state, does that not ruin Jesus and Mary as a Biblical type of Adam and Eve? With Adam and Eve being the first humans who said no, condemning all to death, while Jesus and Mary as two humans (yes, Jesus was Divine, but also human) who said yes and brought us to new life?

No. Adam and Eve brought us from paradise to The Fall. Christ and Mary brought us from The Fall to paradise. Christ needed to partake of our nature so that by introducing his divine nature to our nature restored us and perfected us to that before The Fall. This is why Christ needed to be human to save us. An angel or a prophet could have easily brought us teachings, laws and even help institute the Sacraments (John baptized before Christ, but his baptism is not the same as Christ’s baptism). But in the Eastern praxis we teach “Christ conquered death by death.” Christ shared in our nature so that we may share in His nature. This is why Theosis is such a big part of the Eastern praxis. We see that what saves us is not what we do, but by us sharing in the nature of God. What we do brings us there, but its not by itself is what saves us.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

No, it did not. Because she still had to pass through death in this life (Dormition) before she was perfected and received her Glorified Body and then assumed into heaven.

I don’t know if She has a glorified body. I never thought about it - but since she was taking up body and soul, I always assumed She has the same body - like Christ has His.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know if She has a glorified body. I never thought about it - but since she was taking up body and soul, I always assumed She has the same body - like Christ has His.

Christ has a Glorified Body after his Resurrection. Since Mary was resurrected by Christ prior to the Assumption, then she has a Glorified Body.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Christ has a Glorified Body after his Resurrection. Since Mary was resurrected by Christ prior to the Assumption, then she has a Glorified Body.

Ahh, thank you. I confused something in my mind - His body is glorified but the scars remain. I mixed that one up pretty bad!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ahh, thank you. I confused something in my mind - His body is glorified but the scars remain. I mixed that one up pretty bad!

I believe the teaching on that matter is that Christ, or anyone with a glorified body, can choose how they are revealed to the people of this world (how they are physically seen). And Christ kept the wounds so that his disciples may believe it is truly Him.

 

[rmills1]

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?

The Church does not teach that we inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin. It teaches that inherited just the sin itself.
St. Augustine postulated the notion that we inherited the guilt along with Original Sin to explain our concupiscence, “our tendency to sin”, after Baptism. This postulation was never adopted by the Church.

The Eastern and Western understanding of Original/Ancestral Sin are equivalent.