How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[ConstantineTG]

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

Yes they are. Its really the philosophy of East vs. West that changed how its understood in each context. Ultimately the underlying truth is the same.

 

[Vico]

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?

Melkite Bishop John Elya wrote:

T-2 “With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.”

T-3 “As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father. In some instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.”

R-9 “When we declared our union with Rome - in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances - we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety.”

W-4 “I always understood the doctrine of indulgences to be a “Catholic” doctrine- not a “Latin” one - and therefore all Eastern and Western Catholics are to believe in it.”

melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Melkite Father John Mowatt writes:

“The author mentions “other sources of disagreement” but this seems to be a figment of a flawed imagination. There are no disagreements in matters of faith and morals. How could there be? There are, however, different legitimate ways of explanation or interpretation.”

melkite.org/misunder.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

Because of our defective nature as a result of the Fall, we have no ability to receive God’s graces until we are baptized.

Are you sure about that? I am fairly sure prevenient grace exists in the unbaptized adult who says yes to joining the Church.

 

[Vico]

Are you sure about that? I am fairly sure prevenient grace exists in the unbaptized adult who says yes to joining the Church.

MarcoPolo, I noticed that you recognize the other forms of grace. The three forms I learned in catechesis are actual, sacramental, and supernatural. The un-baptised may be helped by actual graces given by God, according to my lessons.

Is that what you were taught also?

The grace of the Holy Spirit brings justification, acceptance of God’s Righteousness, the grant of obedience to the Divine will. Thus, the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity are given at baptism along with sanctifying grace.

Vico

 

[MarcoPolo]

MarcoPolo, I noticed that you recognize the other forms of grace. The three forms I learned in catechesis are actual, sacramental, and supernatural. The un-baptised may be helped by actual graces given by God, according to my lessons.

Is that what you were taught also?

The grace of the Holy Spirit brings justification, acceptance of God’s Righteousness, the grant of obedience to the Divine will. Thus, the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity are given at baptism along with sanctifying grace.

Vico

Unfortunately, my catechesis growing up was subpar to say the least. I’m largely self-taught on that particular issue. What you mention seems reflected in the Catechism (cf. #1996ff). Different terms are used interchangeably sometimes too. Like baptismal grace will be called “sanctifying grace.” Or prevenient grace might be equated to an “actual” grace (#2000). I derived much of my understanding of prevenient grace from the Council of Trent’s session on Justification and a bit from the concluding paragraphs of the Council of Orange. I’m pretty sure St. Thomas Aquinas talks about this too, but if I remember right, the last time I read that section of his, I didn’t understand it. Maybe I would now.

 

[Marybeloved]

From my limited discussions of this topic on this site, I can attest that this must be the most or one of the most misunderstood Catholic beliefs by Eastern Orthodox/Catholics

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??

The bold shows the real misunderstanding of western theology in this - Nothing is ***“put” on ***man as a result of Adam’s sin. What happened rather is that something was lost by Adam. I always like to say that it’s like any other nature- A dog does not give birth to kittens, nor a Cat to puppies. A white couple will give birth to white children, not African or Indian or Arab .

The absence of sanctifying grace (the main consequence of sin in western thought) and the disorder in human nature that it caused is never in any way “put” on us by God- It’s the fallen nature of Adam that ***he ***(Adam) passes on to his offspring, simply because you can’t pass on what you don’t have- A fallen nature devoid of sanctifying grace is all that Adam can pass on to his descendants. Baptism introduces the life of grace in the soul. For Mary, this “baptism” happened at her conception so that she was never separated from God- Catholics call it the immaculate conception.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

I tend to think that this whole 'baptism only introduces the person into the church and no more" claim by some to be nothing but polemics to try and discredit the CC with regard to the IC or the idea of limbo or perhaps simple ignorance of one’s own Church’s teaching regarding Baptism, it’s meaning and necessity.

I had such a debate here at CAF on the IC and baptism, I think sometime in July/August, when the claim was made. So I searched around the internet on Orthodox websites to read about baptism and its meaning in Eastern Orthodoxy- Know what I found? Baptism is both necessary for salvation and introduces in the infant and baptized person: eternal life, grace and the church- a passing from death to life. Just like catholic teaching! One article even criticized Western Orthodox for attempting to downplay baptism against the tradition of the church and blamed*** this*** fact on the bad influence of Catholics!

Sometimes people engaged in debate tend to misrepresent their own church’s teaching in their attempt at winning the argument for their side. Read Orthodox teaching from non-polemical Orthodox books and sites to see for yourself what Orthodox churches truly teach their flock. Don’t just trust polemicists.

Peace!

 

[MarcoPolo]

So I searched around the internet on Orthodox websites to read about baptism and its meaning in Eastern Orthodoxy- Know what I found? Baptism is both necessary for salvation and introduces in the infant and baptized person: eternal life, grace and the church- a passing from death to life.

If you remember or can find the source you saw, please share.

 

[Mort_Alz]

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.

That is not absolutely true. Cornelius, in Acts 14 received the Holy Spirit with his whole household before he was baptized. Of course, it’s also important to remember that Peter, the first pope, insisted they be baptized even though they had the Holy Spirit. So, it’s still necessary, if only by law.

 

[Mort_Alz]

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

That statement reflects something that is in line with truth, but I do think mentioning it in that way is rather uncharitable.

 

[Warrenton]

Are you sure about that? I am fairly sure prevenient grace exists in the unbaptized adult who says yes to joining the Church.

So much of this is a question of emphasis.

From my understanding, the operation of grace in Greek understanding is like the flock of sheep and goats. Remember when Christ teaches us that they are intermingled?

The shepherd watches over both, leads both to pasture and water, keeps the wolves away. That is one kind of grace. The psalmist referred to it when he observed that the Lord maketh the sun to shine on the wicked and the just.

It is possible for us to respond to that general outpouring of grace, and seek baptism. It is not, however, the grace that “marks” us as being among the sheep.

Until someone accepts baptism and partakes of the life of the Church, the person remains like the goats that graze among the sheep - with the elect, but not of them.

Again, hopefully some of our resident Orthodox scholars will help me out with this!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

This combined with ConstantineTG’s response after yours helped. Thanks!

 

[Marybeloved]

If you remember or can find the source you saw, please share.

Hello, my friend, I posted some on that thread I spoke about in these two posts.
*Re: Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?
*Re: Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

This one, at the end of the last post was most clear- so I reproduce it here for those who don’t want to look at the links.

stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P12.htm

"But, after all, Scripture clearly teaches, according to the word of the Apostle Paul, that in Adam all have sinned (Romans 5:12). Consequently, even children, not having personal sins, are all the same not free from original sin, from the legacy of Adam, and in order to be delivered from this legacy, they must be united with Christ; and this union, as we have already said, is accomplished in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. “For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me,” exclaims King David with sorrow in the Fiftieth Psalm. * In order to cleanse a child from original sin*, in order to sanctify it and by this very means bring it into the Kingdom of Heaven, whither, as it says in the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation 21:27), “no unclean thing will enter,” now already for two thousand years children have been brought through this cleansing in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. People that deny children the sacrament of Baptism subject them to danger, for if children die before baptism, not having been born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), how will they be able to inherit life eternal? Of course, we believe in God’s mercy, and also in the fact that Christ said that what is impossible for men is possible for God; but why tempt the Lord?" I’d say this is pretty close to the Catholic understanding.

Peace!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This combined with ConstantineTG’s response after yours helped. Thanks!

But I still like the Roman Catholic view better. It just makes more sense imho.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But I still like the Roman Catholic view better. It just makes more sense imho.

For me I find the East’s view suiting my intellect better.

This is why God allowed for several traditions, because man is limited and that we may receive the Gospel within our limitations.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

For me I find the East’s view suiting my intellect better.

This is why God allowed for several traditions, because man is limited and that we may receive the Gospel within our limitations.

Thank God!

jk of course, but I thought it was punny!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hello, my friend, I posted some on that thread I spoke about in these two posts.
Re: Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?
Re: Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

This one, at the end of the last post was most clear- so I reproduce it here for those who don’t want to look at the links. Peace!

Pax and thanks.

 

[Marybeloved]

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…

Here are the assumptions of the East that I simply don’t understand. It seems to me that the Eastern mind (at least as represented here) is that human nature itself consists of corruption. Otherwise, the objection that Mary having an unfallen human nature makes her “of a different nature from us” makes no sense. In fact, human nature in its natural state is perfect, unfallen, because God did not make it fallen or disordered. Our fallenness is not part of our nature but a disorder/corruption of human nature.

Christ was Adam- he needed to take Adam’s place as the centre of humanity. Possessing perfect human nature does not make him “of a different nature” because that would be tantamount to saying that human nature is properly sinful! Like I like to say, God did not mix in sin along with the dust & breath of life when he made Adam- Fallenness is not part of our nature. Saying that Christ and Mary having unfallen natures like Adam & Eve makes them of a different nature is a false objection to the doctrine of IC.

You see this paragraph by constantine represents perfectly the western theology, but somehow Easterns think that it’s incompatible with our theology

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.

Everything here is perfectly taught in the western understanding. It certainly is not contingent on holding that Christ & Mary had fallen human natures. :nope: In fact, I believe that in the West, holding that Christ had a fallen human nature, that he experienced temptations of the flesh and lust etc is tantamount to blasphemy.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The psalmist referred to it when he observed that the Lord maketh the sun to shine on the wicked and the just.

Do you know which verse this is? I didn’t find it searching those words.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Here are the assumptions of the East that I simply don’t understand. It seems to me that the Eastern mind (at least as represented here) is that human nature itself consists of corruption. Otherwise, the objection that Mary having an unfallen human nature makes her “of a different nature from us” makes no sense. In fact, human nature in its natural state is perfect, unfallen, because God did not make it fallen or disordered. Our fallenness is not part of our nature but a disorder/corruption of human nature.

Christ was Adam- he needed to take Adam’s place as the centre of humanity. Possessing perfect human nature does not make him “of a different nature” because that would be tantamount to saying that human nature is properly sinful! Like I like to say, God did not mix in sin along with the dust & breath of life when he made Adam- Fallenness is not part of our nature. Saying that Christ and Mary having unfallen natures like Adam & Eve makes them of a different nature is a false objection to the doctrine of IC.

You see this paragraph by constantine represents perfectly the western theology, but somehow Easterns think that it’s incompatible with our theology :shrug:Everything here is perfectly taught in the western understanding. It certainly is not contingent on holding that Christ & Mary had fallen human natures. :nope: In fact, I believe that in the West, holding that Christ had a fallen human nature, that he experienced temptations of the flesh and lust etc is tantamount to blasphemy.