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:
The Eastern understanding is that man should, by nature, possess the grace of God within him. Adam’s sin changed that and we are born without grace. Thus we are born dead, and with baptism we are “born again” (not in the Protestant sense of course). Our nature is not different, but damaged.
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!
But it doesn’t seem to imply that there’s no debt owing from sin, rather it appears consonant with the belief that there is…Am I just not understanding it clearly?