How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[Marybeloved]

I think your use of words like “deformed” etc. is not becoming of someone as well versed in theology as yourself!

I’m sorry you find the term offensive, but it’s honestly quite appropriate.

I’m describing a notion of Western theology that is false, and has been shown to be false- It most definitely is deformed because it is not representative of the true form of the actual Western teaching is supposedly described.

Be that as it may, our Saviour did die, of course, but He did not have to. Your argument here has no relevance in this respect.

Alright, show me what evidence shows that Mary “had” to die.

And also, at what point in the West did it become apparent that there was a possibility that the Mother of Christ our God could have lacked any Grace at any time - therefore incurring some sort of “stain?” And why did this never occur in Eastern theology?

When the Protestants started attacking Catholic beliefs, that’s when. And what do you mean it never occurred in the East? I’ve seen plenty of expressions to the contrary by Eastern Apologists.

However, the one remaining point of difference is something you haven’t addressed (and don’t really need to) regarding the issue of the death of the Mother of God in relation to Original Sin.You accuse me of confusing a consequence of Original Sin with the sin itself. That is simply not what I said.The argument I made is that the fact that the Mother of God did die, as our liturgy asserts clearly, means that she had Original Sin. The East asserts BOTH that she had Original Sin (which the East only understands in terms of its effects) but that God had poured such a superabundance of grace onto her that those effects were mitigated in her i.e. that she felt no pain in giving birth to Christ and that her death was nothing more than a light, sweep sleep.

I did address it. Christ died- That is clear proof that death does not automatically translate to presence of original sin. . Earlier in this thread I made this comment, I reproduce here:

Q: Why do people assume that capacity to suffer is a strict result of the fall? Are we told that Adam was created "incapable" of suffering or rather, just without suffering? Rather, suffering itself was the result of the fall, not the ability to experience it. I believe that Adam & Eve could suffer, or had the ability/capacity to, but never did because no cause of suffering entered their world (it was made all-good, just like them) until they opened the doors for it by their own sin. It does not mean that their natures were created with incapacity for suffering. We know that their sin:

• Lost grace and God’s intimate friendship
• Caused a dis-order in their very natures, or concupiscence, or rebellion of the lower natures
• Caused a fall in the world itself which is to say all the creation tied to man and made for him as his world.

So Christ could definitely be sinless and with an unfallen nature but still experience suffering as a result of Adam’s sin. What he did not have was concupiscence.

The same applies to the Blessed Virgin. Perfectly sinless, unfallen and still capable of experiencing suffering, (the ultimate form of which is death) as a consequence of mankind’s sin and fall.

If this is what the Latin Church teaches, although referring to the effects of Original Sin as such, then there is no problem. I then don’t understand your apparent anger and dismay at Eastern theology and/or those coming at this issue from that perspective.

I’m glad you’re open-minded enough to learn the Latin teaching from the Latin perspective rather than just cling to the false ideas that have been spread by polemicists. But I have no idea what “anger” you’re referring to. Some frustration? Sure! That’s natural when you find yourself repeating the same thing constantly with the same already explained questions being brought up again and again. But I’m far from sanctity, you should say a prayer to the Theotokos for me .

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

You’re presenting a half-truth in a manner that is misleading. What is it about the sacrament that makes it capable of changing us ontologically? How exactly can a sacrament confer any ontological change at all except by Grace? This is a rather strange theology you present. I’m sorry, but it’s the Grace in Baptism that makes it different from a regular dip in the pool . It’s the Grace in the anointing with Oil that makes it different from me taking oil from the supermarket and anointing myself with it at home in a private prayer.

Sp then you think the sacraments essentially are rituals that cause God to dispense His grace rather than acts which transform the believer?

This is just not true. Grace has already been dispensed by God. (Cross + Resurrection). It’s in the Christ and his Body- Sacraments are divinely instituted means of accessing this sanctifying grace.

I don’t think that frequently participating in the sacraments is any sort of guarantee that one has a great relationship with God. One could commune every day and still be hell bound for all we know.

This is another Red-herring. There’s no Christian (Apart from the Once saved, always saved crowd who come close) who has ever taught that any sacrament guarantees a great relationship with God. The question is not about guarantee but about accessing Grace.

Grace will Always be conferred to the soul by valid sacraments. Whether it’s received into the soul depends on the predisposition of the soul- We do remain creatures of free will after all. You can seal your own soul by your free will and Grace will certainly not force its way past the sealed door of your heart into your soul. But it will always be released to you in the sacraments nonetheless .

These are all from Orthodox sites
orthodox.christianityinview.com/mysteries.html
“As in the Catholic Church, the Mysteries of the faith convey divine grace to those who receive them worthily.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Mysteries
“The sacraments, like the Church, are both visible and invisible.*** In every sacrament there is a combination of an outward visible sign with an inward spiritual grace.*** Saint John Chrysostom wrote that they are called mysteries because what we believe is not the same as what we see; instead, we see one thing and believe another.
The sacraments are personal — they are the means whereby God’s grace is appropriated to each individual Christian.”

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7106"Transmitting Grace by Visible Means. The holy mysteries are at once inward and outward in character. Redeeming and sanctifying grace is transmitted by visible means. “The theanthropic nature of Christ is extended both to his Church and Her means of grace” (D. Constantelos)."

Etc etc.

It appears that you are directly contradicting Orthodoxy here, my friend: Grace indeed is the whole point of the Mysteries/Sacraments.

Peace!

 

[Cavaradossi]

You’re presenting a half-truth in a manner that is misleading. What is it about the sacrament that makes it capable of changing us ontologically? How exactly can a sacrament confer any ontological change at all except by Grace? This is a rather strange theology. I’m sorry, but it’s the Grace in Baptism that makes it different from a regular dip in the pool . It’s the Grace in the anointing with Oil that makes it different from me taking oil from the supermarket and anointing myself with it at home in a private prayer.
This is just not true. Grace has already been dispensed by God. (Cross + Resurrection). It’s in the Christ and his Body- Sacraments are divinely instituted means of accessing this sanctifying grace. This is another Red-herring. There’s no Christian (Apart from the Once saved, always saved crowd who come close) who has ever taught that any sacrament guarantees a great relationship with God. The question is not about guarantee but about accessing Grace.

Grace will Always be conferred to the soul by valid sacraments. Whether it’s received into the soul depends on the predisposition of the soul- We do remain creatures of free will after all. You can seal your own soul by your free will and Grace will certainly not force its way past the sealed door of your heart into your soul. But it will always be released to you in the sacraments nonetheless .

This are all from Orthodox sites
orthodox.christianityinview.com/mysteries.html
“As in the Catholic Church, the Mysteries of the faith convey divine grace to those who receive them worthily.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Mysteries
“The sacraments, like the Church, are both visible and invisible.*** In every sacrament there is a combination of an outward visible sign with an inward spiritual grace.*** Saint John Chrysostom wrote that they are called mysteries because what we believe is not the same as what we see; instead, we see one thing and believe another.
The sacraments are personal — they are the means whereby God’s grace is appropriated to each individual Christian.”

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7106"Transmitting Grace by Visible Means. The holy mysteries are at once inward and outward in character. Redeeming and sanctifying grace is transmitted by visible means. “The theanthropic nature of Christ is extended both to his Church and Her means of grace” (D. Constantelos)."

Etc etc.

It appears that you are directly contradicting Orthodoxy here, my friend: Grace indeed is the whole point of the Mysteries/Sacraments.

Peace!

Honestly, you are getting worked up over a whole lot of nothing. You have misunderstood what I meant, and you are misreading those Orthodox writers in search of prooftexts.

Your question was

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?

My answer is that we cannot know, as we cannot know the state of their hearts. We do not know that a) God’s grace is limited to the Church or that b) the ability to accept God’s grace is unique only to those who are baptized.

 

[Marybeloved]

Honestly, you are getting worked up over a whole lot of nothing. You have misunderstood what I meant, and you are misreading those Orthodox writers in search of prooftexts.

Your question was

My answer is that we cannot know, as we cannot know the state of their hearts. We do not know that a) God’s grace is limited to the Church or that b) the ability to accept God’s grace is unique only to those who are baptized.

You’ve stated plainly in black and white that Sacraments are not for conferring Grace- Correcting you is “getting worked up over nothing?”. What misreading have I done of those Orthodox writers? So they are not saying that sacraments confer grace on recipients?

You are attempting to disprove my statement that children are born without Grace which they get in the Church, by a red-herring argument that equates the Grace that calls people to God, to the Grace that unites them with him in true communion, that restores and saves human nature.

This is the whole problem with these arguments. It pushes some people to the point of denying their own faith just to prove the West wrong. Nowhere have I ever heard of the idea that Sacraments are not means of Grace. Your objections are red-herrings. God calls us to him, that does not mean that Grace resides in the soul. :shrug:In fact, it does not- which is the whole point of God calling us to salvation, to the Church and to the sacraments in the first place !

Peace!

 

[5Loaves]

Having just been stationed in the Monterey bay area a couple weeks ago and already planning to visit some Eastern Divine Liturgies in the San Fran bay area, I might have to stop by for this…

If you’re in Monterey I would encourage you to go to Divine Liturgy with Fr. Anthony Hernandez of St Basil the Great Byzantine Catholic Church. He travels there once a month and will be there Dec. 10 4:30PM. This isn’t the ideal worship space since it is a borrowed space, not an EC temple. But Fr. Anthony is a wonderful priest. He is also on Facebook as “Fr-Anthony Hernandez” as is “Saint Basil the Great Byzantine Catholic Church Los Gatos”.

You’re certainly very welcome at my parish, Our Lady of Fatima Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in SF. The Blessed Duns Scotus film is not showing at my EC parish. It will be at St. Margaret Mary Church, Oakland, a very “traditionalist” parish. They have been celebrating the EF of the Mass there for decades, since long before the 2010 response from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei allowing its celebration without any special permissions.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You’ve stated plainly in black and white that Sacraments are not for conferring Grace- Correcting you is “getting worked up over nothing?”. What misreading have I done of those Orthodox writers? So they are not saying that sacraments confer grace on recipients?

You are attempting to disprove my statement that children are born without Grace which they get in church, by a red-herring argument that equates the Grace that calls people to God, to the Grace that unites them with him in true communion, that restores and saves human nature.

Ghosty was right. Easterns go as far as denying their own faith just to prove the West wrong. Nowhere have I ever heard of the idea that Sacraments are not means of Grace. Your objections are red-herrings. God calls us to him, that does not mean that Grace resides in the soul.

Peace!

Ok, I think you are just talking past me at this point. The sacraments are great mysteries, and my objection is that viewing them as simply conferring grace is an incomplete explanation of how they work. It more correctly involves some sort of transformation of the person, that leads to the goal of the deification of man (which can be rejected, of course). If you wish to believe that all outside of the church (including new-born infants) are definitely graceless, and that the sacraments (a term that one of the websites you linked points out is foreign to the East) are primarily about dispensing grace instead of the transformation of mankind, then you are free to believe so; I will not stop you.

Realize, however, that you are acting in a rather off-putting manner which makes the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians browsing this board really not want to engage you. You have already arrived at the conclusion that we are attempting to disprove Latin theology when our only contention is that Latin theology is different, and that to try to force a Latin understanding on Eastern theology is like trying to force a round peg through a square hole. Many of the distinctions you take for granted do not exist in Eastern thinking and vice-versa.

 

[Marybeloved]

We do not know that a) God’s grace is limited to the Church or that b) the ability to accept God’s grace is unique only to those who are baptized.

This is not what we are discussing here at all. God has given means of Grace to the Church, he is not himself limited to them and we cannot know if he may in his sovereignty provide it to those who through no fault of their own are not in the Church.

That does not change in any way change the fact that the state of the human conceived after the fall is that of lacking Grace. Whether God can take Grace to those who cannot otherwise access the church due to incapacity or innocent ignorance is a different question altogether. If he does, it’ll be just like baptism- It would not take away from the “natural” state of man after the fall which is privation of Grace.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Ok, I think you are just talking past me at this point. The sacraments are great mysteries, and my objection is that viewing them as simply conferring grace is an incomplete explanation of how they work. It more correctly involves some sort of transformation of the person, that leads to the goal of the deification of man (which can be rejected, of course). If you wish to believe that all outside of the church (including new-born infants) are definitely graceless, and that the sacraments (a term that one of the websites you linked points out is foreign to the East) are primarily about dispensing grace instead of the transformation of mankind, then you are free to believe so; I will not stop you.

You and I have had this discussion before, perhaps you forgot. But I expressed clearly that God is not limited to the Church’s activity- But that is a different discussion altogether.

Realize, however, that you are acting in a rather off-putting manner which makes the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians browsing this board really not want to engage you.

I’m all ears for fraternal correction. I’m well aware that I have more than just a few faults “here and there” and I’m trying to improve. Though of course I realize that this is not your intention in this comment, or you would have PM’d me about it.

But if by off-putting you mean correcting misrepresentation of catholic teaching, then I honestly don’t know if there’s anything I can do about that.

You have already arrived at the conclusion that we are attempting to disprove Latin theology when our only contention is that Latin theology is different, and that to try to force a Latin understanding on Eastern theology is like trying to force a round peg through a square hole. Many of the distinctions you take for granted do not exist in Eastern thinking and vice-versa.

I’m happy to learn from my Eastern brethren, all the riches of the Christian East that spans 2,000 years- But if you mean that Easterns have no way of expressing their theology except by misrepresenting Western theology, then I’ll just have to disagree with you on that.

Peace!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear and Revered Ghosty!

While not versed in theology, I do believe that death is most definitely considered an effect of Original Sin by the Fathers! Christ is on quite another level from us . He died voluntarily and at any moment during His Passion, He could have said, “Enough” and He would have stopped suffering automatically.

He was like “unto us in all things save sin” to be sure.

The Most Holy Mother of God was graced and deified to the point that she is higher than the highest Angels of heaven and, if such a thing can be said or imagined, when she looks “up” in heaven, the only One Who is above her is God Himself.

Original Sin, the inherited damaged nature we have from Adam where our spiritual powers are darkened, our body is inclined toward concupiscence and we are under the law of death, is mitigated in us via Baptism and the other Sacraments/Mysteries - we are “infused” with Grace but this only affects that which is spiritually lacking in us as a result of Original Sin. We have a life-time of spiritual growth and struggle to acquire the Holy Spirit ahead of us to combat the spiritual effects of Original Sin, the temptations of the world and of the devil. Ceaseless prayer, an intimate sacramental life in the Church and all other means by which we are “plugged into” the Life of the Most Holy Trinity through our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ are the “arms” by which we conduct this struggle and spiritual combat.

I’m preaching to myself and not to you or Marybeloved here! (I’ve always meant to get rid of that soap-box I have under my computer desk . . .).

But even the greatest of Saints that experienced dispassion and every high spiritual gift had to die. So did Mary, when her life and mission here was accomplished according to God’s Will. But the sanctification she had from the Holy Spirit mitigated her suffering in death and in giving birth to Christ. She did, of course, suffer under the Cross and her suffering is a salvific source of grace for us.

So the fact that she was under this “law of death” would mean that she was not exempt from this effect of Original Sin and therefore of Original Sin proper. At no time does this imply that she was ever guilty of any actual sin or of sinful inclinations, despite the musings of some Fathers like St John Chrysostom (which don’t enter into official church teaching of the dogmatic or “Lex orandi” type in any event).

This is and remains the difference between East and West - the West believes Mary was exempt of Original Sin and the East doesn’t see how that was possible. The West sees Original Sin as an inherited lack of grace, but the East sees Original Sin as including its impact on our human nature which grace can mitigate in accordance to the amount of grace we receive. Mary’s death bore no terrors for the Most Holy Mother of God, it was a sleep falling asleep and our Lord Himself took her soul and body to heaven to have her enthroned at His Right Hand as our heavenly and constant intercessor and Queen.

The West therefore sees Original Sin as something that can be “washed away.” If it is truly an inherited lack of grace, then there is nothing to wash away. “Wash away” has really to do with actual sin that we commit of our own free will. Sin in the East, as has been correctly affirmed here several times, is not only something we do of our own free will. It is also what we do when we are not aware of what we are doing and it is also a state of rebellion, the impact of sin on our nature, the darkening of our minds and the weakening of our wills.

The De Fide pith and substance of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived in perfect and total holiness - no disagreement from the East.

Where the problems lie is in the West’s understanding of the totality of the effects of Original Sin on our nature. Christ our God was a composite Being, a Divine Person Who assumed our nature - He is out of our consideration here.

The language of the dogma of the IC is, at best, simplistic and even clumsy from the Patristic perspective of the Christian East.

But there is NO disagreement as to the All-Holiness of the Ever-Immaculate and Most Holy Virgin Mary and Mother of the Lord Jesus our God.

Enough out of me.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

Alexander Roman: Greetings and high regard as always.

Of course death is a result of Original Sin, especially the compulsion to die, but my point is that some in the East speak of death as if it’s utterly foreign to unFallen human nature, and that humanity only acquired a potentially mortal body because of sin. This obviously can’t be true because Christ’s nature did not change in allowing Himself to die; His body was capable of death even without sin, but He wasn’t compelled to die.

The problem arises with Mary because we don’t know that she was compelled to die, either. We know she died, but that’s all we know. That alone can’t prove that she had any of the effects of Original Sin, and to say that it does merely begs the question: She died because of Original Sin. How do we know she had Original Sin? She died. So arguing against the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that Mary died is groundless, because at best it proves too much and rebounds against Christ. In fact, there are other aspects of Mary’s life that point to her not being subject to Original Sin, such as the painless and virginal birth of Christ. While this isn’t hard proof, it does point to a certain exemption on the part of Mary because the pains of childbirth were also a consequence of Original Sin, and Mary had no part in these pains.

That being said, the difference in how East and West regard Original Sin definitely plays into things. In the West, Original Sin only refers to the lack of Grace, not the bodily and spiritual difficulties that arise from it. This is why they say that Original Sin is taken away in Baptism, despite the fact that we still die. In the East we wouldn’t use such language because the effects of this lack of Grace are lumped together as “Original Sin”, and they remain in the Baptized.

I think, however, that we can easily say that Mary was miraculously conceived in Grace, and was therefore immaculate i.e. without the darkness of the soul that others are conceived in, lacking the Divine Life from the beginning and requiring Baptism. Whether she bore the effects of Original Sin (which is dubious, IMO, because she clearly lacked at least one effect, painful childbirth, and the fact that she died ultimately proves nothing) is immaterial, IMO, because the doctrine is that she lacked all stain of Original Sin, and the stain refers only to spiritual darkening from lack of Grace. If we can agree that she was conceived in Grace, then we agree that she was conceived without the “stain of Original Sin”.

All that said, I still don’t think it should have been declared a Dogma, but I’ve already jumped on that soapbox.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jamesrussell49]

Not to poke fun at you or anything, constantineTG, but I remember having a debate with an atheist in my unit once who tried to prove to me that infallibility meant that the pope could run around raping and pillaging and not incur sin… he did this by looking up the word “infallibility” in an english dictionary online. …] rarely does a search in an online english dictionary rightfully carry any weight in debates about Catholic doctrine.

ConstantineTG, as an outsider looking into this entire thread for the first time and not having a pre-formed opinion about the whole matter, I must concede that your approach has been very closed-minded and you definately appear to be simply making technical arguments merely to suit your own position, even when the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary… I reminds me of the way athiests debate too

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It’s all semantics in my pov. The East says Mary was immaculately conceived because she had sanctifying grace in her soul, and therefore was free from original sin. The West says Mary was immaculately conceived because she didn’t have original sin, and therefore had sanctifying grace in her soul. This is what it looks like to me at least.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, as an outsider looking into this entire thread for the first time and not having a pre-formed opinion about the whole matter, I must concede that your approach has been very closed-minded and you definately appear to be simply making technical arguments merely to suit your own position, even when the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary… I reminds me of the way athiests debate too

If adhering to the right teaching and not accepting any heterodox teaching is being closed minded, then yes I am very, very closed minded.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s all semantics in my pov. The East says Mary was immaculately conceived because she had sanctifying grace in her soul, and therefore was free from original sin. The West says Mary was immaculately conceived because she didn’t have original sin, and therefore had sanctifying grace in her soul. This is what it looks like to me at least.

The difference really is the understanding the effects of The Fall. The Theotokos wasn’t conceived any differently than any human being ever conceived. But she has received overflowing graces from God from that point.

 

[Vico]

The difference really is the understanding the effects of The Fall. The Theotokos wasn’t conceived any differently than any human being ever conceived. But she has received overflowing graces from God from that point.

For a long time the theologians debated over the precise moment of this grace, was it from conception, or a split second later, or at the Annunciation.

His Holiness Pope Shenouda Ill (Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria) wrote in his book The Holy Virgin St. Mary (1999) :
As for The Virgin herself, her mother conceived, like all people, and so The Virgin said in her hymn: “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). **That is why the Church does not agree that The Virgin was ****conceived without the impurity of the original sin, as our brothers the **Catholics believe.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For a long time the theologians debated over the precise moment of this grace, was it from conception, or a split second later, or at the Annunciation.

His Holiness Pope Shenouda Ill (Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria) wrote in his book The Holy Virgin St. Mary (1999) :
As for The Virgin herself, her mother conceived, like all people, and so The Virgin said in her hymn: “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). **That is why the Church does not agree that The Virgin was ****conceived without the impurity of the original sin, as our brothers the **Catholics believe.

Tomorrow’s Great Feast points to a different belief by the Byzantine Christians, as the Theotokos has shown to possess wisdom far advanced than that of a little child.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The difference really is the understanding the effects of The Fall. The Theotokos wasn’t conceived any differently than any human being ever conceived. But she has received overflowing graces from God from that point.

Wouldn’t that be conceived differently than other human beings if she was filled with grace when conceived, and everyone else wasn’t (besides Christ of course)?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wouldn’t that be conceived differently than other human beings if she was filled with grace when conceived, and everyone else wasn’t (besides Christ of course)?

The filling of grace is a separate act by God to her conception, even though it could have happened at the same exact point in time. The

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The filling of grace is a separate act by God to her conception, even though it could have happened at the same exact point in time. The

Do you believe that Mary was filled with grace at the moment when she was conceived? If so, then we agree. Like I said, (if you agree) it seems like the East believes that Mary was filled with grace when conceived, and therefore didn’t have the effects of the original sin. The West seems to believe that because Mary was conceived without original sin, she had sanctifying grace. It’s the same thing, just explained a little differently.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you believe that Mary was filled with grace at the moment when she was conceived? If so, then we agree. Like I said, (if you agree) it seems like the East believes that Mary was filled with grace when conceived, and therefore didn’t have the effects of the original sin. The West seems to believe that because Mary was conceived without original sin, she had sanctifying grace. It’s the same thing, just explained a little differently.

No, we believe she had the effects of what is defined as original sin. But being filled with grace mitigated these effects, which means she was able to resist temptation and sin, she did not feel the pain of childbirth nor death, through she assuredly did die.