How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[jamesrussell49]

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

No that is not what I mean. I will give you one example, whereby you caused MaryBeloved to bang their head against the proverbial wall:

You repeatedly expressed the follwoing sentiments:
Originally Posted 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.
and were told many times in reply:

“The way original sin is defined in the West is exactly what you described before: Absence of Grace. The only “issue” here is that you want to insist on a false understanding of Western theology perpetuated by Eastern Polemicists instead of trying to understand what the Latin church actually teaches”

Then, on the same lines of questioning, you argue about Macula:
"My point was you said “macula” is not stain, but a blemish. But in english, a stain is a blemish. Unless there’s a different meaning in Latin… "… and yes, the exact point was that, yes, Macula has a meaning that does not quite translate well into english. But you just won’t accept this. You were repeatedly told (or could have gathered from the responses) that a macula can mean an absense or darkening (as in lack of light) of something, but you chose to disregard that possibility entirely and stuck fastly to your idea that a macula has to be something literally added (like adding dye tto a garment) when they were specifically telling you that it refers to the absence of something…

Here’s some reading for your spare time:
cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p1.html

You remind me of a former Catholic, now protestant, who swears by the “fact” that the Roman Catholics throw Him back on the cross and “re-sacrifice” Jesus at every mass because that was his (poorly catechised) understanding. Like you, he can’t hear anything else, no matter how plainly he is told.

 

[jamesrussell49]

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.

She had the effects, but grace mitigated the effects…

If she had the effects, but they were mitigated; In practical, END RESULT terms, how does that differ from not having the effects in the first place?

So are you not REALLY arguing about WHEN she was first filled with grace (from the instant of conception to sometime afterward)? I think everyone seems to agree she was filled with grace, which negated the “effects” (however you term them). So then the question seems to be… conception, in womb, at birth, childhood, the annuciation???

It seems obvious that it would have to have been long before she was capable of choosing to sin. Based on the well thought out Confessions of St Augustine, this would have to be a rather early age, since he testifies that even a baby can become jealous of its sibling who nurses alongside it! So somewhere between conception and toddler age??

 

[jamesrussell49]

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.

Maybe I have missed a nuance of what you are saying: Are you saying that the “mitigation” was not complete and there are still some “effects” left unmitigated, specifically, death??

So are you, logically saying then, that if Jesus had not been killed by sinful mankind, either:

1. He inherited Adam’s “effects”, but those effects were mitigated in the same manner as Mary and would have experienced a Dormition.
2. He interited Adam’s “effects”, but they would have been entirely canceled out and he would have lived forever.

#2 has wider implications than simply just dying. I reaches far into matters of how easily he is injured by environmental factors, stress, everyday carpentry work, how he heals, etc… With no propensity for death, the possibility for disease too, becomes negated. Jesus becomes essentially superhuman. In fact, probably very hard to kill! But no; he shared in our infirmities, right?

#1 makes him no different than his mother, which means he is not “immaculately conceived” (as the Roman church terms it!) either!

Of course, the third possibility is that physical death per se is not a necessary consequence of the “effects”. Which makes sense when you consider that Adam and Eve, having spiritually died in disobedience, could have lived physically immortal had God not driven them from the Garden to prevent them from taking of the tree of life.

 

[Vico]

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.

The Coptic Church also celebrates that feast on Dec 13 (3 Kiahk), The Entrance of Saint Mary into the Temple at Jerusalem. They say it occurred at age of 3, and that she remained there for 12 years.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Coptic Church also celebrates that feast on Dec 13 (3 Kiahk), The Entrance of Saint Mary into the Temple at Jerusalem. They say it occurred at age of 3, and that she remained there for 12 years.

Can you share the particulars of the tradition of the Copts? Because while they believe that the Theotokos entered the temple at a young age, the facts surrounding it may vary slightly which forms a different theology (or vice versa).

 

[ConstantineTG]

jamesrussell49, you remind me of every anti-Catholic person I know who always argues ad hominem. If you are serious about your RCIA, maybe drop the AoG attitude.

Also, note that Eastern belief differs from Western belief. You are not the first person here to come and force Eastern Catholics to accept the Roman Catholic definition. Give me a break. Why can’t you guys just accept that there are differences. Its not like our Bishops are not aware, and its fine by them. We are in communion with one another, it doesn’t mean we’re Roman Catholics with a different Liturgy. The whole spirituality and theology is different. Live with it.

 

[Marybeloved]

Also, note that Eastern belief differs from Western belief. You are not the first person here to come and force Eastern Catholics to accept the Roman Catholic definition. Give me a break. Why can’t you guys just accept that there are differences. Its not like our Bishops are not aware, and its fine by them. We are in communion with one another, it doesn’t mean we’re Roman Catholics with a different Liturgy. The whole spirituality and theology is different. Live with it.

Constantine what you say here is simply false. There may be different beliefs with the Orthodox? Perhaps- The results of the talks between us will eventually tell us.

But Eastern Catholics have the exact same faith as the Romans, or they would not be Catholics- The only “differences” between us are the variations in emphases and expressions of the same faith. And that’s what the Bishops know- not what you’re trying to claim here.

Differences in beliefs would mean different faiths, and that is just false. You insist on differences in beliefs yet you are still unable to point to those differences up to this point, all you do is repeat the same already refuted claims you’ve been making from the beginning without showing what these differences actually constitute. Perhaps you really have no interest in understanding Latin theology because you think that the fact that you were Western means you understand its theology- You don’t. You’ve demonstrated that on this thread very clearly.

You need to read up more on both Latin theology and Eastern theology, polemics aside. Being different from the West is not what defines the East- you don’t seem to get that. Crafting an identity against something else rather than one that stands on its own, is very degrading for whatever position you identify with.

Peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

Who says she was conceived differently?

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

Resisting heterodox beliefs would be worth something on your part if that is what you were actually doing. But of course here you are just fighting phantoms from the imaginations of polemicists, nothing more.

Peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

I should just clarify one thing: The EC & RC must hold to the faith defined in the IC by the Pope- there’s no question about that- it’s dogma. The virgin was exempted from the stain of original sin (being understood as privation of divine grace, not actual sin) by being infused with over-flowing grace at the first instance of her conception.

But there is a variation in understanding the full extent of the effects of that singular grace on her. Personally, I think the Western view is what makes perfect sense of all we understand from the faith, and about our Lord and the facts of the virgin’s life.

Peace.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know Eastern Catholics are supposed to agree with the Vatican and essentially tow the party line on all issues concerning theology and ecclesiology, but the reality seems a little less simple than this. This is especially true of the Melkites, who have had a very interesting relationship with Rome over several centuries of union.

 

[Vico]

Can you share the particulars of the tradition of the Copts? Because while they believe that the Theotokos entered the temple at a young age, the facts surrounding it may vary slightly which forms a different theology (or vice versa).

God sent angel Gabriel to announce to St. Joachim of the birth of the Virgin. This was after Joachim and Anna had prayed for a child continually and vowed that the child they would beget would be made a steward for the temple.

In the temple St. Mary, the elect of all women, received her food from the hands of the angels, until the nativity of our Lord Christ, and was incarnated through her.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Constantine,

The difference really is the understanding the effects of The Fall.

I think you are correct. Brother Ghosty expressed the same opinion earlier. It appears there is a certain train of thought in EO’xy which states that our nature was changed after the Original Sin - i.e., before the Fall, we could not die; the Fall changed our nature so we could die. According to this viewpoint, the fact that Mary could die means her nature was “infected” with Original Sin.

But not all in the Eastern Churches accept this theory (irrespective of its relevance for the doctrine of the IC). There are also those who accept the anthropology taught by St. Athanasius. I can say as an Oriental that I have never met a Christian of the Oriental Tradition (as distinct from the Eastern Byzantine Tradition) hold to the “our nature was changed by Original Sin” belief. Orientals basically adhere to Athanasian anthropology (as already explained by brother Ghosty) - Adam and Eve were MADE mortal by God (i.e., it was ALREADY part of our nature to be mortal BEFORE the Fall), but Adam and Eve were IMmortal BY GRACE. The Original Sin did not change our nature to be able to physically die; rather, the Original Sin caused us to lose the GRACE of immortality.

Brother Constantine, you are obviously sincere about preserving the Tradition of your Ukrainian Church. You should really check into what the Ukranian Church had to say about the Immaculate Conception prior to the 19th century. The Church in the Ukraine was in fact one of the most solid supporters of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - and it had nothing to do with the eventual definition of Rome. Belief in the Immaculate Conception was part of the unique Tradition of the Ukranian Church. As a member of the UGCC, I am rather surprised at your seeming attempts to distance yourself from that belief which you hold in common with your Latin brethren.

The Theotokos wasn’t conceived any differently than any human being ever conceived.

Yes. You are preaching to the choir as far as Latins are concerned. This particular point you express was authoritatively asserted by Pope Alexander VII(?) in the 17th century. No Latin Catholic AFAIK disagrees with this.

But she has received overflowing graces from God from that point.

Agreed. So what is the issue?

There is one more thing I would like to say. You have complained that Latins are trying to impose their understanding on you. From what I’ve read, it seems the other way around. The several Latins here in the thread (and one former Latin - brother Ghosty) have consistently informed you of the essence of the Latin teaching. You have so far been unable to point out exactly what it is about the Latin teaching that is (in your words) “heterodox,” though you somehow insist that it is. I can understand and accept brother Alexander Roman’s statement that the theological LANGUAGE of the Latins can be understood (or misunderstood) in a heterodox manner for the uninitiated or for those unaccustomed to it, and I can understand and accept brother Ghosty’s complaint that it was dogmatized, but I can’t understand your own statement that your belief is different from that of the Latins.

I pray you can clarify your statements.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

I know Eastern Catholics are supposed to agree with the Vatican and essentially tow the party line on all issues concerning theology and ecclesiology, but the reality seems a little less simple than this. This is especially true of the Melkites, who have had a very interesting relationship with Rome over several centuries of union.

Actually, they are not supposed to agree with all Western theology- only dogma. Even in the West there are variations and debates in doctrines not defined, just like the East and just like the Early Church. That’s why I clarified in my previous post what is the actual dogma and where legitimate variations in doctrine diverge.

Dogma:- Mary was exempt from the state of privation of Grace to which all humans are subject. Her exemption consists in her being infused with Grace from the first moment of her existence.

Classic Western understanding of the effects of the Grace on Mary: The grace filled her soul to overflowing, and being one person (body united to soul) the grace spilled onto and filled her entire being, including her flesh and restored her (what takes a lifetime to accomplish in the greatest saints) to original condition, which condition she then passed on to Christ.

This Western view is what we’ve been trying to defend here against the objections that are often put forth against it by some Easterns which actually never hold up to any real scrutiny. Eastern Catholics do not have to accept the western understanding, though, but the dogma they must hold.

Peace.

 

[jamesrussell49]

jamesrussell49, you remind me of every anti-Catholic person I know who always argues ad hominem. If you are serious about your RCIA, maybe drop the AoG attitude.

Also, note that Eastern belief differs from Western belief. You are not the first person here to come and force Eastern Catholics to accept the Roman Catholic definition. Give me a break. Why can’t you guys just accept that there are differences. Its not like our Bishops are not aware, and its fine by them. We are in communion with one another, it doesn’t mean we’re Roman Catholics with a different Liturgy. The whole spirituality and theology is different. Live with it.

I don’t think it is I who are arguing ad hominem here.

I was not trying to make you or any Eastern Catholic accept anything. It just seems painfully obvious to me that you are going to great measures not to just claim a “difference” whose existence is questionable at this point, but that yours is the only “valid” understanding (i.e. you labeled other views as “heterodox”). You are clearly misrepresenting the viewpoints of others to suit your own preconceptions.

You said because of Adams Sin, humans are “born wothout grace”
You were repeatedly told “…original sin … in the West is …Absence of Grace”
Those were the exact words from both sides of the debate; So just what is the big difference between “born without grace” and being born with an “absence of grace” that you can’t agree with?

If you say anything further to me, please let it be a lucid explanation of how “born without grace” differs from being born with an “absence of grace” so why I can understand why you are so persistent about that point.

Seeing east and west argue about such details instead of concentrating on their sameness is really distracting to protestants like myself who have come to the understanding that the historic church is, well, the Church, and that scripture and “faith” alone are incomplete without the Church and the sacraments. You set up this dichotomy that one of you is the only true church (I am broadening this some because, by labeling something other than “your view” as being heterodox, you given me the distinct impression that you are anti-Rome… It seems like you are saying maybe the Orthodox have it right and Rome is not the one in Communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think it is I who are arguing ad hominem here.

LOL. So whats the point of saying, “you remind me of a former Catholic, not Protestant.” Should I turn around and say, “oh no! Some anonymous internet guy just told me I remind him of someone who’s Protestant! I must believe in everything he says and forget what I have been taught and what I read so that I won’t be thought of as Protestant by one, anonymous internet user!”

Seriously, there’s no other point in that statement than ad hominem.

I was not trying to make you or any Eastern Catholic accept anything. It just seems painfully obvious to me that you are going to great measures not to just claim a “difference” whose existence is questionable at this point, but that yours is the only “valid” understanding (i.e. you labeled other views as “heterodox”). You are clearly misrepresenting the viewpoints of others to suit your own preconceptions.

But there is a difference. It seems to me that so many RCs come to the EC forum and go through great measures to insist that we accept the Western praxis.

You said because of Adams Sin, humans are “born wothout grace”
You were repeatedly told “…original sin … in the West is …Absence of Grace”
Those were the exact words from both sides of the debate; So just what is the big difference between “born without grace” and being born with an “absence of grace” that you can’t agree with?

The difference doesn’t mean we have two completely opposite ideas. The difference is there are two schools of thought analyzing the same truth. The development of understanding has taken different paths, but ultimately ply the same road. Yes, we lost the grace of God at the Fall, that is standard. The hows and whys are whats different.

If you say anything further to me, please let it be a lucid explanation of how “born without grace” differs from being born with an “absence of grace” so why I can understand why you are so persistent about that point.

Again, its not “what” (absence of grace) but how and why.

Seeing east and west argue about such details instead of concentrating on their sameness is really distracting to protestants like myself who have come to the understanding that the historic church is, well, the Church, and that scripture and “faith” alone are incomplete without the Church and the sacraments. You set up this dichotomy that one of you is the only true church (I am broadening this some because, by labeling something other than “your view” as being heterodox, you given me the distinct impression that you are anti-Rome… It seems like you are saying maybe the Orthodox have it right and Rome is not the one in Communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

East and West does not argue, at least those in communion with Rome. I don’t know why the lay people see it fit to make an argument out of it. Our bishops are in communion with one another, and its not like they do not know about these differences. If they don’t see a reason to argue about it, I wonder why thread after thread discussing Eastern praxis is attacked by Westerners trying to impose Western thought on Eastern Christians.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Apologies Brother mardukm, sometimes I use Eastern to describe Byzantine Christians, even though I am well aware (but don’t act like it) that there are many more Eastern Christians that those that follow the Byzantine Rite.

 

[Aramis]

No. People are born with original sin, that is the Western definition. Eastern theology doesn’t believe people are born with something or anything.

Eastern theology does note the LACK of something, however… and that lack is what is solved in Baptism.

 

[Vico]

Eastern theology does note the LACK of something, however… and that lack is what is solved in Baptism.

I agree with Aramis. And the inherited stain of original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace at our birth, that very gift which Adam and Eve had.

The Baltimore Catechism 2 stated:

“The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.” #52

and

“… original sin does not take away from us anything to which we have a strict right as human beings, but only the free gifts which God in His goodness would have bestowed on us if Adam had not sinned” #61

truecatholic.us/baltp1.htm

 

[Aramis]

Constantine what you say here is simply false. There may be different beliefs with the Orthodox? Perhaps- The results of the talks between us will eventually tell us.

But Eastern Catholics have the exact same faith as the Romans, or they would not be Catholics- The only “differences” between us are the variations in emphases and expressions of the same faith. And that’s what the Bishops know- not what you’re trying to claim here.

Differences in beliefs would mean different faiths, and that is just false. You insist on differences in beliefs yet you are still unable to point to those differences up to this point, all you do is repeat the same already refuted claims you’ve been making from the beginning without showing what these differences actually constitute. Perhaps you really have no interest in understanding Latin theology because you think that the fact that you were Western means you understand its theology- You don’t. You’ve demonstrated that on this thread very clearly.

You need to read up more on both Latin theology and Eastern theology, polemics aside. Being different from the West is not what defines the East- you don’t seem to get that. Crafting an identity against something else rather than one that stands on its own, is very degrading for whatever position you identify with.

Peace.

You understand the communion of churches wrong.

We, as easterns, DO NOT hold to all the same beliefs as our Latin cousins.

MOST LATINS don’t hold to the same beliefs as a single group.

All that is required of a Church Sui Iuris is to hold to the same Dogma, NOT the same teachings in every detail.

We don’t belief in purgatory as a lake of fire. We accept the dogmatic definition that purification posthumously occurs by grace, but not that it is of need by fires of purgatory.

There are 22 good reasons the dogmatic definitions are not as crisp and clear as some Latins wish… the 22 Churches in communion with Rome.

 

[Marybeloved]

You understand the communion of churches wrong.

We, as easterns, DO NOT hold to all the same beliefs as our Latin cousins.

MOST LATINS don’t hold to the same beliefs as a single group.

All that is required of a Church Sui Iuris is to hold to the same Dogma, NOT the same teachings in every detail.

We don’t belief in purgatory as a lake of fire. We accept the dogmatic definition that purification posthumously occurs by grace, but not that it is of need by fires of purgatory.

There are 22 good reasons the dogmatic definitions are not as crisp and clear as some Latins wish… the 22 Churches in communion with Rome.

I’m surprised that you would attempt to post this to me at all, considering what I have posted on the matter, right on this very thread I reproduce it here for you, just in-case you missed it before.

Actually, they are not supposed to agree with all Western theology- only dogma. Even in the West there are variations and debates in doctrines not defined, just like the East and just like the Early Church. That’s why I clarified in my previous post what is the actual dogma and where legitimate variations in doctrine diverge.

Dogma:- Mary was exempt from the state of privation of Grace to which all humans are subject. Her exemption consists in her being infused with Grace from the first moment of her existence.

Classic Western understanding of the effects of the Grace on Mary: The grace filled her soul to overflowing, and being one person (body united to soul) the grace spilled onto and filled her entire being, including her flesh and restored her (what takes a lifetime to accomplish in the greatest saints) to original condition, which condition she then passed on to Christ.

This Western view is what we’ve been trying to defend here against the objections that are often put forth against it by some Easterns which actually never hold up to any real scrutiny. Eastern Catholics do not have to accept the western understanding, though, but the dogma they must hold.

Peace.

I should just clarify one thing: The EC & RC must hold to the faith defined in the IC by the Pope- there’s no question about that- it’s dogma. The virgin was exempted from the stain of original sin (being understood as privation of divine grace, not actual sin) by being infused with over-flowing grace at the first instance of her conception.

***But there is a variation in understanding the full extent of the effects of that singular grace on her. ***Personally, I think the Western view is what makes perfect sense of all we understand from the faith, and about our Lord and the facts of the virgin’s life.

Peace.

So, safe to say, I’m puzzled why you would insinuate that I think Easterns must hold to exact doctrinal formulations and speculations of the West when I have clearly posted the exact Contrary on this very thread.

Peace.