Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter PodunkMommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PodunkMommy

Guest
Hi:

I’m from the Latin Rite but am interested in the Eastern Rite. I used to attend a Byzantine Church from time to time when I lived in town.

I have a question regarding the Eastern view of the Immaculate Conception. I recently read somewhere that the Eastern Orthodox can’t agree with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because they view Adam’s sin as an “ancesteral curse” whereby humans are alienated from the divine life and are subject to death. The Latin Rite, who get much of their resources from St. Augustine, view original sin more as all share in the guilt of Adam’s original sin.

Anyway, the gist I got was that the Orhtodox couldn’t agree with the Immaculate Conception because to agree would be to agree that Mary was immortal not free from original sin since they viewed Adam’s sin as as different than what the Latin part of the Church believed.

Can anyone help me out here?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Bethany
 
Dear sister Bethany,

I don’t have the time to explain the matter fully right now, but perhaps you can go on the search engine and type in “Immaculate Conception” under Keywords and “Mardukm” under Username. Make sure the Search Options are set to “ANY DATE” and “Show results as POSTS.” Read those posts and see if they answer your question.

For now, I will say that the difference between the EO and the CC on the matter is indeed only a matter of theological TERMINOLOGY. Even Eastern Catholics fall shy of using the term “Original Sin” to describe the dogma of the IC, whereas Latin Catholics do so, because Easterns and Latins each have a different terminological definition of the term “Original Sin.” Whereas the Latin understanding of “Original Sin” is perfectly amenable to the Dogma of the IC as expressed, the Eastern understanding of “Original Sin” dictates that it would be inappropriate for Easterns to express the Dogma of the IC in those terms.

However, the main point, as always, is not the local theological expressions used to teach the Faith, but rather the Faith itself that is being taught by those local expressions. So what is the Faith that is being taught by the Dogma of the IC, sans consideration of local expresssion? It is nothing more nor less than this: Mary, the Mother of God, throughout her life, from the first moment of her existence, was holy and pure, and never separated from God.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
J.M.J.
Mardukm is right. This, rather like the Filioque controversy (and a couple other things), is very much a debate of terminology.

I agree with just about everything he says up there, and I would also like to add that the Western Church was forced to develop Her understanding of original sin a bit further than the Eastern church was, because of the attacks of the Pelagian heresy, which denied original sin. That seems to be the normal mode of developing doctrine: some enemy puts Holy Mother Church’s back up against a wall demanding answers (but perhaps not expecting any), and so Holy Mother Church says, “Alright, I’ll give them to you!”

It is partly this development over the years that deepened our understanding of original sin, and eventually paved the way to understanding the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.

And I would also like to add that there are a great many Eastern Fathers, Doctors, and Patriarchs, and theologians right up until the present time who, reflecting on the fact that nothing impure ever could have held Our Lord, also affirmed that Mary could never have had any stain of sin. So, Mardukm is right: there is really not any (or at least, not much) conflict about the Immaculate Conception except in terminology.

God bless,
 
The Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary was immortal… there is no dogma in the Church whether she died or not. Many Catholics believe she did die. (after all, Jesus was sinless and died too). If you read about the original sin in the Catechism, it’s basically a weakened nature and separation from God that we inherited, along with the guilt of Adam’s sin (though the guilt is not counted as a personal sin). Mary was free from all that, so she was always with God from the beginning of her existence. It might be said that God saved her at her conception, by Christ’s merits.

God bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top