Immaculate conception

[KyivanPatriarch]

Do you have some sort of statement from the Magisterium that declares that the *Theotookos *was not capable of sin? My understanding is that all of us are capable of sin, even those who were born without Original Sin (Adam, Eve, Mary). Mary just chose never to sin.

The early Church teaching on this (maintained by the Orthodox) is clear on this.

The impact of the fall (original sin) on mankind was not personal guilt or “stain” but an ‘absence’ or separation from God.

this resulted in the following:

1. prima facie absence of God’s grace and sanctity;
2. mortality and death;
3. pain in a variety of human labors and experiences including childbirth; and
4. a greater inclination and propensity towards sinning than existed before the fall.

The Orthodox maintain the teaching of the early Church that the Theotokos was fully human, and fully subject to all of these consequences in common with all mankind.

We maintain that Christ was the only exception because of Hypostatic Union. His fullest Divinity was not subject to any of these consequences - his fullest Humanity was subject to them all until he was freed of (1) at his Baptism.

As in the early Church the Theotokos was freed of (1) because of and at the conception and incarnation of Christ - but none of the others. She had the same propensity and inclination towards sin as the rest of mankind - and this made her successful resistance to sin throughout her lifetime exemplary and special. It also made it possible for her to pass on to Christ humanity in the fullest sense. It is also the reason why she died.

The IC Dogma of the Catholic Church creates the Theotokos as an exception in addition to Christ and being free of original sin from the point of her conception by St Anna and St Joachim. Therefore it posits that she was free of the consequences of original sin (1) (3) (4), but leaves it as an “open question” whether she was subject to (2). All of this is a departure from what Catholics believed pre-schism and hundreds of years post schism in common with us.

It is a departure from the Faith of the Apostles and from the first 7 authoritative Ecumenical Councils

.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Dear Brother James,

You ask:

“…So now it logically comes to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be the one, true Church established by Christ, and how do you explain that it is Orthodoxy? Maybe the line of succession in important after all. Where have I erred?..”

Probably the best Orthodox answer to that question, ironically, is the argument of Leo the Great, who was Pope long before immaculate conception (or papal infallibility!) was announced as Roman Catholic dogma.

"One of the main arguments of Eutyches was that, if Christ had a real human nature, He would also have inherited the stain of sin. Since at that date Mary’s immaculate conception was unknown, Pope Leo could not argue from it, but had to make a distinction between the nature, which Christ did indeed assume from Mary, and the guilt which He did not assume, ‘because His nativity is a miracle’…*** Any idea of Mary’s own preservation from original sin, however, is ruled out not only in the Tome but also in Leo’s sermons, for example: In 62,2 we read “Only the Son of the blessed Virgin is born without transgression; not indeed outside the human race, but a stranger to sin… so that of Adam’s offspring, one might exist in whom the devil had no share.”*** – Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of Doctrine and Devotion

In other words, in the fifth century the idea was unheard-of. It’s an innovation. But it’s not only wrong because it’s new; it’s a symptom of a shift in Western Christians’ beliefs about sin, Christ, and humanity.

The immaculate conception dogma is a response to a situation created by the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin. Following Augustine, Rome teaches that man inherits from Adam a “stain” of original sin - primarily manifested in concupiscence , the tendency to sin. So Rome is left with a need to explain how Christ could be born of a human parent yet without sin. The immaculate conception dogma tries to break this chain by making Mary the exception, not Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a “stain” but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin. Christ does not give us life and righteousness as things apart from Himself; Christ Himself is our life and righteousness.

It’s not that the Imaculate Conception doctrine per se is wrong - it’s just that it makes no sense in a theology which takes its understanding of original sin more from Athanasius than from Augustine. In other words, from an Orthodox perspective, the Roman Catholic dogmatizing of the issue is something like their dogmatizing that “if 2+2=5 then 5+2=8”. As a logical proposition, it may be correct - but its correctness is irrelevant as the original proposition is irrelevant.

The ancestry of Christ shows that the lineage of Christ was not exceptional for holiness. Quite the opposite; the lineage is not through the favored son Joseph but through Judah, whose character is clear in his casual sin with his daughter-in-law. Four women are mentioned in Christ’s legal genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel. All the four women are of questionable reputation. First is Tamar, who enticed her father-in-law into sleeping with her. The second is Rahab, the prostitute. The third is the former pagan Ruth. The fourth is Bathsheba the adulteress. Why were these mentioned specifically? They teach us that it is not Christ’s ancestry that makes Him the Savior.

With Love…

 

[PRmerger]

The EOC rejects the concept that the Theotokos was not capable of sin.

Do you have some sort of statement from the Magisterium that declares that the *Theotookos *was not capable of sin? My understanding is that all of us are capable of sin, even those who were born without Original Sin (Adam, Eve, Mary). Mary just chose never to sin.

The early Church teaching on this (maintained by the Orthodox) is clear on this.

The impact of the fall (original sin) on mankind was not personal guilt or “stain” but an ‘absence’ or separation from God.

this resulted in the following:

1. prima facie absence of God’s grace and sanctity;
2. mortality and death;
3. pain in a variety of human labors and experiences including childbirth; and
4. a greater inclination and propensity towards sinning than existed before the fall.

The Orthodox maintain the teaching of the early Church that the Theotokos was fully human, and fully subject to all of these consequences in common with all mankind.

We maintain that Christ was the only exception because of Hypostatic Union. His fullest Divinity was not subject to any of these consequences - his fullest Humanity was subject to them all until he was freed of (1) at his Baptism.

As in the early Church the Theotokos was freed of (1) because of and at the conception and incarnation of Christ - but none of the others. She had the same propensity and inclination towards sin as the rest of mankind - and this made her successful resistance to sin throughout her lifetime exemplary and special. It also made it possible for her to pass on to Christ humanity in the fullest sense. It is also the reason why she died.

The IC Dogma of the Catholic Church creates the Theotokos as an exception in addition to Christ and being free of original sin from the point of her conception by St Anna and St Joachim. Therefore it posits that she was free of the consequences of original sin (1) (3) (4), but leaves it as an “open question” whether she was subject to (2). All of this is a departure from what Catholics believed pre-schism and hundreds of years post schism in common with us.

It is a departure from the Faith of the Apostles and from the first 7 authoritative Ecumenical Councils

.

Ah, I see then.

It appears that you do NOT have any statement from the Magisterium proclaiming that Mary was INCAPABLE of sin?

That is what I was asking for, Kyivan.

As such, you have posited an inaccurate explication of the CC’s teaching on the IC.

She was, of course, capable of sinning, but simply chose never to sin.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The early Church teaching on this (maintained by the Orthodox) is clear on this.

The impact of the fall (original sin) on mankind was not personal guilt or “stain” but an ‘absence’ or separation from God.

this resulted in the following:

1. prima facie absence of God’s grace and sanctity;

1. mortality and death;

1. pain in a variety of human labors and experiences including childbirth; and

1. a greater inclination and propensity towards sinning than existed before the fall.

The Orthodox maintain the teaching of the early Church that the Theotokos was fully human, and fully subject to all of these consequences in common with all mankind.

We maintain that Christ was the only exception because of Hypostatic Union. His fullest Divinity was not subject to any of these consequences - his fullest Humanity was subject to them all until he was freed of (1) at his Baptism.

As in the early Church the Theotokos was freed of (1) because of and at the conception and incarnation of Christ - but none of the others. She had the same propensity and inclination towards sin as the rest of mankind - and this made her successful resistance to sin throughout her lifetime exemplary and special. It also made it possible for her to pass on to Christ humanity in the fullest sense. It is also the reason why she died.

The IC Dogma of the Catholic Church creates the Theotokos as an exception in addition to Christ and being free of original sin from the point of her conception by St Anna and St Joachim. Therefore it posits that she was free of the consequences of original sin (1) (3) (4), but leaves it as an “open question” whether she was subject to (2). All of this is a departure from what Catholics believed pre-schism and hundreds of years post schism in common with us.

There are several difficulties with your position.

1. The Western Church (together with the Eastern Church in union with the Holy Father) have basically the same understanding of Original Sin as the EOC. The image of a “stain” that is passed on makes the theology easier to understand perhaps, but it is not actually intrinsic to the doctrine. Or put another way, EOC has basically the same understanding of Original Sin as the West, as far as its consequences and that it is inherited by all of mankind. So we should table that discussion for the time being.
2. The Western Church does not teach that the IC was necessary for the “chain to be broken” with the Incarnation. On the contrary, the Hypostatic Union would have always been pure and free from Original Sin, whether his mother was free or not.
3. What the Catholic Church teaches is that the IC was a special grace from God in anticipation of the Incarnation and Redemption, so that the Tabernacle of the Incarnation would be pure and unblemished. So the need that exists is based upon propriety and the dignity required by the Incarnation. It wasn’t a mechanical need to break a chain of inheritance of Original Sin.
4. The humanity of the BVM is not injured in the SLIGHTEST by her exemption from Original Sin. Otherwise you would be suggesting that Adam and Eve were likewise inhuman before the fall. Adam and Eve also clearly illustrate that man is capable of sin even in a pure sinless state. Therefore to suppose that the IC somehow hinders the BVM’s humanity, or that of the Incarnation is erroneous.
5. St. Augustine lived and taught somewhat later than St. Athanasius. There was much controversy and HERESY rampant as well. The Church has adopted St. Augustine’s views NOT in opposition to St. Athanasius, heaven forbid, but as a better articulation and development of the doctrine of Original Sin. One that would be better equipped to fight the heresies of their days, and ours as well.
6. It is a further mistake to suppose that the Church stopped acting as the Oracle of Revelation at the time of the schism. The Church will live and teach until the end of time, continuing to act as the Oracle of Revelation. Therefore, to object that Rome is teaching something now that it didn’t teach 1000 years ago is as blind as the Protestant stand. That is precisely their argument. Even though they won’t find a Protestant Church in the early Christian era, they accuse the Catholic Church of innovating and changing since the early Christian era. The process of development of doctrine is well established at this date, and understood by most Christians. It’s not that the doctrine changes, but the articulation of that doctrine becomes clearer and put into more explicit terms than may have existed previously.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Ah, I see then.

It appears that you do NOT have any statement from the Magisterium proclaiming that Mary was INCAPABLE of sin?

That is what I was asking for, Kyivan.

As such, you have posited an inaccurate explication of the CC’s teaching on the IC.

She was, of course, capable of sinning, but simply chose never to sin.

No Dear Brother,

I have not said that.

I have asked the question - with ‘equivocal’ answers from you and others in this discussion.

My statement of what we Orthodox reject is not a statement of what you Heterodox proclaim. The EOC also reject any suggestion that the Theotokos had any lesser inclination towards or propensity to sin than any other post-fall human being. This would make her life and resistance of sin easier than any other human being, and separate her in a critical respect from the rest of humanity - a seperation which necessarily would be inherited by Christ, her son.

I have no idea what your Magisterium say about this, and am curious to know. Pray tell. Do they argue that the Theotokos was exempt from a greater propensity or inclination towards sin than other human beings since the fall during her life on earth? Did she possess a lesser propensity to sin because she is free of original sin? Which consequences of original sin is she free from exactly?

I have accurately stated the theology of both Orthodox and Catholic Churches prior to 1854. You tell me what is dogma now?

With love…

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

There are several difficulties with your position.

Thank you Dear Brother, for your replies to what appear to be two of my posts. Difficulties?
For you or for me?

1. The Western Church (together with the Eastern Church in union with the Holy Father) have basically the same understanding of Original Sin as the EOC. The image of a “stain” that is passed on makes the theology easier to understand perhaps, but it is not actually intrinsic to the doctrine. Or put another way, EOC has basically the same understanding of Original Sin as the West, as far as its consequences and that it is inherited by all of mankind. So we should table that discussion for the time being.

Not so fast brother… Original sin as it was understood by both of our Churches was very different from the Augustinian soteriological legalism that grew up in the western Church. Augustine was not known in the eastern Church until the C17th, and put forward a foreign conception of personal sin through inheritance - which of course, was a common western pagan conception unknown in the Greco-Hibraic world. Any discussion of the IC Dogma cannot possibly divorce itself from Original Sin. One depends upon the other.

2. The Western Church does not teach that the IC was necessary for the “chain to be broken” with the Incarnation. On the contrary, the Hypostatic Union would have always been pure and free from Original Sin, whether his mother was free or not.

Pray tell brother, how can Christ be fully Man, and fully God simultaneously, if he inherits a humanity from the Theotokos fundamentally different from the rest of humanity because of the absence of original sin in her? Please provide any scriptural or patristic evidence for this speculative assertion.

3. What the Catholic Church teaches is that the IC was a special grace from God in anticipation of the Incarnation and Redemption, so that the Tabernacle of the Incarnation would be pure and unblemished. So the need that exists is based upon propriety and the dignity required by the Incarnation. It wasn’t a mechanical need to break a chain of inheritance of Original Sin.

Hmmm… so you argue that the Virgin Birth of Christ was insufficient? That God needed something more from the Theotokos than her obedience, submission to His will and her consent? Did God manouvre a “yes” response from her before she was even conceived? If as you say, personal guilt or sin is not inherited, why bother? And what does this imply about the free choice of the Theotokos? This is a major departure from Orthodox theology - a theology your Church once shared and upheld. There was no ‘impropriety’ or ‘indignity’ present in the Most Holy Virgin requiring such a thing. The incarnation imparted sufficient grace and sanctity in the eyes of God.

With Love… (4,5,6 continued in next post)

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Continued from previous post…

4. The humanity of the BVM is not injured in the SLIGHTEST by her exemption from Original Sin. Otherwise you would be suggesting that Adam and Eve were likewise inhuman before the fall. Adam and Eve also clearly illustrate that man is capable of sin even in a pure sinless state. Therefore to suppose that the IC somehow hinders the BVM’s humanity, or that of the Incarnation is erroneous.

Dear brother, please explain which of the consequences of original sin the Theotokos was exempted from? Death? Grace and sanctity? Pain and toil? Tendency towards sinning? if she was exempted from ANY of these human conditions from the moment of her conception - then by definition she was not of the same humanity as the rest of mankind - including Adam and Eve after the fall. Freedom from personal and original sin are two very different things.

5. St. Augustine lived and taught somewhat later than St. Athanasius. There was much controversy and HERESY rampant as well. The Church has adopted St. Augustine’s views NOT in opposition to St. Athanasius, heaven forbid, but as a better articulation and development of the doctrine of Original Sin. One that would be better equipped to fight the heresies of their days, and ours as well.

Brother, suffice it to say, that St Athanasius teaching is completely incompatible with that of St Augustine. This is not surprising given that Augustinian teaching was a reaction to protestantism in the west - with whom the Catholic Church shared the influence of western pagan thought concerning the inheritance of personal guilt of one’s ancestors. Athanasius, and the Apostles did not suffer from this pernicious influence.

6. It is a further mistake to suppose that the Church stopped acting as the Oracle of Revelation at the time of the schism. The Church will live and teach until the end of time, continuing to act as the Oracle of Revelation. Therefore, to object that Rome is teaching something now that it didn’t teach 1000 years ago is as blind as the Protestant stand. That is precisely their argument. Even though they won’t find a Protestant Church in the early Christian era, they accuse the Catholic Church of innovating and changing since the early Christian era. The process of development of doctrine is well established at this date, and understood by most Christians. It’s not that the doctrine changes, but the articulation of that doctrine becomes clearer and put into more explicit terms than may have existed previously.

*** Chuckling*** Brother! The EOC is not Protestant! Nor is it Schismatic! It is not the EOC who have departed from the Apostolic Faith of the Fathers, in theology, forms of governance or tradition. What the RCC has done here is not mere elaboration or clarification of teaching. It has introduced completely new and novel theology completely absent from the understanding of the early Church Councils. The Church is NOT an “Oracle of Revelation”. It is the inheritor of revealed Divine Truth which has not changed in the last 1000 years, and will not change till the end of the world. We Orthodox do not object when your ‘elaborative revelations’ constitute harmless irrelevancies… as they often do. But when they fundamentally change Apostolic and Patristic revealed truths about the faith (Mariology, Christology, Soteriology, Hypostasis, the Mysteries, Salvation, Consubstantiality etc…) it is our loving duty as bretheren from your ‘second lung’ to tap you on the shoulder and gently reprove you when injury -error- or insult is committed to our common faith.

Incidentally, both Catholicism and Protestantism have departed from the Apostolic Faith… and you have more in common with each other than do we Orthodox.

With love…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

OK, lets address Original Sin first.

Your post #159 enumerates the EOC version of OS.

Please explain how the RCC holds a different view. Please use some authoritative source, not your own opinions.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

OK, lets address Original Sin first.

Your post #159 enumerates the EOC version of OS.

Please explain how the RCC holds a different view. Please use some authoritative source, not your own opinions.

Dear Brother,

I have not been arguing my personal opinions. Have you?

What do you consider an authoritative source?

With Love…

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dear Brother James,

"One of the main arguments of Eutyches was that, if Christ had a real human nature, He would also have inherited the stain of sin. Since at that date Mary’s immaculate conception was unknown, Pope Leo could not argue from it, but had to make a distinction between the nature, which Christ did indeed assume from Mary, and the guilt which He did not assume, ‘because His nativity is a miracle’…*** Any idea of Mary’s own preservation from original sin, however, is ruled out not only in the Tome but also in Leo’s sermons, for example: In 62,2 we read “Only the Son of the blessed Virgin is born without transgression; not indeed outside the human race, but a stranger to sin… so that of Adam’s offspring, one might exist in whom the devil had no share.”*** – Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of Doctrine and Devotion

In other words, in the fifth century the idea was unheard-of. It’s an innovation. But it’s not only wrong because it’s new; it’s a symptom of a shift in Western Christians’ beliefs about sin, Christ, and humanity.

Obviously, my friend, if Leo was speaking about it in the fifth century, it was not an unheard of idea.

When you say we were born in original sin, you acknowledge that this came with the removal of grace from God. This, combined with concupiscence, equals, what, my friend? If we have no grace from God, then we are spiritually dead already. That is the effect of sin. Thus, though we have committed no actual sin, we are born guilty in the sense that we are deprived of grace. The only thing that justifies us is the grace from God. You are using semantics and arriving at a false conclusion.

Here is a website featuring statements by the fathers on original sin. They speak of it much as Catholics do, and they are not all Western fathers. I feel your definitions may be formed by bias:

catholicfidelity.com/the-church-fathers-and-original-sin-by-joe-gallegos/

My confusion at your definition is this: how can we have no ‘stain’ from original sin, when we are deprived of God’s grace, and God’s grace is the only way of being pure before Him? How can we be born in original sin and not have sin, even when you have essentially admitted to us having sin by saying we have no grace (the absence of God’s grace is the effect of sin, whether we have committed the sin or not makes no difference, we are spiritually dead because of it)?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But the fact of the matter is that the EOC and the RCC are both in agreement on the sinlessness and all-holiness of the BVM. The EOC may dislike the route the RCC has taken in arriving at its Doctrine, but the final destination is still the same.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Dear Brother James,

You ask:

"…So now it logically comes to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be the one, true Church established by Christ, and how do you explain that it is Orthodoxy? Maybe the line of succession in important after all. Where have I erred?

…"

Probably the best Orthodox answer to that question, ironically, is the argument of Leo the Great, who was Pope long before immaculate conception (or papal infallibility!) was announced as Roman Catholic dogma.

"One of the main arguments of Eutyches was that, if Christ had a real human nature, He would also have inherited the stain of sin. Since at that date Mary’s immaculate conception was unknown, Pope Leo could not argue from it, but had to make a distinction between the nature, which Christ did indeed assume from Mary, and the guilt which He did not assume, ‘because His nativity is a miracle’…

And unknown to good Pope Leo, part of that miracle was in fact the miracle of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

In other words, in the fifth century the idea was unheard-of. It’s an innovation. But it’s not only wrong because it’s new; it’s a symptom of a shift in Western Christians’ beliefs about sin, Christ, and humanity.

What it does show is how slow this doctrine was to develop. Not an innovation, but the product of centuries of contemplation and maturation of thought regarding the way in which God brought about the Incarnation and the circumstances surrounding it.

The immaculate conception dogma is a response to a situation created by the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin. Following Augustine, Rome teaches that man inherits from Adam a “stain” of original sin - primarily manifested in concupiscence , the tendency to sin. So Rome is left with a need to explain how Christ could be born of a human parent yet without sin. The immaculate conception dogma tries to break this chain by making Mary the exception, not Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a “stain” but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin. Christ does not give us life and righteousness as things apart from Himself; Christ Himself is our life and righteousness.

But Augustine did not “invent” the doctrine of original sin,and even within the Catholic Church’s definition of original sin is the concept of privation or absence of sanctifying grace. Others before Augustine, taught that all had sinned in Adam, Tertullian, St Ambrose and still others. St. Paul wrote: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. If the many were made sinners, than the stain of sin is on their souls at birth. You cannot reason that only the disposition to sin is present at birth, because then a baby (or an adult for that matter) who dies without sinning would have no need of baptism. Sin leaves its mark on our soul. The privation of grace is the “macula peccati” (St. Thomas, I-II.86), the stain of sin spoken of in Scripture (Joshua 22:17; Isaiah 4:4; 1 Corinthians 6:11). newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm Orthodoxy incorrectly does not see this privation of grace as the stain of sin.

It’s not that the Imaculate Conception doctrine per se is wrong - it’s just that it makes no sense in a theology which takes its understanding of original sin more from Athanasius than from Augustine. In other words, from an Orthodox perspective, the Roman Catholic dogmatizing of the issue is something like their dogmatizing that “if 2+2=5 then 5+2=8”. As a logical proposition, it may be correct - but its correctness is irrelevant as the original proposition is irrelevant.

To the Orthodox*, we only inherit the effects of sin, but to the Roman Catholic, we inherit sin it self, or rather we contract it, since we are innocent of committing it. Our Baptism not only washes away the this sin, which has stained our souls, but it also restores us to good standing with God by infusing us with sanctifying grace.

• Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical ‘taint’ of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse. This picture, which normally passes for the Augustinian view, is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men’s suspicions, and hard to win their trust. orthodoxchristian.info/pages/original.htm

With Love…

+Deus tecum

 

[PRmerger]

I have no idea what your Magisterium say about this, and am curious to know. Pray tell.

Fair enough.

It is quite clear that you are uninformed about what the Magisterium says about this.

When you say this:

Originally Posted by **KyivanPatriarch **
The EOC rejects the concept that the Theotokos was not capable of sin

…that makes you very Catholic.

Mary, like all human persons, was quite capable of sin. She just chose not to.

 

[PRmerger]

But the fact of the matter is that the EOC and the RCC are both in agreement on the sinlessness and all-holiness of the BVM. The EOC may dislike the route the RCC has taken in arriving at its Doctrine, but the final destination is still the same.

'zactly. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

This is rather circular, is it not Kyivan? “I don’t believe in the teachings of the Council of Trent, therefore it was not authoritative.” and “The council of Trent is not authoritative, therefore the teachings it proposes are not dogma.”

No.

The Council of Trent was a product of schism between Rome and the other 4 Patriarchates of the Apostolic Church (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch).

Very straight forward. The majority of the Church were not there. It was not Ecumenical.

And even so - it is still argued credibly that Trent did not support the IC Dogma.

Ah, I see, then.

But it does appear that you will need to amend your initial comment, which makes it seem as if you are saying that the Council of Trent is not authoritative because (and I bold the word* because* in your text below to emphasize that this is YOUR paradigm, not mine) it taught false doctrine.

The Council of Trent was not an authoritative Ecumenical Council. from our perspective, it is not authoritative at all because it propounded dogma and teaching which departed from the the faith of the Apostles.

Are the above not your words, Kyivan? (NB: again, bolded is my emphasis).

Do you wish to amend or retract that?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger–the Bible doesn’t mention the trinity as pertaining to justification, and St. Paul doesn’t hand down any anathemas against those who deny it. So, the trinity must not be essential.

True, dat.

At least, if one is attempting to be consistent and following Arthropod’s “essentials” argument.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Dear Brother,

I have not been arguing my personal opinions. Have you?

What do you consider an authoritative source?

With Love…

Dear Heterodox Brothers and Sisters,

Thanks for your many and varied responses in this discussion. I hope you can appreciate, and respect the fact, that in essence, I am the only Orthodox participant here who is trying in a spirit of love to demonstrate the detail of why the EOC do not accept the IC as the revealed Divine truth - and related eschatology.

This is onerous, and a little daunting… however, I will briefly comment on each of your specific posts once I have sourced a more detailed treatise of the issue of Ancestral Sin* as understood by the Apostolic Church… I’m attempting to source one which is not too long and which has proper citations for transparecy, and sensible dialogue.

I hope you can all wait whilst I get around to doing this?

Otherwise - to make my participation in this discussion a little easier - perhaps one of you could ask another Orthodox Brother or Sister to join the discussion to assist me in that task?

With Love…

*Original Sin for the Heterodox.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dear Heterodox Brothers and Sisters,

Thanks for your many and varied responses in this discussion. I hope you can appreciate, and respect the fact, that in essence, I am the only Orthodox participant here who is trying in a spirit of love to demonstrate the detail of why the EOC do not accept the IC as the revealed Divine truth - and related eschatology.

This is onerous, and a little daunting… however, I will briefly comment on each of your specific posts once I have sourced a more detailed treatise of the issue of Ancestral Sin* as understood by the Apostolic Church… I’m attempting to source one which is not too long and which has proper citations for transparecy, and sensible dialogue.

I hope you can all wait whilst I get around to doing this?

Otherwise - to make my participation in this discussion a little easier - perhaps one of you could ask another Orthodox Brother or Sister to join the discussion to assist me in that task?

With Love…

*Original Sin for the Heterodox.

We will be glad to wait for your responses, I am sure! There are other Orthodox here, as well, and I’m sure they’ll be along to help you explain.

When you refer to heterodox brothers and sisters, are you referring to Catholics or Oriental Orthodox?

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

We will be glad to wait for your responses, I am sure! There are other Orthodox here, as well, and I’m sure they’ll be along to help you explain.

When you refer to heterodox brothers and sisters, are you referring to Catholics or Oriental Orthodox?

Thanks,

Heterodox is a term which means “Non-Orthodox”.

And no - the Eastern & Oriental are in essential communion on matters of the faith - they are therefore not Heterodox. Catholics and Protestants are Heterodox.

With love… be back soon. :byzsoc:

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Obviously, my friend, if Leo was speaking about it in the fifth century, it was not an unheard of idea.

The IC theology does not really surface anywhere before the C12th as far as we can tell… Pope Leo was speaking as the Bishop of Rome (Patriarch) in full communion with the other Patriarchs - he was stating Orthodox Theology…

When you say we were born in original sin, you acknowledge that this came with the removal of grace from God. This, combined with concupiscence, equals, what, my friend? If we have no grace from God, then we are spiritually dead already. That is the effect of sin. Thus, though we have committed no actual sin, we are born guilty in the sense that we are deprived of grace. The only thing that justifies us is the grace from God. You are using semantics and arriving at a false conclusion.

Not semantics. The EOC teach that among the Human Race - Christ was the only one born without any transgression, The Theotokos obtained grace and sanctity as a result of the incarnation. Whether she personally sinned prior to the incarnation is still an open question (or afterwards) - but all Orthodox agree she did not commit any personal sin before or after the incarnation that would have prevented her becoming the God Bearer, or being assumed body and soul into heaven. This was also the official position of Rome prior to innovation

Here is a website featuring statements by the fathers on original sin. They speak of it much as Catholics do, and they are not all Western fathers. I feel your definitions may be formed by bias:

catholicfidelity.com/the-church-fathers-and-original-sin-by-joe-gallegos/

I am trying not to be biased, and hope you are trying too.

My confusion at your definition is this: how can we have no ‘stain’ from original sin, when we are deprived of God’s grace, and God’s grace is the only way of being pure before Him? How can we be born in original sin and not have sin, even when you have essentially admitted to us having sin by saying we have no grace (the absence of God’s grace is the effect of sin, whether we have committed the sin or not makes no difference, we are spiritually dead because of it)?

Do we carry the “sin” or do we carry the “corruption” and “absence” or “separation” consequences alone? That is the key difference here… Mariology, Christology and Hypostatic Union are all effected by this question. The separation from sanctity and grace did not apply to the Theotokos and Christ for different reasons… She because of the Incarnation - He because he was also fully God.

With Love…