N
Nine_Two
Guest
They wanted it to be required belief?
Belief is uncommon, but acceptable in the Orthodox Church.
- Status
Belief is uncommon, but acceptable in the Orthodox Church.
A
Aramis
Guest
They believed it, their pastor didn’t. There are a number of exceedingly “my orthodoxy or else, even if Orthodoxy as a whole accepts your view as well” priests in the OCA Diocese of Alaska. Not all of them were on the same wavelength, either… At least 2 consider EC’s “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”…They wanted it to be required belief?
Belief is uncommon, but acceptable in the Orthodox Church.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brothers Nine_Two and Dcointin,
Nine_Two:
Dcointin:
The reason that I focused on the first sentence of the proscription is that it actually informs the tenor of the rest of the proscription.
The worst translation that could possibly be given was unfortunately the one that both of you initially offered - “Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…” This translation sets the tone that the proscription is 1) a mere display of dictatorial authority by the Church (a bit of haughty one-up-manship), and, as brother Dcointin accurately put it, 2) that there are no exceptions for why one might disagree. Both these perceptions would be a misunderstanding.
The misunderstanding is based on the words mistranslated as “shall dare” and “to think.” Let’s consider “shall dare” first. Let’s face it – anyone who reads those words immediately thinks that the Church is simply stamping down its dictatorial foot and closing off any possibility of leniency or flexibility. But the original Latin word that is translated as “shall dare” ironically means the exact opposite. The original word in Latin is praesumpserit (3rd person plural, future indicative of the verb praesumpsi), and it means “to act without justification.” Thus, far from saying that there will be no possibility of leniency or flexibility, the proscription actually provides for the possibility that one could have a moderating reason for not believing in the teaching. The translation “shall presume” is closer to the original intention of the Latin, but unfortunately also carries the same connotation of dictatorial authority as “shall dare.”
Theologians and canonists will immediately recognize that the words praesumpserit corde sentire places the proscription squarely under the mitigation of invincible ignorance. All the situations I gave in the list (from post #3 of this thread) that led to a conclusion “the proscription does not apply” are instances that warrant the mitigation of invincible ignorance.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for your responses.
The reason that I focused on the first sentence of the proscription is that it actually informs the tenor of the rest of the proscription.
The worst translation that could possibly be given was unfortunately the one that both of you initially offered - “Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…” This translation sets the tone that the proscription is 1) a mere display of dictatorial authority by the Church (a bit of haughty one-up-manship), and, as brother Dcointin accurately put it, 2) that there are no exceptions for why one might disagree. Both these perceptions would be a misunderstanding.
The misunderstanding is based on the words mistranslated as “shall dare” and “to think.” Let’s consider “shall dare” first. Let’s face it – anyone who reads those words immediately thinks that the Church is simply stamping down its dictatorial foot and closing off any possibility of leniency or flexibility. But the original Latin word that is translated as “shall dare” ironically means the exact opposite. The original word in Latin is praesumpserit (3rd person plural, future indicative of the verb praesumpsi), and it means “to act without justification.” Thus, far from saying that there will be no possibility of leniency or flexibility, the proscription actually provides for the possibility that one could have a moderating reason for not believing in the teaching. The translation “shall presume” is closer to the original intention of the Latin, but unfortunately also carries the same connotation of dictatorial authority as “shall dare.”
- “To think” is not so much a mistranslation as an act of eisegesis – yanking something out of the original context. The original Latin words are corde sentire. Brother Dcointin provided the proper translation in an earlier post – “to think with their hearts.” The proscription is not talking about mere disagreement or lack of belief. It’s talking about a downright kicking-and-screaming-while-being-dragged-away, I-won’t-believe-it-even-if-you-pull-my-fingernails-out, even-if-I-have-no-reason-to-deny-I-will-do-so-just-because-the-Catholic-Church-teaches-it kind of attitude.
Theologians and canonists will immediately recognize that the words praesumpserit corde sentire places the proscription squarely under the mitigation of invincible ignorance. All the situations I gave in the list (from post #3 of this thread) that led to a conclusion “the proscription does not apply” are instances that warrant the mitigation of invincible ignorance.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I wonder if they were Ukrainian. The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine has traditionally had a strong Tradition of belief in the IC, until it was systematically forbidden from the turn of the 19th/20th century onwards.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
Btw, Munificentissimus Deus contains a nearly identical proscription:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should presume willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
It’s not a hands-down, if-you-just-think-it-you’re-condemned, proscription. It is, like the proscription in Ineffabilis Deus, mitigated by the principle of invincible ignorance. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the proscriptions in Marian dogmas are not anathemas. At best, they contain excommunications, which are not condemnations, but are disciplinary proscriptions to persude people to come back to the Faith.
Blessings
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should presume willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
It’s not a hands-down, if-you-just-think-it-you’re-condemned, proscription. It is, like the proscription in Ineffabilis Deus, mitigated by the principle of invincible ignorance. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the proscriptions in Marian dogmas are not anathemas. At best, they contain excommunications, which are not condemnations, but are disciplinary proscriptions to persude people to come back to the Faith.
Blessings
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Thank you to everyone who responded to my last post. Theology is not my strong point. I did not quite understand the responses. With all due respect, they seemed somewhat vague in terms of answering my question.
I do appreciate that there is no central authority among the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches to determine what all should believe. May be none of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches has ever determined whether original sin or the immaculate conception is to be believed or not.
I would be really grateful if someone would please give me a simple, straightforward answer to the following two questions: 1. do Eastern Orthodox believe that every mortal human being is stained with original sin at birth? 2. do Eastern Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without being stained with original sin? For both questions just a simple answer, please: a. Yes; b. No; c. the Eastern Orthodox Churches haven’t decided.
Thank you!
I do appreciate that there is no central authority among the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches to determine what all should believe. May be none of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches has ever determined whether original sin or the immaculate conception is to be believed or not.
I would be really grateful if someone would please give me a simple, straightforward answer to the following two questions: 1. do Eastern Orthodox believe that every mortal human being is stained with original sin at birth? 2. do Eastern Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without being stained with original sin? For both questions just a simple answer, please: a. Yes; b. No; c. the Eastern Orthodox Churches haven’t decided.
Thank you!
V
Vico
Guest
Q. Do you believe in X?
A. We don’t know X?
Eastern Orthodox use the term ancestral sin not original sin.
Coptic Oriental Orthodox, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III said no to immaculate conception, i.e., to impurity of the original sin.
Some interesting quotes, west and east:
thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/church-fathers-doctors-immaculate-conception/
You may need several statements.
Autocephalous Eastern Orthodox:
1 Constantinople
2 Poland
3 Albania
4 Czech, Slovokia
5 Greece
6 Bulgaria
7 Georgia
8 Serbia
9 Cyprus
10 Russia
11 Romania
12 Jerusalem
13 Alexandria
14 Antioch
Oriental Orthodox:
1 Armenian
2 Coptic
3 Ethiopian Tweahedo
4 Eritrean Tweahedo
5 Syriac
6 Caucasian Albanian
Assyrian:
1 Assyrian Church of the East
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Thanks for replying to my post Vico. Although, I’m none the wiser.
I really want to know where the eastern churches stand on these matters. As it seems that original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption are well rehearsed arguments both in the Eastern and Latin Catholic churches, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental churches, and other eastern churches that there must be some understanding of where each of the churches stand on these issues.
I always thought that one of the biggest obstacles to unity between east and west was the papacy. It seems to me now that there are much more fundamental differences that prevent unity. If we cannot have unity in what we believe then we cannot be united.
M
mardukm
Guest
I have read his works on the matter, and it gives me hope, because it does not seem he really understands the teaching. For instance, he has stated that the IC teaches that Mary was not conceived in the same way other humans are conceived. Of course, that’s not true, because Pope Benedict IX condemned that very error in 1677. To repeat, there is hope.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While I don’t know Latin, it seems to me that you’re playing with semantics. I would interpret all of those English translations the same way, true some are more blunt than others, but to me they all seem to say “If you disagree, your soul is in mortal danger.” I don’t see mitigating circumstances, especially not one that would allow the Eastern Orthodox en masse to accept the authority of the bull without accepting IC.
M
mardukm
Guest
The reason you will not find a united statement from Orthodox on the matter is because, despite accusations of heresy from lay polemicists, the matter is regarded by them as not important enough to dogmatize. Which, of course, makes you wonder- if it’s not important enough to dogmatize, why is it being viewed as a cause of schism?
The very purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that the Marian dogmas themselves impose no imperatives so as to make them a cause or a basis for (continued) schism.
Blessings
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I had actually meant to start a thread on this question of anathema vs. excommunication a while back, however for reasons relating to being to tired to think when I was getting home from work I didn’t.
I would not say they contain “at best” excommunications, they certainly do contain excommunications, which is to say that you can’t partake in the soul-saving mysteries of Christ until you give in and acknowledge them to be correct, In an earlier discussion you gave the example of the Early Church which would hand out long lasting excommunications, and which, as I mentioned did not prevent people from the Mysteries if they were in danger of death, the difference with those excommunications is that they came after repentance, and usually for things which made then anathema. To downplay excommunication is wrong, I think. It was by far the worst punishment without forcing someone out of the Church, and the automatic excommunications, as opposed to those handed down by a Bishop, don’t have the same powers of admonishment.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The problem is the two have slightly different definitions of many things.
In answer to question one, if you are basing your question on the Latin understanding - no, however the Orthodox have their own understanding under which they would say yes.
In answer to question two, nothing has been decided - which is part of the contention - but the vast majority of Orthodox would say no.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
In other words, many people probably feel condemned by the Decrees, but objectively, from the Catholic POV, they are not.
Blessings
Fair enough. But despite your own interpretations/apprehensions, the fact remains that the Catholic Church herself understands invincible ignorance to mitigate any proscription this dogma might have, even apart from the text of the dogma. That is something non-Catholics should consider in their assessment of the dogmatic character of the decrees.
In other words, many people probably feel condemned by the Decrees, but objectively, from the Catholic POV, they are not.
Blessings
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The issues with the Papacy stand at the heart of these issues, as they were dogmas proclaimed by the pope on his own authority. Most Orthodox believe in the Assumption, for example, yet most have issues with the dogma, making it an issue of unity.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Do you have sources that say this is the Catholic Churches interpretation?
Without something that explicitly says this is the Catholic Churches interpretation, from a trustworthy source, I can’t accept it as anything more than your own interpretation, which has the same value as mine.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I accept the points raised. It would appear that the Catholic Church (the western , Latin branch at least) believes that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are two “mysteries” that Latin Catholics are bound to believe.
In my previous post I said that I know there will be no single statement on these matters from the Orthodox churches. I am aware that they are autocephalous churches and that there is no Orthodox equivalence to the central authority of the pope found in the Catholic churches.
What I find strange is the constant avoidance that is made of any statement either way as to where the Orthodox stand in relation to these issues. I think that the Roman dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption where a case of dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s’. As both these “mysteries” were widely believed in the Catholic Church (Latin at least) before the decrees on these “mysteries”.
In asking this question over and over again I am beginning to feel like a dogged reporter trying to get a straightforward answer out of a politician. No one is answering the clear, closed questions that I have posed. I am not going to ask them again. At least like the dogged reporter I know when I’m not going to get an answer and when to move on.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I meant that the papacy was an issue in the sense of the very office itself, not how it had decreed on these two Marian “mysteries”.
This next question may sound naïve to those of you with more experience of discussing matters concerning eastern and western Christianity but it is asked in total honesty. If the Orthodox believe in the Assumption why do they have an issue with the Pope proclaiming it to be a dogma of faith?
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I decided to have a look if there were any articles on these matters in Wikipedia despite the fact that I am not its biggest fan.
Has the article on the Assumption in Wikipedia (Assumption of Mary) got it right?
Catholics believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary: her soul and body were assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos: the Blessed Virgin Mary died; her soul immediately went to heaven; three days later her physical body was resurrected and went to heaven.
In my humble opinion, assuming the Wikipedia article is factually correct, we believe in the same thing with some differences in the fine detail.
The article also states that it is the norm in the Catholic Church to issue dogmas on matters of faith whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy doctrines are less authoritatively expressed.
Wikipedia (Immaculate Conception) also says that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not believe in the concept of original sin.
I think I will also look this up in Encyclopædia Britannica. I will only post if it gives a differing perspective.
Has the article on the Assumption in Wikipedia (Assumption of Mary) got it right?
Catholics believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary: her soul and body were assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos: the Blessed Virgin Mary died; her soul immediately went to heaven; three days later her physical body was resurrected and went to heaven.
In my humble opinion, assuming the Wikipedia article is factually correct, we believe in the same thing with some differences in the fine detail.
The article also states that it is the norm in the Catholic Church to issue dogmas on matters of faith whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy doctrines are less authoritatively expressed.
Wikipedia (Immaculate Conception) also says that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not believe in the concept of original sin.
I think I will also look this up in Encyclopædia Britannica. I will only post if it gives a differing perspective.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
I think a cause of the divide here is that you have a different understanding on “salvation outside the church” than the Catholic Church herself possesses. The CC does not teach that salvation outside her visible communion is impossible (and I’m sure you know that). So, if you understand the magisterial Catholic position on EENS, why would you interpret an excommunication as an automatic ride to hell?
There’s something else that needs to be pointed out about the proscriptions attached to the Marian dogmas – the proscriptions are primarily latae sententiae (except when a denier makes publicly speaks against it). That’s what it means when the proscriptions say the denier is self-condemned. For the most part, given the mitigations of invincible ignorance, the situation is between that person and God. Only God knows the heart and will judge if the person’s motives for denying the dogma are sincere.
But to press the matter home, let’s consider 3 of the situations I gave in my post #3.
Marduk
Those are great words to ponder.
I think a cause of the divide here is that you have a different understanding on “salvation outside the church” than the Catholic Church herself possesses. The CC does not teach that salvation outside her visible communion is impossible (and I’m sure you know that). So, if you understand the magisterial Catholic position on EENS, why would you interpret an excommunication as an automatic ride to hell?
There’s something else that needs to be pointed out about the proscriptions attached to the Marian dogmas – the proscriptions are primarily latae sententiae (except when a denier makes publicly speaks against it). That’s what it means when the proscriptions say the denier is self-condemned. For the most part, given the mitigations of invincible ignorance, the situation is between that person and God. Only God knows the heart and will judge if the person’s motives for denying the dogma are sincere.
But to press the matter home, let’s consider 3 of the situations I gave in my post #3.
- Suppose a Catholic has doubts about the dogma, but is willing to be led by the Holy Spirit to a better understanding. According to the principle of invincible ignorance, which is active even apart from the Decree (though I have argued that it is inherent in the text of the proscriptions themselves), the doubting Catholic is objectively not proscribed by the Decree. But non-Catholic X comes along and tells that person - “The dogma says you are excommunicated [or condemned, if you will].” The Catholic believes non-Catholic X and leaves the Church. I ask you, who or what was responsble for that persons’s excommunication? I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt it was not the Decree of the Church.
- Suppose a Catholic states, “I believe it, but I don’t think it should be imposed on others as a dogma.” The proscription plainly states that the proscription only applies to those who obstinately or willfully deny the teaching. This person is not denying the teaching, but only its status as a dogma. Bu non-Catholic Y comes along and tells that person - “The dogma says you are excommunicated/condemned.” The Catholic believes non-Catholic X and leaves the Church. I ask you, who or what was responsible for that person’s excommunication? It certainly was not the Church.
- Suppose a Catholic grows up in the Eastern Tradition and can’t accept the dogma because he or she just cannot reconcile it in heart and mind with what she has been taught “Original Sin” is. Believe it or not, the doctrine of invincible ignorance indeed mitigates that circumstance. The proscription would not apply to that person. But non-Catholic X comes along and tells the Eastern Catholic, “The dogma says you are excommuncated/condemned.” The Eastern Catholic feels he/she has no choice but to leave the Church. I ask you, who or what was responsible for that person’s excommunication? It certainly was not the Church.
Marduk
- Status