Is the IC a hindrance to unity?

[Aramis]

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.

Byzantine Catholics also hold the Dormition approach to the Assumption… the body died, and was taken up to heaven.

 

[chrisb]

I fear unity between East and West because of Imperialists such as yourself who have no understanding of what we believe.

Name Calling won’t distract from the fact that modern Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin and thus in any ‘fall’ in which Man ‘needs’ a second birth.

 

[Aramis]

Name Calling won’t distract from the fact that modern Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin and thus in any ‘fall’ in which Man ‘needs’ a second birth.

Every Orthodox I’ve ever talked to does believe in original sin. Just not in the personal guilt for Adam’s sin which many Romans believe in.

“By Adams Sin Death entered the world. By Christ’s Death he trampled Death.”

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm,

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the warnings given in the definition of the dogma do not apply to those who are in “invincible ignorance”? I understand that “invincible ignorance” is a rejection of truth based on conditions preventing a person from accepting it through no fault of their own. An example of this would be someone being taught that the Catholic Church worships the Virgin Mary, and because of that refuses to consider its teachings with an open mind. Such a person would not necessarily be condemned for his refusal because he acted in ignorance, and God would judge him with that in mind. Would you say that is a correct summary of the teaching? It’s not something that I’m familiar with as an Orthodox, though we would agree that God is merciful and judges the intentions of the heart.

I personally don’t have any major objections to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (though I do need to study the Catholic doctrine of original sin more). In fact I think we have far more agreement in the area of Marian doctrine than we do disagreement. For example, we both agree on the following and probably much more:

1. Mary is the Theotokos, i.e. the Mother of God, who bore God in her very womb, uniting her to Him in a way that is more intimate and incomprehensible than any other human being
2. Mary was prepared for this role from the time of the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden
3. Mary was conceived miraculously in response to the prayers of her parents Sts. Joachim and Anna, which is celebrated by both churches in the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos
4. Mary was dedicated to the service of God in the Temple from childhood, and lived a monastic life of extreme holiness
5. Mary was betrothed to Joseph who was to be her caretaker, but retained her vow of perpetual virginity throughout her life
6. Mary was completely free from any actual sins throughout her life
7. Mary assented to the announcement of the angel that she would bear the Christ, exchanging her obedience for the disobedience of Eve, and thus playing an pivotal role in the salvation of mankind
8. Mary’s death was attended by the apostles who were gathered there miraculously, her body was taken to heaven three days after her death as the first of those redeemed bodily by Christ after his resurrection, and is celebrated by both churches in the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos
9. Mary is the Mother of Christ the King, and thus the heavenly Queen, and the archetype of the Church, who sits at his right hand in glory
10. Mary ceaselessly intercedes on behalf of the world and especially those who pray for her assistance

In light of this same understanding, I find the squabble over the Immaculate Conception to be quite trivial.

Most holy Theotokos save us!

 

[countertenor]

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.

Why do people continually quote from Wikipedia, while stating that they are not a fan, or don’t really like it, ect?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Byzantine Catholics also hold the Dormition approach to the Assumption… the body died, and was taken up to heaven.

So, the Byzantine belief is that Our Lady died and her soul went immediately to heaven. Then three days after her death her physical body was resurrected and taken up to heaven. I’m just double checking that this is what you meant.

Plus, my particular Church’s belief is (if I’ve got it correct) that Our Lady didn’t die but at the end of her life on earth her soul and physical body went up to heaven at the same time.

I’ve heard the Assumption being likened to our Lord’s Ascension and the Dormition being likened to our Lord’s resurrection.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Why do people continually quote from Wikipedia, while stating that they are not a fan, or don’t really like it, ect (sic)?

I say it because first of all I don’t want anybody assuming that if I cite Wikipedia its because I rely on what it says. I don’t like Wikipedia because of the way it is set up to work. I think the main focus of the idea behind Wikipedia is great. It can be a good starting point. However, I don’t like the fact that its articles aren’t usually written by acknowledged experts and that they’re not peer-reviewed before publication. Plus I don’t know of any other free resource similar to Wikipedia. For example, to access full articles on Encyclopædia Britannica you have to pay and not everyone can afford to do that. I’m lucky in that I can access it free through my local public library.

 

[Vico]

So, the Byzantine belief is that Our Lady died and her soul went immediately to heaven. Then three days after her death her physical body was resurrected and taken up to heaven. I’m just double checking that this is what you meant.

Plus, my particular Church’s belief is (if I’ve got it correct) that Our Lady didn’t die but at the end of her life on earth her soul and physical body went up to heaven at the same time.

I’ve heard the Assumption being likened to our Lord’s Ascension and the Dormition being likened to our Lord’s resurrection.

Matthew, the Latin Catholic majority opinion is that the Blessed Virgin Mary physically died. No statement about her physical death was included in the dogma of the Assumption for the Catholic Church:

1. … we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
2. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Matthew, the Latin Catholic majority opinion is that the Blessed Virgin Mary physically died. No statement about her physical death was included in the dogma of the Assumption for the Catholic Church:

1. … we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
2. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

So what is the Church’s official stance? Until this post I’ve never given it too much thought. I think I’ve always believed that at the end of her life she went up to heaven rather than died. Even if she did die there is still a difference between the Catholic teaching on the Assumption (body and soul went up to heaven together) and the Orthodox teaching on the Dormition (soul went to heaven immediately and body went to heaven 3 days later).

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

The reason you’re not getting a “straightforward answer” is because you said you want a yes/no answer to a question that requires some definition due to differences between Latins and Orthodox. I have given you as close as you can get to a direct answer based on those criteria. You will never get a straightforward answer if you demand simple answers to complex questions.

No, the Orthodox have never dogmatized either the Assumption nor the Immaculate Conception. Nor has either one been declared heretical. The Assumption is widely believed by the Orthodox while the Immaculate Conception is not.
Yes, the Orthodox believe in Original Sin, however
No, this is not the same as the Catholic belief in Original Sin.

 

[Nine_Two]

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”.

The role of the office is at the heart of the issue though. Of course we accept such an office as the Bishop of Rome in the Church, but we don’t accept it having the same rights that the Catholic Church does, and it is by these rights that these beliefs were dogmatized.

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?

Because dogma is required belief, meaning it is among those things required to be a member in good standing with the Church, and through that, crucial in salvation. I do not believe that believing Mary was taken up into heaven is necessary, and therefore am opposed to it being dogma. This is the view of most Orthodox.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

You will never get a straightforward answer if you demand simple answers to complex questions.

Fine! If only I’d been told sooner I’d not have persisted.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

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?

Actually I never said it was an automatic ride to hell, I said under the dogma, as I understand it, it says that disbelief puts ones salvation into grave question.

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.

I’ll need to see documents where the Church itself is interpreting it that way.

But to press the matter home, let’s consider 3 of the situations I gave in my post #3.

1. 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.

Doubts and disagreement are not the same thing though.

1. 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.

My understanding of the document itself is not that it decrees against anyone who disagrees with the necessity of the document, however I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim to believe in the doctrine of infallibility while disagreeing that something should have been infallibly decreed.

1. 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.

My reading of that is that it most certainly is the Church which is creating the situation where that person cannot be in proper communion. I don’t see any evidence that the proscription does not apply.

 

[Nine_Two]

Name Calling won’t distract from the fact that modern Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin and thus in any ‘fall’ in which Man ‘needs’ a second birth.

If you’re trying to imply that we are heretics because we have this wrong belief, why do you want unity with us so badly?

 

[Nine_Two]

Fine! If only I’d been told sooner I’d not have persisted.

I did not mean to sound short, but I posted as much when I responded to your request for a yes/no.

 

[dcointin]

Name Calling won’t distract from the fact that modern Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin and thus in any ‘fall’ in which Man ‘needs’ a second birth.

I’m curious, where are you getting your information? Orthodox do believe in the fall of mankind into sin and the need for salvation, it’s the heart of Christianity! Let me post for you again a selection from the book “The Orthodox Faith” by Orthodox theologian and seminary professor Fr. Thomas Hopko. In this selection he’s addressing the fall and original sin:

"Whatever the details of the various interpretations of the Genesis story, it is the clear doctrine of Orthodoxy that man has failed in his original vocation. He disobeyed God’s command through pride, jealousy and the lack of humble gratitude to God by yielding to the temptation of Satan. Thus man sinned. He “missed the mark” of his calling. He transgressed the Law of God (see 1 Jn 3:4). And so he ruined both himself and the creation which he was given to care for and to cultivate. By his sin-and his sins – man brings himself and all creation under the rule of evil and death.

In the Bible and in Orthodox theology these elements always go together: sin, evil, the devil, suffering and death. There is never one without the other, and all are the common result of man’s rebellion against God and his loss of communion with Him. This is the primary meaning of Gen 3 and the chapters which follow until the calling of Abraham. Sin begets still more sin and even greater evil. It brings cosmic disharmony, the ultimate corruption and death of everyone and everything. Man still remains the created image of God – this cannot be changed – but he fails to keep his image pure and to retain the divine likeness. He defiles his humanity with evil, perverts it and deforms it so that it cannot be the pure reflection of God that it was meant to be. The world also remains good, indeed “very good,” but it shares the sorry consequences of its created master’s sin and suffers with him in mortal agony and corruption. Thus, through man’s sin the whole world falls under the rule of Satan and “lies in wickedness” (1 Jn 5:19; see also Rom 5:12)."

 

[Pakesh]

So what is the Church’s official stance? Until this post I’ve never given it too much thought. I think I’ve always believed that at the end of her life she went up to heaven rather than died. Even if she did die there is still a difference between the Catholic teaching on the Assumption (body and soul went up to heaven together) and the Orthodox teaching on the Dormition (soul went to heaven immediately and body went to heaven 3 days later).

Matthew,
While I am not Orthodox, I have never heard or read anywhere about Mary’s soul leaving her body and then three days later rising to heaven I could be completely wrong, and if I am, I hope some of knowledgeable Orthodox posters here will correct me.

As far as the Church’s stance, I assume you mean the Catholic Church’s stance. Another poster quoted the applicable lines from the Dogma, so I won’t re-post them. Note that the Dogma states “at the end of her Earthly life.” (or similar phrase). The dogma specifically does not say whether she died or “fell asleep.” Both views are in the Tradition of the Church. The “meat” of the Dogma is the fact that Mary was assumed Body and Soul into heaven. You could hold the opinion she died first and was assumed, and I could believe she “fell asleep” and was assumed and we would both be fine.
As I understand it, if Mary is Immaculately Conceived, she wouldn’t have been subject to Death, hence she “fell asleep.” The flip side is since Mary participated in a completely unique way in Salvation, and suffered along side her Son at the foot of the Cross, she participated even further by dying (because Christ choose die, she “choose” to die).
I hope that makes sense, and if I am misrepresenting the Latin view, I hope someone corrects me.
God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[Hesychios]

So, the Byzantine belief is that Our Lady died and her soul went immediately

to heaven. Then three days after her death her physical body was resurrected and taken up to heaven. I’m just double checking that this is what you meant. I don’t know about three days.

Maybe.

The tradition of her death and subsequent resurrection is very strong through variant tellings, I don’t remember anything about three days, but it was this tradition of death, burial and assumption which is at the root of the belief east and west.

I’ve heard the Assumption being likened to our Lord’s Ascension and the Dormition being likened to our Lord’s resurrection.

Well, that’s the problem then.

The Dormition is not automatically thought of as a parallel to the Lord’s resurrection. It is the precursor to our own. To the extent that the resurrection of all of us is a parallel to the Lord’s, hers would be too.

The Holy Theotokos is among the first fruits of the resurrection, which is significant to all of us.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t know about three days.

I should have said that she was found to have been resurrected 3 days after her death, not necessarily that it took place on the 3rd day. Here’s how it’s described by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

“Following her repose, the body of the Theotokos was taken in procession and laid in a tomb near the Garden of Gethsemane. When the Apostle Thomas arrived three days after her repose and desired to see her body, the tomb was found to be empty. The bodily assumption of the Theotokos was confirmed by the message of an angel and by her appearance to the Apostles.”

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/dormition/index_html

 

[dcointin]

I don’t know about three days.

I should have said that she was found to have been resurrected 3 days after her death, not necessarily that it took place on the 3rd day. Here’s how it’s described by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

“Following her repose, the body of the Theotokos was taken in procession and laid in a tomb near the Garden of Gethsemane. When the Apostle Thomas arrived three days after her repose and desired to see her body, the tomb was found to be empty. The bodily assumption of the Theotokos was confirmed by the message of an angel and by her appearance to the Apostles.”

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/dormition/index_html