P
Peter_J
Guest
If I might “butt in”, the bolded sentence doesn’t seem to contribute much to your argument.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Oh you know what the teachings and differences are. Why resort to this? You know what you said is not what it is. You know that just because there is no concept of Original Sin in the East it doesn’t mean that the East believes people are born with divine grace. Can we have a discussion without being facetious?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Of course it does. Why do you think the West moved the day of celebration one day earlier?
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m not being facetious at all. I know the differences in approach and nuance, the differences between a juridical approach and a medicinal one. I’ve studied this issue for years, posting on this Forum and others for almost a decade, spoken with my (Melkite) Bishops, and I’ve never, ever come across the substantial differences that could warrant the flat statement “we don’t believe in Original Sin”; I’ve seen it from weak Orthodox polemics, but never any substantial studies that showed understanding of Latin theology. Our Fathers certainly believed that Adam and Eve lost the Divine Grace that was intended for them, and that we have suffered corruption of our nature because of it. That is all the teaching of Original Sin is, and if you have any authoritative Latin sources that say otherwise please share them.
So I pose my questions to you again. Perhaps you’d be willing to post your understanding of what Original Sin means, and if you do please also explain what you think terms like “guilt” and “stain” mean.
Peace and God bless!
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
While it may have been asked rhetoricallly (and otherwise) in the last instance, the question is nonetheless valid and with merit. But it wasn’t moved by a day - it was placed on that date originally in the West.
The feast did originate in the East and was (is) celebrated on December 9th, an “imperfect” nine months (off by a day) from the feast of Nativity of the Theotokos on September 8th.
The same is true of the parallel feasts of St John the Baptist, whose Nativity is celebrated on Jume 24th, yet the Conception of St. John the Baptist is celebrated on September 23rd - an imperfect nine months (intentionally short by a day). Historically, this is the older of the two sets of feasts.
The dates of the feasts of the Nativity and Conception of St. John the Baptist were intentionally set as such to symbolize that St. John was not conceived in the same, perfect manner as Christ. The dates of the Annunciation and the Nativity of our Lord are a “perfect” nine months apart (March 25 to December 25). The setting of the date for the Conception of St. John the Baptist was deliberate in two ways. First, as alluded, to symbolize that his conception was not miraculous and immaculate, it was set one day less than the “perfect” nine months between the conception and birth of Our Lord. This symbolic dating was repeated by the Easterners in the development of the Feast of the Conception of St. Anna (that of the Theotkos). Second, his Nativity was set six months and one day before the Nativity of Our Lord, reflecting that he was indeed the Forerunner and the customary belief that he was six months older (as extrapolated from Gospel accounts), but again it was a “symbolically imperfect” six month plus one day difference.
The Feast of the Conception of Mary (by St. Anna) was originally adopted in the West and set on December 8th, as the concept of the Immaculate Conception began to more fully evolve. The date was set as a “perfect” nine months before the established feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in early deferrence to the privileged manner in which Mary was conceived, as believed at the time.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia (which I hate to quote, but will do so in fairness) does go so far as to state that the “older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conception of/by St. Anna), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object”. That conclusion does acknowledge that the formulation of the feast was different, East and West, and that cannot be entirely ignored. It also could simply mean that the feast, as such, gained its true character when the dogma was declared on the feast date in 1854.
Yet, to say that the modern understanding as reflected in Eastern Catholic practice is of two different feasts is faulty. The Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine origin, for example, do not celebrate both feasts - the original Feast of the Conception of St. Anna is maintained, and the Immaculate Conception is recognized on that date. However, given that the United States has been officially entrusted to the patronage of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Eastern Catholics in the U.S. do indeed transfer the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne to December 8th, in an expression of Catholic fidelity. At some level, the feasts have indeed been equated. If not, the Eastern Catholic Churches would be obligated to celebrate both.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know. That argument may or may not have merit (I’ll leave that side of the discussion to ByzCathCantor, who seems to have it well in hand
) although I think some of the other arguments you’ve made are better.On the other hand, does any of this really lead to a, well, surprising conclusion? (Assuming that you already agree that Eastern Orthodox ≠ Eastern Catholic that is.)
D
dvdjs
Guest
Huh?
Orthodox catechisms hold otherwise.
biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html
G
Ghosty
Guest
But those are from the hopelessly Latinized Soviet-era Russian Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. Of course they’d teach Original Sin in terms identical to the CCC.
Peace and God bless!
T
tdgesq
Guest
As does the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:
"49. The essential points of the doctrine of baptism on which the two Churches are agreed are the following:
Code:
1. The necessity of baptism for salvation;
2. The effects of baptism, particularly new life in Christ and liberation from *original sin* . . . ."
G
Ghosty
Guest
This illustrates a point I want to make clear: I’m trying to defend Eastern tradition in this discussion, not Latin. I fear that in an attempt to “be authentically Eastern” it is become a habit among some to distort Eastern traditions to get them further from Latin tradition than is actually warranted. I personally find this “anti-Latinization” to be as repugnant as Latinization, and far more pernicious. We would have a Faith that was neither that of our Fathers, nor of any other Apostolic tradition; we would become a new kind of Eastern Protestant, IMO. I see it too much online, not so much in the world, but it still concerns me.
The Immaculate Conception is something I defend as a valid theological view from our tradition, but I don’t like that it was dogmatized. I believe it, but I also believe that water is wet without the need for a dogma. What concerns me more is the slow erosion of Eastern tradition in favor of distancing ourselves from Latins. We are different and distinct, but when we begin contradicting our own heritage in order to widen the gap we are not only losing ourselves, we are falling victim to the very same mindset that leads to Latinizations, and I’m speaking of both Catholics and Orthodox here as this process began among the Orthodox it seems.
Peace and God bless!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Good point.
M
malphono
Guest
:clapping: I’d say the same applies to the Assumption (aka the Dormition) as well.
Yes, I believe you’re on-target about that. FWIW, I tend to think this whole business arose in certain EO sectors and has taken hold like a weed precisely because Rome unilaterally (and I think everyone here knows what I mean by that by now) insisted on declaring various dogmas which did not need dogmatic definition in the first place. In defining those dogmas, Rome set its theological perspective and language in stone and, when one comes right down to it, defied anyone to contradict them, even if merely on the basis of an alternate perspective or differing language. So we have the Orthodox who, for their part, refuse (basically out of spite) to accept them precisely because of the perspective/language, as well as how they came to be defined. And then we have the very odd position of the ECs/OCs, where we have to dance around trying to explain these dogmas in “our way” lest we be accused (or accuse ourselves) of being latinized by accepting them. :hypno:
G
Ghosty
Guest
I am with you 110%. You said everything I would say, and better.
Peace and God bless!
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Regardless if one believes in the original teaching that Original Sin is a stain of sin inherited from Adam that is washed away at baptism, or that Original Sin is not any guilt but rather the result of the fall, to say that Mary was excused from Original Sin means that she is a perfect pre-Fall human like Adam and Eve was in the Garden. The East certainly does not teach that. While she has been filled with God’s grace from the beginning, she is 100% like you and me, post-fall humanity.
V
Vico
Guest
Yikes!, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Mother of God was like pre-fallen Adam and Eve. She was redeemed by her Lord and Savior. She was not preserved from all consequences of the original sin of Adam and Eve.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda42a.htm
The Baltimore Catechism, no. 3, Lessons 1 and 5.
52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
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.
(a) Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift which is a sharing in the nature of God Himself and which raises men to the supernatural order, conferring on them powers entirely above those proper to human nature.
(b) Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
62. Was any human person ever preserved from original sin?
The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son; and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
(a) In the first instant of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary possessed the fullness of sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. She was, however, subject to pain and suffering, as was her Divine Son.
(b) By a special privilege of Almighty God, Our Blessed Mother was free throughout her life from all actual sin, both mortal and venial.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda42a.htm
The Baltimore Catechism, no. 3, Lessons 1 and 5.
52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
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.
(a) Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift which is a sharing in the nature of God Himself and which raises men to the supernatural order, conferring on them powers entirely above those proper to human nature.
(b) Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Code:
**53. What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?**
The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.
(a) These gifts are not supernatural or above all created natures, but they are preternatural, that is, beyond the powers of human nature, though not above all created natures.
(b) If Adam had not sinned, these gifts would have been transmitted to all men as the possession of human nature.The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son; and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
(a) In the first instant of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary possessed the fullness of sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. She was, however, subject to pain and suffering, as was her Divine Son.
(b) By a special privilege of Almighty God, Our Blessed Mother was free throughout her life from all actual sin, both mortal and venial.
G
Ghosty
Guest
As Vico points out, it is not taught that she was exactly like Adam and Eve. Still not interested in actually answering my request, though? I’m a little disappointed, honestly.
Peace and God bless!
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Well said, Ghosty.
Constantine, the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin does not indicate that she is a perfect pre-Fall human. Vico explained this earlier in this thread very specifically, and here on this page he has done so again.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I don’t know CTG your losing me now.
The Church does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” CCC - 405
We did not inherit Adam and Eves personal guilt or “sin”, but inherited moral weakness in a fallen state which could very well lead to guilt through consequence.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were naked and ashamed. They felt GUILT. Pehaps incorrect guilt, nevertheless guilt. We didn’t inherit there actual sin or feelings. We inherited the disease, or the “it” that their transgression initiated by a desire to be like the gods and know good and evil. The it was imposed by God in Love.
How one “feels” is contingent on what one does or doesn’t do, especially from the point of Baptism. Or the Supernatural imposed Virtue of Grace. Which is Gods love.
Its normal emotion from one to another which differs on circumstance in a individuals life, certainly not subject to East or West. Our nature is “Good” as we are created in the image of God. Grace as viewed above in the Baltimore CCC.
The flaw of the East/West debate is later highlighted by Luther and especially Calvin. Which in truth was corrected prior by Aquina’s who elaborated on Augustine with concupiscence. This further evolves at Trent and then Pope Pius almost right after Trent.
"Insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + cupere, to desire: concupiscentia, desire, greed, cupidity.) " Father Hardin
Baptism forgives actual sin. However, man wanted to be like the gods and know right from wrong. God did not alter this, man still has the inclination to sin, which is exactly why the Lord in His wisdom left the Sacraments of the Church, in particular the Eucharist.
Baptism is restored Grace but with this also comes a responsibility for each individual to preserve this Grace though Faith, for this can and often is lost. And the Church clearly speaks on this also. Due to the fall a seperation occurs from Gods Grace, Baptism restores this Grace and forgives the inherited state. But it does not place man back into the Garden nor remove mans inclination to sin.
While Mary is not subject to this aspect of the fallen state as we see, She is in other ways subject as described above.
Anyway, I don’t see the issue in the early church fathers which Augustine definately used in addition to the Apostle Paul, rather with the theology Augustine applied especially in Confessions and how its distorted through pre-Trent by the reformers. This is in truth where I see an issue which somehow becomes contingent on Mary and the IC. l fail to see the connection.
S
shlomo3amrooh
Guest
Saint Ephrem was using “Immaculate” during the 300s AD…
"O pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the sinless Mother of thy Son, the mighty Lord of the universe, thou who art inviolate and altogether holy, the hope of the hopeless and sinful, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as full of every grace, thou who didst bear the God-Man: we all bow low before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment; deliver us from the fire that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother. Thou indeed art our only hope, most sure and sacred in God’s sight, to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion forever and ever world without end. Amen. "
Just Sayin…
"O pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the sinless Mother of thy Son, the mighty Lord of the universe, thou who art inviolate and altogether holy, the hope of the hopeless and sinful, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as full of every grace, thou who didst bear the God-Man: we all bow low before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment; deliver us from the fire that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother. Thou indeed art our only hope, most sure and sacred in God’s sight, to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion forever and ever world without end. Amen. "
Just Sayin…
G
Ghosty
Guest
Immaculate isn’t the controversial part, it’s conception that causes the raucus. The Byzantine East is very clear about Mary being all-Holy. The debate, such as it is, is over when she became all-Holy.
Peace and God Bless!
- Status