Marian Teachings in East and West

[Aelred_Minor]

All the Dogma asserts is that Mary was conceived without the Stain of Original Sin, which is the absence of Grace we are all born with after the Fall.

If I were to word the teaching in “Easternese” I would say this:

The Mother of God, though suffering the physical effects of the Fall, was conceived with the Divine Life of Grace already in her soul, as is fitting to the woman who would bear Christ.

That is really all the Dogma asserts, though it is written in “Latinese”, and this belief was certainly found in the Byzantine tradition at the very least.

Peace and God bless!

Sounds like a fine formulation, though I don’t know that we have much of an idea of how the physical effects of the Fall effected Mary. Stories about how she gave birth to Jesus would seem to suggest she was at least partially exempt from them, while the story of the dormition would suggest some degree of subjection to them, though other explanations could be given for either.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Sounds like a fine formulation, though I don’t know that we have much of an idea of how the physical effects of the Fall effected Mary. Stories about how she gave birth to Jesus would seem to suggest she was at least partially exempt from them, while the story of the dormition would suggest some degree of subjection to them, though other explanations could be given for either.

Also see post #30 in this thread in case you missed it.

The Mother of God would have been spared physical suffering and the corruption of death. It seems to be so from our shared tradition, east and west.

That is not quite the same thing as saying that she is freed from death by being free from the stain of original sin.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

I would bet dollars to donuts that you don’t know what the “stain of Original Sin” is if you think that Byzantine Catholics don’t believe in it, as we most certainly do. We don’t use that terminology, but we don’t believe that humans are born with the Light of Grace in our souls, which is what the “stain of Original Sin” refers to: the absence of Divine Grace.

Peace and God bless!

My dear friend, I am very knowledgeable in this argument and I believe that sometime in the past we both have already argued over the same thing with each other on this forum. It seems that we are at an impasse as I cannot accept your argument (even in your Easternese terms) and you cannot accept mine which is explained by the Orthodox Churches. But that does not mean we cannot be friends

God Bless you my friend

 

[Ghosty]

Sounds like a fine formulation, though I don’t know that we have much of an idea of how the physical effects of the Fall effected Mary. Stories about how she gave birth to Jesus would seem to suggest she was at least partially exempt from them, while the story of the dormition would suggest some degree of subjection to them, though other explanations could be given for either.

I only throw the physical part in because in the East there is a greater tendency to tie certain physical afflictions, death in particular, into the definition of “Original Sin”. Since Mary certainly suffered some of these physical effects (at the very least the external ones that afflict the world) that our tradition tends to include in Original Sin I figured it was a safe addition, especially since the original Dogma doesn’t speak to these effects at all but rather only to the lack of Divine Life.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

My dear friend, I am very knowledgeable in this argument and I believe that sometime in the past we both have already argued over the same thing with each other on this forum. It seems that we are at an impasse as I cannot accept your argument (even in your Easternese terms) and you cannot accept mine which is explained by the Orthodox Churches. But that does not mean we cannot be friends

God Bless you my friend

Ghosty is absolutely accurate in what he says.

It would be unwise of you to insist upon leading eastern Catholics astray by insisting that it is better for them to adopt a long-standing error on the part of the Orthodox concerning the western teaching on original sin.

It would actually be more than unwise to do it on this Forum

 

[Ghosty]

My dear friend, I am very knowledgeable in this argument and I believe that sometime in the past we both have already argued over the same thing with each other on this forum. It seems that we are at an impasse as I cannot accept your argument (even in your Easternese terms) and you cannot accept mine which is explained by the Orthodox Churches. But that does not mean we cannot be friends

God Bless you my friend

The Orthodox Churches teach that we are born without Divine Grace; the “stain of Original Sin” is the absence of Divine Grace. If you deny that we are conceived lacking the Divine Life, and that we are Baptized to receive it, then you are denying the Orthodox Faith.

It really is that simple, and it’s not a matter of casual disagreement. It is one thing to misrepresent/misunderstand the teaching of the West, and another to deny something of the Byzantine tradition that is so adamantly attested to, namely that we are born lacking the Divine Life and that through Baptism we are born anew into it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

I only throw the physical part in because in the East there is a greater tendency to tie certain physical afflictions, death in particular, into the definition of “Original Sin”. Since Mary certainly suffered some of these physical effects (at the very least the external ones that afflict the world) that our tradition tends to include in Original Sin I figured it was a safe addition, especially since the original Dogma doesn’t speak to these effects at all but rather only to the lack of Divine Life.

Peace and God bless!

You do not subscribe to that part of tradition that says that the Mother of God suffered no birth pangs and delivered the Christ-child into the world as through a veil unrent?..

We do respond to her sorrowing liturgically and para-liturgically…So I am not arguing with you here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do not subscribe to that part of tradition that says that the Mother of God suffered no birth pangs and delivered the Christ-child into the world as through a veil unrent?..

We do respond to her sorrowing liturgically and para-liturgically…So I am not arguing with you here.

No birth pangs and a death akin to a light falling asleep.

 

[Ghosty]

You do not subscribe to that part of tradition that says that the Mother of God suffered no birth pangs and delivered the Christ-child into the world as through a veil unrent?..

We do respond to her sorrowing liturgically and para-liturgically…So I am not arguing with you here.

It is our tradition that she gave birth to Christ without pains. I’m referring specifically to her death, which is affirmed in our tradition and which some raise as an objection to the Immaculate Conception, assuming as they do that the “stain of Original Sin” includes mortality, which obviously it does not in Latin teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

It is our tradition that she gave birth to Christ without pains. I’m referring specifically to her death, which is affirmed in our tradition and which some raise as an objection to the Immaculate Conception, assuming as they do that the “stain of Original Sin” includes mortality, which obviously it does not in Latin teaching.

Peace and God bless!

It seems the west approaches “stain” and consequences slightly differently, with the stain being the loss of original justice, then also being restricted to a darkened intellect and weakened will.

Much of this theological mulling around, of course, comes from the sacramental theology of Baptism and infant Baptism, after which most of us suffer and sorrow deeply in many ways, die and corrupt. It does lead one to wonder what is all this about trampling down death by death; and dying with Christ in Baptism only to rise into Life with Him…And then there is Paul teaching us that there is spiritual death as well as physical death.

So it seems the Mother of God joins us in her sorrowing and in her dormition or gentle death …but seems to be exempted from corruption.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

An interesting topic, as always!

For my own two cents’ worth, is it not true that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a holyday of obligation for Latin Catholics in the U.S. but not for Latin Catholics of other countries where their episcopal conferences have not declared it so? The Immaculate Conception is the Patron of the U.S., so it would appear that whether or not it is a holy day of obligation has nothing to do with how one understands it, accepts it, etc.

In terms of how Western and Eastern Churches view the dogma, the Immaculate Conception as defined is an entirely Latin theological construct that really makes no sense in Eastern theology - what is the “pith and substance” of the dogma is simply that Mary was conceived already with the Grace that is absent in us when we are conceived (and Ghosty is absolutely correct in his “Easternese” formulation). And our liturgy has always celebrated the fact.

It was the East that first established the feast of the “Conception of St Anne” of the Virgin Mary. Since only the feasts of Saints may be liturgically honoured, this means, in the lex orandi, lex credendi tradition, that Mary was already conceived as a Saint - otherwise we would not be celebrating her Conception. No other Saints, (save for St John the Baptist) have their conceptions celebrated liturgically by the Church.

It is the East that has had difficulty quite understanding what the West means by some of its terminology surrounding Original Sin. It has always understood it to mean that we somehow inherit the guilt of the actual sin of disobedience of Adam rather than its impact on our nature which has fallen with and in Adam. But if the West today insists otherwise, then we should take it at its word!

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear Friends,

An interesting topic, as always!

For my own two cents’ worth, is it not true that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a holyday of obligation for Latin Catholics in the U.S. but not for Latin Catholics of other countries where their episcopal conferences have not declared it so? The Immaculate Conception is the Patron of the U.S., so it would appear that whether or not it is a holy day of obligation has nothing to do with how one understands it, accepts it, etc.

In terms of how Western and Eastern Churches view the dogma, the Immaculate Conception as defined is an entirely Latin theological construct that really makes no sense in Eastern theology - what is the “pith and substance” of the dogma is simply that Mary was conceived already with the Grace that is absent in us when we are conceived (and Ghosty is absolutely correct in his “Easternese” formulation). And our liturgy has always celebrated the fact.

It was the East that first established the feast of the “Conception of St Anne” of the Virgin Mary. Since only the feasts of Saints may be liturgically honoured, this means, in the lex orandi, lex credendi tradition, that Mary was already conceived as a Saint - otherwise we would not be celebrating her Conception. No other Saints, (save for St John the Baptist) have their conceptions celebrated liturgically by the Church.

It is the East that has had difficulty quite understanding what the West means by some of its terminology surrounding Original Sin. It has always understood it to mean that we somehow inherit the guilt of the actual sin of disobedience of Adam rather than its impact on our nature which has fallen with and in Adam. But if the West today insists otherwise, then we should take it at its word!

Alex

Out of curiosity, what are the implications of the fact that we celebrate St. John the Baptist’s conception? Would that somehow translate back into Latin theology as saying that St. John the Baptist was immaculately conceived too, or would one explain the celebration of the conception of St. John the Baptist by saying that it is celebrated as a miraculous event because Elizabeth was barren?

 

[Ghosty]

Out of curiosity, what are the implications of the fact that we celebrate St. John the Baptist’s conception? Would that somehow translate back into Latin theology as saying that St. John the Baptist was immaculately conceived too, or would one explain the celebration of the conception of St. John the Baptist by saying that it is celebrated as a miraculous event because Elizabeth was barren?

I believe in Latin tradition he is believed to have been Sanctified in the womb, so he was born “without the stain of Original Sin” but not conceived without it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

The Marian Chaplet of Virtues expresses it universally:

Father, you prepared the Virgin Mary to be the worthy mother of your Son. You let her share beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by his death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception. Help us by her prayers to live in your presence without sin. We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.

 

[DadDave]

How can Mary be a role model for us if she was “kept from sinning?” If she never had a choice then that’s not a role model for us. Of course Eve was created without original sin, yet was still tempted and sin. It would seem to me that Mary should’ve been tempted but said “yes” to God. The IC seems unnecessary.

I heard a priest say yesterday that Mary was never tempted doesn’t that make her greater than Jesus who was tempted?

 

[Elijahmaria]

How can Mary be a role model for us if she was “kept from sinning?” If she never had a choice then that’s not a role model for us. Of course Eve was created without original sin, yet was still tempted and sin. It would seem to me that Mary should’ve been tempted but said “yes” to God. The IC seems unnecessary.

I heard a priest say yesterday that Mary was never tempted doesn’t that make her greater than Jesus who was tempted?

In reading the desert fathers one learns that the more holy one becomes the more intensely the demons struggle for his or her soul. We also learn that the more closely one comes into union with the Indwelling, the more difficult it is to actually choose to sin.

If one applies that understanding of sanctity and sin to the idea of the Immaculate Conception then it becomes clear that the more one chooses not to sin the more intense become the temptations.

The Immaculate Conception as the Catholic Church understands it and teaches does NOT over-ride the Virgin Mother’s free will.

 

[griego_catolico]

It is the East that has had difficulty quite understanding what the West means by some of its terminology surrounding Original Sin. It has always understood it to mean that we somehow inherit the guilt of the actual sin of disobedience of Adam rather than its impact on our nature which has fallen with and in Adam. But if the West today insists otherwise, then we should take it at its word!

Article 405 of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church states:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Thus, we do not inherit the guilt of Adam’s actual sin.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

How can Mary be a role model for us if she was “kept from sinning?” If she never had a choice then that’s not a role model for us. Of course Eve was created without original sin, yet was still tempted and sin. It would seem to me that Mary should’ve been tempted but said “yes” to God. The IC seems unnecessary.

I heard a priest say yesterday that Mary was never tempted doesn’t that make her greater than Jesus who was tempted?

Mary’s freedom from Original Sin did not prevent her from being tempted any more than being free from Original Sin prevented Adam, Eve, and even Jesus Christ from being tempted. Mary still had free will, and leaving aside possible complications regarding predestination which would be too much of a distraction on this thread, she very much could have chosen to sin during her life. Her freedom from Original Sin and its spiritual consequences is what makes more naturally credible the assertion that she went through a full lifespan without ever committing even a single venial sin, but it doesn’t change the fact that she had free will and could have sinned just like the first Eve.

 

[DadDave]

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

What does “In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.” mean?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

What does “In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.” mean?

It means that her assent of faith, like ours, was made possible only by grace, not by any natural power possessed by her. Of course her will retained the ability to reject that grace, but she did not.