Respectfully, a very direct statement was made (first quote) regarding the “irrelevance” of the “East/West distinction”, and I offered a very correct Catholic rebuttal which was not intended to suggest anything about your own perspective.
I realize that but I said it is irrelevant when it comes to acceptance of the Dogma of the Immaculate conception.
“Acceptance” perhaps, but certainly not to the dogma itself. Please refer to post #213 above.
Where does it say in your post above that you are not to ‘‘accept’’ the ‘‘Dogma’’ then? I fail to see it.
OK - I’m out - I never said that, in any of my posts - quite the opposite.
You said ‘‘acceptance’’ perhaps but not to the dogma itself. This is where you confused me. How can you ‘‘accept’’ but not accept the dogma itself?
Stephentlig, the truth is the same, the way it is worded is different. Early Church teaching is that the Virgin Mary is the bearer of God (Theotokos and ever-Virgin), that is the Christocentric dogma from the fourth ecumenical council accepted in the eastern and western Churches. As stated on the Antiochian Orthodox website:“The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching that the Mother of God was exempted from the consequences of ancestral sin (death, corruption, sin, etc.) at the moment of her conception by virtue of the future merits of Her Son.”
In response to your statement:
ByzCath stated:
It was you who declared that the East/West distinction is irrelevant when it comes to the acceptance of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I do not believe it is irrelevant, but ByzCath even gave you that; that perhaps the East/West distinction could be irrelevant to the ultimate acceptance of the dogma, but that the dogma itself is certainly not irrelevant and is accepted by EC’s. It is accepted within their own theological construct that is not in conflict with that of Rome, so I fail to see what the problem is here.
Please, I beg all my Latin Catholic brethren to make embracing and accepting our eastern brethren our default tendency, and to have the humility to realize that they are clearly not rejecting Catholic teaching… if they were, they wouldn’t be in full communion with Rome and full members of the Catholic Church!
Random side note: The Roman Calendar also calls it “The Nativity of the Lord.” So we actually do share that name. “Christmas” is just a colloquial name for the solemnity.
Exactly. Many Latin Catholics are unaware of the extensive differences between eastern and western theology concerning ancestral sin/original sin. These differences need to be explained, not obscured with blanket statements about whether or not eastern Catholics “believe in the Immaculate Conception.” The answer is neither yes nor no. So a simple yes or no is misleading and unacceptable.
However, believing that she did not die does sort of give that impression: that is, that the Theotokos was “super-human”.
I agree.
I thought that happened in Christ.
Your thoughts are misleading and misled due to the fact that you really do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of being conceived without the “stain” of original sin…You know what it might mean, but you do not know what it does mean. And clearly you and others in this long drawn out thread are not really interested in finding out IF it might force a change in your presumptions and assumptions and irrelevant conclusions.
It does not change the reality of Catholic teaching on either original sin OR the Immaculate Conception. But it does make the Orthodox look petty, smug and incapable of thinking past their own presumptions…
There is a good book on this very subject called In The Likeness of Sinful Flesh. I think Fr. Thomas Weinandy (Catholic priest) is the author. The thesis of the book is that it was necessary that Christ assume the fallen nature of man, and through his death and resurrection he redeemed that fallen nature within himself. His method is to go through the fathers of the Church and explain their beliefs on it.
His post was 100% correct. It was absolutely necessary for Christ to assume our fallen nature, so that he could heal it. This is the teaching of the fathers on the Incarnation. Read Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril, and Maximus the Confessor. Maximus makes it very clear. It was in uniting the human will to the divine will that human nature was redeemed in Christ.Your thoughts are misleading and misled due to the fact that you really do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of being conceived without the “stain” of original sin…You know what it might mean, but you do not know what it does mean. And clearly you and others in this long drawn out thread are not really interested in finding out IF it might force a change in your presumptions and assumptions and irrelevant conclusions.
I am usually not this sharp but this discussion has gone on for years on the Internet and still the Orthodox insist that they must be correct.
Well…OK…Who really cares?..
Elijahmaria
Most Holy Theotokos was spared this. Why so hard to understand?
The post schism doctrine of the Orthodox as far as I can tell, is the same as that of the preschism Greek Christians. Read Athanasius, Cyril and Maximus and you will get a good grasp on the Eastern Orthodox perspective of Christology and the way of redemption.
Yes siree bob, it is always interesting.
Particularly so when one considers the fact that it was the West which unilaterally declared a variety of dogmas, couched in its very own Scholastic thought. So, whether the East and Orient actually adhere to the principle behind the dogma is not material: the West insists that the dogma must be accepted as is, (which, of course, means acceptance of Scholastic thought) and anything else is heresy. 
Quite a conundrum, I must say.