Marian Teachings in East and West

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

As always, you’ve summed it up well. The Orthodox objection to the dogma is often assumed to be entirely theological, but that is not so - it is more ecclesiological, if you will. They cannot understand firstly why the Catholic Church has gone out of its way to independently declare this as dogma.

We see in this thread and other the confusion that actually results when, decades later, the faithful attempt to understand the fullness of the dogmatic declaration and related teaching absent the context.

Consider a statement about history made in isolation. One might say that FDR was a “wartime President”. Knowing that he was President for most of WWII, that might be easy to accept on the surface. But does that mean he or the rest of the country wanted to go to war? Were his accomplishments limited to successes in the war? A cursory study of his presidency and the era in which he first took office will reveal a much greater context.

I raise this in fairness, noting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in part to resolve the academic dispute over the doctrine arising in the middle ages, ironically among Western scholars, including the noted Saints Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure.

 

[Schism_hater]

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.

I used to have the book, but I haven’t been able to find it for a while.

Thank you Brother. I will look for that book.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

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.

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.

I don’t think brother ElijahMaria was denying this basic patristic teaching. I think he was reacting more to brother Schismhater’s statement that Mary was “not free of original or ancestral sin.”

We know the ESSENCE of the dogma is about the SPIRITUAL state of the Theotokos from the first moment of her existence. No one (Orthodox or Catholic) denies that SPIRITUALLY, the Theotokos was not for one instant in her existence separated from God. This is what the Dogma in Latinese means. I agree that it is misleading for a Catholic to claim that Mary was “not free of original sin.” We know that “Original Sin” means something different to Easterns than it does to Latins - to Easterns it means being subject to mortality, but to Latins it means spiritual separation from God. If we know this, we should not be using language that can mislead others into thinking there is lack of agreement on the the dogma of the Immaculate Conception among Catholics.

I would have accepted from brother Schismhater the statement “Mary was not free of ancestral sin,” because that terminology implies that the writer is referring to the Eastern concept of “ancestral sin”, and not the Western concept of “original sin”. But to use the term “original sin” in that statement is indeed misleading.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

As always, you’ve summed it up well. The Orthodox objection to the dogma is often assumed to be entirely theological, but that is not so - it is more ecclesiological, if you will. They cannot understand firstly why the Catholic Church has gone out of its way to independently declare this as dogma.

And there we have it. Who cares about the actual belief? That be damned: you will accept what we have declared the way we have declared it else you’re a heretic. Give me strength.

I raise this in fairness, noting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in part to resolve the academic dispute over the doctrine arising in the middle ages, ironically among Western scholars, including the noted Saints Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure.

True, but I cannot help but think of the other part, i.e. the political circumstances surrounding both the IC and Assumption.

The first was by my “friend” Pio Nono just when he was about to be dethroned as a temporal monarch by those horrid Italian republicans. Obviously, the political angle there backfired big time: he lost his crown anyway. And so we’re left with a dogma that didn’t need to be unilaterally declared. What was the point? Neither East nor Orient disputed the intrinsic holiness of the Holy Virgin. In the end, what that declaration did was erect barriers between the West and the East/Orient due to the insistence on a Scholastic interpretation of theology. Absolutely maddening, not to mention unnecessary.

The second was by my other “friend” Pio Duodecimo who was looking for a “feel good” moment after so many years of war. Nice thought, but again, what did it, a declaration of something which was already believed by East, Orient, & West, accomplish?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It is always interesting to read the western Christians declare the east to be heretical. The east doesn’t agree, therefore the eastern Christians are all heretical. The east is supposed to submit their minds and wills to the west, because obviously the west is better. The east doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception? Heretics! Original Sin? Heretics! You believe in an essence/energy distinction in the east? Heretics! There is always a shout of heresy from the west.

“West” and “East” don’t shout things at all. Those are umbrella terms identifying different theological, spiritual, and liturgical patrimonies. It is Catholics and Orthodox, neither of whom is entirely synonymous with “West” or “East”, who sometimes accuse each other of heresy.

Furthermore, I think it would be rather hypocritical to say, “Hey, Catholics are always accusing Orthodox of heresy!” when the reverse is true far more often. Papal supremacy, universal papal jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, original sin, filioque, created grace, etc. - these are all areas where premature and nuance-less accusations of heresy are constantly leveled at the Roman Catholic Church.

But I do not think it is unjust for our Orthodox brethren to do so. If they believe we are in heresy, they have every right to attempt to correct us (with charity, of course). So I would never complain, “Hey, you guys accuse us of heresy too much!” That’s a ridiculous charge to throw at anyone in this context.

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.

That’s entirely incorrect. The only thing that is material is whether a given group adheres to “the principle behind the dogma.” There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium desires or expects Eastern and Oriental Christians to express their beliefs using the Latin or scholastic terminology by which most of the post-schism dogmas were proclaimed.

The first was by my “friend” Pio Nono just when he was about to be dethroned as a temporal monarch by those horrid Italian republicans. Obviously, the political angle there backfired big time: he lost his crown anyway. And so we’re left with a dogma that didn’t need to be unilaterally declared. What was the point? Neither East nor Orient disputed the intrinsic holiness of the Holy Virgin. In the end, what that declaration did was erect barriers between the West and the East/Orient due to the insistence on a Scholastic interpretation of theology. Absolutely maddening, not to mention unnecessary.

It should not be construed as an insistence on a Scholastic interpretation of theology.

 

[malphono]

That’s entirely incorrect. The only thing that is material is whether a given group adheres to “the principle behind the dogma.” There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium desires or expects Eastern and Oriental Christians to express their beliefs using the Latin or scholastic terminology by which most of the post-schism dogmas were proclaimed.

I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. I’m sticking to mine.

It should not be construed as an insistence on a Scholastic interpretation of theology.

Whether it “should be” or not is beside the point. It is what it is.

 

[tdgesq]

However, believing that she did not die does sort of give that impression: that is, that the Theotokos was “super-human”.

Enoch and Elijah were both bodily assumed, while living so far as can be discerned from scripture. Whether that made them super-human doesn’t seem to be a point of contention. That being said, there is some theological importance assigned by the west to the theory that Mary did not die before being assumed. I still don’t fully understand why.

Plus, it’s downright irrational to believe that she did not die, when our very source from which *alone *we get the knowledge that her bodily assumption into heaven is a part of Sacred Tradition clearly testifies that she did indeed die. You can’t accept a dogma, then ignore a clear teaching present in the source for that dogma.

Tradition witnesses to more than one opinion on the matter of Mary’s death:

Fourth century writer, St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

The holy virgin may have died and been buried - her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death – as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” – her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

Timotheus of Jerusalem and Germanus of Constantinople both maintained that Mary did not die, so I don’t think it’s an irrational position. The fact is though lex orandi, lex credendi continuously in the east since the fifth century of the Dormition is pretty overwhelming evidence. Even Pope Pius in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS states: " They [the Fathers] offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly."

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. I’m sticking to mine.

Whether it “should be” or not is beside the point. It is what it is.

Fair enough.

I do wonder why you feel pressured to conform to Latin theologoumena. I know a lot of ignorance flies around the Catholic Church, and that Oriental Catholics such as yourself often face misunderstanding and distrust, but if someone accuses you of heresy on account of their ignorance of the fact that different rites mean a different theology as well as a different liturgy… why not just correct or ignore them? Why let it get you down?

Tradition witnesses to more than one opinion on the matter of Mary’s death:

Fourth century writer, St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

The holy virgin may have died and been buried - her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death – as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” – her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

Timotheus of Jerusalem and Germanus of Constantinople both maintained that Mary did not die, so I don’t think it’s an irrational position. The fact is though lex orandi, lex credendi continuously in the east since the fifth century of the Dormition is pretty overwhelming evidence. Even Pope Pius in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS states: " They [the Fathers] offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly."

Thank you for the clarifications and corrections! You put it better than I did: the testimony of Sacred Tradition seems to be pretty clear that the Theotokos did indeed die.

 

[jimmy]

“West” and “East” don’t shout things at all. Those are umbrella terms identifying different theological, spiritual, and liturgical patrimonies. It is Catholics and Orthodox, neither of whom is entirely synonymous with “West” or “East”, who sometimes accuse each other of heresy.

Furthermore, I think it would be rather hypocritical to say, “Hey, Catholics are always accusing Orthodox of heresy!” when the reverse is true far more often. Papal supremacy, universal papal jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, original sin, filioque, created grace, etc. - these are all areas where premature and nuance-less accusations of heresy are constantly leveled at the Roman Catholic Church.

But I do not think it is unjust for our Orthodox brethren to do so. If they believe we are in heresy, they have every right to attempt to correct us (with charity, of course). So I would never complain, “Hey, you guys accuse us of heresy too much!” That’s a ridiculous charge to throw at anyone in this context.

If the east could be limited to just Orthodox Christians it would be one thing, but many eastern Christians are Catholic. That said, the theology of a large portion of eastern Catholics is the same as the Orthodox. So when the west shouts heresy, they are shouting it at eastern Catholics as well.

Yes, the Orthodox declare heresy as well on the west, but they don’t turn around and call them brothers. The west wants to claim communion with the Eastern Catholics, but then expects them to change their theology to match that of the west. They shout heresy whenever there is disagreement, then they use us as a weapon against the Orthodox to say ‘we got eastern Catholics, in your face’.

The way ElijahMaria put it seems to be a pretty common perspective in the west. They are surprised and upset that the Orthodox [and Eastern Catholics] persist to think they are right. ‘The gall of those easterners to dare to think they can contradict us.’ The pope has spoken.

 

[malphono]

Fair enough.

I do wonder why you feel pressured to conform to Latin theologoumena.

Personally, I don’t feel any need to conform to anything Latin (and that despite the fact that when in a Latin church, I am very strictly a Usus Antiquior person). But when you come right down to it, both the IC and the Assumption have become far more than theologumena, haven’t they? And that’s the whole issue here: unilaterally declared dogma, couched in language that represents only the party making the unilateral declarations.

I know a lot of ignorance flies around the Catholic Church, and that Oriental Catholics such as yourself often face misunderstanding and distrust, but if someone accuses you of heresy on account of their ignorance of the fact that different rites mean a different theology as well as a different liturgy… why not just correct or ignore them? Why let it get you down?

It doesn’t get me down, and most often I do ignore them since I have no patience to try to correct them.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Enoch and Elijah were both bodily assumed …

OK - then why the need to dogmatically declare Mary’s assumption, if it wasn’t all that special an occurence?

And once again, let’s not forget what the Lord Himself said:

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If the east could be limited to just Orthodox Christians it would be one thing, but many eastern Christians are Catholic. That said, the theology of a large portion of eastern Catholics is the same as the Orthodox. So when the west shouts heresy, they are shouting it at eastern Catholics as well.

Ah, yes. I see your point. And you’re right - it’s uncharitable, untrue, and unacceptable for a Catholic to accuse a fellow Catholic of heresy in this context.

Yes, the Orthodox declare heresy as well on the west, but they don’t turn around and call them brothers. The west wants to claim communion with the Eastern Catholics, but then expects them to change their theology to match that of the west.

I don’t agree that “the west” does this. Who is “the west”? Who represents the west? A few ignorant Latin Catholics might “expect you to change your theology to match that of the west,” but to let them speak for the whole Latin Church, the pope, or the Latin bishops is a disservice to them as well as to Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

They shout heresy whenever there is disagreement,

Who is “they”? Overconfident forum participants? They don’t speak for the Catholic hierarchy, nor for the Magisterium, etc.

So when you encounter this attitude, correct it with charity and firmness.

then they use us as a weapon against the Orthodox to say ‘we got eastern Catholics, in your face’.

… I honestly haven’t heard anyone say, “We got eastern Catholics, in your face!” to the Orthodox…

The way ElijahMaria put it seems to be a pretty common perspective in the west. They are surprised and upset that the Orthodox [and Eastern Catholics] persist to think they are right. ‘The gall of those easterners to dare to think they can contradict us.’ The pope has spoken.

ElijahMaria is an Eastern Catholic.

And besides, (s)he wasn’t objecting to eastern Christians’ thinking they are right. (S)he was objecting to some eastern Christians’ tendency to say they reject second-millennium Catholic dogmas without understanding them.

Personally, I don’t feel any need to conform to anything Latin (and that despite the fact that when in a Latin church, I am very strictly a Usus Antiquior person). But when you come right down to it, both the IC and the Assumption have become far more than theologumena, haven’t they?

Indeed. But why does that matter? Has someone - or some group - attempted to force or provoke you Oriental Catholics into saying, “Okay, I admit it: the Theotokos was conceived without the stain of original sin”? If so, why not just correct that person or group by explaining to them that you do not subscribe to Latin theology and so do not use such terminology?

If they refuse to understand that the lack of such terminology doesn’t mean that you disbelieve that the Theotokos had grace in her soul from the moment of conception, that’s not your fault or your problem.

And that’s the whole issue here: unilaterally declared dogma, couched in language that represents only the party making the unilateral declarations.

I don’t think those dogmas were unilaterally declared. Both were largely the result of petitioning from the world’s Catholic bishops. Sounds quite collegial to me.

It doesn’t get me down, and most often I do ignore them since I have no patience to try to correct them.

Oh, I stand corrected, then! Good for you. Obviously, you are in no sense obligated to correct them. That’s not your job if you don’t want it to be.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think those dogmas were unilaterally declared. Both were largely the result of petitioning from the world’s Catholic bishops. Sounds quite collegial to me.

How much collegiality may have involved is another discussion entirely, and one which has been discussed at considerable length in other threads, so I won’t go there now.

But the declarations in question were indeed unilateral (as was the other hot-button dogmatic declaration by Vatican I which has also been discussed ad ininitum (if not ad nauseam) in other threads). IOW, they were by Rome, for Rome, and of Rome, using Rome’s own theological criteria. Sounds pretty unilateral to me.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How much collegiality may have involved is another discussion entirely, and one which has been discussed at considerable length in other threads, so I won’t go there now.

But the declarations in question were indeed unilateral (as was the other hot-button dogmatic declaration by Vatican I which has also been discussed ad ininitum (if not ad nauseam) in other threads). IOW, they were by Rome, for Rome, and of Rome, using Rome’s own theological criteria. Sounds pretty unilateral to me.

Passing over the general points of your reply (you’re right that these matters have been discussed to death, and accidental thread hijacking is a real danger here, at least for me, haha), I don’t see how anything declared by Vatican I can in any valid sense be considered unilateral. It was a council. A gathering of bishops. Something conciliar. And some of its teachings were considerably less absolutist than Pope Pius IX, who learned a good deal from his brother bishops, would have initially preferred.

If a conciliar manner of declaring dogma isn’t the antithesis of unilateralism, I don’t know what is.

 

[tdgesq]

OK - then why the need to dogmatically declare Mary’s assumption, if it wasn’t all that special an occurence?

I didn’t intend to imply that it wasn’t a special occurrence. I was pointing out that the assumption of the living is not something without precedent in scripture. The assumption of Enoch and Elijah while living doesn’t confer upon them super-human status. I’ve tried to understand why the assumption of Mary would be anymore meritorious alive rather than dead, although incorruptible. I don’t have a good answer to that.

And once again, let’s not forget what the Lord Himself said:

I’ve never considered where the Old Testament prophets may have been assumed to. I believe it would have to be to the Limbo of the Fathers (Sheol).

 

[tdgesq]

But the declarations in question were indeed unilateral (as was the other hot-button dogmatic declaration by Vatican I which has also been discussed ad ininitum (if not ad nauseam) in other threads). IOW, they were by Rome, for Rome, and of Rome, using Rome’s own theological criteria. Sounds pretty unilateral to me.

This characterization seems a bit unfair in terms of the language used to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. “Original sin” was not a term unknown to the Syrians/Maronites. It is found at least twice within the decrees of the Council of Florence.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This characterization seems a bit unfair in terms of the language used to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. “Original sin” was not a term unknown to the Syrians/Maronites. It is found at least twice within the decrees of the Council of Florence.

That wouldn’t capture most of the Byzantines, who reunited afterward.

 

[tdgesq]

That wouldn’t capture most of the Byzantines, who reunited afterward.

I wasn’t addressing the Byzantines who rejected Florence afterwards, I was addressing a Syro-Maronite.

 

[Cavaradossi]

For those of you who interpret the stain of original sin to mean a privation of sanctifying grace, what do you make of those who basically wind up espousing that the Virgin Mary was born immortal, because she was ‘without sin’? (See, for example, the two threads on the subject of the Theotokos’ death in the Apologetics forum). Are they mistaken? Are there any interpretive resources which can inform us as to whether being free of the stain of original sin entails being free of Concupiscience or being immortal, or if it does not imply either at all?

 

[twf]

How much collegiality may have involved is another discussion entirely, and one which has been discussed at considerable length in other threads, so I won’t go there now.

But the declarations in question were indeed unilateral (as was the other hot-button dogmatic declaration by Vatican I which has also been discussed ad ininitum (if not ad nauseam) in other threads). IOW, they were by Rome, for Rome, and of Rome, using Rome’s own theological criteria. Sounds pretty unilateral to me.

It is quite evident Pope Pius believed that Our Lady first died prior to be assumed into heaven. The entire dogmatic declaration is based upon this assumption - here is just one example:

1. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body. Munificentissimus Deus

This is the tradition of the West and Rome. Ever been to St. Mary’s Major, the Latin Church’s most important temple dedicated to the Blessed Virgin? It includes a beautiful and extremely prominent Roman depiction of the Dormition. Anyone who suggests that the Dormition is not part of the Latin tradition is ignorant of authentic Latin tradition. Plain and simple.