Marian Teachings in East and West

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

Frankly, that has been asserted here and in another similar, active thread by some Latin Catholics.

The long-standing Tradition of the Church as regards Mary is the same both East and West.

It is further assumed by some that the dogmatic declaration, having stopped short of declaring that Mary died, somehow cast doubt on this aspect of Tradition.

To your point, Venerable Pope Pius XII made several specific comments of the Tradition throughout the Apostolic Constitution.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see no diffenece in sin entering the world East to West. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world.

The point of contention becomes “guilt” however all have the inclination to sin.

Nevertheless the earliest church fathers state No Spot-No Stain in relation to St Mary. No one disagreed till the 15th century when it seemed to sway in theology that the preservation occured at the Annunciation. Biblically speaking its more difficult at the Annunciation to quantify this exegesis as opposed to the theory Mary was already preserved at this point.

So this really becomes the point of contention in later years. The fact Mary conceived with No-Stain is a fact, or the human divine nature of Jesus would come into question in relation to how.

google.com/url?q=http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/&sa=U&ei=Z5XIT7TXLYrk9ASb95mqDw&ved=0CB4QFjAD&sig2=8amiGu8GVGYVyeox3bPXUQ&usg=AFQjCNH1q8zSpZSik6IenDeeeJAMvAc1hQ

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm&sa=U&ei=v6PIT66OK4L-9QT_s_D2Dg&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=Vmr7vYFuOEmhnUa3Uo1Acw&usg=AFQjCNHXTy49Id-jiH9Tx019RoIMrhbvZg

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I see no diffenece in sin entering the world East to West. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world.

Gary, does the Latin Church actually teach that Original Sin is a sin of commission? Perhaps I’m misreading you, but the statement above seems to suggest that rather strongly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The consequence of Original Sin is here…

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.

I agree with Bl Newman on this and believe this is how we should view sin though these are not his words, he echos the same idea.

It is St. Augustine’s teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt. Here resides the point of contention.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is St. Augustine’s teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt. Here resides the point of contention.

That’s apparent, yet as I believe you proved with a litany of citations from the CCC, the Catholic Church does not teach the Augustinian view.

If so, what exactly is the East-West distinction?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s apparent, yet as I believe you proved with a litany of citations from the CCC, the Catholic Church does not teach the Augustinian view.

If so, what exactly is the East-West distinction?

I’m not sure there is, the teachings of St Athanasius are also very relevant here. I think the East see’s the theology sway back and forth through time when prior to V-I the Augustine theology was favored, yet by Vatican I Ancestral, Original Sin is completely in-line.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’m not sure there is, the teachings of St Athanasius are also very relevant here. I think the East see’s the theology sway back and forth through time when prior to V-I the Augustine theology was favored, yet by Vatican I Ancestral, Original Sin is completely in-line.

Yes, there are several Orthodox commentaries which observe this “swing”, and see further evidence in the issuance (in 2007) of the Vatican’s thought on the fate of innocents who die before / without Baptism:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

Yet, one then asks what meaning of “original sin” was prevalent and inherent when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in 1854, before the First Vatican Council.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From Pelagius foward the controversy takes shape.

Scroll down to Note-4 and Note-11 you’ll see the IC take shape in the preceeding years of V-I.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bartleby.com%2F210%2F12%2F081.html&ei=e08yUNieOPDM6QGYroCQCw&usg=AFQjCNFy6WgEb7YEGer_1mlFneV07RT91w&sig2=QhXfIjKytw5FKX9bJQZogQ

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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?

Yes, I believe they are mistaken. I admit I don’t have resources on-hand right now, Cavaradossi, but if I recall correctly, the popes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries themselves often addressed this question on the Immaculate Conception (which, while not a dogma yet, was of course commonly believed), and they often distinguished between the spiritual and physical consequences of the Fall. The Theotokos was, from the moment of her conception, free from (at least some of) the former but not from the latter. Or, as Vico put it:

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.”
antiochian.org/node/17111

What is most interesting is that the Catholic Church does not believe this either!

This is because the western idea is that the consequences of original sin are several fold: mankind, born without personal guilt of sin, now has at conception the loss of the gift of sanctifying grace (the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit), and the loss of the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality, which Adam and Eve possessed before the Fall. The Virgin Mary was given the gift of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit from her conception, but it is commonly held that she suffered the loss of the preternatural gifts.

From what I can gather, I think the most Traditional and patristic position is that the Theotokos did have sanctifying grace (the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit) from the moment of her conception, but did not have bodily immortality. Whether she had what Vico is calling “infused knowledge” and “absence of concupiscence,” I don’t know.

My understanding of the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that she had sanctifying grace/the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception. That is the non-negotiable dogma from which dissent would place one outside the Holy Faith.

 

[Vico]

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?

It is useful to read an excerpt from Blessed Pope John Paul II Christ Is Totally Holy, regarding the sanctification of the humanity of Our Lord due to the action of the Holy Spriit:This sanctification refers to the entire humanity of the Son of God, his soul and his body, as is made clear by John the evangelist, who seems to stress the bodily aspect of the Incarnation: “The Word was made flesh” (Jn 1:14). The power of the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation of the Word overcomes that concupiscence which St. Paul speaks about in the Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom 7:7-25) and which wounds man from within. The “law of the Spirit” (Rom 8:2) liberates a person precisely from that concupiscence, so that the one who lives in the Spirit walks also according to the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:25). The holiness of Christ’s full humanity is the result of the action of the Holy Spirit.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19900606en.html

With regard to The Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary there are two things to note. First that the preternatural gifts are distinct from the supernatural gifts and secondly that her preservation from lass of supernatural gifts is covered in the Immaculate Conception dogma, but that the preternatural gifts are not included in the Assumption dogma.
The Assumption dogma does not define any absence of the preternatural gifts in the Mother of God that Adam and Eve had prior to the fall: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality.

The Immaculate Conception dogma refers to preservation from the stain from original sin (ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem). That for which we are baptized for our salvation:“The most holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

PIUS IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in: H. DENZINGER, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1641:

Ad honorem sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, ac decus et ornamentum Virginis Deiparae, ad exaltationem fidei catholicae, et christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ac Nostra declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.
As given in the Catholic Encyclopedia:Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix).

Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 20, 2012 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[Peter_J]

“West” and “East” don’t shout things at all.

You obviously haven’t read the play I’m writing.

But seriously …

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”?

More or less.

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?

Two reasons: he died already (over a century ago in fact) and he was the Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

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?…

Is this a survey question?

 

[Peter_J]

Forgive me for going down a tangential road, but is it more surprising (shocking?) to you b/c it’s a UGCC cathedral, or would your reaction be the same if it were a Ruthenian Catholic cathedral?

While I do not disagree, one has to pause for a moment and reflect on the realities of one’s own patrimony:

Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception - Philadelphia, PA

Maybe they will change the name soon. We have a number of parishes called “Assumption” that has already been changed to Dormition of the Mother of God (unfortunately we don’t use Theotokos that much and more often translate it to Mother of God).

 

[Schism_hater]

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.

1. At least in the case of Vatican I, it is unclear how free from undue influence by Pius IX the bishops were.
2. More importantly, there was no (name removed by moderator)ut from the separated East. I don’t know if that is what the OP meant by “unilateral”, but I would consider it so. It certainly, in my view, disqualifies it from being “ecumenical”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Forgive me for going down a tangential road, but is it more surprising (shocking?) to you b/c it’s a UGCC cathedral, or would your reaction be the same if it were a Ruthenian Catholic cathedral?

Very tangential - you are lifting this one out of context, as the moment when the thought was at all relevant has passed.

FWIW - I do not find it surprising at all, and all that still matters to this discussion as regards this particular point is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is embraced in the Catholic East. Ruthenian vs. Ukrainian is irrelevant. In fact, considering the “sister” dogma of the Assumption, I can think of two very prominent Ruthenian parishes off the top of my head consecrated in the name of the Assumption vs. the Dormition. Again, the point is that these dogmas were embraced in the Catholic East.

 

[Peter_J]

FWIW - I do not find it surprising at all, and all that still matters to this discussion as regards this particular point is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is embraced in the Catholic East.

I found it rather interesting in its own right.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

1. At least in the case of Vatican I, it is unclear how free from undue influence by Pius IX the bishops were.
2. More importantly, there was no (name removed by moderator)ut from the separated East. I don’t know if that is what the OP meant by “unilateral”, but I would consider it so. It certainly, in my view, disqualifies it from being “ecumenical”.

Yes, Vatican I was a council … of the Roman Catholic Church.

As to (name removed by moderator)ut from the “separated East”, the Orthodox were invited but declined to attend. Yet, they would not have had a vote.

So it was conciliar, but not ecumenical. In this way, some consider it unilateral.

 

[Peter_J]

I feel one of the Eastern problems ( in a bid to ‘‘convert’’ the Orthodox ) is to hold to the Orthodox post-schismatic theology.

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, “The Pope has become Orthodox” and all that.

Nowadays, however, Catholics are much better about informing potential converts of what they will be required to believe if they become Catholic.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, “The Pope has become Orthodox” and all that.

That’s an interesting take. From where have you gathered that the laity were fundamentally deceived? It is far more likely that it really didn’t matter to them, as long as they were able to worship in the same way as before and keep their traditions. Little did they know that once they got on the boat for America …

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have the biggest authority with me to prove that she was immaculately conceived and that we cannot reject her immaculate conception and that is Our Lady of Lourdes HERSELF. She came and said ‘‘I am the immaculate conception’’. what more proof do you need?

You do know that the Church herself teaches that Lourdes is a Private Revelation and Private Revelations are not de fide among all the faithful and cannot ever be the source of dogma or doctrine, right?

As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

This does not just affirm she is all Holy. This qoute is an affirmation of her Immaculate conception - ‘‘as he formed her without my stain of her own’’

We do not deny that Mary is pure and immaculate from conception to dormition. But still, we do not have Original Sin in our theology, therefore the Immaculate Concepcion does not fit our theology.

You guys are not Eastern Catholics. You are Eastern Orthodox and living with heresy that Our Lady was not Immaculately concieved.

First, you are not a bishop to declare who is a heretic or not.

Second, Eastern Catholics believe so and the Catholic Church does not declare our beliefs heretical. In fact, many Popes have urged us to keep our theology as-is.

That Eastern Catholic parish of the Immaculate conception in Philedelphia has some sense I see.

They are an unfortunate byproduct of people like you.