Marian Teachings in East and West

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

I fail to see this logic could you explain this in detail. Are you saying the EO was wrong in all the years they did uphold this doctrine? You did read the links on the previous page as the history of the East on the Immaculate Conception?

Equally confused, perhaps we could simply start by examining how the UGCC has reconciled the dogma to their own Eastern theological framework.

They must have already spoken on this point officially in their Catechism, but regrettably it is not yet available in English (and my Ukrainian is as good as non-existent).

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks ByzCathCantor. You’re talking about Annunciation Cathedral in Boston (well West Roxbury)?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I don’t think there’s anything complicated about Constantine’s statement: just that the IC assumes Original Sin.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thanks ByzCathCantor. You’re talking about Annunciation Cathedral in Boston (well West Roxbury)?

You are most welcome, and indeed I’m referring to the Eparchial Cathedral in West Roxbury.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t think there’s anything complicated about Constantine’s statement: just that the IC assumes Original Sin.

I don’t see that as a point of concern for me, just something to converse about. I see the fact that the CC Dogmatized the IC as the issue Why did they do that? Certainly not to confirm the theory of Original Sin.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t think there’s anything complicated about Constantine’s statement: just that the IC assumes Original Sin.

Perhaps not, yet perhaps unintendedly, such very direct statements have sent ripples through various threads here of late, even leading to speculations of heresy on the part of Eastern Catholics.

We do hold the belief in Ancestral Sin, and differ primarily on the ascription of “guilt” (perhaps even the concept). Yet, the Church’s teaching of late on the subject does seem remarkably more consistent with the Eastern view:

CCC404: 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”. 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. 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.

CCC405: 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.

I suggested a glance at the UGCC Catechism, as the subject was undoubtedly covered, However, we await the official English translation (later this year). Perhaps one of our mre learned UGCC contributors could provide comment based on the Ukrainian edition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right I’ve mentioned the same on other threads. We have to believe Pope Benedict has completely gone through all this. Yet I’m sympathetic to the idea of Dogma.

 

[dvdjs]

Know of any called “Immaculate Conception”? Just askin’ …

No, of course not. There are a few Orthodox scholars who will go so far as to term the Immaculate Conception as an acceptable theologoumenon. But there are far more who actively oppose the concept. Typically, and certainly in the many threads at CAF, the opposition betrays a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean by the concept of “stain of Original sin”. Sometimes it bends so far over backwards to reject the Catholic thinking that it actually opposes Orthodox thinking. For example, the idea that Mary was not sanctified until the Annunciation is flatly contradicted by the liturgy of the Orthodox church at the Entrance of the Theotokos.

In a similar vein there are some who think that the Dormition and Assumption are worlds apart. The reality is, however, that EOs do teach the Assumption and do dedicate temples to the Assumption.

The fixation on “death” is also more that a little odd. Vespers fo the feast focus on translation to heaven; matins talk about death consistently by paradox: death could not hold the Theotokos who is alive, having been translated body and soul to heaven.

We use the term dormition not as a mere euphemism, but as an articulation of the faith of our immortality through Christ. And in the exceptional case of the Theotokos, there is no ongoing separation of body an soul and no corruption. But she is alive, body and soul, in heaven. When we argue about how long she endured the separation of body and soul, we miss the good news.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t see that as a point of concern for me, just something to converse about. I see the fact that the CC Dogmatized the IC as the issue Why did they do that? Certainly not to confirm the theory of Original Sin.

And that question gets us back squarely to the subject of the thread!

Yet, it is also possible that the understanding and teaching of the CC on original sin is further nuanced today as compared to what may have been instructed back in 1854.

In reading “balanced” Orthodox commentaries on this and other related subjects, I am often left with the strong impression that it is precisely this which is the source of their concern - that is, by elevating such to the level of formal dogma, it does not allow for further evolution of expressed teaching which may (nay, should) enable the perspectives of West and Orthodox East to be fully reconciled, as is necessary for furtherance of ecumenical efforts.

 

[Peter_J]

You are most welcome, and indeed I’m referring to the Eparchial Cathedral in West Roxbury.

Yes I thought so. I think this is the first time I’ve heard about it being consecrated to the Assumption. That’s interesting.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s understandable. Indeed I myself have never seen an official source on this. I’ve only informally heard that “The Pope has become Orthodox” was a common explanation, among the common people, as to why they had started commemorating the Pope. (Although I’ve also heard that, at that time, the Eastern Catholics only commemorated the Pope at the cathedral, not at the parish level. If so, then many might not have even been aware of it.)

It should be considered that the first idea is contradicted by what we actually know of the times; there was no secret. I am not sure when the commemorations of the Pope were incorporated into the UGCC or other EC liturgies, but that date really should be reported as researched fact, not mere speculation upon which further speculation is built. The suggestion that the people were as ignorant as is suggested by these remarks should also be recognized as more than a little demeaning.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

How interesting! So even before Vatican II, we’ve got this source that defines original sin as “the privation of sanctifying grace” rather than this whole “inherited guilt” concept which so many eastern Christians get so worked up about…

I think this very much goes to show that what our contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church says about inherited guilt - i.e. it’s real, but does not “have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants” - is really not as alien to the Latin tradition as many eastern Christians suspect…

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

Okay, I confess I can’t identify what you’re referring to from this comment alone. Please enlighten me. I’m dying to know which pope said to eastern Catholics something like, “Say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, or you’re a heretic.”

At least in the case of Vatican I, it is unclear how free from undue influence by Pius IX the bishops were.

Mardukm, on this forum, has shared a lot of text from both primary and secondary sources on Vatican I. One exchange really stands out to me: a dispute concerning the nature of the papacy that got one bishop (I think this one was also a cardinal) into a brief dispute with Pope Pius IX. The former appealed to Tradition in support of his view, and Pope Pius IX lost his temper and said, “I am Tradition!”

There are other aspects of what I’ve learned about Vatican I that come to mind as well… the way the council’s agenda shifted, for example. Or the extent to which one of the eastern Catholic patriarchs fully got away with conditionally confirming the council’s teachings on the papacy… etc.

Suffice it to say, Vatican I was definitely not a rubber stamp on Pope Pius IX’s pre-Vatican I views. Far from it.

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.

By that logic, many of the first seven ecumenical councils were unilateral affairs that excluded the West, which was severely outnumbered at them. At Constantinople I there weren’t even any western bishops present at all.

But that didn’t disqualify that council from ultimately being considered ecumenical.

Besides, I think any coherent ecclesiology - whether Catholic or Orthodox - would have to acknowledge that schism cannot hold the Church’s teaching authority hostage.

That’s why the Orthodox who know what they’re talking about consistently reject the claim that they can’t hold an ecumenical council even if they want to, since the whole pentarchy has to confirm it. They know better. The whole pentarchy doesn’t have to confirm it, if Rome is in schism and heresy as they believe she is.

And that’s why the Catholic Church will never acknowledge that the existence of a state of schism between us and certain eastern churches means that the universal teaching authority of the Church cannot be exercised.

It can be. East and West were represented at Vatican I, albeit in reverse proportion from the first millennium councils. It was unquestionably a general council of the Catholic Communion… and it’s therefore more than capable of exercising universally binding authority.

It certainly, in my view, disqualifies it from being “ecumenical”.

Fair enough. I’ve discovered that what counts as “ecumenical” is a bit of a red herring. The original concept - an Empire-wide council - makes no sense anyway, since we don’t have a Roman Empire anymore.

The point is that such a gathering of Catholic bishops does have the authority to exercise the supreme authority of the Church in a universally binding manner, our lack of communion with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches notwithstanding.

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.

But if that’s what “the Immaculate Conception” truly means - merely that Mary was pure and immaculate from conception to dormition - then you do have it in your theology.

No, of course not. There are a few Orthodox scholars who will go so far as to term the Immaculate Conception as an acceptable theologoumenon.

Such as Bishop Kallistos Ware.

But there are far more who actively oppose the concept. Typically, and certainly in the many threads at CAF, the opposition betrays a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean by the concept of “stain of Original sin”.

Definitely. Take that quote from an Antiochian Orthodox website a few pages ago, which objected to the dogma on the grounds that the Theotokos wasn’t immortal.

Sometimes it bends so far over backwards to reject the Catholic thinking that it actually opposes Orthodox thinking. For example, the idea that Mary was not sanctified until the Annunciation is flatly contradicted by the liturgy of the Orthodox church at the Entrance of the Theotokos.

Excellent point.

When we argue about how long she endured the separation of body and soul, we miss the good news.

How true.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

How interesting! So even before Vatican II, we’ve got this source that defines original sin as “the privation of sanctifying grace” rather than this whole “inherited guilt” concept which so many eastern Christians get so worked up about…

I think this very much goes to show that what our contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church says about inherited guilt - i.e. it’s real, but does not “have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants” - is really not as alien to the Latin tradition as many eastern Christians suspect…

FB - in fairness, the Augustinian concept is so well ingrained in some Latin Catholic circles as to foster a mindset as to ignore the true teaching of the Church. I did have a significant Latin Catholic influence in my upbringing, so I do not feel as if I speak out of school on this point, as it comes from observation and experience.

This is not an Eastern Christian conspiracy.

Rather, this is a fruitful example of how adherence to the views of East and West, with proper dialogue and requisite ecumenism, can and will lead to a greater appreciation of the fundamentals of our shared Faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But if that’s what “the Immaculate Conception” truly means - merely that Mary was pure and immaculate from conception to dormition - then you do have it in your theology.

But it is not.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s why the Orthodox who know what they’re talking about consistently reject the claim that they can’t hold an ecumenical council

Unfortunately I’m a little short on time, or I would write more on the subject of ecumenical councils (count your blessings ) than just to say that I quite agree with this particular statement.

I’m not Orthodox, as you know, but if I were be I’m sure I would “reject the claim that they can’t hold an ecumenical council” (emphasis doubled).

 

[Ghosty]

But it is not.

That is what the Immaculate Conception means, and it is in our tradition. We wouldn’t have the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne if it wasn’t.

It is the Eastern tradition that Mary was filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit from conception until death. The West actually relearned this from the East specifically in the Middle Ages. One of the few complaints in the East about Aquinas’ Summa was its attack on this tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[IbnFiktur]

FB - in fairness, the Augustinian concept is so well ingrained in some Latin Catholic circles as to foster a mindset as to ignore the true teaching of the Church. I did have a significant Latin Catholic influence in my upbringing, so I do not feel as if I speak out of school on this point, as it comes from observation and experience.

As an individual who readily admits to being “ingrained” with the Augustinian worldview (more so even than Aquinas’), I’m genuinely curious here: does it differ significantly from the actual teaching of the Church, or is it rather that it represents a certain (accepted) school of thought in the Church that is not necessarily confirmed (or rejected) as true?

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is what the Immaculate Conception means, and it is in our tradition. We wouldn’t have the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne if it wasn’t.

It is the Eastern tradition that Mary was filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit from conception until death. The West actually relearned this from the East specifically in the Middle Ages. One of the few complaints in the East about Aquinas’ Summa was its attack on this tradition.

Peace and God bless!

Immaculate Conception was never defined in our tradition and thus we can never lay a claim to the terminology. The term “Immaculate Conception” denotes the belief of the West in its entirety.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As an individual who readily admits to being “ingrained” with the Augustinian worldview (more so even than Aquinas’), I’m genuinely curious here: does it differ significantly from the actual teaching of the Church, or is it rather that it represents a certain (accepted) school of thought in the Church that is not necessarily confirmed (or rejected) as true?

I quoted two paragraphs from the CCC in post #299 - they pretty clearly indicate that “guilt” is not part of the concept of “original sin”, and even go so far as to say that the word “sin” in used “in an analogical sense” in this case.

Reading those paragraphs, one gets the sense of a “condition”, which gets you very close to the Eastern mindset.

Please let us know if that is your read, as well, especially given your study and familiarity with the work of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[Ghosty]

Immaculate Conception was never defined in our tradition and thus we can never lay a claim to the terminology. The term “Immaculate Conception” denotes the belief of the West in its entirety.

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception in its entirety is that Mary was conceived in Divine Grace. That’s it. That is also our tradition.

It was defined in the West, using Western terms, but it comes from our tradition. It is a teaching for all Catholics, but we teach it under the light of our tradition. It is still incorrect to say that we don’t believe in Original Sin whenwe do believe that Adam and Eve lost the innate Grace by their sin, and Mary was conceived with that Grace. That is our tradition.

Peace and God bless!