Marian Teachings in East and West

[Ghosty]

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.

I can’t speak for Augustine, but the Catechism follows Aquinas exactly. In Thomistic tradition Original Sin is the privation of Grace and the corruption that brings; guilt is a figurative term better translated as consequence. Modern English doesn’t have the full range of meaning for guilt.

This is why I get touchy about fellow Easterns saying we don’t believe in Original Sin. Having studied Thomistic Latin theology, which forms the basis of Western dogmatic definitions, I contend that the differences are merely in nuance and approach, not fundamentals. I have little doubt that when the Ukrainian Catechism comes out in English we will see this fully on display.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I can’t link to them right now, but if you do a search you can find unofficial translations of key parts of the new Ukrainian Catechism. In it the Immaculate Conception is not only upheld, but the 1854 decree is cited. So at least the Ukrainian Catholic Church believes that the teaching is indispensible to our tradition.

IIRC, the Catechism was unanimously approved by the Ukrainian bishops as well.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I can’t link to them right now, but if you do a search you can find unofficial translations of key parts of the new Ukrainian Catechism. In it the Immaculate Conception is not only upheld, but the 1854 decree is cited. So at least the Ukrainian Catholic Church believes that the teaching is indispensible to our tradition.

IIRC, the Catechism was unanimously approved by the Ukrainian bishops as well.

Peace and God bless!

At a computer now so I can post a quick link. It’s not much, but it’s a clear indication of how the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism handles these issues.

orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/first-look-at-the-new-ukrainian-catholic-catechism/

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

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

There is a Church of the Conception of St Anne in Moscow.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is a Church of the Conception of St Anne in Moscow.

Indeed, but not in the name of the Immaculate Conception as such.

Peace!

 

[Vico]

Indeed, but not in the name of the Immaculate Conception as such.

Peace!

True. Same instance, different name.

 

[Ghosty]

Indeed, but not in the name of the Immaculate Conception as such.

Peace!

It would be very odd for an Orthodox Church to use the Latin word “immacula” (spotless), wouldn’t it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos. While the Orthodox believe that the Virgin Mary was, from her conception, filled with every grace of the Holy Spirit, in view of her calling as the Mother of God, they do not teach that she was conceived without original sin as their understanding of this doctrine” Wiki-Pedia

Comes down to guilt/consequence in its intended meaning. “The Orthodox do affirm that Mary is “all-holy” and never committed a personal sin during her lifetime.” Wiki-Pedia

Now what is the point of contention of this Doctrine when closely observed as mentioned above in paragraph one?

The debate from what I see centers on the interitance from Adam. The claim is that Augustine shifts the focus to “human guilt” and spiritual wrath instead of compassion as the inheritance. Course that is according to V. Rev. Antony Hughes, M.Div St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Who seems to be a fan of Meyendorff. Nevertheless that said, during this period Augustine maintained that only “Grace” can save. Further this has to be viewed from a juridical view of justice.

That is if we can all agree that Mary was indeed Conceived (Immaculate-No Spot-Stain) which of course dates back to Acts of Andrew and other very early works attributed to the “East”.

Then we could proceed to the actual core of this issue. For you see the transgression of Adam bought the fallen state for sure and all are born into this "state of inherited sin, “guilt” here is of no issue. And as you see all have the inclination to sin even after the Sacrament cleans the state. So the “consequence” is justice for I would contend that man received exactly what he asked for “You will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” For what was the situation prior? God created man in His Image and established our first parents, Adam and Eve, in His Love. This Love included Grace, the gift of holiness and eternal life

If we are to say the Serpent did in fact say these words, then we would have to admit this could “not” have occured without Gods knowledge. So the comtemplation of “justice” resides “first” in the above statement. And is placed squarely is mans hands through Free-Will which already existed.

The existing dichotomy is a facade.

The Bible shifts the center as intended directly between consequence and inheritence thus free-will. Not as contended in the polemical exegesis by the good Rev. And that is exactly what that is. And this continues East/West with the Apostle Paul also.

So no the IC isn’t Dogma to confirm Original SIn. First and foremost one is not historically contingent of the other. As we see with the writing’s of St Anne and Mary.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

“Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos. While the Orthodox believe that the Virgin Mary was, from her conception, filled with every grace of the Holy Spirit, in view of her calling as the Mother of God, they do not teach that she was conceived without original sin as their understanding of this doctrine” Wiki-Pedia

Respectfully, Wikipedia cannot do this subject justice. Even the OrthodoxWiki entry is overly simplistic:

Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary and wrong. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin, a belief shared with some reformers such as Martin Luther.

Its quite something to see the Lutheran reference in this context. Yet, the first sentence is instructive, if you ignore for the moment “and wrong” at the end (further below).

The existing dichotomy is a facade.

That’s a very strong conclusion, and suggests there is something sinister behind the East maintaining a theological perspective, one firmly grounded in Sacred Tradition.

It could just as easily be asserted that the Church has moved toward a more Eastern definition of Original Sin, even after a significant and specific referencial use in the Apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus - the foundation of a dogmatic declaration.

So no the IC isn’t Dogma to confirm Original SIn. First and foremost one is not historically contingent of the other. As we see with the writing’s of St Anne and Mary.

That is not the assertion. Indeed, the dogma was not intended to define original sin. Yet, by applying the concept in such a definitive manner and in the context of a dogmatic declaration, the essence of the understanding has to remain constant - otherwise, the dogma of the IC falls apart.

The most generous way to look at this is that the Orthodox do not disagree conceptually, yet see the problem of applying the definition in a very concrete frame of a dogmatic declaration. That leaves no room for a nuanced understanding, which is necessary for ecumenical progress and formal thelogical reconciliation.

Of course, one could argue that somehow the ECs got over this, but its fair to say that frequent posters here would not make that leap of logic so quickly. We are already in the Communion, and it must be presumed at our level at least that the Church would not intentional violate the theological foundation of the Catholic East. Indeed, even despite high and authoritative language, and well before the formal recognition of the Catholic East in recent Church history, Ineffabilis Deus contained due reference to Sacred Tradition commonly held by East and West.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Respectfully, Wikipedia cannot do this subject justice. Even the OrthodoxWiki entry is overly simplistic:.

No doubt, yet objective, the idea is to open up dialogue free of such constaints. Which is the point of the post.

Its quite something to see the Lutheran reference in this context. Yet, the first sentence is instructive, if you ignore for the moment “and wrong” at the end (further below)…

The question then becomes, “does the Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin” Every indication would appear so since Immaculate [No-stain/spot) is an affirmative.

That’s a very strong conclusion, and suggests there is something sinister behind the East maintaining a theological perspective, one firmly grounded in Sacred Tradition…

Sinister is a strong word you chose, the focus is on the polemical exegesis East and West of recent with an objective view.
ByzCathCantor;9679714:

It could just as easily be asserted that the Church has moved toward a more Eastern definition of Original Sin, even after a significant and specific referencial use in the Apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus - the foundation of a dogmatic declaration…

Could be, yet I see the issue residing in strong polemics East/West neither are free from this and I would suggest its very natural to uphold ones belief in faith. However, this once again overlooks the point made to guilt/consequence

That is not the assertion. Indeed, the dogma was not intended to define original sin. Yet, by applying the concept in such a definitive manner and in the context of a dogmatic declaration, the essence of the understanding has to remain constant - otherwise, the dogma of the IC falls apart…

Good to know thats not the assertion. I do not see where it is not consistant.

The most generous way to look at this is that the Orthodox do not disagree conceptually, yet see the problem of applying the definition in a very concrete frame of a dogmatic declaration. That leaves no room for a nuanced understanding, which is necessary for ecumenical progress and formal thelogical reconciliation…

And conceptual is exactly the point we are addressing. Sure it leaves room as we already see unfolding with guilt/consequence. I suggest there is a middle ground here which should be acknowledged. This is the point we are at.

Of course, one could argue that somehow the ECs got over this, but its fair to say that frequent posters here would not make that leap of logic so quickly. We are already in the Communion, and it must be presumed at our level at least that the Church would not intentional violate the theological foundation of the Catholic East. Indeed, even despite high and authoritative language, and well before the formal recognition of the Catholic East in recent Church history, Ineffabilis Deus contained due reference to Sacred Tradition commonly held by East and West.

Agree’d however the intention would not violate the Dogma and teaching of the West either, thus the need to see the middle ground in proposed theory which some would contend drastically differs East and West.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sinister is a strong word you chose …

Only in response to the word facade, which was used in your post

… yet I see the issue residing in strong polemics East/West neither are free from this and I would suggest its very natural to uphold ones belief in faith.

Preferring to leave polemics aside, I understand your point, but we must recognize that the use of the presumably defined term “original sin” in the dogmatic declaration is quite near the heart of the matter, much more so than any true difference in theology.

Agree’d however the intention would not violate the Dogma and teaching of the West either, thus the need to see the middle ground in proposed theory which some would contend drastically differs East and West.

Agreed, yet some assert with reasonably sound logic that the use of the defined term “original sin” as understood at the time of the declaration of the dogma (1854) eliminates the opportunity to declare that a middle ground has indeed been found.

Truthfully, I believe it already has been found, and the real issue is that dogma was declared unilaterally via exercise of papal infallibility. Remember, this execise of papal infallibilty preceded Pastor Aeternus by a fair number of years. While I hesitate to be so blunt, all issues normally point to concerns over papal infallibility and supremacy. This would squarely fit that pattern.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem is that few bother to research what “stain of sin” actually means in Latin theology, and they apply their own assumptions to the definition of Original Sin because of it.

In Latin theology the term “stain of sin” doesn’t refer to a thing, but the lack of a thing and the disorder that arises from it. A stain is a darkness on something that shouldn’t be dark, and when something is stained it is darkened. Grace is light, and the absence of Grace is darkness, therefore the absence of Grace/Light caused by sin is called the “stain of sin”. Don’t take my word for it though, read what Aquinas wrote about it:

A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man’s soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.

and:

The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated above (Article 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement. Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases, but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.

and most importantly:

Nothing positive remains in the soul after the act of sin, except the disposition or habit; but there does remain something private, viz. the privation of union with the Divine light.

So “stain of sin” can only be objected to by the East if the East believes that the Divine Light of Grace is present in sinners, and that there is no disposition to sin in people who lack Grace. I don’t believe we hold to either of these things in our tradition, and therefore we can’t rightly oppose the theology of “stain of sin”, even if we don’t use the terminology and approach of the Latins.

Furthermore, the Latin tradition hasn’t “come around” to an Eastern perspective, it’s simply explaining what has always been taught in a manner that is clearer to the Eastern ear.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The problem is that few bother to research what “stain of sin” actually means in Latin theology, and they apply their own assumptions to the definition of Original Sin because of it.

That speaks to a discernable bias. There must have been a catechetical trend that predisposed faithful Latin Catholics to this understanding across a few generations, at least. I quite clearly remember the phrases used by my mother, raised in the RCC and the product of the Catholic School system of the 50s and early 60s, to explain sin and ultimately instill a strong sense of good, old fashioned “Catholic guilt” in me and my siblings. The theology, liturgy and symbolism may have been there at the time and completely aligned, yet what was being translated into the mindset seemed quite different.

 

[Ghosty]

That speaks to a discernable bias. There must have been a catechetical trend that predisposed faithful Latin Catholics to this understanding across a few generations, at least. I quite clearly remember the phrases used by my mother, raised in the RCC and the product of the Catholic School system of the 50s and early 60s, to explain sin and ultimately instill a strong sense of good, old fashioned “Catholic guilt” in me and my siblings. The theology, liturgy and symbolism may have been there at the time and completely aligned, yet what was being translated into the mindset seemed quite different.

This is quite possible. There has been a strong current of Jansenism in American Catholicism in the past. I can’t speak to what people picked up from nuns and priests, nor can I discern whether or not they taught piorly or were misunderstood. I can only speak to the consistantteaching of the Latin tradition which is easy to find.

Ultimately we can’t compare the height of theological understanding on one side with the understanding of the “folks in the pews” on the other. Both East and West can be made to look foolish and heretical; see the “toll booth” debates for example.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

At a computer now so I can post a quick link. It’s not much, but it’s a clear indication of how the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism handles these issues.

orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/first-look-at-the-new-ukrainian-catholic-catechism/

Peace and God bless!

Having discussed this with our esteemed brother Alexander Roman in the past, I know that belief in the Immaculate Conception was a solid part of the Ukranian Church (if not in other parts of the Eastern Tradition) for a few hundred years before the dogma was pronounced. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to see the dogma affirmed strongly by the UGCC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

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!

Immaculate Conception is when Mary was exempted from Original Sin. I mean, c’mon, we don’t even celebrate Mary’s conception on the same day. They are not the same. The theology is intrinsically different.

 

[Ghosty]

Immaculate Conception is when Mary was exempted from Original Sin. I mean, c’mon, we don’t even celebrate Mary’s conception on the same day. They are not the same. The theology is intrinsically different.

You haven’t yet actually answered my points, you’re merely asserting with no substance. We believe that Mary was conceived in Grace; do you deny this tradition of the East?

Since you refuse to even address what Original Sin actually means in Latin theology, are we to assume that you believe that we are all conceived in Divine Grace, that Baptism does not impart the Divine Life to our souls? Since you deny the teaching of Original Sin, and it has been shown repeatedly that these are the elements of the teaching, it follows that you believe we are conceived in Divine Grace and this is not imparted by Baptism. How do you square this belief with 2000 years of Eastern tradition?

If that’s not your belief then perhaps you can explain where you think the substantial differences lie between East and West. I expect that if you do this you will cite actual Latin teaching and definitions, and not merely make assertions with no backing of actual facts. If you can show, for example, that the “stain of sin” is something substantial and not a privation of Grace and corruption of human nature then I’m all ears.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

Which is different from Original Sin. C’mon, what’s easier to say, “Original Sin” or the 2 paragraphs explaining what Original Sin is as understood and taught by the West and how it different to the Eastern understanding of the Fall?

Dear Constantine,

The dogmatic formula for the Immaculate Conception used in Ineffabilis Deus was communicated to the entire magisterium of the Church years before the Apostolic Constitution was issued by Pius IX. The Pope sent an Encyclical Letter to “Our Venerable Brothers, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Entire Catholic World.” It read in relevant part as follows:

1. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.
   . . .
   We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.
   papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ubipr2.htm

In Ineffabilis Deus itself, the Pope notes: “Although we knew the mind of the bishops from the petitions which we had received from them, namely, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin be finally defined, nevertheless, on February 2, 1849,[27] we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We likewise inquired what the bishops themselves thought about defining this doctrine and what their wishes were in regard to making known with all possible solemnity our supreme judgment.” newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

In light of similar references to “original sin” found in the text of the Counsel of Florence, I have doubts as to whether there was serious disagreement about the theological implications for the East in using that term.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Indeed. I agree. Thank you for your clarifying comments!

But it is not.

I’m honestly not sure how you can think that’s not what it means… I’ll wait until you answer Ghosty’s last reply, though.

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).

Indeed. As would I.

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.

It can. Sometimes, though, the term denotes nothing more than the dogma. And the dogma does not denote the belief of the West in its entirety.

I can’t speak for Augustine, but the Catechism follows Aquinas exactly. In Thomistic tradition Original Sin is the privation of Grace and the corruption that brings; guilt is a figurative term better translated as consequence. Modern English doesn’t have the full range of meaning for guilt.

Peace and God bless!

Well said, Ghosty!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sometimes, though, the term [Immaculate Conception] denotes nothing more than the dogma. And the dogma does not denote the belief of the West in its entirety.

emphasis added

This is so true, yet so poorly appreciated …