Marian Teachings in East and West

[ConstantineTG]

As Vico points out, it is not taught that she was exactly like Adam and Eve. Still not interested in actually answering my request, though? I’m a little disappointed, honestly.

Peace and God bless!

Constantine, the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin does not indicate that she is a perfect pre-Fall human. Vico explained this earlier in this thread very specifically, and here on this page he has done so again.

Well, what else in Roman Catholic teaching do we get as a result of the fall outside from Original Sin? Everything post-fall is the consequence of this Original Sin. If one came into existence without Original Sin, well, only Adam and Eve were those.

 

[Vico]

The Latin teaching is this:

Adam and Eve were created as humans, but in the image and likeness of God. They were given both preternatural gifts and the supernatural gifts.

Fr. John Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary:

**FALL. **The original sin of Adam and Eve by which they lost the divine friendship and preternatural gifts for themselves and all their human progeny.

**PRETERNATURAL GIFTS. **Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title -infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

**GRACE. **In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.
As the Church has come to explain the meaning of grace, it refers to something more than the gifts of nature, such as creation or the blessings of bodily health. Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.
The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal life. (Etym. Latin gratia, favor; a gift freely given.)

**ACTUAL GRACE. **Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God.

**GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. **The seven forms of supernatural initiative conferred with the reception of sanctifying grace. They are in the nature of supernatural reflexes, or reactive instincts, that spontaneously answer to the divine impulses of grace almost without reflection but always with full consent. The gifts are wisdom (sapientia), understanding (intellectus), knowledge (scientia), fortitude or courage (fortitudo), counsel (consilium), piety or love (pietas), and fear of the Lord (timor Domini).

INFUSED VIRTUE. A good habit of the mind or will given to the soul by God, and not acquired by the action of a human being. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are always infused; the moral virtues are both acquired and infused.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, what else in Roman Catholic teaching do we get as a result of the fall outside from Original Sin? Everything post-fall is the consequence of this Original Sin. If one came into existence without Original Sin, well, only Adam and Eve were those.

She was not free from death and suffering, nor did she have infused knowledge; not even Christ possessed those pre-Fall gifts. She was essentially “Baptized at conception”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Schism_hater]

She was essentially “Baptized at conception”.

That’s not the Western teaching, unless the Western church believes that Mary still had “concupiscence”, which I don’t believe it does. in Western theology, baptism does not wipe out concupisence. CCC 405: “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…”

And that is the basic problem with the IC that none of all these numerous posts has addressed. Rome says the wound of original sin or ancestral sin or whatever was healed at Mary’s conception, but then Christ did not assume our wounded nature, which, according to the Fathers, means He did not save us.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s not the Western teaching, unless the Western church believes that Mary still had “concupiscence”, which I don’t believe it does.

This mis-impression has been addressed before. For example, from post 279…

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

You need to be careful about he “western church”, Protestants may have beliefs about the fall that are not shared by Catholics.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s not the Western teaching, unless the Western church believes that Mary still had “concupiscence”, which I don’t believe it does.

This is not a binding teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a common theological opinion upon which Catholics are free to disagree - sententia communis.

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
That’s not the Western teaching, unless the Western church believes that Mary still had “concupiscence”, which I don’t believe it does.

This mis-impression has been addressed before. For example, from post 279…

Quote:
(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

What “misimpression”? If you mean that original sin and concupiscence are not the same thing, I know that they are not. Please elaborate, as I don’t understand your point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe we touched on the topic as dvds stated. Well both of you now.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

The primary difference between Catholic theology and the most of the many different Protestant theologies on the issue of concupiscence is whether it can be classified as sin by its own nature. Different Protestant denominations tend to see concupiscence as sin itself, an act of the sinner. The Catholic Church teaches that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is “the tinder for sin” which “cannot harm those who do not consent” Wiki-Pedia *

I agree with Ghosty on this also.

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) “for the day of redemption.” “Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life.” The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life “marked with the sign of faith,” with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.*

 

[dvdjs]

What “misimpression”? If you mean that original sin and concupiscence are not the same thing, I know that they are not. Please elaborate, as I don’t understand your point.

If you know that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not imply that the Theotokos was free of concupiscence, then where are you getting the idea that the Church teaches that she was?

 

[Vico]

Remember that Our Lord and Saviour was tempted, Hebrews 15:
For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Our Blessed Virgin Mary would not be greater than Our Lord in that.

Catechism of the Catholic Church493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
138 Lumen Gentium 56.
Lumen Gentium56. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.(5*) Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God’s command, by an angel messenger as “full of grace”,(286) and to the heavenly messenger she replies: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word”.(287) Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”(6*) Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.”(7*) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “the Mother of the living,”(8*) and still more often they say: “death through Eve, life through Mary.”(9*)

287 Lk. 1:38.

(5) Cfr. S. Cyrillus Hieros., Catech. 17, de Spiritu Sancto, II, 35-37: PG 33, 1009-1012. Nic. Cabasilas, De vita in Christo, lib. III, de utilitate chrismatis: PG 150, 569-580. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 65, a. 3 et q. 72, a. 1 et 5.

(6) Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mediator Dei 20 nov. 1947: AAS 39 (1947), paesertim p. 552 s.

(7) I Cor. 7, 7: . Unusquisque proprium donum (idion charisma) habet ex Deo: alius quidem sic alius vero sic … Cfr. S. Augustinus, De Dono Persev. 14, 37: PL 45, 1015 s.: Non tantum continenti Dei donum est, sed coniugatorum etiam castitas.

(8) Cfr. S. Augustinus, D Praed. Sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.

(9) Cfr. S. Io. Chrysostomus, In Io. Hom. 65, 1: PG 59, 361.

 

[Evan]

Remember that Our Lord and Saviour was tempted, Hebrews 15:
For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Our Blessed Virgin Mary would not be greater than Our Lord in that.

Tempted is not relevant to the Original Sin discussion as, not only was our Lord tempted, so were all those without original sin: See Genesis chapter 3 for the temptation of Adam and Eve.

They were tempted in the Garden by the snake, He in the desert by Satan.

 

[BListon]

i should have said that better i meant why can byzantine catholics or whatever not believe it but why do Romans believe it and besides if it was true wouldn’t all Catholics(true followers of Christ) believe or not believe it

All Churches in communion with the Church in Rome accept its dogmas, that includes Byzantine, Maronite, Syriac, etc.

 

[Aramis]

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!

Not believing in Original Sin is a condemned heresy - Pelagianism, to be specific. Condemned in three regional councils - Byzantine, Rome and Ireland.

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
What “misimpression”? If you mean that original sin and concupiscence are not the same thing, I know that they are not. Please elaborate, as I don’t understand your point.

dvdjs:
If you know that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not imply that the Theotokos was free of concupiscence, then where are you getting the idea that the Church teaches that she was?

(Sigh) Is it too much to ask for you to read the post I was originally responding to? “Ghosty” said that all the IC teaches is that Mary was “baptized” at her conception. I said that I believe that it means more than that, because if it just meant she was “baptized” then she wouldn’t be free of concupiscence. Whether it precisely follows from the IC or not, I am under the impression that Rome does not attribute concupiscence to Mary. If you know differently, please give me a reference.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

i wasnt aware that the eastern church had to agree with the western church to be in communion with god, i thought since the schism was the wests fault that it simply wouldnt matter?

 

[Peter_J]

i wasnt aware that the eastern church had to agree with the western church to be in communion with -]god/-] Catholicism,

i thought since the schism was the wests fault that it simply wouldnt matter?

Among Catholics, that’s a minority opinion (I believe). And it does matter.

 

[dvdjs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
What “misimpression”? If you mean that original sin and concupiscence are not the same thing, I know that they are not. Please elaborate, as I don’t understand your point.

dvdjs:
If you know that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not imply that the Theotokos was free of concupiscence, then where are you getting the idea that the Church teaches that she was?

(Sigh) Is it too much to ask for you to read the post I was originally responding to? “Ghosty” said that all the IC teaches is that Mary was “baptized” at her conception. I said that I believe that it means more than that, because if it just meant she was “baptized” then she wouldn’t be free of concupiscence. Whether it precisely follows from the IC or not, I am under the impression that Rome does not attribute concupiscence to Mary. If you know differently, please give me a reference.

It is not too much to ask, but I had in fact read it.

I do not know of any dogmatic teaching that Mary was free of concupiscence. I doubt that there is a definitive statement to contradict a non-teaching. I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that the Catholic church teaches this, but I am glad that we agree that it does not follow from the dogma of the immaculate conception.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

the catholic church is still trying to keep communion with god though and so that should be important, the catholic church believes it has the authority over the whole christian body
and I don’t necessarily see that really anybody has the right to disagree.
perhaps the biggest to-do has to be between the eastern and the western church and the whole body of doctrine their-in that the catholic church contains.

 

[Vico]

Tempted is not relevant to the Original Sin discussion as, not only was our Lord tempted, so were all those without original sin: See Genesis chapter 3 for the temptation of Adam and Eve.

They were tempted in the Garden by the snake, He in the desert by Satan.

Sure it is. It pertains to the comment that the Theotokos was free of concupiscence.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

concupiscence is not related to original sin?