Marian Teachings in East and West

[Vico]

concupiscence is not related to original sin?

It is.

The Council of Trent declared that concupiscence remains in the baptized but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God. It is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin.

CCC 2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.303

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

Sounds like you got it!

 

[ConstantineTG]

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!

It is not. Baptism removes Original Sin. IC says she never had it in the first place.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Baptism is a Supernatural infused Virtue of Grace. Why couldn’t this be exactly what God did with Mary at Her conception? I say its a great extention of thinking to be talked about.

 

[Crescentinus]

Is it me, or should Mary also be called Theotokos by those in the Latin Rite? o:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is it me, or should Mary also be called Theotokos by those in the Latin Rite? o:

For some of us in the Eastern Rites of Slavic origin, the use of the Greek term is a a relatively recent development, taking it in English translations in place of Bohorodice, or “Mother of God”, as it was previously translated.

 

[Evan]

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

Free of concupiscence does not imply free from temptations. Even God was tempted and He in no way suffered from concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination or tendency to long for fleshly appetites. Without concupiscence, you can still be tempted, you just don’t long for the desires of the flesh.

Mary may have been tempted, but she did not give into the temptation any more than Jesus did in the desert.

Adam and Eve were free of concupiscence, were tempted by the snake, AND gave into the temptation. This is the sin, giving into temptation. Being tempted is not a sin, it may be a test or an opportunity for growth.

 

[docnerves]

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

Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
I have been reading the discussion and I think that there is a basic premiss or “misunderstanding” with regard to Dogmatic theology and I believe that this may stem from an erroneous understanding of the Church as a whole.
Much to my dismay, many of my western brothers and sisters have been poorly catechized with regard to the “rest of the Church” meaning all the other Rites. I believe that many attempt to understand Eastern Christendom through the eyes of Latin Theology and quite frankly, that is a like bailing a sinking boat with a cup; its just not going to work.
The question is not so much as whether we believe or accept the Dogmas as it is how we interpret the theology.
It is very important to remember the following and though some may argue “semantics” it is non the less critical to understanding. The term Roman Catholic Church (RC) i s poorly understood and it is imperative that people understand the terminology. The “Latin Rite or Church” is merely one of the 23 “Churches or Rites” (depending on how you’re counting) and that the sum of the Churches makes up the Roman Catholic Church. All the Churches are Sui Juris and hold to their own theology, traditions (both “T” and ‘t’), mystery, etc… but they are in communion with the Seat of Peter. They are all MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE and no one is greater nor inferior to the other. We don’t all celebrate the same Feast Days, same Holy Days of Obligation etc. but we are in communion with one anther. Think of it this way. No one book, story, picture or church could contain the works and mysteries of Our God and we all compliment one another. Legally (Canonically) we share similarities but there are distinct differences as well. There is that flawed thinking among many that suggests its “Rome’s way or no way” and I can tell you that is simply just not true and that I can no more bind a Latin Rite Catholic than a Latin Rite Catholic can bind me.
Anyway, the Immaculate Conception is a great example.
Though this is an entirely too simplistic method of explaining it there are two key points.

1. How we as Greek / Byzantine Catholics explain the Imperfection of Human Nature vs. Original Sin (and this is very important as it is the basis of all Eastern theology)
2. How was Mary “made” Immaculate
   The first if very complicated and yet very similar to the Latins however; the emphasis is placed on the fall from our Divine Nature which made us “human” and therefore causes us to be “bound and sin by the flesh” (temptation, gluttony, desires of the flesh, etc). I strongly suggest reading Otts writings as well as Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann’s writings to gather a better understanding. I would also strongly suggest reading about Theosis as this is one of the basics of the Eastern Churches.
   The later: Mary was Immaculate by her Conception… yes, absolutely but for completely different reasons. Again, I apologize for the short version. The Latin Church explains that Mary was Immaculate as God bestowed upon her the grace of the “forthcoming events” (the Cross, the Tomb and the Resurrection) whereas the Eastern Church Fathers taught that Mary was Immaculate because her parents conceived her in a wholly (as well as Holy) and perfect manner. This resulted in a “perfect creature,” the Holy Theotokos. Another words: “Mary wasn’t Holy because she was God’s Mother, she was God’s Mother because she was Holy.”
   Again, I apologize for my very brief description but it is most important that we understand how we are members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that the Church has many facets including our common kinship with its diversities as proof of her Divine Nature.
   

 

[Peter_J]

It is very important to remember the following and though some may argue “semantics” it is non the less critical to understanding. The term Roman Catholic Church (RC) i s poorly understood and it is imperative that people understand the terminology. The “Latin Rite or Church” is merely one of the 23 “Churches or Rites” (depending on how you’re counting) and that the sum of the Churches makes up the Roman Catholic Church.

I hear what your saying, docnerves, but personally I’ve taken to avoiding the phrase “Roman Catholic”. It’s a problematic term to use b/c its multiple meanings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Baptism is a Supernatural infused Virtue of Grace. Why couldn’t this be exactly what God did with Mary at Her conception? I say its a great extention of thinking to be talked about.

Then why don’t we baptize in the womb? St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit while in the womb (not at concepcion but during the Visitation). Wouldn’t these two events justify in-utero baptism then if it is just baptism that was given to them?

 

[Evan]

Then why don’t we baptize in the womb? St. John the Forerunner received the Holy Spirit while in the womb (not at concepcion but during the Visitation). Wouldn’t these two events justify in-utero baptism then if it is just baptism that was given to them?

Noone can pour water over the baby in the womb (too much fluid there already).

The priest would need to open the womb surgically, remove the baby but leaving him attached to the placenta, baptize him, replace him in the womb, and reseal the womb, and refill the womb with amniotic fluid.

Most priests have not been trained in how to do this.

BUT in an emergency, where a miscarriage is occurring, as soon as the baby appears, before fully delivered, they are baptized.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

To say “the schism was ________'s fault,” no matter what side or person you put in that blank, is an egregious oversimplification.

The schism wasn’t the result of a moment’s action, nor of any one individual or even set of individuals. It was and is the result of literally centuries of increasing social and theological isolation from each other, misunderstandings, political events and developments, and cultural and linguistic barriers. Its roots predate even the Photian schism, and it wasn’t set in stone until the thirteenth century.

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.

Friend, might I recommend that you choose your words with greater specificity? “Eastern church” and “western church” aren’t helpful terms in the way you’ve used them; there are multiple eastern and even western churches today. Which are you talking about? Furthermore, even if we know that you mean the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church is still not a solely “western” church, nor would the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to be solely “eastern.”

Just my two cents.

It is not. Baptism removes Original Sin. IC says she never had it in the first place.

His point still applies, though: baptism gives to our souls the sanctifying grace that we lack until that point.

The Theotokos never lacked sanctifying grace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Noone can pour water over the baby in the womb (too much fluid there already).

The priest would need to open the womb surgically, remove the baby but leaving him attached to the placenta, baptize him, replace him in the womb, and reseal the womb, and refill the womb with amniotic fluid.

Most priests have not been trained in how to do this.

BUT in an emergency, where a miscarriage is occurring, as soon as the baby appears, before fully delivered, they are baptized.

It was a rhetorical question.

His point still applies, though: baptism gives to our souls the sanctifying grace that we lack until that point.

The Theotokos never lacked sanctifying grace.

No it doesn’t. As you clearly pointed out, the Theotokos doesn’t need baptism as per IC. IC states that she already is full of grace from the moment she is concieved. That is different from what baptism is and how it works. The end effect may be similar, but that doesn’t mean everything else is the same.

 

[Peter_J]

The schism wasn’t the result of a moment’s action, nor of any one individual or even set of individuals. It was and is the result of literally centuries of increasing social and theological isolation from each other, misunderstandings, political events and developments, and cultural and linguistic barriers. Its roots predate even the Photian schism, and it wasn’t set in stone until the thirteenth century.

Actually, the thirteenth century worsened matters, but I wouldn’t say the schism was set in stone even then. It was set in stone by the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century.

 

[Aramis]

The eastern concept of the stain of Adam’s sin is both the deprivation of personal grace (which can be restored by baptism, and which the Immaculate conception abated), AND the subjection of all humanity to mortality of the body - which the Theotokos was NOT free from.

The west generally does not consider death of the body as a direct consequence of Adam’s sin, and also generally doesn’t teach that her body died.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Eastern Church Fathers taught that Mary was Immaculate because her parents conceived her in a wholly (as well as Holy) and perfect manner. This resulted in a “perfect creature,” the Holy Theotokos. Another words: “Mary wasn’t Holy because she was God’s Mother, she was God’s Mother because she was Holy.”

She was Gods Mother because thats what He desired for mankind in Love. Her cooperation allowed it to be. So we see correct use of free-will in obedience to allow Gods plan for salvation to flow. .

This wouldn’t make a difference Whenever it had been befitting to give Mary this Grace, this Grace preserved the Divinity of the Living God.

What Adam and Eve lacked by their free will and disobedience Mary and Jesus restored by Gods plan. Marys perfect Grace and Virtues protects the preconceived Divinity of Christ, by God.

‘The Latin Church explains that Mary was Immaculate as God bestowed upon her the grace of the “forthcoming events”’

The forthcoming event was called the Incarnation. One that St Athanasius was exiled for defining.

Sorry for not using quotes, but just a passing thought on these two points.

 

[tdgesq]

No it doesn’t. As you clearly pointed out, the Theotokos doesn’t need baptism as per IC. IC states that she already is full of grace from the moment she is concieved. That is different from what baptism is and how it works. The end effect may be similar, but that doesn’t mean everything else is the same.

Nobody here has argued against the obvious fact that Mary was conceived with singular grace at conception, as opposed to receiving grace at conception through baptism. The assertion is that the effect is the same - in answer to your inquiry about what happens when one comes into existence without original sin.

 

[Vico]

Free of concupiscence does not imply free from temptations. Even God was tempted and He in no way suffered from concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination or tendency to long for fleshly appetites. Without concupiscence, you can still be tempted, you just don’t long for the desires of the flesh.

Mary may have been tempted, but she did not give into the temptation any more than Jesus did in the desert.

Adam and Eve were free of concupiscence, were tempted by the snake, AND gave into the temptation. This is the sin, giving into temptation. Being tempted is not a sin, it may be a test or an opportunity for growth.

Surely, because the Devil may cause temptation directly. (The idea that the Theotokos was free of concupiscence was what prompted my post.)

 

[Vico]

It is not. Baptism removes Original Sin. IC says she never had it in the first place.

It is another analogy. Since she was preserved from the stain of original sin, which is lack of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit at conception, which is remedied by baptism.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is another analogy