Marian Teachings in East and West

[tdgesq]

Thanks for posting the Canons in question. I have to admit that this is the first time I’ve ever heard Catholic teaching accused of monergism.

Glad to do it. I am also perplexed over the accusation. I have never seen the term used other than in the context of the RCC’s disagreement with Luther and Calvin. I can’t remember the last time I heard a homily about the Annunciation that didn’t emphasize Mary’s free cooperation with God’s plan for salvation.

I will add that if the problem is that God poured His Grace into Mary before she could cooperate, the same complaint holds against Baptizing infants (another problem some Reformers had with Apostolic Tradition).

Yes, and imho most of that stems from a fundamental error in Protestantism’s theology of grace; from which all kinds of other errors flow like double predestination, once saved always saved, total depravity, etc. The more I consider this the more I think the confusion is a result of the intentionally limited scope of INEFFABILIS DEUS. It doesn’t clearly set forth Mary’s monumental free choice to say “yes” to God, which doesn’t really surprise RCs since it is a limited dogmatic decree of the Immaculate Conception.

As one notable theologian wrote: Grace makes us more free, not less.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Brother, I know you addressed my points, yesterday. I’ll be sure to look at them, again. I’ll my weekend, on Wednesday/Thursday. But I wanted to look into your point about synergistic. Are you saying this is an issue, or it’s not? Thanks, in advance.

Well from the Latin perspective, there was never a synergistic/monergistic issue. The question does not come up because the dogma has to do with a point in existence when synergy does not come into play (i.e., at conception). In the same way, the question of synergy does not come into play in the doctrine of infant baptism. The Grace of salvation Mary received at her conception is the same Grace of salvation babies recieve at Baptism.

The reason Orthodox would think there is a synergistic/monergistic issue (I used to be on that side of the fence on the matter) is because they believe that the dogma teaches that Mary could not sin. This comes from that corollary of the dogma that Mary had no concupiscence. On that point, Orthodox always seem to forget the basic teaching that even though Adam and Eve also had no concupisence, they still sinned. If you think about it, the Orthodox accusation of monergism in the dogma of the IC is actually more inclined to that belief than the dogma itself. To wit - If it is true that lack of concupiscence deprives one of the free will to sin, then Adam and Eve must have sinned because God caused them to sin. So much for the monergism objection.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lssanjose]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Well from the Latin perspective, there was never a synergistic/monergistic issue. The question does not come up because the dogma has to do with a point in existence when synergy does not come into play (i.e., at conception). In the same way, the question of synergy does not come into play in the doctrine of infant baptism. The Grace of salvation Mary received at her conception is the same Grace of salvation babies recieve at Baptism.

The reason Orthodox would think there is a synergistic/monergistic issue (I used to be on that side of the fence on the matter) is because they believe that the dogma teaches that Mary could not sin. This comes from that corollary of the dogma that Mary had no concupiscence. On that point, Orthodox always seem to forget the basic teaching that even though Adam and Eve also had no concupisence, they still sinned. If you think about it, the Orthodox accusation of monergism in the dogma of the IC is actually more inclined to that belief than the dogma itself. To wit - If it is true that lack of concupiscence deprives one of the free will to sin, then Adam and Eve must have sinned because God caused them to sin. So much for the monergism objection.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, for that perspective, brother. I’ll definitely think about that explanation. I’ll probably take another listen the same podcast, comparing and contrasting Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

Right now, I’m swimming through Fr. Meletios Book, “Bread, Wine, Oil, and Water.” so my response may take a little more time.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Well from the Latin perspective, there was never a synergistic/monergistic issue. The question does not come up because the dogma has to do with a point in existence when synergy does not come into play (i.e., at conception). In the same way, the question of synergy does not come into play in the doctrine of infant baptism. The Grace of salvation Mary received at her conception is the same Grace of salvation babies recieve at Baptism.

The reason Orthodox would think there is a synergistic/monergistic issue (I used to be on that side of the fence on the matter) is because they believe that the dogma teaches that Mary could not sin. This comes from that corollary of the dogma that Mary had no concupiscence. On that point, Orthodox always seem to forget the basic teaching that even though Adam and Eve also had no concupisence, they still sinned. If you think about it, the Orthodox accusation of monergism in the dogma of the IC is actually more inclined to that belief than the dogma itself. To wit - If it is true that lack of concupiscence deprives one of the free will to sin, then Adam and Eve must have sinned because God caused them to sin. So much for the monergism objection.

Blessings,
Marduk

Nice exposition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes it is.

 

[mardukm]

Does anyone have a link to St. Jacob of Sarug’s work on the Virgin Mary?

 

[fames]

Ghosty,

I read the whole thread and I really must congratulate you for such amazing posts. Keep writing!

 

[Elijahmaria]

Dear brother Issanjose,

Well from the Latin perspective, there was never a synergistic/monergistic issue. The question does not come up because the dogma has to do with a point in existence when synergy does not come into play (i.e., at conception). In the same way, the question of synergy does not come into play in the doctrine of infant baptism. The Grace of salvation Mary received at her conception is the same Grace of salvation babies recieve at Baptism.

The reason Orthodox would think there is a synergistic/monergistic issue (I used to be on that side of the fence on the matter) is because they believe that the dogma teaches that Mary could not sin. This comes from that corollary of the dogma that Mary had no concupiscence. On that point, Orthodox always seem to forget the basic teaching that even though Adam and Eve also had no concupisence, they still sinned. If you think about it, the Orthodox accusation of monergism in the dogma of the IC is actually more inclined to that belief than the dogma itself. To wit - If it is true that lack of concupiscence deprives one of the free will to sin, then Adam and Eve must have sinned because God caused them to sin. So much for the monergism objection.

Blessings,
Marduk

After all the years that I’ve spent listening to protestants and Orthodox converts from the protestant west discussing concupiscence, I have finally come to realize that to the rest of the west concupiscence can only ever mean sin itself or the unyielding tendency toward sin.

In the Catholic world the concept of desire is nuanced so that concupiscence in its negative connotation is the warped and wounded human tendency to desire wrongfully. It is part of the disintegration of the ancestral sin. Not all desire is sinful and some desire, the desire to see God for example, is sacred and directed explicitly toward the good.

For a people who can only see one side to concupiscence or who cannot separate the warped desire from sin itself, it is perfectly logical to reject the possibility of a human being untouched by sin in any way, not only from the moment of her conception, but then throughout the rest of her life.

If you watch carefully, you will see that many Orthodox believers who are most antagonistic toward the Immaculate Conception also remain unconvinced by the absolute sinlessness of the Theotokos throughout her life. They will always introduce those of the patristic fathers who taught that she either sinned in small ways or tended toward minor bad habits of mind and heart.

M.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If you watch carefully, you will see that many Orthodox believers who are most antagonistic toward the Immaculate Conception also remain unconvinced by the absolute sinlessness of the Theotokos throughout her life. They will always introduce those of the patristic fathers who taught that she either sinned in small ways or tended toward minor bad habits of mind and heart.

That’s an interesting observation, certainly with respect to Orthodox of Byzantine tradition, which leaves little doubt as to the foundational belief in a sinless Theotokos.

 

[Marybeloved]

Just wanted to differentiate these two things:

1. The dogma itself of the IC refers only to the infusion of Divine grace at Our Lady’s conception- which action by itself signifies what the West calls preservation from the stain of original sin (The stain of O.sin is a type of hole in the soul where grace was meant to be, were it not for the fall). At our Baptism, since this hole has been present in the soul since our conception, we call it wiping or washing away the stain of original sin- Which is taking away the Hole/emptiness through filling it with what was missing.

But with our Lady, we call it preservation from or exemption from because 1) She never was without this grace for a single tiny moment of her existence, yet by virtue of her descent from Adam this would be her lot if not for God’s act of infusion of his grace in her precisely at the same moment as he was creating her soul (simultaneously- so that one did not happen without the other). 2) To be born without this grace is the lot of post-fall humanity, yet the Virgin did not share it- thus exemption. It’s really an exemption from the rule (of conception with the absence of divine grace).

That’s the dogma, plus the terminology of the West of speaking (strictly) of the dogma alone.

1. Now as to Western theology on it beyond the IC dogma- We believe that the Virgin’s infusion was something altogether superior (not different) to our own infusion, even as babies. We don’t believe (in the West) that our Lady suffered concupiscence, rather as to her nature, we believe she was like Christ’s humanity- Capable of death and suffering, lacking extra-human or preternatural pre-fall gifts, but without any human corruption such as sin or concupiscence. Our understanding stems from these considerations:

• No one who is baptized as a baby is able to transfer or hand on to their own baby the state of being filled with Divine grace at conception, presumably not even St. John the Baptist would have been able to if he had had his own children. Not even the greatest saints at the height of their perfection can transmit this state to their descendants. Only Our Lady was able to transmit it to her own baby. This signifies that something radically superior happened with her that changed in her the human state itself, (not just the lack of the stain of original sin) that literally reversed the human fallen state for her and all her offspring.
• No one who is baptized even as a baby can manage to remain perfectly free of the slightest human sin- Only our Lady did. Unlike Our Lord, she was not impeccable (which means incapable of sin). Rather, in this manner she was more like pre-fall Adam and Eve or even the pre-fall angels who were free of corruption or concupiscence and yet perfectly capable of great sin. We believe she had a supply of grace that was equal to her vocation, much greater than any other before her (to say yes to salvation on behalf of all humanity post-fall, which Christ himself could not do being that he was himself the answer to this Yes- the incarnation, that is, was God’s response to Mary’s Yes to God’s invitation of salvation to humanity).

-Now, It could be that God gave her the same extent of Grace that he gives to everyone but that being infused at conception, she was able to maximally be open to it in a perfect way that no one else (save the Lord) ever was. Yet that she was filled with Divine Grace to an extent unmatched by any other (again, save the Lord himself) on Earth or in heaven (Save God) including even the angels, is beyond doubt.

I’m pretty sure that there are other Latin reasons for believing in an uncorrupted human nature for our Lady beyond the infusion of grace at conception, but these two present for me, very compelling grounds for believing so in the West. But the dogma itself refers only to a very narrow reality- the infusion at conception, nothing more.

 

[Ignatius_Maron]

I just created an account and this is my first time ever posting here on CAF. of course I have used this site as resource a many times. Now to the point:Because of how Universal the Catholic Church is, sometime people have a misunderstanding of what is meant. Most of the basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are based on the writings of Eastern Church Fathers. Here are two links that I think will clarify the dogma of Immaculate Conception for those who are part of the Orthodox Churches or have a perspective that is of the Orthodox Churches. The information in both of the links are written by Eastern Catholic’s, one man is Byzantine Catholic and the other I do not know what Church he is part of but I do know that he is a former Eastern Orthodox that is now an Eastern Catholic.

home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton1.html

For the first link there are three parts, down at the way bottom left side it has the links to the others.

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#IC

Also if you scroll up on the second link, Dr. Dragani explains Original Sin from a Greek point of view, this is a good link for Latin Catholic’s(or anyone for that matter) that may not be familiar with the Greek perspective of Original Sin.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The information in both of the links are written by Eastern Catholic’s, one man is Byzantine Catholic and the other I do not know what Church he is part of but I do know that he is a former Eastern Orthodox that is now an Eastern Catholic.

Both are self-identified as Byzantine Catholics (this is mentioned in Dr. Dragani’s bio on the East-to-West website).

P.S. Welcome to CAF and the EC sub-forum!

 

[Ignatius_Maron]

Both are self-identified as Byzantine Catholics (this is mentioned in Dr. Dragani’s bio on the East-to-West website).

P.S. Welcome to CAF and the EC sub-forum!

Thank you for the solid clarification ByzCathCantor, I knew that Daniel Barton wasn’t Syriac for sure, since the point of view he spoke from was one that was similar to Dr. Dragani’s but I didn’t know if he was a Alexandrian Catholic or not. I haven’t read it in awhile, it says on the first line “My purpose here, as a Byzantine Catholic…” that would have helped

And thank you for the welcome, I am trying to get the hang of how layout goes.

 

[Marybeloved]

I just created an account and this is my first time ever posting here on CAF. of course I have used this site as resource a many times. Now to the point:Because of how Universal the Catholic Church is, sometime people have a misunderstanding of what is meant. Most of the basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception are based on the writings of Eastern Church Fathers. Here are two links that I think will clarify the dogma of Immaculate Conception for those who are part of the Orthodox Churches or have a perspective that is of the Orthodox Churches. The information in both of the links are written by Eastern Catholic’s, one man is Byzantine Catholic and the other I do not know what Church he is part of but I do know that he is a former Eastern Orthodox that is now an Eastern Catholic.

home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton1.html

For the first link there are three parts, down at the way bottom left side it has the links to the others.

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#IC

Also if you scroll up on the second link, Dr. Dragani explains Original Sin from a Greek point of view, this is a good link for Latin Catholic’s(or anyone for that matter) that may not be familiar with the Greek perspective of Original Sin.

Those were great!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for the solid clarification ByzCathCantor, I knew that Daniel Barton wasn’t Syriac for sure, since the point of view he spoke from was one that was similar to Dr. Dragani’s but I didn’t know if he was a Alexandrian Catholic or not. I haven’t read it in awhile, it says on the first line “My purpose here, as a Byzantine Catholic…” that would have helped

And thank you for the welcome, I am trying to get the hang of how layout goes.

Welcome to CAF, interesting links.

“In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.”

Right, we talked about this in relation to “guilt” on this thread I think, I didn’t re-read.

 

[Ignatius_Maron]

Welcome to CAF, interesting links.

“In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.”

Right, we talked about this in relation to “guilt” on this thread I think, I didn’t re-read.

Thank you, welcome.

Yes, we have covered this many times, I just thought that I would mentioned that the one link explains Original Sin in its own section, just in case someone was new to this topic and what now. I do want to point out when they explain the Eastern perspective, it is a Greek. If you look many Syriac Catholic’s(e.g Chaldean, Malabar, Maronite…) don’t have much of an issue understanding the Immaculate Conception, the reason is that the Latin perspective(that Original Sin is a stain or mark) is similar to many of the Ancient Syriac writers perspective on Original Sin. Also I want to point out that some Ancient Greek writers also wrote about Original Sin as a mark or stain. I find it fascinating the Greek point of view of Original Sin that is explained in the links.

 

[Ignatius_Maron]

I meant :Thank you, for the welcome. haha

Yes, we have covered this many times, I just thought that I would mentioned that the one link explains Original Sin in its own section, just in case someone was new to this topic and what now. I do want to point out when they explain the Eastern perspective, it is a Greek. If you look many Syriac Catholic’s(e.g Chaldean, Malabar, Maronite…) don’t have much of an issue understanding the Immaculate Conception, the reason is that the Latin perspective(that Original Sin is a stain or mark) is similar to many of the Ancient Syriac writers perspective on Original Sin. Also I want to point out that some Ancient Greek writers also wrote about Original Sin as a mark or stain. I find it fascinating the Greek point of view of Original Sin that is explained in the links.