Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[nmgauss]

I think the best way to refute Karen Armstrong’s assertion is that “in general”, yes, the Jews were sinners.

In specific, no. There were exceptions. Millions of them, actually. To wit: Jesus, Mary, and the millions of Jewish babies/children/mentally challenged who were not bound by the law.

Are you saying that some Jews were not obligated to follow the Torah and therefore did not become sinners when they could not follow all 613 mitzvoth in which case they did have to atone for their sins?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I must admit and I must apologize deeply that I have allowed myself to be dragged off tangent. The conversation has veered away from the point I was trying to make as a number of folks keep trying to attack the Orthodox view and are interested more in winning debates than understanding what the theological differences are. I’ve tried again to reign in the discussion by going back to the basics and just explaining what are the Orthodox objection to RC Marian dogmas and Mariology in general are. Not that this is a justification, but if you are bombarded by multiple off tangent questions, you’d become confused too. So please, forgive me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting.

So what say you, CTG?

“One baptism for the remission of sin”–and you baptize babies. What sin is baptism remitting for those little ones?

As I said in the past, sin in Orthodox theology isn’t just about committing an offense or a stain on one’s soul (the concept of stain on one’s soul is also Western). In the East, sin is the inherent corruption we experience as an after effect of the fall.

I believe it is St. John Maximovitch who even objects to the term “sinless” to apply to the Theotokos. While he himself teaches that Mary did not commit any personal sins in her life, he calls her “blameless” to make a distinction between “sinless” which alone applies only to Christ and denotes that the power of sin and death (corruption) has no hold over him alone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No sarcastic undertones there… LOL…Just joking around…You won’t catch me calling your churh teachings, heterodox.

Well, the name of the Church says it all, Orthodox. Everything that is not Orthodox is heterodox. The same way that you guys think that anyone who is not under the Pope is at best, schismatics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, we need to wonder if you’re going to change your position again?

Ad hom, really the last resort.

Seriously, you’ve never been misinformed about something and changed your mind later when you realized what you believed in was wrong? I’m not pretending here that I’ve known everything from the day I was born. I’ve been wrong about a lot of things, hey, I’ve been Catholic for 36 years

 

[joe371]

Well, the name of the Church says it all, Orthodox. Everything that is not Orthodox is heterodox. The same way that you guys think that anyone who is not under the Pope is at best, schismatics.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. I just don’t like to tell someone that there beliefs are wrong. Instead I choose to discuss why I believe what I believe, and if someone does not agree, that’s cool…Frankly, I believe that the Orthodox church and the Catholic church have more in common than not.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that some Jews were not obligated to follow the Torah

Of course. Or do you believe that a Jewish toddler was obligated to follow all 613 mitzvoth?

But of course Jesus and Mary were obligated to follow God’s law. As such, they were certainly able to do so.

and therefore did not become sinners when they could not follow all 613 mitzvoth in which case they did have to atone for their sins?

And therefore Jesus and Mary did not “become sinners”. Ever.

 

[PRmerger]

Ad hom, really the last resort.

Seriously, you’ve never been misinformed about something and changed your mind later when you realized what you believed in was wrong? I’m not pretending here that I’ve known everything from the day I was born. I’ve been wrong about a lot of things, hey, I’ve been Catholic for 36 years

How long have you been Orthodox?

 

[PRmerger]

The conversation has veered away from the point I was trying to make as a number of folks keep trying to attack the Orthodox view

Actually, it is you who have been attacking the Catholic view.

Not that this is a justification, but if you are bombarded by multiple off tangent questions, you’d become confused too. So please, forgive me.

Is this your way of saying that you can’t cite the post I requested in post #185? That you are confused about this statement you made:

Another edit: I thought you said the IC was about the merits of Christ’s work on the cross, not his incarnation and 9 month stay in the womb?

 

[PRmerger]

As I said in the past, sin in Orthodox theology isn’t just about committing an offense or a stain on one’s soul (the concept of stain on one’s soul is also Western). In the East, sin is the inherent corruption we experience as an after effect of the fall.

Except that you baptize babies for the remission of their sin.

You proclaim that.

So it appears that even if you don’t call it Original Sin, you believe in it.

That’s exactly what all this Orthodox/Catholic dialogue has been about.

Even if you don’t call it the same thing we do, you believe the same things we do.

 

[PRmerger]

The same way that you guys think that anyone who is not under the Pope is at best, schismatics.

Actually, this an example of poor catechesis.

We do not consider anyone who is not under the Pope “at best, schismatics”.

It might be beneficial if you read up “dissident” “schismatic” “heretic” “excommunicant” “Protestant”

From our Catechism:
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

The correct way to say this is, at best, we consider any Christian who is not under the Pope, at best, “our brothers in the Lord”.

 

[dvdjs]

No way to get around what? In Orthodox theology, Mary’s sinlessness has nothing to do with her break from human nature.

That is also true in Catholic theology.

The number 1 objection to the IC is that per RC theology, Original Sin is the result of the fall. If Mary is exempted from OS, thus she becomes a pre-fall human being.

In Catholic theology of the IC, she is NOT exempted from the all of the consequences of Original Sin, but from the “stain” of sin. The delimitation is quite clear:

Nature of original sin
…
We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(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).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Orthodox will also talk of this ontological deficit that we, as descendants of Adam, sustain; this perspective on Original Sin lies well within Orthodox theology,

Similary, the idea that Mary was cleansed of this Sin is also completely Orthodox. The question is when? At the annunciation - notwithstanding that this is prior to Christ’s death and resurrection? Before her Entrance - as Orthodox liturgy makes unmistakably clear? From the very beginning of her earthly existence, as the IC asserts? Any of these positions are acceptable within Orthodoxy, according to ranking hierarchs - in particular if one avoids the polemical red herring of a change of nature - which simply is not part of the IC.

The greater majority of Orthodox who believe the Theotokos to have never committed any personal faults in her life do so without believing that she possessed a nature other than the same nature each and every one of us. Her nature is fallen, same as ours, but by God’s grace she was able to live life without sinning.

Which is exactly the Catholic teaching:

Ineffabilis Deus “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and* grace granted by God*, in view of the merits of* Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race*, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I said in the past, sin in Orthodox theology isn’t just about committing an offense or a stain on one’s soul (the concept of stain on one’s soul is also Western). In the East, sin is the inherent corruption we experience as an after effect of the fall…

Would your say spotless and stainless are the same?

“8. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life”

newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

In the East, sin is the inherent corruption we experience as an after effect of the fall…

No different

I believe it is St. John Maximovitch who even objects to the term “sinless” to apply to the Theotokos. While he himself teaches that Mary did not commit any personal sins in her life, he calls her “blameless” to make a distinction between “sinless”.

Good up to this point. So would he object to Athanasius? “spotless” perhaps not, but “stainless” yes?

which alone applies only to Christ and denotes that the power of sin and death (corruption) has no hold over him alone.

No distinction is drawn between Creator/Creation.

 

[PRmerger]

Ad hom, really the last resort.

http://www.briangardiner.ca/hespeler/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/inigo_montoya-300x183.jpg

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right.

No one is saved until she dies and is before the Throne of Heaven.

So Mary’s sanctification either occurred at her conception, or at the Anunciation.

Either way, it is before the atoning death of Christ.

So you have no means to object to the IC with the excuse, “But Jesus hadn’t died yet!”

And this was a good point with PR, CTG, this I notice is circular with you, I hope you think about it.

 

[PRmerger]

And this was a good point with PR, CTG, this I notice is circular with you, I hope you think about it.

Yup.

I think CTG’s main error is in believing that Mary’s IC equals Mary’s eternal salvation.

Not.

Mary’s IC is her salvation from sin. NOT salvation from eternal punishment (although, of course she was saved from that as well, but that occurred at the Assumption/Dormition).

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously, you’ve never been misinformed about something and changed your mind later when you realized what you believed in was wrong?

Of course.

2 comments, however:

-I would never sarcastically deny what was clearly my view just a short period ago with, “Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was misinformed”, as if everyone reading ought to just know (by osmosis?) that I had changed my position. Rather, I would have said, “While it is true that I once believed [A], after further discussion and study, I now believe [not-A].”

-How are we to know which of your posts from, say, 2010 you are standing by, and which ones you now conclude were “misinformed”?

 

[GaryTaylor]

God chooses some. God does not choose others.

I will add that those whom He chooses choose Him of their free will, and those He does not choose reject Him of their free will.

Where does your view differ with Catholicism?

 

[LivingWaters7]

So I was thinking of starting a separate thread on the Orthodox vs Catholic views on original sin, but it seems as if we’re already talking about that somewhat here, at least as related to Mary’s conception.

When I Google the Orthodox view on original sin, every article that comes up states that what Orthodox reject is the belief that we not only inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve, but that we also inherit the guilt of the sin. They say that Catholics teach that we inherit the consequences and the guilt. I found the OrthodoxWiki to give a more moderate understanding of the Catholic view, or, it implies that the Catholic view on original sin has evolved/changed:

**-Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine’s teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam’s sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.

-This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church’s declaration of its dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. However, contemporary Roman Catholic teaching is best explicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes this sentence: "“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” (§405).

-The Roman Catholic doctrine of Ancestral or Original Sin is harder to pin down because of the development and pendulum swings of its development. It is clear from the Vatican’s own documents that Ancestral or Original Sin did include both the imputation of the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin and a widespread and deep-seated damage to the imagio dei, at least during a good part of its history. Thus the infant is worthy of punishment in hell according to both Saint Augustine and St. Gregory the Dialogist. In the medievalists, this is ameliorated to a deprivation of the beatific vision, which is still considered a punishment, though the infant will only experience happiness. At the time of the Enlightenment, there is a return to a more Augustinian and Gregorian definition of Ancestral or Original Sin. But, by the time of Vatican Council I, the change is in full swing, and Ancestral or Original Sin begins to be seen as the deprivation of original holiness. This change in the definition of Ancestral or Original Sin is found in documents such as the aforecited Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Hope of Salvation document. **
orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

Other articles seem to just make the distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox views as one accepting only the consequences of the original sin (Orthodox), while the other accepts the consequences and the guilt as being inherited (Catholic), and seem to imply (in contrast to OrthodoxWiki) that this view is still held today:

-The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind.
theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

-Concerning the original—or “first”—sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.
oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin

-And here is where there is an important difference between the Romans and the Protestants, on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox, on the other. The latter subscribe to Original Sin but not to Original Guilt. Timothy Ware: “Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam.” (229)
maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/08/original-sin-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html

-In the West, however, the concept of original sin is tied up with and all too often even confused with an equally Western concept of “original guilt.”
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm

Etc.

So, the question then becomes, does the Catholic Church really teach that we not only inherit the consequences of the original sin, but also the guilt? Are we guilty of someone else’s sin? If not, then what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings?

Also, why do the Orthodox baptize infants? What is the understanding of “remission of sins” that occurs at baptism?

If this requires a separate thread, I’ll gladly start it!

 

[Porknpie]

Karen Armstrong in her “A History of God” makes the point that Jews are expected to follow the Law as presented in the Torah. There are 613 commandments (mitzvot) that Jews must follow to avoid sinning. Human nature being what it is, it is likely that no Jew can follow all 613 mitzvot. Therefore, Jews in general are sinners. They are pardoned for their sins through the process of atonement.

In the days of Jesus, whose mother Mary was a Jew, the Laws of the Torah were in effect. Thus, Jesus and Mary must have been sinners just like the rest of the Jews.

Nah. The Written Word of God…says Jesus did not sin…neither did Mary as she was full of grace.

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested[a] as we are, yet without sin.

Luke 1:28

28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

There is a catholic.com tract link on the full of grace text above.