Observations on the new sub-forum

[jimmy]

I said no such thing. Latins accept Syriac theology because they see its Eastern Catholic expression as conforming fully with their own, merely stated differently and with different emphases. I am not sure whether Mary as mediatrix of all graces qualifies as dogma, but certainly Eastern Catholics would have to accept this as a valid expression of Mary’s role in the economy of grace and salvation. Whether they would give liturgical expression to this, or express their veneration to and for her in these terms would be up to them.

All the Catholic Churches have their own authentic theological traditions, and they are all deemed equally valid and in conformity with each other, else pretences of unity of faith would be a fraud. It follows then that we must accept each other’s respective theological formulations even as we normally limit our liturgical practices and private devotions to our own.

If you are a true Catholic, you cannot dissassociate yourself from the legitimate expression of the faith of any of your sister Catholic Churches (whether Latin or otherwise). You don’t have to actually use the particular theology of these sister Churches (unless participating directly in their liturgy), but you do have to accept it as true and valid.

Irenicist

The problem is that some of the western dogmas contradict the eastern theology. For example the Immaculate Conception as stated on another thread. It contradicts our view of Original Sin. I will accept that the IC is valid within Latin theology and I am fine if you express it yourself but it contradicts our theology so I can’t profess it.

 

[Irenicist]

The problem is that some of the western dogmas contradict the eastern theology. For example the Immaculate Conception as stated on another thread. It contradicts our view of Original Sin. I will accept that the IC is valid within Latin theology and I will not call them heretics for professing it but it contradicts our theology.

It doesn’t contradict your theology. It looks at original sin from a different perspective and tries to express it in different terms. Within those terms Mary’s conception has to be seen as immaculate. This represents a Latin attempt to imperfectly (language is always imperfect) express an accepted theological truth. That same truth can and possibly should be expressed differently in other theologies that express the truth of original sin differently. But you can’t claim that the underlying truth is valid for some Catholics and not for others.

Gabriel describes Mary as infused with grace even before Christ’s birth (or presumably that of John the Baptist). To be infused with grace is to be made one with Christ. In Mary’s case, this must have been by anticipation since it wasn’t by baptism. Is there an important truth here? The Catholic Church tells us yes, and the Latin Church uses the immaculate conception to articulate (imperfectly) this truth. Just as Eve was created immaculate, so was Mary, who becomes in this way the new Eve, an icon of what the human being could and should be with God’s grace and utter submission to God’s plan. Eastern Catholics can express this truth differently in conformity with their own theological traditions and their own understanding of the Fall and its impact on mankind and human nature, but they cannot simply deny or dismiss it and remain Catholic. This is not a theologoumen.

If you think otherwise, you should have a long soulful chat with your bishop, and then come back to us and share.

Irenicist

 

[HailMary]

The Immaculate Conception doesn’t fit into Byzantine theology. It would be a change of our theology to develop the idea of the immaculate conception within our theology. I accept that it is valid for Latins but it does not fit our theology.

Could you help me understand why this is the case?

 

[jimmy]

The problem is that some of the western dogmas contradict the eastern theology. For example the Immaculate Conception as stated on another thread. It contradicts our view of Original Sin. I will accept that the IC is valid within Latin theology and I am fine if you express it yourself but it contradicts our theology so I can’t profess it.

To clarify. I will profess that Mary never committed an actual sin though. She was pure.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The Immaculate Conception doesn’t fit into Byzantine theology. It would be a change of our theology to develop the idea of the immaculate conception within our theology. I accept that it is valid for Latins but it does not fit our theology.

Which exact distinctive school of Byzantine thought are we canonizing as being “THE” voice of the East? Some of the biggest criticisms of St. Thom. Aq. were Greek monks taking him to task for NOT supporting the IC.

The theologies can be complimentary, but accepting wholesale and broadclothe some of the later developments in some OC circles (especially in reaction to the IC proclamation ex cath)is not all that helpful either.

 

[jimmy]

Could you help me understand why this is the case?

I have posted the view of Original Sin in the thread ‘Eastern theology vs. Dogma’. Here is the main point of what I said.

They would say that the inherited aspect of Original Sin is death and corruption and so if they were forced to answer the question of whether Mary was born with Original Sin they would say yes, she was born with Original Sin. She was subject to death.

Irencist:

It doesn’t contradict your theology. It looks at original sin from a different perspective and tries to express it in different terms. Within those terms Mary’s conception has to be seen as immaculate. This represents a Latin attempt to imperfectly (language is always imperfect) express an accepted theological truth. That same truth can and possibly should be expressed differently in other theologies that express the truth of original sin differently. But you can’t claim that the underlying truth is valid for some Catholics and not for others.

Gabriel describes Mary as infused with grace even before Christ’s birth (or presumably that of John the Baptist). To be infused with grace is to be made one with Christ. In Mary’s case, this must have been by anticipation since it wasn’t by baptism. Is there an important truth here? The Catholic Church tells us yes, and the Latin Church uses the immaculate conception to articulate (imperfectly) this truth. Just as Eve was created immaculate, so was Mary, who becomes in this way the new Eve, an icon of what the human being could and should be with God’s grace and utter submission to God’s plan. Eastern Catholics can express this truth differently in conformity with their own theological traditions and their own understanding of the Fall and its impact on mankind and human nature, but they cannot simply deny or dismiss it and remain Catholic. This is not a theologoumen.

If you think otherwise, you should have a long soulful chat with your bishop, and then come back to us and share.

In order though to accomodate the Immaculate Conception I must also incorporate a Latin view of Original Sin.

 

[HailMary]

To clarify. I will profess that Mary never committed an actual sin though. She was pure.

I don’t understand how Orthodox and anyone for that matter that ever claimed that the Blessed Virgin Mary is all-holy Theotokas if she was subject to Original Sin. I’ve asked Mickey, here for the actual difference between the EO and the CC but he gave no answer.

Those who are decedents of Adam and Eve, were all slaves of Satan. One of the effects of Baptism is the removal of OS. If you saw that cute new born baby with spiritual goggles, you would see a monster, since the soul is stained with OS. Even after Baptism, you would still suffer from Concupiscence.

This fear is a Holy fear before the Almighty. It is a fear born out of sinfulness in the presence of the all pure. “Depart from me O Lord for I am a sinful man” exclaimed Peter after the first miraculous catch. He said so because he recognized in Jesus God and he knew that no one shall see the face of God and live (as the Lord told Moses). This is why most everyone recorded in the bible were terrified of Angels: their utter holiness.

How does Mary react in the presence of the archangel? “She was greatly troubled at that saying”. Mary (and this is crucial) is not afraid by the presence of the angel! She is only troubled by the salutation which is the normal reaction of anyone who is truly humble. Scout the bible from beginning to end and you will not find any other human being saluted in this way by an angel.

At any rate, Mary’s purity is such that the presence of an angel does not fill her with fear. If this is not the signature of the Immaculate conception, I do not know what is!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643780&postcount=14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643781&postcount=15
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

 

[Irenicist]

To clarify. I will profess that Mary never committed an actual sin though. She was pure.

Yes, but why and how was she pure? Was she free of sin from her own sheer force of will (in which case she sets an impossible standard for the rest of us and is arguably not human), or was she free of sin through God’s grace? If the latter, when did this intervention occur? Was there a time in her existence when she didn’t enjoy this grace? If so, when and why?

Irenicist

 

[Wildkit]

I’m a Latin rite guy, grew up in Midwest America and know little of Eastern Christian theology and thought that I didn’t learn here at this forum. I come to CAF because I know a little bit about a few things that I can share and because I realize there is a LOT that I don’t know about a lot of things.

I found the culture of the Eastern Forum to be one of polemics more often than dialogue. Clearly something needed to be done. Here you have Catholic Answers spending money donated by catholics to establish a catholic apologetics site and instead what existed in the EC forum was a small group of Orthodox posters who, instead of engaging in dialogue as guests at a catholic site, proceeded with an attitude of Orthodox dogmatism (yes, I realize the irony) incompatible with the mission of this site.

I don’t think this would have happend if the Orthodox posters (especially the big post count names) regularly had an attitude of humble presentation of the Orthodox perspective and acknowledgement of the differences with Roman Catholicism. Instead they (often understandably) got offended by immature catholic posters and responded in kind. To be sure, many such dogmatic and hostile responses were cloaked in a McBrienesque guise of deniability that must have made moderation infuriating!

How could CAF defend the status quo if questioned by donating patrons when the subforum had essentially become the fiefdom of a few EO who regularly strove not to dialogue, but to eagerly undermine the catholic position? To be sure, the above noted immature catholic posters would require nearly heroic virtue for consistent appropriate EO response. But guests in a catholic site shouldn’t be surprised to be expected to be held to a high standard. As an EO, how could you think it your RIGHT to expend catholic resources to proselytize eastern orthodoxy?

My father once told me that it takes all kinds of people to make up this world.

There are loud mouths, people with legitimate issues and questions, and others who loose or have lost sight of the goals / reasons for the sub forum. I personally welcome this discipline that CAF has brought to this forum.

I also fully recognize the larger post count poster’s dilemma now that the ability to transcribe the polemics over this forum has been removed. Having these polemist’s likely removed from this forum by their own doing, I am glad to be here and look more to learning more about Christ’s one, holy and apostolic Church along with the other cultural and geographic perspectives.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, but why and how was she pure? Was she free of sin from her own sheer force of will (in which case she sets an impossible standard for the rest of us and is arguably not human), or was she free of sin through God’s grace? If the latter, when did this intervention occur? Was there a time in her existence when she didn’t enjoy this grace? If so, when and why?

Irenicist

I do not know the specifics of how Grace works within Gods creation. It seems that this post is seperating the definition of the IC as a lack of OS from the statement that she was granted a singular grace by God. If you were to say that the IC was simply the fact that Mary was pure and immaculate and never sinned and that this was according to Gods Grace then it is fine within the eastern theology as far as I can see. But when you say that Mary was born without OS then you are introducing an idea that makes no sense to us.

 

[HailMary]

But when you say that Mary was born without OS then you are introducing an idea that makes no sense to us.

No, we are saying much more than that. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin.
And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost

We are saying Mary was conceived without Original Sin.

 

[Irenicist]

In order though to accomodate the Immaculate Conception I must also incorporate a Latin view of Original Sin.

No, you have to grasp the truth the formulation is intended to convey and be able to articulate this truth in the theological tradition of your Church. No one requires you to accept an Augustinian notion of original sin, anymore than anyone is pushing scholastic theology on you.

Look at the filoque, for example. If you are to look at the filioque strictly in terms of what the words would mean in Byzantine theology, it is just flatly wrong. But Latins do not and never have used the filioque with this meaning.

There is an immense literature of centuries long standing that explains in excruciating nuanced detail what the phrase is intended to convey (even if many Orthodox still refuse to read the words from any perspective other than their own terminological conventions). The Eastern Catholic Churches all recognize that this intended meaning is fully orthodox, but prefer not to use the terminology in their liturgy because it is potentially misleading from the perspective of their traditional theology.

The same applies to the immaculate conception. These are imperfect words drawn from the context of an explicitly Latin theology that expresses a truth all Catholics are meant to share, but which other Churches might express differently in conformity with their own theological traditions. It isn’t a truth for Latins only that has no bearing on Easterners.

You shouldn’t confuse the truth with the words and terminology used to communicate it. One is the content, the other is the vessel.

Irenicist

 

[jimmy]

No, we are saying much more than that. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin.
And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost

We are saying Mary was conceived without Original Sin.

Excuse me, you are correct, concieved. It doesn’t change the meaning of what I said though. It introduces something that is foreign to eastern theology.

 

[HailMary]

Excuse me, you are correct, concieved. It doesn’t change the meaning of what I said though. It introduces something that is foreign to eastern theology.

Your eastern theology. Not mine right? Since we fully accept the IC as truth.

 

[jimmy]

Your eastern theology. Not mine right? Since we fully accept the IC as truth.

Maybe it does not affect your theological view. But if you ask bishops of the Melkite or the Ruthenian or other churches(especially those of the byzantine tradition) I think they would probably express the theology - regarding OS - which I am giving here.

 

[East_and_West]

Misconseption #1: Eastern Catholics are free to reject the Immaculate Conception.
This is entirely false. The Immaculate Conception was formally promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff ex cathedra with purpose of denifing the Catholic faith with regard to this matter. Thus it is an infallible proclomation of the truth. No Catholic, whether Latin or Eastern, is free to reject it under the pain of mortal sin. Just as my Ruthenian priest states, “If you reject the Immaculate Conception, you are not Catholic.”

Misconception #2: The Immaculate Conception makes it so that Mary was incapable of sin.
This is entirely false as well. Because of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve, that is without a fallen nature. But we know that this does not make sin impossble. Adam and Eve did sin even in this state. If Mary had chosen to sin, she could have done so. Thankfully, with God’s help, she never made that choice.

Misconception #3: Eastern Catholics must use the same language and terminology to describe the Immaculate Conception as Western Catholics do.
This is also false. The Eastern Churches have their own theological language. They may simply refer to Mary as the “All Holy” (what is the greek for that? I can’t remember) as long as they subscribe to the subtance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was concieved without a fallen nature like Adam and Eve.

 

[Irenicist]

Misconseption #1: Eastern Catholics are free to reject the Immaculate Conception.
This is entirely false. The Immaculate Conception was formally promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff ex cathedra with purpose of denifing the Catholic faith with regard to this matter. Thus it is an infallible proclomation of the truth. No Catholic, whether Latin or Eastern, is free to reject it under the pain of mortal sin. Just as my Ruthenian priest states, “If you reject the Immaculate Conception, you are not Catholic.”

Misconception #2: The Immaculate Conception makes it so that Mary was incapable of sin.
This is entirely false as well. Because of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve, that is without a fallen nature. But we know that this does not make sin impossble. Adam and Eve did sin even in this state. If Mary had chosen to sin, she could have done so. Thankfully, with God’s help, she never made that choice.

Misconception #3: Eastern Catholics must use the same language and terminology to describe the Immaculate Conception as Western Catholics do.
This is also false. The Eastern Churches have their own theological language. They may simply refer to Mary as the “All Holy” (what is the greek for that? I can’t remember) as long as they subscribe to the subtance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was concieved without a fallen nature like Adam and Eve.

Fair enough.

 

[jimmy]

Misconseption #1: Eastern Catholics are free to reject the Immaculate Conception.
This is entirely false. The Immaculate Conception was formally promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff ex cathedra with purpose of denifing the Catholic faith with regard to this matter. Thus it is an infallible proclomation of the truth. No Catholic, whether Latin or Eastern, is free to reject it under the pain of mortal sin. Just as my Ruthenian priest states, “If you reject the Immaculate Conception, you are not Catholic.”

Misconception #2: The Immaculate Conception makes it so that Mary was incapable of sin.
This is entirely false as well. Because of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was conceived in the same state as Adam and Eve, that is without a fallen nature. But we know that this does not make sin impossble. Adam and Eve did sin even in this state. If Mary had chosen to sin, she could have done so. Thankfully, with God’s help, she never made that choice.

Misconception #3: Eastern Catholics must use the same language and terminology to describe the Immaculate Conception as Western Catholics do.
This is also false. The Eastern Churches have their own theological language. They may simply refer to Mary as the “All Holy” (what is the greek for that? I can’t remember) as long as they subscribe to the subtance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was concieved without a fallen nature like Adam and Eve.

I think Panagea is the word for All Holy in Greek.

It is false to say that Mary was concieved without a fallen nature. She was subject to death. That is the fallen nature according to many eastern Catholics. It is true to say that Mary was born without sin in the eastern theology but it is also true to say that every human was born without sin. So it depends what you mean when you say that Mary was born with the same nature as Adam and Eve were created. If you mean she was not subject to death then your view would be rejected by many eastern Catholics because they profess that she died and was then assumed into heaven. THat is why the feast of the Dormition is called the Dormition(the falling asleep). If you mean that she was concieved without any guilt of sin then all eastern Catholics would agree with you but many of them would qualify it by saying that we were all born without the guilt of sin.

 

[HailMary]

I think Panagea is the word for All Holy in Greek.

It is false to say that Mary was concieved without a fallen nature. She was subject to death.

So was Christ.

 

[PazFeAmor]

As a longtime lurker who recently started posting I always found the Eastern Christianity forum to be a real turn-off due to the negativity and mud-slinging. I have always cringed whenever I see a forum on Catholicism and then a separate Eastern forum. I don’t see the need to have different sub-forums. If anyone wants to learn about the Catholic church they should want to learn something about both the Western and Eastern rites.

I really think there needs to be stickies highlighting the various rites within the Catholic Church for each sub-forum. When you have separate Eastern and Western forums it is just setting up a pre-mindset of separation and I really detest that. I think the Traditional Catholicism forum is another way of dividing the Church. I am tired of the Traditional Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Western Catholic, Neo-Catholic and whatever other labels people want to invent… If you are CATHOLIC that’s it…period…end of story.

So in my opinion all the sub-forums should reflect both the Eastern and Western rites as ONE. For example forums on Apologetics, Liturgy and Sacraments, Spirituality, Family Life, Vocations…etc should reflect BOTH the Eastern and Western rites. There is a hunger to learn about the different Rites within the Catholic Church and Catholic Answers should step forward in this aspect.

Peace