On Mary: Similarities & Differences between the Orthodox & the Catholics

[Sunflower15]

Dear friend Sunflower: I think you would be helped much by reading history of Christian church. Your question is one of most basic to undestanding Christianity.

Dear Volodymyr,
I did study Church history over 20 yrs ago, and am afraid I have forgotten much, but some points that were not as essential [as compared to the Trinity], such as understanding of Mary, I probably never paid much attention to.

I now pay more attention to Mary precisely because my Protestant friends make such a fuss over it…[isn’t that funny?] And, find myself wondering about how other Christians see it, and what the differences are.

I do apologize for my ignorance. It’s terrilble! I am trying to correct it, but it would be a little difficult for me to study the church history from all these different viewpoints…history [like beauty] is in the “eye of the beholder”…

An analogy comes to mind on my ignorance, though…
Someone read One VERY good Book and felt as if all the knowledge contained, to the most minuscule aspect, was sufficiently grasped. It felt truly good to know so much; to be an expert. Then, that same someone was invited into a wonderful Library…and, upon entering, realized how much knowledge exists, and how little is truly known.

That one surely applies to me…

You must know basic dogmas of Ecumenical Councils - this is teaching of fourth ecumenical council of Ephesus in 5th century. Very interesting story of Patriarch Nestorij of Konstantinopl who (such council never said what his heresy actually was) - seemed to deny this title Theotokos. So he is condemned. His followers become Nestorian church of Persian empire. Since this time and much before was recognized that Christ is God and Most Holy Maria is Theotokos. To argue otherwise might mean that Most Holy Virgin is Mother only of human nature and not person - if this is how to express such dilemna.

Many of your questions about Christianity can be found by reading any simple history of christian church - if you can find a translation of Bolotov or Posnov’s books - these are quite good.

Good luck in your discovery of history.

 

[Peter_J]

Roman Caholic dogma does not say one way or another. Correct?

Yes.

The actual “sentence” that defines the dogma doesn’t say either way. However, the full document Munificentissimus Deus that contains the definition makes reference to her death several times.

Interesting – I wasn’t aware of that.

 

[Peter_J]

Another thing we might keep in mind is that there are some truths which not only haven’t been dogmatically defined, but in fact can’t be dogmatically defined. (To quote Cardinal Newman “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum” – i.e. something that hasn’t been divinely revealed cannot be dogmatically defined.)

Now we Catholics don’t put the Assumption into the “can’t be dogmatically defined” category, obviously (since we believe that it has been dogmatically defined); but it is possible that Mary having died belongs in the “can’t be dogmatically defined” category.

 

[mardukm]

No Orthodox Christian denies the Assumption of Mary.

Orthodox generally admit that Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

The immaculate conception, as dogmatized by Pius IX, Orthodoxy rejects (as well as the non-Calcedonian churches) for reasons that others will explain.

This is MOSTLY not true at all. The Armenian Apostolic Church definitely does not reject it, but celebrates it liturgically (with liberal references to the Immaculate Conception). The Feast of the Conception of Mary, which is celebrated by EOC on December 9 readily admits that Mary was filled with all the Grace the Holy Spirit could provide a creature from the moment of her conception.

The wording of the dogma, couched in Latin terminology which in several instances really is different from Byzantine terminology, is the crux of the problem.

The difference lies in two facts - 1) as mentioned, the theological language used; 2) the fact that most Orthodox Christians do not believe it should have been promulgated a dogma - i.e., a belief necessary for the salvation of Christians (of course, the CC admits the dogma of the IC is on a different, lower, level in its hierarchy of Truths than the explicitly Christological dogmas)

There is, however, no difference in the substance of the Faith on the matter of Mary’s immaculate conception (note I didn’t capitalize).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Sunflower15]

No Orthodox Christian denies the Assumption of Mary.

Orthodox generally admit that Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

This is MOSTLY not true at all. The Armenian Apostolic Church definitely does not reject it, but celebrates it liturgically (with liberal references to the Immaculate Conception). The Feast of the Conception of Mary, which is celebrated by EOC on December 9 readily admits that Mary was filled with all the Grace the Holy Spirit could provide a creature from the moment of her conception.

The wording of the dogma, couched in Latin terminology which in several instances really is different from Byzantine terminology, is the crux of the problem.

The difference lies in two facts - 1) as mentioned, the theological language used; 2) the fact that most Orthodox Christians do not believe it should have been promulgated a dogma - i.e., a belief necessary for the salvation of Christians (of course, the CC admits the dogma of the IC is on a different, lower, level in its hierarchy of Truths than the explicitly Christological dogmas)

There is, however, no difference in the substance of the Faith on the matter of Mary’s immaculate conception (note I didn’t capitalize).

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting, it seems that the liturgies of the different Eastern churches varies on some points. Thankfully, on those that are not sufficient to cause a major break of communion.

In regards to Mary alone, I have heard from several different Eastern churches that they don’t agree on her coronation in Heaven, or her Immaculate Conception [btw, shortly after that proclamation, we received the visit of Our Lady of Lourdes…calling stating “I am the Immaculate Conception” to a young illiterate girl who had no idea what that meant & had never heard of it!].

It seems the Assumption is no problem, as long as she did die prior to being assumed into Heaven…which makes NO sense, since we die only due to original sin…and the Immaculate Conception did NOT have the original sin…but who knows, if it makes sense to theologians, who am I to ask?

In addition, I have to say that I sincerely from the bottom of my heart cannot possibly understand why the Immaculate Conception would not be considered absolutely essential to our salvation…because of Jesus, not because of Mary, but because of the necessary elements on the part of Jesus’ human parent in order for salvation to be possible! Without the HS’s action in purifying Mary in TOTALITY as a vessel for the Incarnation, I truly don’t see how it would follow that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and thus the “perfect solution” to our sinfulness - the perfect Savior and Redeemer.

Ordinary human sinfulness [original sin] would not have been able to accept in itself [herself] the divinity of Jesus, except by special dispensation by the HS! --namely Immaculate Conception.

I think the crux of the matter is that Orthodox and Protestants think Catholics “elevate” Mary inordinately…while what we are truly doing is getting to know the Trinity by following the line of reasoning [our God is a rational God!- He makes sense!] to understand as best we can, the Salvation we have been granted by Our Lord…and how it happened…what was necessary. This helps us understand in smaller ways, how we can act in the world as “God’s hands”…how our wills cooperate in his Plan.

Mary is our most perfect model of allowing in us the Will of the Lord…trusting completely, without reservation, in His Love and His Plan. For that reason, we study how God achieved His purposes through her…it’s not about elevating her…though we do love her immensely!

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Sunflower,

In addition, I have to say that I sincerely from the bottom of my heart cannot possibly understand why the Immaculate Conception would not be considered absolutely essential to our salvation…because of Jesus, not because of Mary, but because of the necessary elements on the part of Jesus’ human parent in order for salvation to be possible! Without the HS’s action in purifying Mary in TOTALITY as a vessel for the Incarnation, I truly don’t see how it would follow that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and thus the “perfect solution” to our sinfulness - the perfect Savior and Redeemer.

This would have to be based upon some assumption on your part. Is there something somehow reprehensible in a naturally conceived and born human child? A newborn girl (even soon to be dedicated to the Temple, if the non-scriptural accounts are correct) is not good enough to bear the Christ?

I don’t think so. I think she was born fine, no special undercoating required. Perfection is not part of the job description and the effects of First Sin are part of human nature.

Ordinary human sinfulness [original sin] would not have been able to accept in itself [herself] the divinity of Jesus, except by special dispensation by the HS! --namely Immaculate Conception.

The Latin concept of Original Sin and the Orthodox concept of First Sin are different. Many will try to say that this is not the case, but this is precisely where the point becomes so clear.

Orthodox do not believe that Saint Mary of Nazareth needed to be free of the effects of First Sin to bear Jesus, and not because of anything special about her but because of what First Sin really is like.

Jesus came into the world to save it, and Saint Mary was very much a part of this world.

I think the crux of the matter is that Orthodox and Protestants think Catholics “elevate” Mary inordinately…

Many Roman Catholics seem to wish to, with or without the approval of the church. This could be why so many RC wish to believe Saint Mary was assumed to heaven alive, although there is absolutely no reason for that idea even in their own tradition. It is a modern theory.

…while what we are truly doing is getting to know the Trinity by following the line of reasoning [our God is a rational God!- He makes sense!] to understand as best we can, the Salvation we have been granted by Our Lord…and how it happened…what was necessary. This helps us understand in smaller ways, how we can act in the world as “God’s hands”…how our wills cooperate in his Plan.

God is not that easy to understand, and what makes sense to us may be foolishness to God. What may seem foolish to us could be an expression of God’s infinitely superior logic which we are not fit to question. That is why we have to live with paradox.

Your outlook may be an inheritance from the Scholastic era, which is thought to be one of the reasons that RC look forward to future new proclamations of dogma. These new proclamations are “reasoned out” with human logic. For Orthodox the Faith is a revealed religion, and we must take it as it is given.

In Orthodox thinking, we should not assume we can figure it all out, that is an example of hubris. It is like building a Tower of Babel to heaven, and the “bricks” are man-made ideas whose material are the logic of creatures.

Mary is our most perfect model of allowing in us the Will of the Lord…trusting completely, without reservation, in His Love and His Plan. For that reason, we study how God achieved His purposes through her…it’s not about elevating her…though we do love her immensely!

Saint Mary can be emulated (set as an example for a Christ centered life) much like many other saints…but God’s plan for us, such as it is, is discernible only through the received teaching, the Gospels and early prayers of the church. Meditation over the life and works of Mary and other saints is a secondary category of thought.

We are to put on Christ and Hope in Him, that is the plan.

 

[prodromos]

Ordinary human sinfulness [original sin] would not have been able to accept in itself [herself] the divinity of Jesus, except by special dispensation by the HS! --namely Immaculate Conception.

Christ does not have a problem with sinful people receiving His whole body and blood.

John

 

[Volodymyr]

Christ does not have a problem with sinful people receiving His whole body and blood.

John

I am so happy to see you writing some thread here. I am wondering if you are aware of our old friends and how are they doing in New Zealand and in Italy with same name?? I think their names cannot be mentioned.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Sunflower15,

Putting the Immaculate Conception – and its dogmatization in 1854 – in the larger context of ‘development of doctrine/theology’, we to avoid on the one hand the “innovative” approach taken by a lot of Protestants, and on the other hand the error of the “traditionalists” (SSPX, SSPV, etc.) namely the error of seizing on one particular period of time when everything was just right (supposedly), hence devoting all our efforts to making the year 2009 just like the year _____ .

If we can avoid both of those mistakes, then hopefully we can embrace “development of doctrine” as understood by the Catholic Church – or rather, as understood by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, although it should be noted that Orthodox people tend to be uncomfortable with using phrases like “development of doctrine” (with good reason, perhaps, since the concept of “development of doctrine” has often been invoked by people who sought to abuse it).

Getting back to the specific question of the Immaculate Conception (my apologies if I took too long getting there) I most certainly believe that it is true. However, it really raises a red flag for me when people speak of the I.C. as if it’s just obvious. (Note: I’m paraphrasing a little bit. I realize you didn’t use the word “obvious”.) Are you so much smarter than the Catholic Church, that something that took the Church more than 1800 years is obvious to you? I’m not.

That’s all for now, but I’ll try to respond to some of your other points later today.

 

[Sunflower15]

Christ does not have a problem with sinful people receiving His whole body and blood.

John

Actually, He does…that’s why we need Confession prior to Communion…
AND, we are speaking a posteriori, AFTER the fact of His redemption, it probably wasn’t possible BEFORE His death & resurrection…which is when Mary took Him into herself

 

[Sunflower15]

Hi Sunflower15,
…
Getting back to the specific question of the Immaculate Conception (my apologies if I took too long getting there) I most certainly believe that it is true. However, it really raises a red flag for me when people speak of the I.C. as if it’s just obvious. (Note: I’m paraphrasing a little bit. I realize you didn’t use the word “obvious”.) Are you so much smarter than the Catholic Church, that something that took the Church more than 1800 years is obvious to you? I’m not.

That’s all for now, but I’ll try to respond to some of your other points later today.

Dear Peter,
Thank you for your reply. And, no , it’s not that I think I’m smart. It’s that after the fact, that the dogma was proclaimed AND that Our Lady of Lourdes was so kind to confirm it, then, I was able to pierce through my spiritual ignorance to try to understand this truth. And, it does make sense to me. Does it not to you?

I’m getting the strange impression that it is somehow not “good” to try to understand beliefs by reason…in the eyes of some of my new friends here in this forum. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like it.
My only defense is that if our Lord wanted us to know things spontaneously, He would have made us into angelic beings. However, He chose to make us into human beings, who only can know by reasoning from one point to another…

It seems to me as if the Godhead reveals to us in His own time…and that the Church [all of us through time] may have already known many things, but as these weren’t questioned directly before, maybe these were not answered directly before either, which doesn’t mean it took long to know…just to proclaim.

I look forward to your feedback on any other points. I know present life offers all of us many other options, besides considering beliefs on this forum, and that anyone here must be sincerely striving to grow faith within. I know I am.

Thankfully,
Maria

 

[Sunflower15]

Hi Sunflower, This would have to be based upon some assumption on your part. Is there something somehow reprehensible in a naturally conceived and born human child? A newborn girl (even soon to be dedicated to the Temple, if the non-scriptural accounts are correct) is not good enough to bear the Christ?
Hello, dear friend, I’m glad you replied to my post.

You know, it may be a case of assuming a premise, without realizing it, simply because I have been taught that forever. In this case of Mary, maybe I assumed that she had to be “free” from original sin, as the original Eve was…in order to assume into herself the Savior. Not that a human girl couldn’t, just that it would take a human girl as those prior to the Fall. We see Mary as the new Eve…it could be this premise that I based my reasoning on.

I don’t think so. I think she was born fine, no special undercoating required. Perfection is not part of the job description and the effects of First Sin are part of human nature.
The Latin concept of Original Sin and the Orthodox concept of First Sin are different. Many will try to say that this is not the case, but this is precisely where the point becomes so clear.

Could you elaborate a little on the difference? I never heard about “first sin” and wonder what the difference is in relation to “original sin”. It may very well explain many other differences, as the concept of how sin entered the world, and what it consists of, is quite significant.

Orthodox do not believe that Saint Mary of Nazareth needed to be free of the effects of First Sin to bear Jesus, and not because of anything special about her but because of what First Sin really is like.

Oh, that may be a good clue. For us, original sin causes death. Life Himself could not spring forth and co-exist with death…until the time of conquering it…which happens 33 years later at the Golgotha.
Life could come forth from a human girl if she were like humans were intended from the beginning, like Eve had been originally.

Jesus came into the world to save it, and Saint Mary was very much a part of this world.

Yes, we know, and she even said it in the Magnificat, that Jesus is also her savior. Receiving the grace of being “full of grace” [IM] from her conception, precisely is part of her personal redemption…she did NOT cause her being full of grace…it was a gift, but not for herself, rather for humanity.
What would being “full of grace” mean without the Immaculate Conception then?

Many Roman Catholics seem to wish to, with or without the approval of the church. This could be why so many RC wish to believe Saint Mary was assumed to heaven alive, although there is absolutely no reason for that idea even in their own tradition. It is a modern theory.

I am not sure why anyone would “wish” for Mary to be assumed into Heaven alive. What difference would it make to us?

However, it would seem to make sense. If one believes that God assumes people into Heaven who don’t deserve to die, such as OT figures of Enoc and Elijah…I don’t recall any others. Why not Mary?
Her whole life was about persecution, suffering, accepting God’s will, and loving God…what else is needed?

Besides, if death is the consequence of sin, and if she was free of sin by GRACE [as in “full of grace” which we know by revelation from the angel Gabriel, not by Catholic dogma], then, why should Mary die?
She could very well be assumed alive into Heaven just like Enoc & Elijah were…who did nothing for humanity’s redemption!

God is not that easy to understand, and what makes sense to us may be foolishness to God. What may seem foolish to us could be an expression of God’s infinitely superior logic which we are not fit to question. That is why we have to live with paradox.

Your outlook may be an inheritance from the Scholastic era, which is thought to be one of the reasons that RC look forward to future new proclamations of dogma. These new proclamations are “reasoned out” with human logic. For Orthodox the Faith is a revealed religion, and we must take it as it is given.

We take the revelation of the apparition at Lourdes as confirmation, since Bernardette was a poor, illiterate, young girl who wouldn’t have known about the IC from any other source, but the Lady herself. This would constitute “revealed religion”.

In Orthodox thinking, we should not assume we can figure it all out, that is an example of hubris. It is like building a Tower of Babel to heaven, and the “bricks” are man-made ideas whose material are the logic of creatures.

True. Not all will make sense to us. Though, we should not assume either that God doesn’t want us to at least make an attempt at understanding his Plan…since He is rational and we were created in His image…we may at least understand part of his Plan…right? Why did He give us intellect then? He could have simply “programmed” us like robots. He didn’t. He may want us to grow towards Him…in love…[btw, that’s why I love sunflowers…they will always turn towards light and grow towards it…no matter how many things shade sunlight from them…]

Saint Mary can be emulated (set as an example for a Christ centered life) much like many other saints…but God’s plan for us, such as it is, is discernible only through the received teaching, the Gospels and early prayers of the church. Meditation over the life and works of Mary and other saints is a secondary category of thought.

We are to put on Christ and Hope in Him, that is the plan.

So, the written prayers are before the lived prayers of the saints? To me, saints’ lives were prayers alive, in the same way that Jesus is the Word alive…rather than just a book…
Much as the Book and the prayers ARE important…they ***must ***transform us or they are useless!

The communion of the saints is important precisely because it is a wonderful aid for us to grow towards God, and to please Him.

The more one loves all the saints, including Mary, the more one understands what made them so great. It was their “nothingness”; how they made themselves so little and their God so great! But, I wouldn’t notice this if I didn’t dwell into their lives and experiences.

Mary and the saint will ALWAYS lead us to God. There should be no fear in being in communion with them.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Sunflower,

maybe I assumed that she had to be “free” from original sin, as the original Eve was…in order to assume into herself the Savior. Not that a human girl couldn’t, just that it would take a human girl as those prior to the Fall.

That is a theory commonly taught in the western church, a more recent rationalization. It was not actually how the early Christians thought. I have sometimes called things like this derivative theology. It may be a Scholastic era theory.

Eve was not perfect, she was not an angel or a god. She had the nature God gave her, which was not sinful nor sinless but obviously vulnerable to sin, which in fact she chose to do.

For us, original sin causes death.

I would prefer to address this more elaborately, but I cannot. Briefly, the First Sin of Adam causes in us the universal mortal condition, which provokes us to sin on our own account.

Saint Mary of Nazareth shared the mortal condition (a fact we must confront, as it was always known to Christians), so a resistance to the mortal condition was not specially given to her. Her refusal to sin was an act of human will, her choice. She is to be emulated as an example we could all follow if we were so inclined.

However, the details of her life are sketchy. We know more about her from the Protoevangelium of James than anything in scripture. There is no way to know how true any of this really is, it may be largely pious fiction. We tend to give it a pass and the benefit of the doubt.

But if one is seeking out a holy personality to love, this Infancy Gospel of James will flesh out details for the world’s most popular saint.

So, the written prayers are before the lived prayers of the saints? To me, saints’ lives were prayers alive, in the same way that Jesus is the Word alive…rather than just a book…

I am only stating this because the early prayers, most especially the liturgical and catechetical prayers, of the church are evidence as to what was received.

Much as the Book and the prayers ARE important…they ***must ***transform us or they are useless!

Agreed.

The communion of the saints is important precisely because it is a wonderful aid for us to grow towards God, and to please Him.

We emulate their lives, following their example, and ask them for prayers on our behalf even as we pray for one another.

…it would seem to make sense. If one believes that God assumes people into Heaven who don’t deserve to die, such as OT figures of Enoc and Elijah…I don’t recall any others. Why not Mary?
Her whole life was about persecution, suffering, accepting God’s will, and loving God…what else is needed?

Besides, if death is the consequence of sin, and if she was free of sin by GRACE [as in “full of grace” which we know by revelation from the angel Gabriel, not by Catholic dogma], then, why should Mary die?

She could very well be assumed alive into Heaven just like Enoc & Elijah were…who did nothing for humanity’s redemption!

Your comments here illustrate my point quite well.

The more one loves all the saints, including Mary, the more one understands what made them so great.

I disagree here. It is incumbent upon us to love everyone. Just as the rain falls on the grass and on the rock, so the love of God falls on the saints and on the sinners alike. We should be no different.

A saint would love God first, and then all humanity alike.

Quite frankly, some saints were not very lovable in themselves (and this has affected their popularity among the people). It may be worthwhile to ponder that.

Another thing is that we know so little about so many saints, we could be loving a figment of our imagination, it could be projecting. The earlier the saint the less we can assuredly know.

It isn’t the loving of saints that matters, it is what we can learn from them and their example that matters. Then we ask for their prayers on our behalf, if they are truly saints they will regard us equally well whatever our condition and intercede for us.

We take the revelation of the apparition at Lourdes as confirmation, since Bernardette was a poor, illiterate, young girl who wouldn’t have known about the IC from any other source, but the Lady herself. This would constitute “revealed religion”.

Sorry, I must disagree here. The age of revelation has ended (with the death of the last Apostle). This is something even the Roman Catholic church teaches.

This is why no Catholic is bound in any way to believe the apparitions. Anyone who relies on apparitions in order to learn their Faith is putting themselves in jeopardy. It is like the cart before the horse.

Long ago, Montanists were condemned for believing that the Holy Spirit was giving them messages. This could possibly be a version of the same error.

Mary and the saint will ALWAYS lead us to God. There should be no fear in being in communion with them.

The saints will always point to God. We must be careful to observe that.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[Peter_J]

You know, it may be a case of assuming a premise, without realizing it, simply because I have been taught that forever.

Alright, that makes sense. Kind of like if someone asked me “Does the sun revolve around the earth, or the earth around the sun?” and I replied “:ehh: Obviously the earth revolves around the sun.”

 

[Peter_J]

That’s all for now, but I’ll try to respond to some of your other points later today.

Or perhaps the next day.

It seems the Assumption is no problem, as long as she did die prior to being assumed into Heaven…which makes NO sense, since we die only due to original sin…and the Immaculate Conception did NOT have the original sin…but who knows, if it makes sense to theologians, who am I to ask?

This is, I believe, a common misconception. Actually, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Mary was free from all of the effects of Original Sin. Rather, it says that she did not have a stain of Original Sin.

This again illustrates that it’s possible to put too much trust in one’s own reasoning and meditations. (If you need even further illustration of that point, just consider how many different Protestant denominations there are in the world today.)

 

[Sunflower15]

Or perhaps the next day.

This is, I believe, a common misconception. Actually, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Mary was free from all of the effects of Original Sin. Rather, it says that she did not have a stain of Original Sin.
…meaning?..

This again illustrates that it’s possible to put too much trust in one’s own reasoning and meditations. (If you need even further illustration of that point, just consider how many different Protestant denominations there are in the world today.)

Actually, I was taught this about the IC and about Mary’s lack of original sin because of the “Full of Grace” greeting of the archangel.
What does “Full of Grace” mean to you?
Are there “stages” of being “full” or does “full” mean at “full capacity”?

On the other hand, there are still Enoc & Elijah who were taken alive to Heaven because they “walked with the Lord all their lives” [paraphrasing]. So, it is possible to be taken to Heaven without dying, right?..

Is this that you are arguing? I’m not sure what part of my argument you are disagreeing with

Thanks for your reply,
Maria

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Sunflower,

I know you did not address this to me, sorry.

On the other hand, there are still Enoc & Elijah who were taken alive to Heaven because they “walked with the Lord all their lives” [paraphrasing]. So, it is possible to be taken to Heaven without dying, right?..

Yes, but not in her case.

After all, for God anything is possible. But she died.

We have to make our beliefs yield to Truth, not allow Truth to bend to speculations. This is what is so disturbing to Orthodox Catholics, because there is this new idea circulating in the western church and it is one more thing beginning to pull us apart.

View attachment 5583
*Icon depicting Jesus holding the soul of His mother
Apostles attending the bier holding her body
*

The knowledge that the Theotokos died is not an exclusively Eastern understanding, it is the traditional understanding of the Roman Catholic church (and BTW reaffirmed by Pius XII in 1950AD) before recent times. It is our common heritage.

*Michael
*

 

[Centos]

The followers of Nestorios were more comfortable with calling her Christotokos, the bearer of Christ. It is not really a bad term, it’s actually true, but it leaves wiggle room for some people who may have personal reservations about just exactly what the precise relationship of Christ is with God.

It’s true, as far as it goes – but there’s a little more than “wiggle” room here. My wife grew up in a cult (Branhamites) who taught that Mary was merely an incubator – that she did not conceive, but merely carried Jesus in her womb.

May God be with you

 

[Centos]

I would prefer to address this more elaborately, but I cannot. Briefly, the First Sin of Adam causes in us the universal mortal condition, which provokes us to sin on our own account.

Saint Mary of Nazareth shared the mortal condition (a fact we must confront, as it was always known to Christians), so a resistance to the mortal condition was not specially given to her. Her refusal to sin was an act of human will, her choice. She is to be emulated as an example we could all follow if we were so inclined.

The “universal mortal condition” to a Catholic is “original sin.” Even should we resist actual sin our whole life – we have not evaded sin, since we still have the stain of original sin on our souls. Baptism is the necessary remedy for original sin.

For a Catholic, the question about whether Our Blessed Mother “shared the mortal condition” is no longer debatable. It has been dogmatically decreed that she did not. Our Lady was preserved from all stain of original sin at her conception by a special grace from God. And why should this seem so exceptional? – St. John the Baptist and an Old Testament prophet… (Elias?) were sanctified in the womb, after conception. Unlike the Blessed Virgin, however, they had been subject to original sin for a short while.

While it is true that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has only been defined as dogma since 1854, this does not mean it was not believed and taught much, much earlier in the Church.

Origin calls Mary “worthy of God,” “immaculate of the immaculate,” “most complete sanctity,” “perfect justice,” “neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings” (Hom. i in diversa)

There are many other examples.

May God be with you

 

[Centos]

We have to make our beliefs yield to Truth, not allow Truth to bend to speculations. This is what is so disturbing to Orthodox Catholics, because there is this new idea circulating in the western church and it is one more thing beginning to pull us apart.

If you’re speaking of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is certainly not a “new idea.”

As for what “tears us apart” I’m afraid, in this case, the Church has spoken – the doctrine is dogma, clearly defined, and there is no “wiggle room.” As for me, I can see no reason why we would want to deprive Our Blessed Mother of this honor, especially considering that she was specifically chosen to be Our Lord’s Mother. Why would our God allow his dwelling to be stained by Satan for any amount time?

May God be with you