Orthodox Perspective: On Ancient Sin and the Immaculate Conception

[pacloc]

Those are good quotes from the catechism. The thing is that from what I have been told the catechism has influence from the East because Pope Benedict and others that wrote it were very fond of eastern theology. The RCC doesn’t have a long history of explaining things quoting Eastern Fathers before the CCC. I hope a full embrace of the Eastern Fathers fully replaces a lot bad theology that is still allowed to be believed in the RCC.

And yes a version of the immaculate conception could be embraced but would need to be redefined as we have been discussing. We celebrate her conception and immaculate is used to describe her. Most Orthodox don’t like the term because it seems that the RCC used to teach things about it that seemed heretical. The catechism seems to be careful and agrees with Orthodox teaching.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Well, I think the problem is that many priests and catechists in the Catholic Church are sometimes mistaken about certain aspects of the faith. And I don’t mean this as a shot to them or me being arrogant. For even I may be mistaken in other aspects of the faith. We are after all, fallible beings. However, the wrong message/teaching sometimes gets out that is out of tune with the official teaching. This sometimes leads to misconceptions worsened by biases from other Christians about Catholic teachings. That is why St. John Paul II summed up the beliefs of the Catholic Church in book form. No new theology is actually used. It is but a summary.

The different teachings (even after the schism and during the Medieval period) always gets inspiration from the Early Church Fathers. Never though from Eastern Fathers after the schism, I think. However, in the encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato Si, it was for the first time, I believe, that the Pope drew from the Eastern Fathers after the schism. Sadly, this was noticed by just one media outlet. Anyway, forgive my digression. We are not here to discuss that.

And yes a version of the immaculate conception could be embraced but would need to be redefined as we have been discussing.

What I have presented to you are the OFFICIAL teachings of the Church with regards to the Immaculate Conception, and Original Sin (without all the biases, and false understandings about the dogma). I don’t know if I have been able to present it well though since many questions and misunderstandings arose during our discussion. I’m wondering, given what we have discussed so far, do you still find this lacking and in need of redefinition to be in full agreement to the Orthodox faith?

 

[MatthaiosX]

This understanding and reconciliation between the two traditions, of course, is not official, but only my own musing. Obviously, I’m only fallible but I enjoy these speculations. lol.

Well, I like your own musings and speculations.

If we agree, then we agree, and all is well in Christendom

 

[Kmon23]

I do not believe the immaculate conception is necessarily heretical and my opinion, is in the realm of theologumenon. However it being dogmatic is a bit much.

 

[pacloc]

The quote from John Paul II really is trying to bring things back into Tradition, but still falls short. Whether it was the Holy Virgin herself or God that chose for her to still have mortality and I’m guessing the innocent passions since I assume she feared when Christ was lost as a 12 year old boy, it makes little sense to say that she was preserved from all stain of original sin. It was an over-reaction to say this, and many Catholic Saints were against this excessive definition. We can make up all kinds of very nice and interesting things to say about the Saints, the Mother of God, and the Angels, but if it has not been revealed to us that these things are so, it is wrong to do so. The Church’s understanding of the Incarnation is altered by claiming that the Holy Virgin did not share in our stains of the original sin. It is because Christ took from Her these things that He healed them.

Now how God preserved Her and how she was filled with the Holy Spirit probably from conception does not mean that she had to be free of the effects of the original sin. So she is unique to us Orthodox because she is the holiest of all creation and God chose to redeem the world by Her. She is also the means by which even the Angels are given a better view of God. So she is also their means of drawing closer to God. But with all of this said, I don’t think that the Church is opposed to the idea that even great saints like John the Baptist, and Elijah and I’m sure countless Christians have experienced similar sinlessness from the moment of conception, due to the graces of God by His foreknowledge and their parents holiness. They however holy they were, still did not give actual birth to God the Word, so they will never be at the same level of honor as Her, but they definitely could be called “God-bearers” little Theotoki. We are all called to be God-bearers.

 

[pacloc]

Also, at the end of the day, we believe the same things about Her, her sinlessness, Her bearing God, Her holy life amid terrible times of murder, Her assumption into Heaven, and our deep need to go through Her for salvation. If anything the Orthodox way gives Her more praise because it is free of partiality and means that Her faith and love was the means by which she was chosen over any other. The same potential is in you and me, and we have most likely squandered it, but can repent and be made white as snow.

 

[Kei]

You say she chose death. Perhaps in your tradition. In our tradition, we do not define what happened to the blessed mother. It is presumed that the “death” was only for a moment before being resurrected and assumed. Not really a death. But, she wanted to be like her son, naturally, and God granted that she be assumed like His ascension. Similarly for a moment she passed. That is what is implied but not defined.

Of course let us not forget that all blessings are from God. She, in the virtue of extreme humbleness, would no doubt proclaim such. Let us then ask for her blessed intercession to exhibit even an inkling of similar humbleness.

 

[Kei]

The website sometimes screws up like that

 

[pacloc]

I don’t see how you interpreted what I said to be that the Orthodox Church teaches that She chose death. And then you go on to restate almost everything I said as if I didn’t say it. Please reread the last few posts. We have tried to clarify that one of the confusing aspects of the immaculate conception is that it claims there was no taint of original sin, yet death is a taint of original sin and was experienced by the Holy Virgin. This was clarified to the understanding that it was not Her who chose death, but I guess God did or something to that effect.

 

[Kei]

I should have read the previous statements. God bless

 

[MatthaiosX]

If anything the Orthodox way gives Her more praise because it is free of partiality and means that Her faith and love was the means by which she was chosen over any other. The same potential is in you and me, and we have most likely squandered it, but can repent and be made white as snow.

This right here is what I was trying to get at as well, very well put pacloc!

As Orthodox we believe in synergy between God and man, and like pacloc said, because of this you could say that we give the Theotokos even more honor. It’s because of Her cooperation with God, Her own choosing to lead a pure life that makes Her so special. However, this is something that we are all called to. This goes into the doctrine of theosis. The Panagia is the greatest example in human history of how we can cooperate with the grace of God and become “partakers of the divine nature.”

 

[ThereseFrancis]

If anything the Orthodox way gives Her more praise because it is free of partiality and means that Her faith and love was the means by which she was chosen over any other. The same potential is in you and me, and we have most likely squandered it, but can repent and be made white as snow.

However, this is something that we are all called to. This goes into the doctrine of theosis. The Panagia is the greatest example in human history of how we can cooperate with the grace of God and become “partakers of the divine nature.”

I do agree with that. That is the belief even in the Catholic Tradition. Mary is the model par excellence. However, do you think it is possible that a man can be born in the future or in the present-day and live his/her whole life without sinning - that someone can be as pure as the Virgin Mary? I think we both agree that she was given a special grace by God and through her cooperation of that grace, Mary was able to lead a life of sinlessness.

In baptism, we believe as both Orthodox and Catholic that the consequence of the fall is removed (correct me if I’m wrong but I got it from here to make sure http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Baptism.htm). Yet, even if the consequence is removed from us during baptism, we still feel hunger, fear, and all these “passions” that you speak of. For like the Virgin Mary, we all have to die so that we may be resurrected…

On a side note, while reflecting on my own question, maybe it is possible to live a complete sinless life after all. Otherwise, why would the Church say that she is the perfect model of faith? After all, we believe that through the sacrament of Baptism, the consequences of the fall is washed away. So in a sense, we receive the same special grace that Mary received. Ergo, there is a possibility that a man may be born in the present-day or in the future without sinning. Sorry. I am starting to converse with myself . This is just my own reflection .

I am now starting to think that the ‘Immaculate Conception’ - this special grace that Mary received - is sort of like an advancement of Baptism in Jesus Christ. She was able to receive the graces of this baptism from the moment of her conception while we all accept it through the sacraments. Hmmmmm… I need time to ponder on this…

 

[dvdjs]

Please reread the last few posts. We have tried to clarify that one of the confusing aspects of the immaculate conception is that it claims there was no taint of original sin, yet death is a taint of original sin and was experienced by the Holy Virgin.

That shouldn’t be confusion at all. The idea of the satin of original sin has a specific meaning that you are misapprehending…

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Nature of original sin

… Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam.
… 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[ThereseFrancis]

(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.

I think this is helpful and perhaps why @pacloc ,@MatthaiosX ,and I couldn’t see eye-to-eye sometimes. Death (being evil) entered into the world because of Adam. It is right to say that death entered the world as a consequence of the fall. Death is a result of the sin of Adam.

We are freed from the consequence of original sin by the sanctifying grace of baptism. However, while baptism restores us the original holiness as is planned by God, we are continually wounded by the evils of the world that entered because of Adam: ignorance, death, and concupiscence.

Going back to the Virgin Mary, she was free from the consequence of original sin (like us because of baptism) from the moment of conception but was still subject to ignorance, death, and concupiscence. She was subject to ‘passions’, she died, and she had the choice to sin.

To be honest, I did not expect this before I started this thread. I never thought of it in this manner before.

 

[dvdjs]

We are freed from the consequence of original sin by the sanctifying grace of baptism. However, while baptism restores us the original holiness as is planned by God, we are continually wounded by the evils of the world that entered because of Adam: ignorance, death, and concupiscence.

Going back to the Virgin Mary, she was free from the consequence of original sin (like us because of baptism) from the moment of conception but was still subject to ignorance, death, and concupiscence. She was subject to ‘passions’, she died, and she had the choice to sin.

The CE article distinguishes consequences of the ancestral sin from the stain, the sin itself. The former include concupiscence and susceptibility to death, the latter is the deprivation of sanctifying grace and spiritual death. The IC states , in effect, that Mary was spared from the latter as though baptized.

 

[Kts1816]

What against Orthodoxy and people attracted to it do u exactly have?

 

[ThereseFrancis]

The IC states , in effect, that Mary was spared from the latter as though baptized.

Yeah. I never thought of the Immaculate Conception like that. This is like an epiphany for me. Hahahaha.

But it’s true though if you think about it. All of us baptized have been restored with the original holiness that God intended for us from the beginning. In a sense, being baptized Christians, we are in the same state as Mary was. In a way, the grace we receive from baptism has also been given to Mary from the moment of her conception. The only difference is that baptism “washes away” while the Virgin Mary was “protected from.”

Wow! I’m liking this. I feel like I’ve been an ignoramus all these time by not realizing this.

 

[pacloc]

I’ll need to look into this a little more. If this is what the RCC had in mind when they defined the IC then there is not as much problem. But the thing is that this breakdown into parts that you have shared seems to be a new method developed after the RCC left the Orthodox Church, but I need to look into it to make sure. I’ve been going by the Theology of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas, and others and I don’t think they would say that you could separate the effects of the original sin from the absence of sanctifying grace, or how the Orthodox would probably say separation from God, that you are singling out.

From what I have read, although at Baptism we are no longer separated from God, God saw fit that we should continue to experience death, because death is no longer a tragic consequence of the original sin, but has become the method of entering into the kingdom of Heaven because Christ has conquered death. And it is a valuable training for man to experience death and it would not be proper to be immortal in this sinful world. So I wouldn’t think that it would be correct to say that baptized Christians are free from all of the effects of original sin, or any taint of original sin, as the IC states.

 

[dvdjs]

If this is what the RCC had in mind when they defined the IC then there is not as much problem

I am sorry that the search engine in the new forum is clunky. There was extensive discussion of this matter on the old forum, including a lovely piece by Fr. Lev Gillet, and a variety of quotations for Orthodox catechetical materials that align with the perspective in the CE article.

There are, however, others in Orthodoxy, that hold to a position that form the ancestral sin we inherit the liability of death, and because of death we sin. The focus is on physical not spiritual death. I think that at a deep theological level the differences are very subtle, even though, at the polemical level they are often exaggerated, sadly.

 

[pacloc]

I don’t know if you have a way of finding some of the Latin Fathers of the Church explaining it this way, but it would be greatly appreciated. Preferably from before the schism. Something from St. Gregory the Great or St. Jerome would be helpful. Of if you know of Eastern Fathers that could support it, that would be beneficial as well.