Orthodox View of the Immaculate Conception

[KathleenGee]

First in regard to Original Sin…this is a Catholic position and I was surprised to find out the Orthdox do not.

Our belief in Original Sin comes from St. Paul in Romans 5:12…he essentially says all inherit sin.

In regards to the idea that Mary was conceived without sin, this is a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with, some say because he did not want to see Mary on equal plane as Christ.

I am addressing this issue of the Immaculate Conception by the simple essay done by Brother John Samaha, Society of Mary…entitled, “John Duns Scotus, Champion of the Immaculate Conception”.

There are two questions to his position:

First, Was Mary in need of redemption if she had been conceived without the stain of Original Sin.

The second, When, at what moment in the course of her conception was Mary preserved from the stain and effects of Original Sin?

Now I am writing this out straight from my notes of Bro. Samaha…

There are likewise two hurdles.

First hurdle: Did Mary need redemption? If she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Anne, without original sin, was she then exempt from Christ’s redemption? didn’t Mary need to be redeemed as she was a member of the human race? And Christ had not come yet.

Second hurdle: Since Mary was the daughter of Adam, when was she preserved?

John Duns Scotus then comes to the mystery…

Mary obtained the greatest redemption through the mystery of her preservation through Christ’s redeeming grace! Christ’s redeeming grace preserving her from Original Sin is greater than that which is purifies from sin already incurred.

Don’t we believe that Christ’s grace and mercy far exceeds any sin committed every by the human race?!

Christ was Mary’s Redeemer, she more perfectly by her preservation of redemption in shielding her from original sin through antcipiating and foreseeing the merits of His passion and death.

Mary’s pre-redemption indicates a much greater grace and subsequently Mary’s more perfect salvation.

With God, all things are possible.

Brother Samaha’s…www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5825

Another…www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea-the-immaculate-conception-enter-the-subtle-doctor-duns-scotus This one I will have to check more as it didn’t come through

And more detailed…www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

This essay by Fr Lev Gillet is often brought up in these discussions:

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-1/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-2/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-3/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-4/

But this new study by Fr. Christiaan Kappes - The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary - is also garnering considerable attention:
academia.edu/4375213/The_Immaculate_Conception_Why_Thomas_Aquinas_Denied_While_John_Duns_Scotus_Gregory_Palamas_and_Mark_Eugenicus_Professed_the_Absolute_Immaculate_Existence_of_Mary

This is all good info, its indicative of what I believe happened and is still happening. I don’t think the polish-latin influence was altogether the advancement of the IC either. Scholastic approach gained popularity as it did in the West due to interest. It doesn’t suffice to state that its simply latin influence as even in the Western Church it was contested by the scotists. Many as indicated including Aquinas simply didn’t see the predestination as we see addressed above which traces back to about the same period east and west in discernment. The West due to its internal debate worked more vigorously though this period as the East progressed similar as we see, and in many ways still is.

If they knew the history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception

First of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous.

Mary as “prokathartheisa (prepurified).”

Course all this further escalated with scripture, understanding full of grace etc. More importantly is understanding the predestined. Following Aquinas and the others they see Mary sanctified within time only. They reason She could not have been sanctified before animation, otherwise she would not have had to be redeemed. Or in other words Mary was a daughter of Adam (and therefore afflicted by original sin) before she became an adopted child of God. This is incorrect as we see addressed many times here though perhaps not in depth. The real issue is overlooked as Mary in this view becomes the center of attention in what Gods plan always was. The plan was always Jesus Christ as this was the dilemma in heaven which caused Lucifers dissent. The fact Lucifer further disturbed the plan never changed the plan, the fall was not the cause of the predestination of Christ. God was never compelled in this regard, the incarnation is the most beautiful work of the whole history of salvation, God become man so we can become god, this wasn’t a result of a failed attempt at salvation which for God was then contingent on the fact of original sin, its incorrect and thats simply a flawed story line. Which places God at the disadvantage of evil playing catch up in which He creates Mary. The pre existing story is in Gods wisdom and counsel to avoid the pitfalls which are still existing too.

With Bulgakov’s “The Burning Bush” this is along the same lines of discernment. Which is what I see as progress. You can see the wheels turning in his mind so to speak. Fr. Christiaan Kappes I haven’t read but hope to get to it.

Anyway, I think we have made progress in the past few years and people have made an attempt to understand the collective teachings without bias.

 

[prodromos]

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus (180 AD)

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Against the Heresies, Book III [A.D. 180]).

St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30, 387 A.D.)

St. Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 350)

**You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)**

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

St. Augustine (ca. AD 390)

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Not one of the above quotes says anything about the conception of Mary in her mother’s womb. Did you simply copy and paste them from another site without actually reading them?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not one of the above quotes says anything about the conception of Mary in her mother’s womb. Did you simply copy and paste them from another site without actually reading them?

No, I highlighted the passage from Ephraim the Syrian without even bothering to read it.

Those passages go to the understanding that Mary was immaculate, a word which means perfectly clean without stain.

EO believe that Mary never sinned, correct?

How was that possible?

Has anyone other than Jesus ever lived an entire life without committing a single personal sin?

 

[GaryTaylor]

But other people who are saved are saved without being kept from these things, right? Like all the other saints besides St. Mary? So why did that happen? For other exceptions to the way things generally work, like the right-hand thief being saved without baptism, there is some reason for it (there could not be baptism for him before he died) and some larger way that it fits into the way things work (he literally died with Christ, while we die with Christ and rise with him through our baptism). How does this Catholic doctrine about St. Mary fit in either of these ways?

This imho is more the point. They “all” were baptized by the Holy Spirit so to speak, they are His elect and most holy people. The fallen human nature prevented their complete divinization, Baptism is by desire and blood also, in a word belief and faith in Christ. The good thief is baptism of desire. The point as you see that Mary wouldn’t need a savior is misunderstanding. More profoundly understood is the fact Mary needed a savior just like all of us, for Her it was Her Son, who redeemed man by dying in front of His Mother. This story is so profound you couldn’t make it up.

 

[KathleenGee]

Why or how did Mary not sin?

The Latin Church defined it…the charism of the Western Church is intellectual, the Eastern Church at home with mystery. Both are good and both are right in their approach…

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

GaryTaylor, yes, I think we agree. St. Mary was not any different than us, in this way. She was a human being, after all, and it was through her that Jesus Christ took up our humanity and raised it up from its fallen state and redeemed and perfected it.

But my question is: How does the immaculate conception doctrine of the Catholics fit into this? When there are other exceptions to things (like the need for baptism by water and spirit, according to the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ), it is fitting with some larger idea or picture so that we see how it happened and why it happened, and how this does work, how it does not violate what God has established, but instead enhances and illuminates it. What can you say about the immaculate conception in this way? To be honest, I think it is probably easier to argue why it would not be necessary than to argue why it is necessary, if what you have written is true. Because if St. Mary needed to be redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ her son just like we do (and it seems like you and I agree that she did), then why would it make a difference the state of Joachim and Anna in concieving her? She still needs the Savior anyway, right?

I don’t understand the thinking behind this Catholic doctrine. I’m sorry.

 

[Dorothy]

We do. In Latin theology we would say all souls are surrounded by “prevenient grace”… But sanctifying grace, the indwelling of the divine life of the Trinity, is granted to us only with baptism. The soul is a gift from God which we all receive from the moments of our conceptions, but sanctifying grace is to be made a “saint” - to put on Christ. Our Lady, however, was always full of sanctifying grace.

Earlier I said that Eastern liturgy implies that Our Lady and St John the Forerunner were both conceived as saints, and thus were in some way set apart. You asked what my basis for this was. Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have stated such… You disagree? How do you interpret the texts for the feasts of their conceptions (both of which you do celebrate).

Our Blessed Mother was conceived without sin from the first moment of her conception. She was never without sanctifying grace.

St. John the Baptist became full of the Holy Spirit in the womb of St. Ann in her 6th month. I believe that was a Baptism. Is that correct?

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor, yes, I think we agree. St. Mary was not any different than us, in this way. She was a human being, after all, and it was through her that Jesus Christ took up our humanity and raised it up from its fallen state and redeemed and perfected it.

But my question is: How does the immaculate conception doctrine of the Catholics fit into this? When there are other exceptions to things (like the need for baptism by water and spirit, according to the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ), it is fitting with some larger idea or picture so that we see how it happened and why it happened, and how this does work, how it does not violate what God has established, but instead enhances and illuminates it. What can you say about the immaculate conception in this way? To be honest, I think it is probably easier to argue why it would not be necessary than to argue why it is necessary, if what you have written is true. Because if St. Mary needed to be redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ her son just like we do (and it seems like you and I agree that she did), then why would it make a difference the state of Joachim and Anna in concieving her? She still needs the Savior anyway, right?

I don’t understand the thinking behind this Catholic doctrine. I’m sorry.

The Catholic Church never viewed this as explicitly their doctrine. They proceeded in dialogue addressing the same point by Aquinas and many of the Church Fathers as we see the East doing even today. To them the points consisted within the agreed upon doctrines of the Church and Councils. They termed the IC most fitting to specific points of contention addressed in post #162 and 164. Within the Church the point was debated for over 400 years, and first approved at the Council of Basel.

It doesn’t make any difference with St Joachim and Anna in conceiving Mary as they conceived by a normal means but conception was blessed, both received a vision of an angel, who announced that Anne would conceive They prayed for an end to their childlessness, vowed that if a child were born to them, they would dedicate it to the service of God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would ask the Roman Catholics a few questions, for clarification.

First question: By original sin you believe that all are born as if having committed Adam’s sin?

Second question: Are you able to distinguish the between the supposed “born with Adam’s sin” and the nature which was fallen?

Before I can ask any more these questions need to be answered.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

The Catholic Church never viewed this as explicitly their doctrine. They proceeded in dialogue addressing the same point by Aquinas and many of the Church Fathers as we see the East doing even today. To them the points consisted within the agreed upon doctrines of the Church and Councils. They termed the IC most fitting to specific points of contention addressed in post #162 and 164. Within the Church the point was debated for over 400 years, and first approved at the Council of Basel.

None of this answers my question. I’m sorry.

It doesn’t make any difference with St Joachim and Anna in conceiving Mary as they conceived by a normal means but conception was blessed, both received a vision of an angel, who announced that Anne would conceive They prayed for an end to their childlessness, vowed that if a child were born to them, they would dedicate it to the service of God.

Hanna, the mother of Samuel, did the same thing by praying in the temple to God to end her childlessness. I don’t what this has to do with what we are discussing in this thread.

I’m not sure my question is clear to the people who are addressing me. I want to know how and why the immaculate conception doctrine of the Catholic Church fits in with the examples that we have in the scriptures of all the other people, because we Orthodox too say that St. Mary is pure and immaculate and all of these things, but we do not have any piece of doctrine that makes St. Mary preserved from sin. Rather, she was herself dedicated to God, and through her dedication which was recorded in her cooperation with God she was made a fit dwelling place for our savior and lord, Jesus Christ. There are even parts in the spiritual songs of the Coptic Orthodox Church where we say of St. Mary that “the Lord from your childhood witnessed your purity”, so we also believe that she was pure forever. I suppose if you want to make this an evidence in favor of the immaculate conception doctrine, you could, be we certainly do not. She was pure because she strove to follow the command of God, which in her case was that she would carry and bear Emmanuel for us. Is this not enough, when that same striving also made every other saint and holy person throughout time?

 

[dvdjs]

.
She was pure because she strove to follow the command of God, which in her case was that she would carry and bear Emmanuel for us. Is this not enough, when that same striving also made every other saint and holy person throughout time?

No other saint has been viewed in the manner of Our Lady as free from sin.
Her immaculate holiness cannot be ascribed solely to her striving - then she would not need our Savior - but must involve that special connection with and orientation toward God that obtained from the moment of her existence.

 

[dvdjs]

I would ask the Roman Catholics a few questions, for clarification.

First question: By original sin you believe that all are born as if having committed Adam’s sin?

No.

Second question: Are you able to distinguish the between the supposed “born with Adam’s sin” and the nature which was fallen?

The question is not clear, but distinctions among the consequences of the Adam’s sin and the hereditary stain of original sin are clearly dealt with in the passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia that I linked to above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would ask the Roman Catholics a few questions, for clarification.

First question: By original sin you believe that all are born as if having committed Adam’s sin?

Second question: Are you able to distinguish the between the supposed “born with Adam’s sin” and the nature which was fallen?

Before I can ask any more these questions need to be answered.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity **

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

 

[dvdjs]

Here is the passage that I was referring to:

Nature of original sin

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Thank you for responding.

Perhaps this may get too theoretical but I feel it needs explored. Would I be right to say you identify original sin not as Adam’s sin imputed to us, but rather the nature we have inherited from him? A Nature which is fallen, leads everyone to death and makes man naturally tend towards evil and sin to some degree? That’s what I understood from your catechism.

If this is the case then Mary could be essentially considered pre fallen, in the state of man before the fall no? For me there are problems with this, but I would want it explained to me what is actually believed by you before I go on to list them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would ask the Roman Catholics a few questions, for clarification.

First question: By original sin you believe that all are born as if having committed Adam’s sin?

Second question: Are you able to distinguish the between the supposed “born with Adam’s sin” and the nature which was fallen?

Before I can ask any more these questions need to be answered.

Ignatian-

I answered your questions with a direct quote from the Catechism above, however, I’d like to make an observation.

When I was researching the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin, I came across two things that seemed significant to me. One was a paper written by an Orthodox priest that a Catholic was taking apart bit by bit. The upshot of those two articles seemed to suggest that either the Orthodox priest was fairly ignorant of Catholic theology or that he was intentionally misrepresenting it.

That latter accusation seems excessively harsh until I came across another post on a forum written by someone who expressed the opinion that Orthodox don’t seem to WANT to understand that Ancestral Sin and Original Sin are virtually identical - the primary difference being that EO want to ascribe to us Catholics something that we do NOT believe; namely Original guilt.

Now, I’m not interested in additional exchanges with the half dozen or so Orthodox posters who log on and look for my posts first. (I’ve watched, so I know it happens.) However, it does appear to me that due to the eagerness of some to resist anything remotely resembling agreement between East and West, the issues regarding our differences on this one topic, the Immaculate Conception, may be largely overblown.

At least, I’d like to think that for once, this is the case.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian-

I answered your questions with a direct quote from the Catechism above, however, I’d like to make an observation.

When I was researching the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin, I came across two things that seemed significant to me. One was a paper written by an Orthodox priest that a Catholic was taking apart bit by bit. The upshot of those two articles seemed to suggest that either the Orthodox priest was fairly ignorant of Catholic theology or that he was intentionally misrepresenting it.

That latter accusation seems excessively harsh until I came across another post on a forum written by someone who expressed the opinion that Orthodox don’t seem to WANT to understand that Ancestral Sin and Original Sin are virtually identical - the primary difference being that EO want to ascribe to us Catholics something that we do NOT believe; namely Original guilt.

Now, I’m not interested in additional exchanges with the half dozen or so Orthodox posters who log on and look for my posts first. (I’ve watched, so I know it happens.) However, it does appear to me that due to the eagerness of some to resist anything remotely resembling agreement between East and West, the issues regarding our differences on this one topic, the Immaculate Conception, may be largely overblown.

At least, I’d like to think that for once, this is the case.

Well I’m only trying to understand your concept before I give my opinion more thoroughly. I don’t know anything about the article you have mentioned. But I am glad to hear you do not believe original guilt, if we understand that the same way.

 

[dvdjs]

Thank you for responding.

Perhaps this may get too theoretical but I feel it needs explored. Would I be right to say you identify original sin not as Adam’s sin imputed to us, but rather the nature we have inherited from him? .

Not really. See above.
The “sin”, the “hereditary stain” is not the fallen nature, but the deprivation of sanctifying grace. The situation is more akin to having been baptized. I think this is also the sense of pre-purification as taught be the Eastern fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I’m only trying to understand your concept before I give my opinion more thoroughly. I don’t know anything about the article you have mentioned. But I am glad to hear you do not believe original guilt, if we understand that the same way.

Yes, I thought you might be pleased with that.