Orthodox: Why object to Immaculate Conception?

[josie_L]

This is always a problem with such debates. It seems that basic words always seem to have some “new” interpretation-----or " alternate expression."

You will continue to say that “guilt” does not really mean “guilt.”

And I will say that it does.

Alright, but just so you know that as a Catholic it really doesn’t matter to me whether you understand or accept, I’m just relaying Catholic teaching from a Catholic perspective not from an Orthodox one.

 

[jam070406]

Whats the difference. Jesus made a way for all of us to be without sin … and to be presented unstained at his glorious throne. The point is moot.

Using it as a sticking point to separate good Christians is ludicrous in my opinion.

The difference is Rome elevated it to Dogma and it’s a stumbling block to the East, who’s theology it doesn’t fit in.

 

[josie_L]

The simplest response is that we have not receive the tradition that the Theotokos was born without ancestral sin. It’s a theological extrapolation (which was opposed even by St. Thomas Aquinas) that is foreign to us.

Actually, we believe that she was conceived without ancestral/original sin, and if I’m not mistaken the Orthodox do believe the Theotokos is immaculate, and I assume from the moment of her birth till her death (our difference is in the timing).

 

[dcointin]

Actually, we believe that she was conceived without ancestral/original sin, and if I’m not mistaken the Orthodox do believe the Theotokos is immaculate, and I assume from the moment of her birth till her death (our difference is in the timing).

I wasn’t making a distinction between conception and birth. What I meant to say is that we do not agree that she was without ancestral sin (regardless of when that took place). We do believe that she was holy and without sin, but don’t speculate on how this was possible except to say that her love and ascesis was greater than ours.

 

[Mickey]

Alright, but just so you know that as a Catholic it really doesn’t matter to me whether you understand or accept,

Okay.

I’m just relaying Catholic teaching from a Catholic perspective not from an Orthodox one.

But that is the dilemma. Many RC sources use the word “guilt” to mean…well…uh…guilt.

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, is in each one as his own – is taken away by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent–Session Five)

 

[Mickey]

I wasn’t making a distinction between conception and birth. What I meant to say is that we do not agree that she was without ancestral sin (regardless of when that took place). We do believe that she was holy and without sin, but don’t speculate on how this was possible except to say that her love and ascesis was greater than ours.

Indeed my friend. We view the Most Holy Theotokos as the greatest ascetic, who through her own free will, by the grace of God, remained sinless. She is the great example…not the great exception.

 

[milidrag]

Alright, but just so you know that as a Catholic it really doesn’t matter to me whether you understand or accept, I’m just relaying Catholic teaching from a Catholic perspective not from an Orthodox one.

Present RC teaching, perhaps. But not the teaching as it was back when IC was proclaimed.

At the time of IC proclamation, “the guilt” didn’t have the meaning you are pertaining to it now.

Rome certainly benefited from the dialogue with Orthodox Church.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Whats the difference. Jesus made a way for all of us to be without sin … and to be presented unstained at his glorious throne. The point is moot.

Using it as a sticking point to separate good Christians is ludicrous in my opinion.

The difference is Rome elevated it to Dogma and it’s a stumbling block to the East, who’s theology it doesn’t fit in.

I understand.
I dont think that the RCC was correct in creating a schism over it.
My question is intended to point to the obvious fact that it really isnt important enough to make people break fellowship. I come down on the side of those that believe that you can accept the idea of immaculate conception or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with my, or anyone’s, personal relationship with God …

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, we believe that she was conceived without ancestral/original sin, and if I’m not mistaken the Orthodox do believe the Theotokos is immaculate, and I assume from the moment of her birth till her death (our difference is in the timing).

We believe that the Theotokos lived without sin, but that she was born into the fallen world (i.e., she too was subjected to the original sin). Original sin is merely an inherited state in the Eastern view, so it carries no connotation of stain (in Latin, macula), which would then need to be wiped out by an Immaculate Conception.

 

[milidrag]

Actually, we believe that she was conceived without ancestral/original sin, and if I’m not mistaken the Orthodox do believe the Theotokos is immaculate, and I assume from the moment of her birth till her death (our difference is in the timing).

Ancestral sin is the Orthodox view, original sin is RC view, don’t confuse the two. I recommend the book “Ancestran Sin” by Fr. J. Romanides, of blessed memory.

 

[milidrag]

We believe that the Theotokos lived without sin, but that she was born into the fallen world (i.e., she too was subjected to the original sin). Original sin is merely an inherited state in the Eastern view, so it carries no connotation of stain (in Latin, macula), which would then need to be wiped out by an Immaculate Conception.

She was conceived in the same fashion as the rest of us. We were conceived in the same fashion as Most Holy Theotokos.

 

[jam070406]

She was conceived in the same fashion as the rest of us. We were conceived in the same fashion as Most Holy Theotokos.

Which is…how?

 

[jam070406]

We believe that the Theotokos lived without sin, but that she was born into the fallen world (i.e., she too was subjected to the original sin). Original sin is merely an inherited state in the Eastern view, so it carries no connotation of stain (in Latin, macula), which would then need to be wiped out by an Immaculate Conception.

So you believe she had a propensity to sin, but didn’t? Is that correct?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which is…how?

Well when a man and a woman love each other very much…

Edit: Ok, in all seriousness, she was conceived as a normal human. She was still subject to ancestral sin because it’s not as if she were somehow born outside of the world which Adam and Eve brought death into

So you believe she had a propensity to sin, but didn’t? Is that correct?

Yes, that would also be a consequence of being born with original sin.

 

[jam070406]

Well when a man and a woman love each other very much…

No, no, no. Are we born good or born with defect?

 

[Mickey]

Jesus made a way for all of us to be without sin …

Yes. This is why we should be baptized as infants with the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Baptism. And then sincerely repent and seek the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Confession often throughout our lifetimes to be administered by a priest or bishop who has received the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Orders.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, no, no. Are we born good or born with defect?

Well, we are born into the world which already has death in it. We’re already born defective in some way because the world is fallen, but that doesn’t mean that we, through our free will cannot conform our will to the will of God (which is what the Virgin Mary did).

Edit: I think that’s another objection to the Immaculate Conception. It’s that the Immaculate Conception obliterates the idea that the Virgin Mary had free will, since she was already chosen by God from the beginning. It’s important, for us, to know that when Gabriel announced to her that she would give birth to Christ that she could have said, “no.” She was chosen for her righteousness and oneness with God, not because she was set up to be special from birth.

 

[jam070406]

Well, we are born into the world which already has death in it. We’re already born defective in some way because the world is fallen, but that doesn’t mean that we, through our free will cannot conform our will to the will of God (which is what the Virgin Mary did).

Yes, but it requires baptism to be restored through grace and put on the path of theosis, correct?
At what point do the Orthodox believe that grace came to the Theotokos?

 

[josie_L]

Okay.
But that is the dilemma. Many RC sources use the word “guilt” to mean…well…uh…guilt.

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, is in each one as his own – is taken away by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent–Session Five)

Actually the canon is written so:

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

Again, I don’t see how this changes what I’ve initially said about “guilt” in my previous posts.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, but it requires baptism to be restored through grace and put on the path of theosis, correct?
At what point do the Orthodox believe that grace came to the Theotokos?

Well, one doesn’t need baptism to receive God’s Grace just as one doesn’t need to be part of the Church to obtain salvation. We simply say that living a sacramental life in the Church is the only guaranteed way to obtain the grace of God. God can give His grace to whomever He wills (indeed, how are people drawn to the Church if they are without God’s grace?).