Orthodox: Why object to Immaculate Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jam070406
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jam070406

Guest
I’m really trying to understand the Orthodox view of Original Sin and why the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary. Can an Orthodox poster explain the concept in depth?

I thought I read that St. John Cassian objected to/refuted St. Augustine’s concept.
Perhaps someone can recommend a writing of St. John?

Thanks,
God bless!
 
jam070406 said:
I’m really trying to understand the Orthodox view of Original Sin and why the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary. Can an Orthodox poster explain the concept in depth?

I thought I read that St. John Cassian objected to/refuted St. Augustine’s concept.
Perhaps someone can recommend a writing of St. John?

Thanks,
God bless!
Click to expand...
Right, the Byzantine church has a different take on Original Sin. Sounds interesting I never heard this concept in-depth either. 🙂

Gary
 
It’s not that they reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary per se. It’s that they have this different view of original sin so they believe that Immaculate Conception is not necessary.
 
pjcsisabel said:
It’s not that they reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary per se. It’s that they have this different view of original sin so they believe that Immaculate Conception is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I stated in my OP. I’d like for an Orthodox person to explain though.
 
I too am interested in this subject.
A quick “Google” turned THIS up.

To me it sounds quite reasonable and answers a nagging question many non-Christians have about the “injustice” of God imposing the guilt of Sin on those who did not commit the sin.

In this understanding it appears that the Orthodox recognize that the “natural consequence” of the Original Sin is what we are forced to deal with.
Sort of like, because science unlocked the secret of atomic energy, all of humanity - from that moment on, is forced to deal with the consequences of it.
The knowledge of nuclear fission is extremely powerful and complicated, and can be used for either good or ill.
None who followed these scientists are “guilty” of unlocking such knowledge, but all must deal with the consequences of it.

Note: I’m not saying nuclear science is sinful in any way. I’m just saying that once something like this is ;earned, it can’t be “unlearned”.

Likewise with original sin. Before eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and eve were really unable to sin because they did not have the necessary Knowledge and understanding. Once they ate of the tree and gained the knowledge, making it a part of their very being and thus passed on to their children, they became culpable. It is the culpability that we inherit and is the problem.

That’s my 2cents
Peace
James
 
pjcsisabel said:
It’s not that they reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary per se. It’s that they have this different view of original sin so they believe that Immaculate Conception is not necessary.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox view of Original Sin mirrors that of the Muslim view rather than that of the Christian view. Islam began it’s influence in the East about 600 yrs before it conquered the Orthodox world fully in the 1200’s & so it’s not surprising that the Orthodox Church, without accepting the direction of the Pope & the Magesterium, would take on some aspects of the Islamic theology as their own. Other Islamic influence in Orthodox theology can be found in the Qur’an, for example the “whisperings of Satan” in Islam & “Logismos planted by Satan/demons” in Orthodoxy - exactly the same concept. Keep in mind that Russia wasn’t converted to Orthodoxy until 300 yrs after the influences of Islam had already begun in the East & it still looks to Mount Athos for it’s Spiritual Direction/Center.

But, Orthodoxy isn’t too far away from the Catholic Church established by Jesus & led by the Holy Spirit via the Pope & Magesterium as are the other forms of Protestantism, but their Islamic Influences will need to be purged before full union is possible with the Catholic Church as all Dogma will need to be accepted, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mother of God.

The correct view of Original Sin can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 396-412. I encourage everyone to read it as it may be a little different than you think.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
The Orthodox view of Original Sin mirrors that of the Muslim view rather than that of the Christian view. Islam began it’s influence in the East about 600 yrs before it conquered the Orthodox world fully in the 1200’s & so it’s not surprising that the Orthodox Church, without accepting the direction of the Pope & the Magesterium, would take on some aspects of the Islamic theology as their own. Other Islamic influence in Orthodox theology can be found in the Qur’an, for example the “whisperings of Satan” in Islam & “Logismos planted by Satan/demons” in Orthodoxy - exactly the same concept. Keep in mind that Russia wasn’t converted to Orthodoxy until 300 yrs after the influences of Islam had already begun in the East & it still looks to Mount Athos for it’s Spiritual Direction/Center
Click to expand...
I was going to jump into this thread until I read this scathing lump of insults, lies, and bigotry. This is one of the reasons why there is often contention between Orthodox and Catholics on this forum. How very sad.

PS–The correct spelling is “Magisterium.” 😉
 
Mickey said:
I was going to jump into this thread until I read this scathing lump of insults, lies, and bigotry. This is one of the reasons why there is often contention between Orthodox and Catholics on this forum. How very sad.

PS–The correct spelling is “Magisterium.” 😉
Click to expand...
I didn’t start this thread to have it denegrate into insults. 😦
I would really like to understand your view.
 
Mickey said:
I was going to jump into this thread until I read this scathing lump of insults, lies, and bigotry. This is one of the reasons why there is often contention between Orthodox and Catholics on this forum. How very sad.

PS–The correct spelling is “Magisterium.” 😉
Click to expand...
I think that previous post was a bit unnecessary. I don’t know whats true or not there, but you know, the Roman church is influenced by other pagan cultures…for example, the priestly vestments and “Christ have mercy/Lord have mercy” both come from the pagan Roman imperial court.

Sorry if someone offended. We can keep the pagan-influence discussion for another thread.
 
Mickey said:
Thank you. You have always been kind and charitable on this forum.

The debate usually takes on many nuances. But this article is a good start:
antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx
Click to expand...
Thanks, very interesting!
I’m still trying to rap my brain around it.

Does it follow something like this: we are born good but become overtaken in our weakness by the fallen world which influences us to sin (along with temptation), therefore Jesus conquered death and gave us means to break the bondage (when we fall again) of sin through the sacraments, beginning with baptism?
 
jam070406 said:
Does it follow something like this: we are born good but become overtaken in our weakness by the fallen world which influences us to sin (along with temptation), therefore Jesus conquered death and gave us means to break the bondage (when we fall again) of sin through the sacraments, beginning with baptism?
Click to expand...
I have this in my files. I apologize to whoever it was who originally wrote this–because I did not copy the source:

Adam and Eve personally sinned. Because they were the original parents, they damaged human nature for the rest of us. In us, Original (Ancestral) Sin takes the form of a fundamental and profound defect in our nature which must be repaired by grace. It is not a defect of which we are personally guilty, but a defect which is part of our nature (though foreign to our nature’s original design). Baptism repairs this defect in nature, reconciling it to God by conforming it to the nature restored by and in the God-Man Jesus, giving us access to the life of God by grace in the process. The Spirit then works in us to conform our personal will to the will of God.
 
Mickey said:
I have this in my files. I apologize to whoever it was who originally wrote this–because I did not copy the source:

Adam and Eve personally sinned. Because they were the original parents, they damaged human nature for the rest of us. In us, Original (Ancestral) Sin takes the form of a fundamental and profound defect in our nature which must be repaired by grace. It is not a defect of which we are personally guilty, but a defect which is part of our nature (though foreign to our nature’s original design). Baptism repairs this defect in nature, reconciling it to God by conforming it to the nature restored by and in the God-Man Jesus, giving us access to the life of God by grace in the process. The Spirit then works in us to conform our personal will to the will of God.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…that sounds like the Catholic view. I guess I’m not seeing the difference.
What, in your opinion, is the difference?
 
jam070406 said:
What, in your opinion, is the difference?
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, I believe that Roman Catholicism teaches the inheritance of the “guilt” of Adam’s sin. The Orthodox reject this notion of “guilt.” I think that is the major difference.
 
the reason to object the immaculate conception is because mary herself doesnt think herself ‘sinless’.

immaculate conception is what the rcc thinks about mary - sinless (untainted with sin). but that’s just the rcc church.

so what the rcc put forth became a paradox ‘the sinless mary who needed a savior’ unless of course if the mary of the rcc is not the jewish mary of scriptures.

Luke 1
44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,…

Luke 2
22 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses Lev 12 ], they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12
6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

only Jesus was sinless and had no want for a Savior, nor called God his Father a Savior.
jam070406 said:
I’m really trying to understand the Orthodox view of Original Sin and why the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary. Can an Orthodox poster explain the concept in depth?

I thought I read that St. John Cassian objected to/refuted St. Augustine’s concept.
Perhaps someone can recommend a writing of St. John?

Thanks,
God bless!
Click to expand...
 
The difference is that Catholic original sin is a sin that has to be paid for. It’s not a sin we committed personally, but it is as if we committed it personally, because we inherited it. That’s why babies can’t go straight to heaven, they have the stain of sin, as if they committed it themselves. That’s why Mary had to be saved from it, to be un-stained.

The Orthodox view it is not a sin committed, but an inclination to sin, a sinful nature. That’s why babies can go straight to heaven, because although they are inclined to sin (like all humans) they haven’t actually sinned. That’s why Mary doesn’t need to be saved from original sin, because she did not *actually *sin, due to being full of grace, so is already blameless.

At least that is what I am getting out of all of this.
 
plaintruth said:
the reason to object the immaculate conception is because mary herself doesnt think herself ‘sinless’.

immaculate conception is what the rcc thinks about mary - sinless (untainted with sin). but that’s just the rcc church.

so what the rcc put forth became a paradox ‘the sinless mary who needed a savior’ unless of course if the mary of the rcc is not the jewish mary of scriptures.

Luke 1
44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,…

Luke 2
22 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses Lev 12 ], they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12
6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

only Jesus was sinless and had no want for a Savior, nor called God his Father a Savior.
Click to expand...
The undivided Church, West and East had always held that Mary was sinless.
It wasn’t until Johnny come lately “reformers” came with strange new notions.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
That’s why babies can’t go straight to heaven, they have the stain of sin, as if they committed it themselves.
Click to expand...
And yet…the RCC has recently abandon this thought process of “Limbo” for babies. They have adopted an Orthodox stance by saying they are left to the mercy of God.
 
Mickey said:
And yet…the RCC has recently abandon this thought process of “Limbo” for babies. They have adopted an Orthodox stance by saying they are left to the mercy of God.
Click to expand...
Yes.
I see the difference, I think.
If memory serves, I don’t believe the Church officially teaches that we inherit guilt.
Perhaps that is where theologians were mistaken and why the concept of limbo was abandoned. I could be wrong.

Also, couldn’t stain and defect be used to convey the same Truth?
Either way, Mary needed to be cured of her defect.
I guess the Orthodox are free to speculate when that happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top