Orthodox: Why object to Immaculate Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jam070406
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just realize that by “guilt” this does not imply or mean that we are guilty/culpable of the sin committed by Adam (words and their meanings have changed over the centuries), we have, however, inherited through our shared humanity Adam’s sin, hence the term “original sin” and not “original guilt”.

God bless.
 
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...
I think that’s kind of the saying same thing. When we die, we are all left to the mercy of God, for no one knows what’s in our hearts…not even in the hearts of babes!
 
josie_L said:
Just realize that by “guilt” this does not imply or mean that we are guilty/culpable of the sin committed by Adam (words and their meanings have changed over the centuries)
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I think “guilt” means “guilt”. 🤷
 
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...
These quotes don’t prove anything. Even the Orthodox Church considers Mary to be sinless, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils.

Mary needed a savior because she is still a created (mortal) being. Sin is the symptom, not the source. You need God (Jesus) to bring you back to unity with God (Theosis). Jesus (God) doesn’t need a savior because He is God.

The offering were presented because of the law of Moses. The law of Moses was the law of the Church until Jesus fulfilled the law. Sinless or not, Mary shows her faithfulness to God by keeping the law.
 
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...
True, but this isn’t why limbo existed. Even in Orthodoxy we are born in a state of sin (armartia), not personal sin, but born in a state of separation. Limbo is theologically valid theologoumena, however the emphasis on the mercy of God is preferable in the East.
 
Mickey said:
I don’t know. I think “guilt” means “guilt”. 🤷
Click to expand...
Roman Catholic theologians, at least modern and pre-15th century, agree with his statement. That is, guilt refers to the state of inherited separation, not a personal fault.
 
Mickey said:
Yes, I believe that is true for the RCC. In otherwords, you can accept it…or not. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
It is true for the RCC. However, even within the EOC, the opinion is supportable. Though not necessarily popular, nor a necessity to salvation. After all, how much of our afterlife is actually certain (EO). Ultimately, we focus on our spiritual state with our eyes on the Trinity and hope for the mercy of God in our lives.
 
josie_L said:
Just realize that by “guilt” this does not imply or mean that we are guilty/culpable of the sin committed by Adam (words and their meanings have changed over the centuries), we have, however, inherited through our shared humanity Adam’s sin, hence the term “original sin” and not “original guilt”.

…
Click to expand...
I believe it is exactly what was the official position of RCs for quite a while - the guilt that passes on us from Adam. IC solves that particular problem.

Meanqhile, RCs have changed their position and now teach quite like Orthodox Church does.
 
Mickey said:
I don’t know. I think “guilt” means “guilt”. 🤷
Click to expand...
In its thelogical form “guilt” is not defined as easily as you or I would assume. Suffice it to say we are not (directly) culpable of what Adam himself caused:

“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”.

However,
“There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth”, writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly — just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him.
Click to expand...
But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Romans 5:12 sqq.). **The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (Of Sin and Merit I.24). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: “we were all in Adam”, says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: “Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise” (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; “In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept” (Haeres., V, xvi, 3). **
Click to expand...
St. Thomas thus explains this moral unity of our will with the will of Adam.
Click to expand...
“An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). **Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” **(De Malo, iv, 1).
Click to expand...
**It is this law of solidarity, admitted by common sentiment, which attributes to children a part of the shame resulting from the father’s crime. It is not a personal crime, objected the Pelagians. “No”, answered St. Augustine, " but it is paternal crime" **(Op. imperf., I, cxlviii). Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, “without absurdity it may be said to be voluntary” (St. Augustine, “Retract.”, I, xiii).
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Perhaps, I can use a biblical example of what I’m trying to convey, I believe this would be a feasible explanation (perhaps not): when Jesus died on the cross it was not just those who directly put him on the cross or cried out “crucify him” that put him to death, but all of us indirectly in that we were all sinners (Jesus was put on the cross because of our sins and as such to redeem us).
 
milidrag said:
I believe it is exactly what was the official position of RCs for quite a while - the guilt that passes on us from Adam. IC solves that particular problem.

Meanqhile, RCs have changed their position and now teach quite like Orthodox Church does.
Click to expand...
Read my last post to MIckey in order to understand how it is that “guilt” was interpreted by the Church.
 
josie_L said:
In its thelogical form “guilt” is not defined as easily as you or I would assume.
Click to expand...
Again, I do not believe in some teaching of “theological guilt” as opposed to the plain meaning of the word, “guilt.”

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent Session Five)
 
josie_L said:
in order to understand how it is that “guilt” was interpreted by the Church.
Click to expand...
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. 😉
 
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.
 
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...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top