Orthodox: Why object to Immaculate Conception?

[jam070406]

Baptism does serve as a guaranteed way of receiving the Holy Spirit, but it is not the only way. This is why the unbaptized saints of the old testament may still be regarded as saints. They obviously did not come to God through baptism. When I speak of the inherited state of original sin, I’m speaking of death and the inclination to sin. Adam and Eve through their sin brought death and sin into the world, and so we suffer the consequences of their sin through death and our own inclination to sin. We’re not guilty of what they have done, we have simply inherited the consequences of their sin because their sin affected the entire world. That’s what original sin is, from an Eastern view. So when we say that the Virgin Mary lived her life without any sin, that does not mean that she was free from the forces of death and sin which Adam and Eve let loose upon creation, hence she still suffered from original sin.

Is my summary in post #11 fairly accurate?

 

[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.

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 …

We didn’t create a schism over this as the schism was already created (in the 11th century). God bless.

That is exactly what I meant. …

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is my summary in post #11 fairly accurate?

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?

Seems fairly accurate. The way that this is applicable to the Virgin Mary is that instead of giving into the temptation to sin, she submitted to the will of God and so led a sinless life. We don’t need the sacraments in order to resist temptation, but for most of us who are perhaps less holy and humble than the Virgin Mary was, they are medicine for our sick souls on account of which we have given into the temptations of this fallen world. So when I say that we don’t necessarily need the sacraments, I mean it in the same way that a cancer patient doesn’t need medical attention. There is a chance that the cancer will go into remission (or that you are united to God in some unknown way outside of the Church which will provide for your salvation), but why take the chance? The Church and her sacramental life is the guaranteed method for obtaining the healing of our spiritual sicknesses and for obtaining our salvation.

 

[jam070406]

Seems fairly accurate. The way that this is applicable to the Virgin Mary is that instead of giving into the temptation to sin, she submitted to the will of God and so led a sinless life. We don’t need the sacraments in order to resist temptation, but for most of us who are perhaps less holy and humble than the Virgin Mary was, they are medicine for our sick souls on account of which we have given into the temptations of this fallen world. So when I say that we don’t necessarily need the sacraments, I mean it in the same way that a cancer patient doesn’t need medical attention. There is a chance that the cancer will go into remission (or that you are united to God in some unknown way outside of the Church which will provide for your salvation), but why take the chance? The Church and her sacramental life is the guaranteed method for obtaining the healing of our spiritual sicknesses and for obtaining our salvation.

Thanks for your patience and in-depth explanations.

 

[josie_L]

Baptism does serve as a guaranteed way of receiving the Holy Spirit, but it is not the only way. This is why the unbaptized saints of the old testament may still be regarded as saints.

Agreed.

They obviously did not come to God through baptism. When I speak of the inherited state of original sin, I’m speaking of death and the inclination to sin.

Agreed, although we as Catholics call the inclination to sin, concupiscence.

Adam and Eve through their sin brought death and sin into the world, and so we suffer the consequences of their sin through death and our own inclination to sin.

Agreed, without having to get into specifics.

We’re not guilty of what they have done, we have simply inherited the consequences of their sin because their sin affected the entire world. That’s what original sin is, from an Eastern view.

This is more or less what the Catholic Church teaches, however, when the CC uses the word “guilty” it does not mean we are the cause nor that we initiated nor that we imitated the sin committed by Adam. Please read the lenghty post I directed to Mickey.

So when we say that the Virgin Mary lived her life without any sin, that does not mean that she was free from the forces of death and sin which Adam and Eve let loose upon creation, hence she still suffered from original sin.

And this is where we disagree as I believe that the Virgin Mary was conceived in a state of original holiness just like Eve was, but unlike Eve used her free will to bring about salvation instead of sin and death. By the by, do we know if the Blessed Virgin Mary died?

 

[josie_L]

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.

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 …

That is exactly what I meant. …

No, sweetie it isn’t because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed in the 19th century not the 11th, so when you say “I don’t think that the RCC was correct in creating a schism over it,” it makes precious little sense. Moreover, when you say " Jesus made a way for all of us to be without sin", I have to ask: can you name me one person who has never sinned (apart from Jesus and Mary) for that is what immaculate essentially means? I do not disagree that we can get to a point (whether in this life or the next) that we do not sin or rather we stop sinning, but that we have never sinned is impossible unless you are given a grace beyond compare which we believe was given to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[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.

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 …

We didn’t create a schism over this as the schism was already created (in the 11th century). God bless.

Then why are people still living in the 11th Century?

 

[Cavaradossi]

And this is where we disagree as I believe that the Virgin Mary was conceived in a state of original holiness just like Eve was, but unlike Eve used her free will to bring about salvation instead of sin and death. By the by, do we know if the Blessed Virgin Mary died?

According to the Tradition of the Eastern Church, yes. The Theotokos died in the presence of all of the Apostles except for St. Thomas, and when they opened her tomb three days later for St. Thomas, who upon arriving asked to see her body, her body was gone, and it was revealed that she had been assumed into heaven both body and soul. This event is known as the Dormition of the Theotokos and is celebrated on August 15 (same day as the Assumption).

 

[1voice]

No, sweetie it isn’t because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed in the 19th century not the 11th, so when you say “I don’t think that the RCC was correct in creating a schism over it,” it makes precious little sense. Moreover, when you say " Jesus made a way for all of us to be without sin", I have to ask: can you name me one person who has never sinned (apart from Jesus and Mary) for that is what immaculate essentially means? I do not disagree that we can get to a point (whether in this life or the next) that we do not sin or rather we stop sinning, but that we have never sinned is impossible unless you are given a grace beyond compare which we believe was given to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Well,… Sweetie… Pardon me!!

… My focus is on things that divide for no good reason … not the minutia that caused them…
… As far as ‘never sinned’ …those are your words … not mine.
… I exercise my God given right to repent and live in the truth that " Blessed in he who takes away the sins of the world" …Because “As far as the East is from the West … thats how far … He has removed our transgressions from us” … Or dont you believe him when he says"though our sins be as scarlet’ He will wash us white as snow."
You can keep yours if you want to… Based on God’s promise, and work of salvation, I see it as totally un-nessecerry.

 

[josie_L]

According to the Tradition of the Eastern Church, yes. The Theotokos died in the presence of all of the Apostles except for St. Thomas, and when they opened her tomb three days later for St. Thomas, who upon arriving asked to see her body, her body was gone, and it was revealed that she had been assumed into heaven both body and soul. This event is known as the Dormition of the Theotokos and is celebrated on August 15 (same day as the Assumption).

Yes, that’s how the Eastern Catholics call it too, i.e., the Dormition. Does this tradition have something to back it up, because I was led to believe that we were never entirely sure whether she died and then was assumed into Heaven or that she was assumed into Heaven while still alive? Thank you for your responses.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, that’s how the Eastern Catholics call it too, i.e., the Dormition. Does this tradition have something to back it up, because I was led to believe that we were never entirely sure whether she died and then was assumed into Heaven or that she was assumed into Heaven while still alive? Thank you for your responses.

I’m not sure. I know that it’s pretty much a dogmatic thing for us though. Nobody in the East would question whether she died.

 

[josie_L]

Well,… Sweetie… Pardon me!!

… My focus is on things that divide for no good reason … not the minutia that caused them…
… As far as ‘never sinned’ …those are your words … not mine.
… I exercise my God given right to repent and live in the truth that " Blessed in he who takes away the sins of the world" …Because “As far as the East is from the West … thats how far … He has removed our transgressions from us” … Or dont you believe him when he says"though our sins be as scarlet’ He will wash us white as snow."
You can keep yours if you want to… Based on God’s promise, and work of salvation, I see it as totally un-nessecerry.

I’m just wondering, am I speaking to a young man or woman?

Note: I never said that I did not believe in God’s promise (although I believe we are coming at it from different angles).

God bless you.

 

[1voice]

I’m just wondering, am I speaking to a young man or woman?

Note: I never said that I did not believe in God’s promise (although I believe we are coming at it from different angles).

God bless you.

I am a man of God …

… I see nothing wrong with coming to the same point from different angles.
That is exactly why I dont agree with being dogmatic about things that can be applied as understood by the believer without any harm being done to Christs statement that "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. … as for example the … Immaculate Conception.

It is much more important to me personally that…
… “He is able to keep us from falling … and present us unstained at his glorious throne.”

 

[Azurestone]

I’m not sure. I know that it’s pretty much a dogmatic thing for us though. Nobody in the East would question whether she died.

She died, even RC texts make it obvious she did. The confusion comes from the IC and RCs interpreting grace at conception equals the removal of all consequences of original sin.

Some homilies of saints make it clear the Tradition is of her death.

Homily of St Cyril of Jerusalem from 6th century.

** And* when she had said these things she lay down upon the pieces of fine linen and the sweet spices, and her face was towards the east.* And behold, the Lord Jesus Christ came unto her upon the Cherubim, with the angels before Him, and He came and stood at His mother’s head, and He said unto her, ‘Be not afraid of Death, for the Life of the whole world is with thee, but it is necessary that at least [p. 648] thou shouldst Glance at him with thine eyes, and he will not come except he be commanded to do so.’* And Jesus said unto Death, ‘Come, O thou who art in the chambers of the south.’* And when Mary saw him she cast her soul into the bosom of her Son, and He wrapped it up in a napkin(?) of delight.* And the Apostles laid their hands upon her eyes, and she fell asleep with a good falling asleep on the night of the twentieth day of Tobe, in the peace of God!* Amen.

** And the Lord said unto the Apostles, ‘Take up her bed carefully, and take it to the Valley of Jehosaphat, which is opposite the Mount of Olives, the place where I broke bread in days of old.* Set down there the bier whereon is the body, and withdraw yourselves because of the threatening of the Jews, for they will pursue you wishing to slay you.* And I will hide the body according as it pleaseth Me.’ * Thereupon the Apostles took up the body and placed it upon a bier.

** And when the morning had come a great multitude was gathered together in the city, and the virgins cried out.* And straightway Peter and John lifted up the body to carry out to the place of which the Saviour had told them, and a great multitude of people sang psalms and hymns before it, saying, ‘The Lord …,’ and a multitude of angels sang hymns before her.* And when they arrived at the Temple of the Jews all the members of the Sanhedrin were gathered together in the Temple on that day, and they heard the singing of the hymns over her holy body.* And they said, ‘Who is this who hath died in the city this day?’* And [the people] said unto them, ‘It is the mother of the Nazarene, that is, Jesus, who hath died, and they are taking her out to bury her.’* And they passed a decree unanimously, saying, ‘We must not let her be buried in the city; lest mighty deeds be worked [at her tomb] similar to those which her Son performed, and lest the people believe in her, and they [p. 649] change our Law.’* And the high priests and the scribes said, let us go and burn her body with fire, so that no man will ever be able to find it.’* And the Jews lighted a fire, and they pursued [the Apostles] with the bier whereon was the body of the Virgin.* And when the Apostles had arrived at the Valley of Jehosaphat they looked behind them, I and they saw the Jews pursuing them, and they dropped the bier upon the ground, for they were afraid that the godless Jews would kill them.* And whilst the Jews were rushing on to overtake them the Apostles betook themselves to flight and escaped.* Now the body of the holy Virgin they could not find, and all that they found was the wooden bier, and they lighted a fire and threw the bier into it. And they went into every place, saying, ‘Perhaps her body hath been carried away secretly,’ but they could not find it. And a very strong sweet smell emanated from the place whereon the body of the Virgin had been laid, and a mighty voice came from heaven, saying unto them, ‘Let no man give himself the trouble of seeking* after the body of the Virgin until the great day of the appearing the Saviour.’*** And the Jews fled greatly ashamed; and they came to the city and told their neighbours what had happened, and they commended them, saying, ‘Tell no man whomsoever what hath happened.’

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/coptic/Cyril.htm

Others: pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormindex.htm

 

[josie_L]

I am a man of God …

… I see nothing wrong with coming to the same point from different angles.
That is exactly why I dont agree with being dogmatic about things that can be applied as understood by the believer without any harm being done to Christs statement that "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. … as for example the … Immaculate Conception.

It is much more important to me personally that…
… “He is able to keep us from falling … and present us unstained at his glorious throne.”

Truth (in all its minutae) is of the essence.

 

[josie_L]

She died, even RC texts make it obvious she did. The confusion comes from the IC and RCs interpreting grace at conception equals the removal of all consequences of original sin.

Some homilies of saints make it clear the Tradition is of her death.

Homily of St Cyril of Jerusalem from 6th century.
pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/coptic/Cyril.htm

Others: pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormindex.htm

Catholics are allowed to believe either/or, i.e., that she died and then was assumed into Heaven body and soul or that she was alive and then assumed into Heaven. It is not a dogma nor a doctrine of the church since we have so little to go by. If you wish you can read this thread for further elucidation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=553296

Note: There is no RC text which makes this obvious.

 

[Azurestone]

Catholics are allowed to believe either/or, i.e., that she died and then was assumed into Heaven body and soul or that she was alive and then assumed into Heaven. It is not a dogma nor a doctrine of the church since we have so little to go by. If you wish you can read this thread for further elucidation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=553296

Note: There is no RC text which makes this obvious.

You may or may not feel obligated to believe it, but to do so ignores the Tradition of the Church. The same Tradition that tells you she was assumed into Heaven. That is not a light notion.

I feel this slightly ironic considering a common polemic against the Orthodox are their lack of a strong central voice. Yet, we have the voice of the Church Fathers, Saints, and Tradition.

 

[josie_L]

You may or may not feel obligated to believe it, but to do so ignores the Tradition of the Church. The same Tradition that tells you she was assumed into Heaven. That is not a light notion.

All Catholics must believe in the assumption (body and soul) of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but this dogma does not delineate whether she was assumed before or after death. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Azurestone]

All Catholics must believe in the assumption (body and soul) of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but this dogma does not delineate whether she was assumed before or after death. It’s as simple as that.

It’s not that simple. A Pope made a statement accepted by the RCC as an infallible statement as to the validity of the assumption. However, the assumption was not created at this moment.

You have a strange legalistic view of dogma. The RCC may make dogmatic statements by papal bull or council, however this does not cover all beliefs in the Church. Beliefs held by the Church through Tradition, I believe Pope Leo XIII defined the RC concept of the Magisterium, he express ‘Ordinary Magisterium’. That is, the consensus of the Church in teaching and Tradition. This is similar to how the Orthodox keep the faith. This is also how ignoring the Tradition of the Church, though not defined in council or encyclical, is still the faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[dvdjs]

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?

Here is a link to an important essay on Eastern thinking on the IC.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…0&postcount=35
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=36

This long thread with little to show for it, mostly just the usual polemical postures founded on the shaky sands of semantical quibbling. A few point of note

1. Guilt. What is the plain meaning? Please have a look in the OED: among the many meanings, there are two that are most pertinent. First, a state of culpability for an an action committed; but also: a state of liability for or subjection to the legal consequences of an action committed. People object to the use of ‘guilt” in the first meaning because it seems to make God seem unjust. That is a dangerous objection, IMO, as it implies some sense that we are owed something by God – a thought more ridiculous that a mold being owed something by humanity. But that modernistic argument is moot. The second, plain meaning is what we in the CC understand. Not a personal culpability, but an inheritance of the penalty. Most folks pick up on that concept readily. But as always mileage varies.
2. Limbo. This idea of differentiating the idea of limbo versus and emphasis on God’s mercy is a hoot. The very idea is a profession about the mercy of God. The idea does in fact come from the East. St. Gregory of Nazianzus for example says this:
   It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]
3. What do the Orthodox believe? That is not easy to say, but the dominant idea that has been broached here sounds, as has been mentioned, very Catholic – especially after the quibbling about “guilt” is discounted. It is the idea of spiritual separation – an ontological deficit. In addition to that central issue, there are other consequences – mortality, inclination to sin. Catholics agree on this point, as well. However, it must be noted that in discussing the Immaculate Conception, we are not saying that Mary was spared from all consequences of original sin, but from the “stain of original sin”. What we are talking with that term is the spiritual separation. See
   newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

She is the new Eve. Some are concerned that this perspective lessens her humanity; however, the new Eve is human like the old. In addition, some are concerned about the diminution of her personal achievement; such arguments are dangerously Pelagian.

1. What about death? Discussion on this point annoys me. Both East and West agree and teach that she was translated body and soul into heaven. Pious legend – with some variation in the East and Orient – say that she died, but that her translation to heaven heppened within days. What seems to be important to some is that her body and soul were separated for a time - perhaps as much as 72 hours. But they are missing the point, IMO, and really should get to Vigil for the feast to hear what the East says on that day. The emphasis is on the translation to heaven. Death is not emphasized, and when it is noted is it by way of oxymoron - not only because of Christ’s vanquishing of death, but also because of the her imminent translation and glorification. We believe that she is and has been as we will be at the last: body and soul united, glorified, and immortal. Hence the liturgy speaks of her “deathless dormition”.

Finally, let me add that there seems to be a real difference in the teachings of the East and West, but the difference is very subtle - and nothing like what you are getting in previous posts on this thread. James Altena gave a brilliant discussion of this matter at Mere Comments - on a comment thread. I will try to dig up the reference, but IIRC it was late 2009.