Orthodox: Why object to Immaculate Conception?

[dvdjs]

Here is the key quote from the New Advent link

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.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

Actually late 2007.
merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/10/the-rise-of-the.html?cid=6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54efdfb3c8833#comment-6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54efdfb3c883
Scroll down to his post on: October 24, 2007 at 04:57 PM

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cavaradossi and Mickey thanks for the clarification.

I’m gonna have to process this a bit since I’m seven pages late and just read through this with the links.

Seems we are placing much emphasis on symantics in all fairness. In theology both concepts line with each other. The difference being the CC is obviously much further defined. The question is, is it correctly defined?

I think we can move past “Original Sin” to the deeper division, which is “defining” Mary and Her original state of being, specifically when giving Birth to Jesus?

At this point we reach the IC, which is actually the 14th century not the 18th and thus for it to have reached Basil in the 14th, it obviously was an issue for years before. Alright, so we have many centurys between the two churchs. Not just the past 100-years with this issue.

What I see that becomes the issue, is if in fact the CC is correct, which leads obviously further than the IC in time with Pius XII which indeed brings us to last century? Can it be proven they are in fact wrong?

The actual side of the debate that Orthodox uphold is simply they do not know what they do not know and don’t speculate on this. [but in truth you do] Which no doubt is respectful and cannot be incorrect, the only issue that would remain is how do we know if the CC is in fact correct in further clarity? Obviously they chose to place a further division in the church when they placed this fork in the road, what would be the motive to further divide an already divided church, when in fact the CC was very stable and strong in this period?

So it really gets back to, as simple as can be put…since the schism time moved foward, can we conclude God revealed to the church “further information” as to Truth in understanding Mary thus further defining Mary? The CC also places this as “required” belief to be Catholic. While one may object they cannot reject the doctrine. Pretty strong statements in the Kingdom of Christ.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Mickey]

Note: You know there are other words in the Bible that are utilitized in a different way than they are now (or in layman’s terms), one example would be the word "until.

LOL! Bad analogy. Guilt does not have alternate meanings and/or understandings. Perhaps Rome has attached new meaning to it so that they can back away from the the medieval definition of original sin?

 

[dvdjs]

LOL! Bad analogy. Guilt does not have alternate meanings and/or understandings. Perhaps Rome has attached new meaning to it so that they can back away from the the medieval definition of original sin?

Flat out nonsense, notwithstanding your peculiar laughter. If you are interested in something other than stubborn polemics at least look, as I suggested, at the OED. This issue is simple, whether you can manage to get it or not.

 

[Mickey]

Flat out nonsense

Not at all. There is one plain meaning for “guilt.”

And there is nothing nonsensical (or polemical) about that.

 

[dvdjs]

Not at all. There is one plain meaning for “guilt.”
And there is nothing nonsensical (or polemical) about that.

Go to the OED and learn.

 

[Mickey]

In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913)

 

[dvdjs]

In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913)

What, if anything, is your point?

 

[Mickey]

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)

Catechism of Trent: Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity.

In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913)

 

[dvdjs]

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)

Catechism of Trent: Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity.

In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913)

Do you have a point?

 

[plaintruth]

so are you saying you wont have any comment, because the reformers believe otherwise?

and you are saying Mary was sinless , because the ‘undivided’ church held that Mary was sinless?

and you wont comment on scripture because you believe the church teaching is absolute? jsut believe what you have been taught?

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.

Originally Posted by plaintruth View Post
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.

 

[Mickey]

Do you have a point?

I have made it—thank you. :tiphat:

However, if it is true as you say, that Rome uses this alternate (or secondary) meaning of the word “guilt”----and that in reality they are subscribing to the same understanding as the Holy Orthodox Church----than I say, wonderful!

 

[milidrag]

…

Seems we are placing much emphasis on symantics in all fairness. In theology both concepts line with each other. The difference being the CC is obviously much further defined. The question is, is it correctly defined?

I think we can move past “Original Sin” to the deeper division, which is “defining” Mary and Her original state of being, specifically when giving Birth to Jesus?
…

You don’t understand (TM & Copyright RC), the deepness is here, but is ignored.

…

1. Guilt. What is the plain meaning? … The second, plain meaning is what we in the CC understand. Not a personal culpability, but an inheritance of the penalty.
   …

Orthodox don’t see it as a penalty, but as a cure, a medicine. See Fr. Romanides’ Ancestral Sin.

Consequently, Orthodox believe in healing God, while RC believe in punishing God. I can’t imagine greater difference than that. Although the sylogism with these different presumptions can be twisted to produce similar results (as RCC do), it is a false equalization.

…
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.

“The quabling about guilt” can be discontinued after you recognize that RCC changed their teaching and omitted guilt. However, simply omitting it, while retaining the teachings that have the existence of guilt as its presumptions, telling to Orthodox that it is actually the same as we teach simply doesn’t get trhough.

We are different.

 

[dvdjs]

Orthodox don’t see it as a penalty, but as a cure, a medicine.

Sorry, what is “it” in your sentence? The consequences of the ancestral sin?

You may prefer not to talk in terms of a penalty, and like to call alienation from God, corruption, and death, as a medicine. Fine. But there is no real dichotomy here. Penalties well-designed are to reform, just as punishment is designed to be therapeutic. I do realize the modernists of all denominations are a little uneasy with the idea of penalty and punishment, notwithstanding how well rooted these ideas are in scripture and tradition. O tempora! O mores!

Consequently, Orthodox believe in healing God, while RC believe in punishing God. I can’t imagine greater difference than that. Although the sylogism with these different presumptions can be twisted to produce similar results (as RCC do), it is a false equalization.

I think you may have left out some indefinite articles. But you clearly have no idea what RCs think - don’t feel free just make things up. The idea that RCs do not believe in a healing God is astonishlingly out of touch.

“The quabling about guilt” can be discontinued after you recognize that RCC changed their teaching and omitted guilt. However, simply omitting it, while retaining the teachings that have the existence of guilt as its presumptions, telling to Orthodox that it is actually the same as we teach simply doesn’t get through.

Hmmm you want to talk history? Fine. Let’s begin by examining the texts - quoted by non-catholics here in a superficial proof-texting manner - in Latin, and thus avoid problems of translations into living languages. First, you should search at CAF for the many threads that differentiate “reatus” from “culpa” etc. This ground is very well-traveled. Second, you too should have a look at the OED. It is great resource because it gives a millenium of usage, so that you can understand how the usage of “guilt” in English has varied from before the time of Trent to the present days. Then, if you want, we can have a serious discussion instead of playing “gotcha”.

The translation and the discussion of the Latin text in English has changed over time - sure. That is a natural process, in particular, given the changes in living languages. (Indeed the ROC, btw, is now in the process of updating Church Slavonic to avoid problems associated with the changes of the meanings of words from Slavonic to modern Russian.) But the Latin text has not changed and the nuances of the Latin text are properly represented in the Catechism. This is not a change in dogma or doctrine (which is anchored in the Latin).

We are different

How you struggle to prove it. Why bother?

 

[Mickey]

Then, if you want, we can have a serious discussion instead of playing “gotcha”.

It is **you **who are trying to play “gotcha” games by continual references to the OED in your effort to show that Rome uses the alternate and unusual secondary meaning of words.

 

[dvdjs]

It is **you **who are trying to play “gotcha” games by continual references to the OED in your effort to show that Rome uses the alternate and unusual secondary meaning of words.

What did I getcha doing?

 

[milidrag]

…
I think you may have left out some indefinite articles.

Thank you for nitpicking my spelling & grammar.

But you clearly have no idea what RCs think - don’t feel free just make things up.

Possibly I don’t, but I don’t bother with it. I restrict myself with what RCs express as their belief.

…so that you can understand how the usage of “guilt” in English has varied from before the time of Trent to the present days. Then, if you want, we can have a serious discussion instead of playing “gotcha”.

…

Nonsense.

You are not a qualified lawyer to be able to have “a serioius discussion” about the notion of guilt.

“The guilt” is a legal term, and its meaning hasn’t been altered through the ages. Some specific cases of it are added as examples during the time, but the meaning of the word has been clarified prior to Justinian having passed his famous code, about some 15 centuries ago.

 

[milidrag]

… Penalties well-designed are to reform, just as punishment is designed to be therapeutic.

Capital punishment isn’t therapeutic, penology is of one mind about that.

I do realize the modernists of all denominations are a little uneasy with the idea of penalty and punishment, notwithstanding how well rooted these ideas are in scripture and tradition. O tempora! O mores!

You don’t understand (TM & Copyright RCs).

There is no dispute between us about “punishment” component towards Adam & Eve by expulsion form Paradise, although it was also the cure, the medicine.

But their punishment isn’t ours. We inherited their expulsion as a cure only.

 

[Mickey]

What did I getcha doing?