Question for EO church

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi All,

I was wondering what the EO church believes about the Marian dogma of the RCC.

Do you all believe the same about Mary or just agree with some and not others?

Thanks

 

[ALLFORHIM]

WOW

No answers!!!

 

[Madaglan]

Yes and no. The EO Church has great respect for Mary and title her Theotokos, and Panagia (“all holy”). You will recognize the great honor given her if you enter an Orthodox Church: her icon and that of her infant son are almost always immediately behind the altar in the sanctuary. So, in this sense, the Orthodox Church holds Mary to the same degree of reverence.

However, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize several of the dogmas the Latin Church has promulgated: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The Co-Redemptrix and Co-Redeemer soon-to-be-dogma (at least in the eyes of many Latin Catholics) is also viewed askance by many Eastern Orthodox. There are several reasons for this. Concerning the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox have a different understanding of Original Sin, and the Latin understanding of Original Sin is foundational to the Immaculate Conception. The Eastern Orthodox still praise Mary as Immaculate, just not Immaculately conceived. Concerning the Assumption: Eastern Orthodox hymnography commemorates the Dormition of Mary–her falling asleep–not her being assumed into heaven.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Yes and no. The EO Church has great respect for Mary and title her Theotokos, and Panagia (“all holy”). You will recognize the great honor given her if you enter an Orthodox Church: her icon and that of her infant son are almost always immediately behind the altar in the sanctuary. So, in this sense, the Orthodox Church holds Mary to the same degree of reverence.

However, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize several of the dogmas the Latin Church has promulgated: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The Co-Redemptrix and Co-Redeemer soon-to-be-dogma (at least in the eyes of many Latin Catholics) is also viewed askance by many Eastern Orthodox. There are several reasons for this. Concerning the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox have a different understanding of Original Sin, and the Latin understanding of Original Sin is foundational to the Immaculate Conception. The Eastern Orthodox still praise Mary as Immaculate, just not Immaculately conceived. Concerning the Assumption: Eastern Orthodox hymnography commemorates the Dormition of Mary–her falling asleep–not her being assumed into heaven.

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[1ke]

While expressed differently in parts, the Orthodox do believe in the 4 Marian doctrines that the Catholic Church professes.

The Orthodox and Catholics have no difference in their doctrines regarding Mary as Theotokos/Mother of God and Mary Ever-Virgin.

The Orthodox also teach Mary’s sinlessness (although they disagree on the manner in which she is sinless based on differing concepts of Original Sin).

The Orthodox understanding of Mary’s dormition and assumption is slightly different from that of Catholics-- the Orthodox proclaim she died and then assumed and the Catholic Church is silent on whether she died and was then assumed or assumed at the point of death-- but yet ultimately both profess Mary is in Heaven body and soul.

To me it’s “potato” and “patahto”. To theologians, it’s the stuff of debate long into the night.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

While expressed differently in parts, the Orthodox do believe in the 4 Marian doctrines that the Catholic Church professes.

The Orthodox and Catholics have no difference in their doctrines regarding Mary as Theotokos/Mother of God and Mary Ever-Virgin.

The Orthodox also teach Mary’s sinlessness (although they disagree on the manner in which she is sinless based on differing concepts of Original Sin).

The Orthodox understanding of Mary’s dormition and assumption is slightly different from that of Catholics-- the Orthodox proclaim she died and then assumed and the Catholic Church is silent on whether she died and was then assumed or assumed at the point of death-- but yet ultimately both profess Mary is in Heaven body and soul.

To me it’s “potato” and “patahto”. To theologians, it’s the stuff of debate long into the night.

Well Im theologian and have no intention on debating it

Thank you

 

[DDClark]

While expressed differently in parts, the
The Orthodox also teach Mary’s sinlessness (although they disagree on the manner in which she is sinless based on differing concepts of Original Sin).

To me it’s “potato” and “patahto”. To theologians, it’s the stuff of debate long into the night.

The Orthodox concept of original sin is quite different that the Latin/Roman Catholic concept.

My knowledge is limited, but it’s one of the things that draws me toward Orthodoxy as opposed to the Catholic Church.

ddc

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Orthodox concept of original sin is quite different that the Latin/Roman Catholic concept.

My knowledge is limited, but it’s one of the things that draws me toward Orthodoxy as opposed to the Catholic Church.

ddc

Maybe someone can clarify what the differences are regarding original sin.

Please use scriputre to prove one way or the other:thumbsup:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I found this from gotquestions.org

Question: “What is original sin?”

Answer: The term “original sin” deals with Adam’s sin in eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race from then on, particularly its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious sin. There are three main views that deal with that effect; they are as follows:

Pelagianism: Adam’s sin had no effect upon the souls of his descendants other than his sinful example influencing those who followed after him to also sin. According to this view, man has the ability to stop sinning if he simply chooses to. This teaching runs contrary to a number of passages that indicate that man is hopelessly enslaved by his sins (apart from God’s intervention) and that his good works are “dead” or worthless in meriting God’s favor (Ephesians 2:1-2; Matthew 15:18-19; Romans 7:23; Hebrews 6:1; 9:14).

Arminianism: Arminians believe Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own, that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “…all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Nor is the teaching of prevenient grace found in Scripture.

Calvinism: Adam’s sin has resulted in not only our having a sin nature, but also has caused us to incur guilt before God for which we are deserving of punishment. Being conceived with original sin upon us (Psalm 51:5) results in our inheriting a sin nature so wicked that Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as “deceitful above all else, desperately wicked, and beyond cure.” And not only was Adam found guilty because he sinned, but his guilt and his punishment (death) belongs to us as well (Romans 5:12,19). There are two views as to why Adam’s guilt should be seen by God as belonging to us as well. The first view states that the human race was within Adam in seed form; thus when Adam sinned, we sinned in him. This is similar to the biblical teaching that Levi (a descendent of Abraham) paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:4-9), even though Levi was not born until hundreds of years later. The other main view is that Adam served as our representative and as such, when he sinned, we were found guilty as well.

The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that…preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time…and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”

The Calvinistic view of original sin is most consistent with biblical teaching and “original sin” could be defined as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.”

I would like to know where each church stands on this and then how the EO believes about Mary

 

[Madaglan]

I found this from gotquestions.org

I would like to know where each church stands on this and then how the EO believes about Mary

The long quotation you provide from gotquestions.org looks at Original Sin from a Western perspective. While Catholics and Protestants disagree on many central beliefs, they generally do agree that one is born with Original Sin, in some way or another. Original Sin is seen almost as a disease that is passed down through the generations. We inherit a sinful human nature. In the Western perspective, we sin because we have a sinful nature due to Original Sin.

In the East, the emphasis is less on Original Sin and more on the effects of the Original Sin on the world. The focus is more on spiritual death and how man no longer naturally chooses the good; he instead chooses false pleasures that do not lead him back to God, but thinking that by going after these pleasures he will be complete. This is how I understand the Eastern view. It is a lot different from the Western view. Basically, in the West, sin begets sin, whereas in the East sin comes as a result of spiritual death ushered in by the Original Sin, and is not directly related to Original Sin.

 

[1ke]

The Catholic teaching regarding Original Sin can be found here in the Catechism.

Here are a couple of articles regarding Original Sin in Orthodoxy:

unicorne.org/ORTHODOXY/sept2003/dormition.htm

unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/originalsin.htm

 

[Madaglan]

Concerning Mary: I am less sure of how the Eastern Orthodox would differ from the Latin Catholics. The EO certainly would not have a problem saying Mary never sinned. The EO would, however, not attribute this to a preservation from Original Sin at the time of conception.

 

[Madaglan]

btw, 1ke’s links appear good.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Thanks Guys–I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and info.

Im trying to clarify in my head.

 

[Volodymyr]

WOW

No answers!!!

Are you surprised not to get immediate response? Perhaps this is a bit uncharitable but I think such question is unrealistic. You have made such assumption that Orthodox people but calling us “EO” - have knowledge of what are Catolic dogmas about Mother of God. I have no concept of such beliefs except for recenty postulated “dogma” of Immaculate conception. This belief in Imacculate Conception seems to be so dearly held by Catolics as if it were as well known to them as the Trinity - even though they only know this inflabable truth for 150 years.

Better to ask what are our beliefs about Mother of God, I believe. This presuposes that Orthodox perrson knows Orthodox faith - you will see if it differs from what Catolics believe. Best expression of Orthodox faith is in Prayers. If you prayer or only read Kanon or Akafist of Mother of God you will see what we believe.

 

[1ke]

This belief in Imacculate Conception seems to be so dearly held by Catolics as if it were as well known to them as the Trinity - even though they only know this inflabable truth for 150 years.

This is an incorrect understanding of the development of doctrine, and a bit disengenuous to state this Catholics have “only” known this truth for 150 years. This is not true at all. It has been a formally proclaimed Dogma for that length of time. But, you know well that the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary is an ancient Tradition of BOTH the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

You know that doctrine develops over time-- and your example of the Trinity is of course a good example of that. Just because the doctrine of the Trinity was hashed out for hundreds of years before Nicea settled the Arian controversy does not mean the doctrine did not exist from the beginning. Same with the teachings regarding Mary. The sinlessness of Mary has been held since ancient times-- and both Catholics and Orthodox hold this to be true.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The EO certainly would not have a problem saying Mary never sinned.

Thanks. I was going to ask that question, but you saved me the trouble!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

You have made such assumption that Orthodox people but calling us “EO” - have knowledge of what are Catolic dogmas about Mother of God.

What should I call you? I apologize, should I just call you Orthodox? I guess I thought it was Eastern Orthodox:blush:

I have no concept of such beliefs except for recenty postulated “dogma” of Immaculate conception. This belief in Imacculate Conception seems to be so dearly held by Catolics as if it were as well known to them as the Trinity - even though they only know this inflabable truth for 150 years.

That is why I want to know what your church believes/ed before the schism. I have been told that before the schism the two churches were one and believed the same. So I figure maybe someone here who is Orthodox would know what that church has always believed about Mary.

Better to ask what are our beliefs about Mother of God, I believe. This presuposes that Orthodox perrson knows Orthodox faith - you will see if it differs from what Catolics believe.

I wanted an Orthodox to answer.

Best expression of Orthodox faith is in Prayers. If you prayer or only read Kanon or Akafist of Mother of God you will see what we believe.

Do you have a link to those prayers?Thanks

 

[prodromos]

You know that doctrine develops over time–

We know no such thing.

… and your example of the Trinity is of course a good example of that. Just because the doctrine of the Trinity was hashed out for hundreds of years before Nicea settled the Arian controversy does not mean the doctrine did not exist from the beginning. Same with the teachings regarding Mary. The sinlessness of Mary has been held since ancient times-- and both Catholics and Orthodox hold this to be true.

Very bad example. The councils defended the doctrine of the trinity against the various heresies which sprang up around it. The ‘Immaculate Conception’ is not in response to any heresy that I am aware of. It seemed simply to be an opportunity for the Pope to exercise his recently declared ‘authority’ of universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

John

 

[Stephen_C]

Or we can look at what these two Churches share in belief. Not only in regards to Mary but the 7 sacraments. As well,

1. Infant baptism
2. Confession (forgivness of sins)
3. Holy Communion (real presence)
4. Confirmation
5. Holy Orders
6. Marrage
7. Anointing of the Sick

Also keep in mind The Catholic view on Mary has developed over time. The Immaculate Conception was defined about 800 years after the schism. As well, both Churches share Apostolic secession. These two Churches are the early Church.