D
dcointin
Guest
What exactly did St. Thomas Aquinas argue on this issue?
- Status
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
If I understand him correctly, Aquinas did not accept that the Most Holy Virgin Mary would have been exempt from Original Sin. But that did not mean that he accepted that she had any kind of imperfection at her Conception. His concerns about the IC were the same as those of Orthodox theologians - that such an “exemption” would have taken her outside the human race, whose Crown and Jewel she is, and that Original Sin was about death (the effect of Adam’s sin on us).
Alex
Alex
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
You may want to check out “The Russian Church and the Papacy” by Soloviev. Very helpful.Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):
Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?
I asked her, but like I said, I’ve received different answers. “They’re wrong” and “Faulty translation”. Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?
R
runningdude
Guest
Well yes, the immaculate conception is a narrow doctrine, that Mary was conceived while protected from original sin. Saint Aquinas argued against this narrow fact, nearly a millennium before the debate was resolved. It turned out he was in error, though he advanced a plausible explanation that did not conflict with any known dogma at the time.
Mary’s otherwise total protection from personal sin is a separate issue, the historical details I’m not familiar with.
R
runningdude
Guest
Another, more anecdotal story about Saint Thomas Aquinas being in error during his lifetime involves his teaching about when “ensoulment” occurred in a newly conceived fetus. He didn’t believe it occurred until the “quickening” when the baby first kicked, thus demonstrating its animation by an immortal soul.
Saint Aquinas, as a consequence, still argued that abortion was an intrinsic evil, but because it concealed sexual sin, instead of it killing a life. Here, Saint Aquinas was in error, albeit a qualified one that tried to reconcile the church’s constant teaching of the evils of abortion with his theory of ensoulment. Incidently, the moment of ensoulment remains undefined, although the teaching that abortion is evil because specifically because it kills is fairly well established now.
What moves me though, is the story of an Orthodox Christian abortionist in Yugoslavia, a man who killed several thousand unborn children. He started having dreams where a man was standing in a field watching over hundreds of children playing. The abortionist, who had never heard of Aquinas, or at least the details his theory of ensoulment, learned the name of the man to be Saint Thomas. The children were the souls of the lives taken by the abortionist’s knife.
In the dream, Saint Thomas repented his theory of ensoulment, having learned the truth in Heaven. The abortionist soon after abandoned his practice and returned to the Orthodox faith.
andrewcusack.com/2008/11/16/adasevic/
Saint Aquinas, as a consequence, still argued that abortion was an intrinsic evil, but because it concealed sexual sin, instead of it killing a life. Here, Saint Aquinas was in error, albeit a qualified one that tried to reconcile the church’s constant teaching of the evils of abortion with his theory of ensoulment. Incidently, the moment of ensoulment remains undefined, although the teaching that abortion is evil because specifically because it kills is fairly well established now.
What moves me though, is the story of an Orthodox Christian abortionist in Yugoslavia, a man who killed several thousand unborn children. He started having dreams where a man was standing in a field watching over hundreds of children playing. The abortionist, who had never heard of Aquinas, or at least the details his theory of ensoulment, learned the name of the man to be Saint Thomas. The children were the souls of the lives taken by the abortionist’s knife.
In the dream, Saint Thomas repented his theory of ensoulment, having learned the truth in Heaven. The abortionist soon after abandoned his practice and returned to the Orthodox faith.
andrewcusack.com/2008/11/16/adasevic/
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, I don’t believe he was in any theological error and his position was close to what the Eastern Church had always believed about the total holiness of the Mother of God.
The only reason the West needed the IC dogma was because of the issues posed by the Augustinian view of the “stain of Original Sin.”
Had the Western Church followed the Eastern Fathers, it would never have felt the need to define the IC, since the idea that the Mother of God was somehow ever “stained” by any kind of sin would have been out of the question.
Mary was conceived without any stain according to the soul. She felt no pain in giving birth to Jesus and her death was simply a sweet falling asleep, a dormition.
But the fact that she did die, before being assumed into heaven body and soul (also something the Eastern church has always believed according to her lex orandi/lex credendi tradition), meant that she shared in the impact of Original Sin that affected all of humanity.
Alex
R
runningdude
Guest
It is doctrine that she was Assumed into Heaven. It is a pious tradition that she never died (though a tradition I personally take great comfort in). However whether she died or merely went into dormition, is not yet defined doctrine. From what I understand, it was left purposely vague to allow more discussion, especially to consider Eastern Christian concerns.
My point in mentioning Aquinas, to return this to the OP’s question, was simply to point out that Saints, though currently in Heaven, were not infallible on Earth. Infallibility is a special grace given only to the Pope (and even then in limited circumstances!)
All I wanted to point out was that it was not inconsistent for the Orthodox to venerate a Saint whose earthly opinions contradict current Orthodox theology. From their perspective, the saint was simply mistaken, and would learn the correct belief in Heaven.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I understand and agree with your statements!
For the East, Our Lady’s assumption was more than pious tradition - the fact there were formal liturgical services that clearly affirmed it meant that it was the faith of the Church. We even have an Apostolic practice that our monks perform daily where they take a loaf of bread before supper/lunch and place it on the table before an empty seat in our Lady’s honour or the “Panaghia” service.
Following her death and assumption into Heaven, the Apostles gathered at table had a vision of her in the air above where she told them to invoke her protection always with the invocation “Most Holy Theotokos, help us” and she would indeed come to their assistance.
This ancient practice, again undergirding affirmation of her bodily assumption, is done to this day (lay-people could pray the prayers as well before lunch or dinner before icons of the Holy Trinity and our Lady).
Saints can and do make mistakes. My own PERSONAL opinion is that Origen of Alexandria MIGHT be one day affirmed a saint since nomatter what he wrote, he was always of the view that his opinions were subject to the Church’s judgement. The same is true of Augustine, Aquinas etc.
But my OWN reading of Aquinas leads me to believe that while he rejected the theology of the IC, he never affirmed that our Lady was “stained by sin” of any kind and at any time. In fact, Aquinas’ theology (save for his writings on the Filioque) were so popular in the East at one time that individual Orthodox invoked him as a saint and he was widely studied in the East as well (i.e. Patriarch Gennadius Scholarios). I say this by way of parenthesis.
Apart from knowing WHICH pre-schism saint(s) are being referred to here, I simply cannot imagine any pre-schism Saint affirming anything that would not be in keeping with Orthodox theology even with respect to the papacy.
The Orthodox have never denied the positive functions of the Papacy (again as Meyendorff discussed in his “Ways of Byzantine Theology”). As one Orthodox theologian said, “do not argue with the Latins over the (papal) primacy - it is good for the Church. Only let the successor of Peter confess the faith of Peter - and then let him have the primacy.”
Alex
For the East, Our Lady’s assumption was more than pious tradition - the fact there were formal liturgical services that clearly affirmed it meant that it was the faith of the Church. We even have an Apostolic practice that our monks perform daily where they take a loaf of bread before supper/lunch and place it on the table before an empty seat in our Lady’s honour or the “Panaghia” service.
Following her death and assumption into Heaven, the Apostles gathered at table had a vision of her in the air above where she told them to invoke her protection always with the invocation “Most Holy Theotokos, help us” and she would indeed come to their assistance.
This ancient practice, again undergirding affirmation of her bodily assumption, is done to this day (lay-people could pray the prayers as well before lunch or dinner before icons of the Holy Trinity and our Lady).
Saints can and do make mistakes. My own PERSONAL opinion is that Origen of Alexandria MIGHT be one day affirmed a saint since nomatter what he wrote, he was always of the view that his opinions were subject to the Church’s judgement. The same is true of Augustine, Aquinas etc.
But my OWN reading of Aquinas leads me to believe that while he rejected the theology of the IC, he never affirmed that our Lady was “stained by sin” of any kind and at any time. In fact, Aquinas’ theology (save for his writings on the Filioque) were so popular in the East at one time that individual Orthodox invoked him as a saint and he was widely studied in the East as well (i.e. Patriarch Gennadius Scholarios). I say this by way of parenthesis.
Apart from knowing WHICH pre-schism saint(s) are being referred to here, I simply cannot imagine any pre-schism Saint affirming anything that would not be in keeping with Orthodox theology even with respect to the papacy.
The Orthodox have never denied the positive functions of the Papacy (again as Meyendorff discussed in his “Ways of Byzantine Theology”). As one Orthodox theologian said, “do not argue with the Latins over the (papal) primacy - it is good for the Church. Only let the successor of Peter confess the faith of Peter - and then let him have the primacy.”
Alex
H
Hesychios
Guest
I would not ask you to convert, brother. You are blooming right there, in the rich soil you were planted in.I have also been asked to convert to Orthodoxy!
I only hope, sincerely, that we can stand beside one another in worship one day, some how … some way …
Pax et Bonum
H
hazcompat
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Who was that?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
He is quoted in Meyendorff’s book on Byzantine theology. I gave my copy to a seminarian and never got it back.
I am not going out to buy another copy though . . .
Alex
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Soloviev didn’t write a book called “The Russian Church and the Papacy”. He wrote a book called “Russia and the Universal Church” which has been edited by a contemporary Roman Catholic apologist to make it read like nothing more than an argument for papal primacy as understood by Rome. It is this work which bears the title “The Russian Church and the Papacy”. Soloviev did make some arguments for papal primacy, but there was a lot more to his original work. He also died in communion with the Orthodox Church.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Rome has added dogmas since the first millenium.
B
Byz_Guy
Guest
I think this is the quote (perhaps a bit of a different translation but essentially the same). It’s quoted in an article by Metropolitan Hilarion:He is quoted in Meyendorff’s book on Byzantine theology. I gave my copy to a seminarian and never got it back.
I am not going out to buy another copy though . . .
Alex
The article is here:
orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionPrimacy.php
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Mrs Noah, if you don’t mind me asking, has your acquaintance discussed the Calendar issue with you? The Russians I know believe that the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) is a heresy, and thus not only Catholics, but also “New Calendar Eastern Orthodox” (i.e. Greek and Antiochian EO who adopted the New or Gregorian Calendar) are heretics. Thus Russians will not attend and commune in New Calendar EO churches, except maybe out of economy in extraordinary circumstances. They do commune with those who stick to the Old (Julian) Calendar - i.e. Serbian EO, the monks on Mount Athos, and Old Calendar factions of Greek EO who are in schism with New Calendar EO Churches.Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):
Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?
I asked her, but like I said, I’ve received different answers. “They’re wrong” and “Faulty translation”. Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?
I’m just curious, does your Russian EO acquaintance feel as strongly about the Calendar issue as the Russian people I knew and who regarded the Calendar as an extremely important issue?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting, I didn’t know that. If I had had any desire to read “The Russian Church and the Papacy” (although, honestly, I didn’t anyhow) that would have killed it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Yes and I only said what I said to get that wonderful Presbytera off my back. I don’t appreciate being accosted in that way and I would never do that to anyone myself.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Aye, aye sir!
You are a far bettter man than I!
A blessed Pascha to you and yours!
Alex
- Status