Question for former Orthodox

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Peter - again, I am only a fallible inquirer!

For Luther, those five books were not of the “essence” of the New Testament which is why he separated them from the NT itself. He called the Letter of James “an epistle of straw” because of the emphasis on faith and works, for example.

I think it is the strength of Lutheranism that it doesn’t slavishly follow even the mind of its founder. Of course, it considers itself a reform movement within the Church and we all pray that our Lutheran brothers and sisters can one day soon become one with us.

But I’m not going to start a society to canonize Luther. And I hope you aren’t either . . .

Alex

 

[lyrikal]

I don’t think it’s a double standard, because Hesychios would probably not demand that the Ethiopians or Syriac Christians give up their unique canons of Scripture if they happened to come into union with Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that the Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Copts can coexist with three radically different canons suggests that such an arrangement would work out. Even within Eastern Orthodoxy, the Georgians have a slightly extended canon of Scripture, with two more books than the Greeks.

First of all, Hesychios is wrong for stating this:

That together with the fact that across the entire east the idea was totally unknown is clear evidence that the notion is not in any way Apostolic. As late as the 13th century then, most Catholics and Orthodox either did not believe the idea, or had never heard of it.

“…across the ENTIRE east the idea was totally unknown…” This is completely false.

Second of all, with regards to the canon of scripture: Do you believe that your canon is the true canon? If so, then do you agree that the canon was argued by the Early Church? If so, then the canon that you have was not always believed by ALL of the Eastern and Western Fathers. Which then sets your standards of what is Apostolic up a little too high even for your canon. Hesychios seems to believe that in order for something to be Apostolic, it must be widely believed by the East and the West. If that’s the case then your canon is not Apostolic, it is a man-made tradition. I am only going by the standards you two are setting.

Now, if you don’t like the canon connection then how about this…

How many wills does Christ have?

How many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Fathers believed this?

If not many wrote about it, then does that make it a teaching that is not Apostolic?

The doctrines about the natures and wills of Christ developed overtime, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t see a difference between the development of the doctrines of Christ and the Marian Doctrines.

There were Western and Eastern Fathers in the early centuries who wrote about Mary’s sinlessness. It’s not far fetched to say that she was conceived with no sin.

It’s simple really. The Fathers constantly made connections between Mary and Eve. So, we can go Scriptural on this as well.

Was Eve “conceived” without sin? Yes

If Mary is the new Eve then I don’t see how she wouldn’t be conceived without sin as well.

 

[lyrikal]

You are more than correct sir! But if I ever have an opportunity to go off topic, you know I will!

I would respond by simply saying that the witness of the early Church is that the Most Holy Mother of God never had any sin at any time. It was in the East that the feast of the Conception of the Mother of God (“of St Anne”) was established already in the sixth century. Since only the feasts of saints can be celebrated, to mark the Conception of the Mother of God, liturgically, means that she was a Saint at her Conception.

The Immaculate Conception, however, is an entirely Western dogma that was, in the view of the East, entirely unnecessary. It was necessary due to the issues created by the Augustinian views on Original Sin. The East acknowledges Augustine as a saint, of course, but follows the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers (who had a much “healthier” view of human nature and the impact of Original sin on it than did Blessed Augustine).

Alex

Thank you, Alex!

 

[Byz_Guy]

I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that the vocabulary used in these discussions has different meanings in East and West. I think Fr Matthew Steenberg sums it up rather well:

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of ‘original sin’ as centred in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this ‘congenital defect’ that the Virgin’s lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer ‘like me’ in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary’s person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was ‘protected from sin’ from ‘before her birth’, specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn’t sin, but that she couldn’t sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well — often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary’s holy birth and sinless life — which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy ‘has no doctrine of original sin’. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC.

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2582-Orthodoxy-and-Catholicism

 

[Cavaradossi]

First of all, Hesychios is wrong for stating this:

“…across the ENTIRE east the idea was totally unknown…” This is completely false.

Second of all, with regards to the canon of scripture: Do you believe that your canon is the true canon? If so, then do you agree that the canon was argued by the Early Church? If so, then the canon that you have was not always believed by ALL of the Eastern and Western Fathers. Which then sets your standards of what is Apostolic up a little too high even for your canon. Hesychios seems to believe that in order for something to be Apostolic, it must be widely believed by the East and the West. If that’s the case then your canon is not Apostolic, it is a man-made tradition. I am only going by the standards you two are setting.

Of course the canon of scripture is manmade (unless we buy into the idea that the complete canon of scripture fell from the sky). That being said, the fact that so many different people eventually agreed on most of the books is obviously the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you don’t like the canon connection then how about this…

How many wills does Christ have?

Two, if you recon that will is a faculty of nature and not hypostasis.

How many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Fathers believed this?

How many believed in that exact and precise language? Probably none. How many believed that the Christ willed both according to his divinity and humanity? Probably a majority.

If not many wrote about it, then does that make it a teaching that is not Apostolic?

The doctrines about the natures and wills of Christ developed overtime, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t see a difference between the development of the doctrines of Christ and the Marian Doctrines.

There is a huge difference. The teaching that Jesus wills both according to his divinity and humanity has good scriptural support from the agony in the Garden. The only scriptural support I’ve seen for the immaculate conception are a bunch of vaguely interpreted Old Testament texts.

There were Western and Eastern Fathers in the early centuries who wrote about Mary’s sinlessness. It’s not far fetched to say that she was conceived with no sin.

It’s simple really. The Fathers constantly made connections between Mary and Eve. So, we can go Scriptural on this as well.

Except you get the likes of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great who speculated on whether Mary was sinless or if she was ever-virgin. Obviously, this is a pious belief, not fitting to be made into a dogma, because there were plenty who taught otherwise, and especially because it doesn’t impact our salvation.

Was Eve “conceived” without sin? Yes

If Mary is the new Eve then I don’t see how she wouldn’t be conceived without sin as well.

Possibly, but it is also possible that you are taking the second Eve metaphor too far. Nobody would dare blasphemously to assert that the Theotokos was Jesus’ wife because Eve was Adam’s wife.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that the vocabulary used in these discussions has different meanings in East and West. I think Fr Matthew Steenberg sums it up rather well:

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2582-Orthodoxy-and-Catholicism

Liturgically, at least, the Orthodox Church denies the Immaculate Conception.

For the Feast of the Assumption one of the hymns speaks of “grace coming into the world” at the words of the Archangel Gabriel.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thank you, Alex!

Well, I always thought St Augustine got a “bad rap” in the East . . .

Good for you - rap isn’t my cup of tea, but one must become all things to all people and that sort of thing!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Liturgically, at least, the Orthodox Church denies the Immaculate Conception.

For the Feast of the Assumption one of the hymns speaks of “grace coming into the world” at the words of the Archangel Gabriel.

The Orthodox Church never had the Augustinian notion of Original Sin so it never raised this matter liturgically or theologically.

But there can be no doubt that the Orthodox Church affirms the all-Holiness and “Ever-Holiness” of the Mother of God and liturgically venerates her as a Saint on the feast of her Conception.

That is more than sufficient to affirm in pith and substance what the Immaculate Conception dogmatizes - that the Mother of God never had any sin on her soul, ever.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Of course the canon of scripture is manmade (unless we buy into the idea that the complete canon of scripture fell from the sky). That being said, the fact that so many different people eventually agreed on most of the books is obviously the work of the Holy Spirit.

Two, if you recon that will is a faculty of nature and not hypostasis.

How many believed in that exact and precise language? Probably none. How many believed that the Christ willed both according to his divinity and humanity? Probably a majority.

There is a huge difference. The teaching that Jesus wills both according to his divinity and humanity has good scriptural support from the agony in the Garden. The only scriptural support I’ve seen for the immaculate conception are a bunch of vaguely interpreted Old Testament texts.

Except you get the likes of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great who speculated on whether Mary was sinless or if she was ever-virgin. Obviously, this is a pious belief, not fitting to be made into a dogma, because there were plenty who taught otherwise, and especially because it doesn’t impact our salvation.

Possibly, but it is also possible that you are taking the second Eve metaphor too far. Nobody would dare blasphemously to assert that the Theotokos was Jesus’ wife because Eve was Adam’s wife.

The Orthodox Church has always liturgically celebrated Mary’s All-Holiness and that she never had any sin on her soul. The Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate had no sin, ever. She was never alienated from God, period. Let’s not speculate any further than this.

Alex

 

[Byz_Guy]

The Orthodox Church has always liturgically celebrated Mary’s All-Holiness and that she never had any sin on her soul. The Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate had no sin, ever. She was never alienated from God, period. Let’s not speculate any further than this.

Alex

Very well put!

One can see this very clearly in the liturgical texts from the Menaion that speak of her holy birth and events from her childhood:

web.archive.org/web/20021220024433/http://members.aol.com/michaelrahoza/Theotokos.html?mtbrand=AOL_US

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox Church never had the Augustinian notion of Original Sin so it never raised this matter liturgically or theologically.

But there can be no doubt that the Orthodox Church affirms the all-Holiness and “Ever-Holiness” of the Mother of God and liturgically venerates her as a Saint on the feast of her Conception.

That is more than sufficient to affirm in pith and substance what the Immaculate Conception dogmatizes - that the Mother of God never had any sin on her soul, ever.

Alex

I disagree.

We celebrate the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, yet hold no equivalent doctrines toward him being sinless from birth. And as I said, the liturgy explicitly contradicts the Catholic doctrine.

 

[Marybeloved]

I disagree.

We celebrate the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, yet hold no equivalent doctrines toward him being sinless from birth. And as I said, the liturgy explicitly contradicts the Catholic doctrine.

How?

 

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox Church never had the Augustinian notion of Original Sin so it never raised this matter liturgically or theologically.

But there can be no doubt that the Orthodox Church affirms the all-Holiness and “Ever-Holiness” of the Mother of God and liturgically venerates her as a Saint on the feast of her Conception.

That is more than sufficient to affirm in pith and substance what the Immaculate Conception dogmatizes - that the Mother of God never had any sin on her soul, ever.

Alex

The IC dogma says that Mary had no stain of Original Sin. While this doesn’t explicitly affirm the Augustinian notion of Original Sin (i.e. it doesn’t explicitly say "The rest of us do have a stain of Original Sin), that is strongly implied.

 

[Byz_Guy]

I disagree.

We celebrate the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, yet hold no equivalent doctrines toward him being sinless from birth. And as I said, the liturgy explicitly contradicts the Catholic doctrine.

However, the liturgy explicitly refers to the Theotokos as immaculate and pure for both the feasts of the Nativity of the Theotokos and the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. It would be a mistake to use these texts to support the Western interpretations regarding Original Sin, etc. But, the texts do emphasize her holiness early on.

 

[Dollinger]

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

Doctrine of infallibility of the bishop of Rome was unknown. St Hilary sent the anathema on Liberius because he thought he had fallen away from the faith. And ex cathedra issue is irelevant, since it didnt exist before Rome went in schism.

She’s only providing youtube videos by Protestants to prove her point. I’ve asked her to provide (sainted, pre-schism) Church Fathers that disagree with the Catholic position, but she provides none

St Firmilian didnt agree with the vatican position:

Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all.

It was about Pope Stephen. We understand from this that st Firmilian didnt think communion with Rome was the criteria for being part of the Church, and that the See of Peter could fall away from the Faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did hear that the idea of Supremacy and Infallibility really only developed after the schism when Rome was left to govern on its own. The empire and all the other patriarchs were in the East, so the Pope became bishop and sort-of emperor in the West.