The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[dzheremi]

We dispute the proposition that the dogma places the Theotokos outside of human nature.

Of course you do. I wouldn’t expect anything else. But the Orthodox still see it as doing that (not just my particular Church; all of our churches do).

You don’t have to agree with us, of course. You don’t even have to engage us. But you will know and now do know that we dispute and contradict such understandings of the dogma as untrue, unpatristic, and non-Traditional.

And we say that the dogma itself is untrue, unpatristic, and non-Traditional.

Understood. I don’t think anyone here wants you or your church to suddenly adopt exclusively Latin terminology. From our perspective, you believe what we believe anyway, although you express it quite differently. So we’re perfectly happy to leave this alone.

Hmm. You believe that the Virgin was immaculately conceived by her parents Joachim and Anna. We do not. So I don’t think it’s a matter of believing the same thing but expressing it very differently, but I’m used to that by now around these parts, so okay. It’s wrong, but I don’t want another dozen pages of this.

But we won’t just ignore it if, instead of ignoring it, you start asserting things about the teaching that aren’t true. I do hope that doesn’t offend you, dzheremi.

What I’m asserting is that the Orthodox do not believe in the IC, since that’s what my post was about in the first place. It was later that Mardukm started up with his same old “That is not what Rome teaches” routine. Fine. That’s not what Rome teaches. And the filioque, and papal supremacy, and everything else that separates the Roman Church from the Orthodox is likewise a series of hilarious misunderstandings. We’re the original Odd Couple. Rome still does not share the Orthodox faith from our point of view, so it doesn’t matter if you believe that we believe the same things. We don’t believe that. We believe that the IC is unnecessary at best.

Sanctified from the moment of her conception, yes. That’s the dogmatic core of the Immaculate Conception, stripped of its Latin terminology.

That may be the goal (to express that idea), but it is done in a way that is not acceptable to a great many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics (see Apotheoun’s post). Also, I’m not entirely sure we’d understand “sanctified” in the same manner, but anyway, the point is that this is not sufficient to make it acceptable.

I can’t speak for your church, dzheremi, but the Byzantines’ Divine Liturgy on the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple states that when she entered the Temple as an infant, she brought divine grace with her.

Yes, and we say similarly in our Theotokias. That doesn’t mean that we believe in the IC, so what are you getting at?

As I said, the Immaculate Conception is unworthy of great controversy.

It sure seems to be if you look at its history, including the Latin theologians that long opposed it. But I agree, in the sense that it is unnecessary, and we do not need to argue about unnecessary things. Only when you say that we believe in it when we don’t will you get any sort of reply from me (kind of like what you wrote above about me misrepresenting RC dogma; I guess you don’t see when you guys do the same thing regarding the Orthodox, because to you we really believe the same thing)

Is Christ’s death on the cross not necessary for the salvation of Saint John the Baptist, since he was uniquely redeemed while still in the womb?

Of course Christ’s death was necessary. Christ’s death was and is necessary for everyone’s salvation, no exceptions (not even St. Mary).

 

[mardukm]

It seems the principle that brother Dzheremi is supporting is that the explanations a certain Church offfers for her own beliefs and teachings are useless in ecumenical dialogue, because it is the understanding that others hold about that belief (not the actual teaching of the Church herself) that matters.

If any person is perfectly justified to impose his own understanding on the teaching of others, what is the point of ecumenical dialogue, or of trying to convince Protestants back into the fold?

Easterns will pray “Mary save us.” Protestants say this is a sure sign of heresy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the Protestants are perfectly justified in believing this and it is useless for us to explain what the statement actually means to us.

There was a time when Chalcedonians believed that the Oriental Orthodox taught the heresy of Eutyches. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the explanations of Oriental Orthodox are absolutely useless and the Chalcedonians were perfectly justified in their opinion that Oriental Orthodox are heretics.

Protestants believe that the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints deprives Christ of His Mediatorship in our salvation. It is the understanding of Protestants that really matters objectively, so it is useless for us to explain to them what the intercession of Saints really means.

I used to believe that the Eastern Orthodox taught that there were 5 Gods in the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Essence and Energy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, I was perfectly justified in my understanding, and the explanations of Eastern Orthodox for their own belief is useless.

There are Eastern Orthodox today who think the doctirne of Filioque teaches that it is the Essence that is the Source of the Persons. Never mind that the Council of Lyons explicitly taught that the Essence is NOT the Source of the Persons, because in the end, it is only what others think the doctrine means (not what the doctrine actually teaches) that matters.

Brother Dzheremi’s position seems to be nothing more than this: “You must understand Orthodoxy according to what we teach, not according to your own misunderstanding. Let us clear up your misunderstanding of us. However, we don’t need to offer you the same respect. Our misunderstanding of your teaching is just fine and we don’t need to listen to you.”

God, who hates weights and balances, will be the judge of all this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[nordskoven]

Truth is unitive. This unity is to some extent missing between the Petrine Church and the other apostolic Orthodox Churches. That Marian dogma should be a point of contention is doubly troubling as the Orthodox have her in the highest veneration. Perhaps that is the problem. Contradistinct from Hannah, Samuel’s mother, who was called “blessed above women,” the Virgin Mary is called by the Archangel Gabriel, “Blessed among women.” This is the universalising of the Genesis 3:15 role of Woman; with the collective term “Seed” nicely defining “Seed” as the Body of Christ.

Lucifer was the creature having the fullest endowment of attributes of all God’s creation. So what? Attributes mean nothing without purity of intent. The Church has approved the apparitions at Fatima with the message, “God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart” as Our Lady of the Rosary conveyed.

Perhaps the best resolution to the schism and allegations of heresy would be if Peter and the bishops consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart as requested at one time in a solemn, public ceremony for the conversion of that nation. It is not enough to say, “Russia is orthodox.” Schism and heresy are not fruits of the Holy Spirit and this would settle the matter most elegantly.

Enoch and Elijah were assumed into Heaven as the Virgin Mary was per the dogma of the Petrine Church. This salvific predestination is resolved by John in his Apocalypse 13:8 with the Beast conquering the world and being worshiped by all excepting those “…whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The incarnation of Christ; His consecration of His Body and Blood of the Last Supper; and the crucifixion consummation occurred in time; and occurred in eternity. This is why we are not crucifying Christ anew.

The Lady of the Angels title is honoring the Virgin Mary’s positional superiority, not fullness of attributes, as man will judge the angels though man is created a little less than the angels. And it is the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Heart, her purity of intent evidenced in loving obedience and fidelity, that makes her the Lady of the Angels, her will being one with God’s. Etymologically, she may be called the Queen of Angels as this word is derived from the Genesis 3:15 term, woman/gyne/gwena/queen. The Virgin Mary is the Queen-Mother of Genesis 3:15 and, while perfectly fulfilling Gensis 3:15, this is imputed to all women as she is blessed “among” women.

We are enfolded, encompassed, in familial ties; adopted and ingrafted into Christ’s family; under Genesis 3:15 hallowing of the Woman & Seed with “Jesus being Jewish because His mother is Jewish”; and under the overshadowing and hallowing of marriage of the Virgin Mary to the Holy Spirit; suffering persecution as her “other children” in Genesis 12 as part of the Body of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who may not ally Himself with or forgive any sin against His person. We shall share marital unity with that divine Person that can forgive sin–Christ as the Bridegroom when He returns for His Bride, the Church.

The sorrows of schism are profound. The Blessed Virgin Mary possesses that terrible charism of being “pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed.” The Immaculate Heart’s sorrow over the beliefs and practices of Russia–including Islam, Orthodoxy and other faiths–and the Petrine Church will actualize this charism of cleansing revelation and ratify the victory of the Way, Truth & Life. May we all eagerly await this long-postponed consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart and this elegant solution to the divide that separates us, the family of God. “And the Spirit & the Bride say, ‘Come.’”

 

[mardukm]

Of course Christ’s death was necessary. Christ’s death was and is necessary for everyone’s salvation, no exceptions (not even St. Mary).

Yup, and the dogma on the IC with its Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary was redeemed by Christ’s Sacrifice. So where is the objection on this point?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Eastern Church refers to Her as “Ever Immaculate”. Its in ink. And its believed She had no birth pains and remained ever Immaculate before, during and after giving Birth.

Only point of contention is Her birth. Its also believed Mary corrects man’s dominion over women per Genesis. In other words when the Archangel said 'The Lord is with you" all depts of affliction were erased from the curse, the garden didn’t apply to Her. Mans lordship ended abruptly here with the Angels words. That’s according to the Word of God. This also relates hand in hand with how virginity with women has faired since this period. Women really didn’t have this choice in the ancient world. So mans condition does not apply to God, nor does His affliction on man.

Oh this is a very long story with Mary, and we could rest assure God build a Temple for Himself and called Her Mary. I’m pretty sure he didn’t overlook anything, that is according to Tradition.

 

[mardukm]

Of course you do. I wouldn’t expect anything else. But the Orthodox still see it as doing that (not just my particular Church; all of our churches do).

But what justifies non-Catholics for believing this? When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, it was for four reasons:

(1) Mary had no free will because of the IC. The Apostolic Constitution states that Mary GREW in holiness. The teaching of ALL the Churches is that holiness grows ONLY if we RESPOND to the Grace given us. So this cannot be what the IC is teaching.

(2) Mary did not have concupisence (the inclination to sin). Adam and Eve had no concupiscence. Are the Orthodox now teaching that Adam and Eve did not have a human nature? If the lack of concupiscence in Adam and Eve is not an indication that Adam and Eve did not have a fully human nature, how can Orthodox claim that the fact that Mary had no concupiscence means she did not have a fully human nature?

(3) Mary did not suffer mortality. All I’ve got to say to this is - show us a single Catholic Magisterial document that teaches this. Why should Catholics accept the imposition of this misunderstanding on our teaching?

(4) Mary did not have a natural human conception. Pope Alexander VII way back in the 17th century authoritatvely affirmed, in response to the errors of certain Latin theologians who opined that Mary did not have a natural human conception, that Mary was conceived by Sts Joachim and Hannah in the exact same way every human being was. He also affirmed that the term “conception” in the expression “Immaculate Conception” refers to the spiritual conception of Mary, not the physical conception.

Can you think of any other reason (that has not been answered) for non-Catholics to claim that the IC teaches that Mary did not have a fully human nature?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have been on the receiving end of racism and prejudice for most of my younger years living in the united states because of my not-light-enough skin color. Certain people just judged me on my appearance, and did not want to get to know me for who I really am. This is exactly analogous to what I see here.

I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for the attitude of brother Dzheremi who claims that it is only his impression of what the Catholic Church teaches that matters, not what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

There are certain people here who think that we need to respect the misunderstanding others have of us. I accept that only to a point. If people have grown up in a certain way of thinking, it is difficult to overcome that. But for someone to come on here and have the attitude that they don’t even want to listen to what others say about what the Catholic Church teaches about herself, and to put down people who attempt to give understanding… Well, that’s just prejudice pure and simple. There is nothing to be respected about that attitude.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Marduk … please do me a favor and rethink that last post. Doesn’t it seem just a wee bit more harsh than necessary?

 

[RyanBlack]

Marduk … please do me a favor and rethink that last post. Doesn’t it seem just a wee bit more harsh than necessary?

Yep.

 

[joe370]

It seems the principle that brother Dzheremi is supporting is that the explanations a certain Church offfers for her own beliefs and teachings are useless in ecumenical dialogue, because it is the understanding that others hold about that belief (not the actual teaching of the Church herself) that matters.

If any person is perfectly justified to impose his own understanding on the teaching of others, what is the point of ecumenical dialogue, or of trying to convince Protestants back into the fold?

Easterns will pray “Mary save us.” Protestants say this is a sure sign of heresy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the Protestants are perfectly justified in believing this and it is useless for us to explain what the statement actually means to us.

There was a time when Chalcedonians believed that the Oriental Orthodox taught the heresy of Eutyches. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the explanations of Oriental Orthodox are absolutely useless and the Chalcedonians were perfectly justified in their opinion that Oriental Orthodox are heretics.

Protestants believe that the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints deprives Christ of His Mediatorship in our salvation. It is the understanding of Protestants that really matters objectively, so it is useless for us to explain to them what the intercession of Saints really means.

I used to believe that the Eastern Orthodox taught that there were 5 Gods in the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Essence and Energy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, I was perfectly justified in my understanding, and the explanations of Eastern Orthodox for their own belief is useless.

There are Eastern Orthodox today who think the doctirne of Filioque teaches that it is the Essence that is the Source of the Persons. Never mind that the Council of Lyons explicitly taught that the Essence is NOT the Source of the Persons, because in the end, it is only what others think the doctrine means (not what the doctrine actually teaches) that matters.

Brother Dzheremi’s position seems to be nothing more than this: “You must understand Orthodoxy according to what we teach, not according to your own misunderstanding. Let us clear up your misunderstanding of us. However, we don’t need to offer you the same respect. Our misunderstanding of your teaching is just fine and we don’t need to listen to you.”

God, who hates weights and balances, will be the judge of all this.

Blessings,
Marduk

That seems like a fair and balanced assessment, although a bit out of character for you, but I certainly understand…

 

[joe370]

I have been on the receiving end of racism and prejudice for most of my younger years living in the united states because of my not-light-enough skin color. Certain people just judged me on my appearance, and did not want to get to know me for who I really am. This is exactly analogous to what I see here.

I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for the attitude of brother Dzheremi who claims that it is only his impression of what the Catholic Church teaches that matters, not what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

There are certain people here who think that we need to respect the misunderstanding others have of us. I accept that only to a point. If people have grown up in a certain way of thinking, it is difficult to overcome that. But for someone to come on here and have the attitude that they don’t even want to listen to what others say about what the Catholic Church teaches about herself, and to put down people who attempt to give understanding… Well, that’s just prejudice pure and simple. There is nothing to be respected about that attitude.

Blessings,
Marduk

Totally agree, but like I always say: kill them with kindness; in the end you will walk way feeling better about it; no regrets…not that I am implying that you should regret your phraseology. :nope:

 

[joe370]

But what justifies non-Catholics for believing this? When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, it was for four reasons:

(1) Mary had no free will because of the IC. The Apostolic Constitution states that Mary GREW in holiness. The teaching of ALL the Churches is that holiness grows ONLY if we RESPOND to the Grace given us. So this cannot be what the IC is teaching.

(2) Mary did not have concupisence (the inclination to sin). Adam and Eve had no concupiscence. Are the Orthodox now teaching that Adam and Eve did not have a human nature? If the lack of concupiscence in Adam and Eve is not an indication that Adam and Eve did not have a fully human nature, how can Orthodox claim that the fact that Mary had no concupiscence means she did not have a fully human nature?

(3) Mary did not suffer mortality. All I’ve got to say to this is - show us a single Catholic Magisterial document that teaches this. Why should Catholics accept the imposition of this misunderstanding on our teaching?

(4) Mary did not have a natural human conception. Pope Alexander VII way back in the 17th century authoritatvely affirmed, in response to the errors of certain Latin theologians who opined that Mary did not have a natural human conception, that Mary was conceived by Sts Joachim and Hannah in the exact same way every human being was. He also affirmed that the term “conception” in the expression “Immaculate Conception” refers to the spiritual conception of Mary, not the physical conception.

Can you think of any other reason (that has not been answered) for non-Catholics to claim that the IC teaches that Mary did not have a fully human nature?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

I love brother Dzheremi as my brother in Christ in the apostolic Faith. I am criticiing only one element in his thinking. That it is the impression that a person has about others that determines the truth of a matter. I have no respect for that attitude. It is not only inimical to Christian charity in every day living, but also inimical to ecumenical dialogue in pursuit of understanding and unity.

If this was not his intention by criticizing the statement “this is not what the Catholic Church teaches” and for stating “But the Orthodox still see it as doing that,” let him explain so. If he is open to the pursuit of understanding between the Churches, then let him explain so, and I will fully retract my statement. If he only has something against me in particular, let him explain so, and I will also fully retract my statement (I mean if people have something against me personally, that’s ok; I’m not the type of person that would let that get in the way of my love and respect for others; I don’t live by “do unto others as they do unto you,” but rather I live by Jesus’ words “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[brb3]

It seems the principle that brother Dzheremi is supporting is that the explanations a certain Church offfers for her own beliefs and teachings are useless in ecumenical dialogue, because it is the understanding that others hold about that belief (not the actual teaching of the Church herself) that matters.

If any person is perfectly justified to impose his own understanding on the teaching of others, what is the point of ecumenical dialogue, or of trying to convince Protestants back into the fold?

Easterns will pray “Mary save us.” Protestants say this is a sure sign of heresy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the Protestants are perfectly justified in believing this and it is useless for us to explain what the statement actually means to us.

There was a time when Chalcedonians believed that the Oriental Orthodox taught the heresy of Eutyches. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, the explanations of Oriental Orthodox are absolutely useless and the Chalcedonians were perfectly justified in their opinion that Oriental Orthodox are heretics.

Protestants believe that the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints deprives Christ of His Mediatorship in our salvation. It is the understanding of Protestants that really matters objectively, so it is useless for us to explain to them what the intercession of Saints really means.

I used to believe that the Eastern Orthodox taught that there were 5 Gods in the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Essence and Energy. According to the thinking of brother Dzheremi, I was perfectly justified in my understanding, and the explanations of Eastern Orthodox for their own belief is useless.

There are Eastern Orthodox today who think the doctirne of Filioque teaches that it is the Essence that is the Source of the Persons. Never mind that the Council of Lyons explicitly taught that the Essence is NOT the Source of the Persons, because in the end, it is only what others think the doctrine means (not what the doctrine actually teaches) that matters.

Brother Dzheremi’s position seems to be nothing more than this: “You must understand Orthodoxy according to what we teach, not according to your own misunderstanding. Let us clear up your misunderstanding of us. However, we don’t need to offer you the same respect. Our misunderstanding of your teaching is just fine and we don’t need to listen to you.”

God, who hates weights and balances, will be the judge of all this.

Its almost as bad as the perennial, incessant arguing of Sadducces & Pharisees
…both to whom Christ railed against, saying neither was worthy/righteous enough to enter the Kingdom.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Putting Mardukm’s inappropriate racial analogies aside (as I didn’t find them illuminating last time, either), there is something to be said for allowing Vatican documents to stand for themselves, and I have not done anything else in this thread. For those for whom these documents are teaching the truth, then it obviously does not do to point out that the Orthodox would object to the doctrines that they outline. So I get this whole “but what about what the doctrine actually says” idea. You are saying that the IC does not say what the Orthodox apologetics say that it does. That you disagree with the idea that it puts her outside of human nature. That’s fine. All I’m saying is that when Orthodox read the Vatican documents, that’s how it seems. Again we are heading back into the same territory that Mardukm and I have been in time and time again, so I’ll just say it once again and bold it so that Mardukm can read it and I won’t have to repeat it over and over: There is a world of difference between accepting the claims of Rome as claims (as in, “Rome is claiming X”) and accepting Roman claims as true (“X is true”). Reading through Ineffabilis Deus, the document in which the IC is defined, we find things like the following:

“Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.”

This is just a plain untrue statement, I’d say. The celebration of St. Mary’s birth occurs on May 9 every year in the Coptic Orthodox Church (Bashons 1 in the Coptic calendar), and you will not find a mention in it of such ideas as her soul being “preserved from all stain of original sin”, either “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ” or by any other way. We don’t believe such things. Even certain Latin saints taught against this doctrine. It is not terribly ancient, by any unbiased (read: non-retroactive) account. And this is not only the case in the Coptic Church, but in all Orthodox churches likewise. When you do find Orthodox using terms like “original sin”, a little bit of investigation in context generally shows that they have very different understandings of what those terms mean than the Latins do. So you’ll see HG Bishop Youssef using them in the Q&A I posted earlier, but also saying that we do not believe in the IC. So “original sin” in that case must not include some “stain” that St. Mary must be preserved from, since we do not affirm it (so it’s wrong in its mechanism and wrong in the problem it is claiming to cure, which is not an actual problem in the first place, but the result of Roman speculations). Now, you could say “well, you do, but you don’t think you” (as Fonebone has said to Apotheoun), but how is that different than my stance that the IC really does teach error when RCs say it doesn’t? Obviously one (or maybe both) is wrong, as it is clear that the IC says…something. But what it says – again, based on what I’ve read in the document that proclaimed it – is wrong. St. Mary was not “stained”, as we are not stained either, so there is nothing to be preserved from. The Theotokos was born in the natural way, with no special exceptions to the one human nature involved in her conception or her birth, and as such the IC is unnecessary. We are born with the results of the sin introduced to the world by Adam and Eve (mortality), but that’s it. What can be said to be removed, the power of sin and death which is the consequence of sin, is removed by the redemption of Christ on the cross, not by St. Mary being singled out as receiving some sort of extra special grace as Ineffabilis Deus claims ("…by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…").

Anyway, enough. I hope I’ve explained why I wrote what I did. The point is not to say “we don’t have to listen to what Catholics say they mean”, but rather “we don’t have to agree with what the documents say”. So when we read these documents and come away with certain objections that you as RCs don’t find to be convincing, it’s okay. We don’t find the documents themselves convincing in the first place, or else we’d already agree with you. And you say we already do.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Hmm. Putting Mardukm’s inappropriate racial analogies aside (as I didn’t find them illuminating last time, either), there is something to be said for allowing Vatican documents to stand for themselves, and I have not done anything else in this thread. For those for whom these documents are teaching the truth, then it obviously does not do to point out that the Orthodox would object to the doctrines that they outline. So I get this whole “but what about what the doctrine actually says” idea.

Thank you. This indicates that you are more open to understanding between the Churches than your previous posts seemed to suggest. I retract my previous statement.

You are saying that the IC does not say what the Orthodox apologetics say that it does. That you disagree with the idea that it puts her outside of human nature. That’s fine. All I’m saying is that when Orthodox read the Vatican documents, that’s how it seems.

And it seemed like Oriental Orthodox were Eutychians to the Chalcedonians. Should we miaphysites have bothered to correct them on their misunderstanding of what our Faith actually teaches, or should we have let their perception stand? Whose explanation was objectively correct - the explanation of Chalcedonians that viewed our Faith as Euthychianism, or our explanation of our own Faith?

Again we are heading back into the same territory that Mardukm and I have been in time and time again, so I’ll just say it once again and bold it so that Mardukm can read it and I won’t have to repeat it over and over: There is a world of difference between accepting the claims of Rome as claims (as in, “Rome is claiming X”) and accepting Roman claims as true (“X is true”).

We’ve never had this conversation before. I was involved in a thread where you stated this, but I never engaged you in it, for I thought you meant by that statement merely that claims don’t stand by themselves as claims but require reasoned proof. So at that point I did not comment because I agreed with it as I understood it at that time. I did not know you meant that you should not listen to the Catholic Church’s explanations of its own teachings. Is the latter what you are saying? If so, then (1) why should the Chalcedonians bother to listen to us about the explanations of our Faith as miaphysitesl (2) What is the point of ecumenical dialogue of the explanation of the other side about what they are actually teaching does not matter a whit?

Reading through Ineffabilis Deus, the document in which the IC is defined, we find things like the following: This is just a plain untrue statement, I’d say. The celebration of St. Mary’s birth occurs on May 9 every year in the Coptic Orthodox Church (Bashons 1 in the Coptic calendar), and you will not find a mention in it of such ideas as her soul being “preserved from all stain of original sin”, either “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ” or by any other way. We don’t believe such things.

Of course not, because those terms are unfamiliar in our theological context. But unfamiliarity in theological terminology does not make such terminology automatically heretical does it? Have you heard the explanation of the Catholic Church on these matters? Don’t just stand on the terminologies. St. Paul exhorts us not to argue over mere words. Until you can say that the explanation provided by the Catholic Church is heterodox, then how can you say the belief is actually heretical? I have not seen a single Orthodox apologetic (Oriental or Eastern) even able to address the explanations of the CC - for example, with regards to the issue of Mary having a human nature. Can you provide responses that can justify - at least on that particular issue of Mary’s human nature as noted in post# 86 - a continued claim that the IC is “heresy?”

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Even certain Latin saints taught against this doctrine.

Not a single Latin saint taught against the doctrine of the IC. The doctrine teaches that at the first instance of her SPIRITUAL conception, Mary was graced by God with the merits of Christ from the cross. This is exactly what the late medieval Latin theologians taught. The only difference was that they believed that the spiritual conception occurred at a different, later point in time than the physical conception. The Latin theologians who (supposedly) taught against the IC believed that ONLY JESUS had an immaculate PHYSICAL conception. But guess what - the doctrine of the IC does not refer to the physical conception of Mary, but only her spiritual conception. In other words, the doctrine of the IC does not teach that Mary’s physical conception was immaculate, but that her spiritual conception was immaculate. So the late medieval Latin theologians are in agreement with the doctrinal matter of the immaculateness of her SPIRITUAL conception.

When you do find Orthodox using terms like “original sin”, a little bit of investigation in context generally shows that they have very different understandings of what those terms mean than the Latins do.

Exactly. So if you recognize that the term has a different meaning to Latins, then obviously, the next step is to ask, “what do the Latins mean by ‘original sin’?” instead of imposing the non-Latin understanding on original sin upon the dogma. I’ll give you an analogy close to home, When we miaphysites say that Christ has “one nature,” it means something completely different to us than what Chalcedonians mean by the same term. Are the Chalcedonians justified in imposing their understanding of “one nature” on us, or is it more correct, for the sake of the divine law of unity and charity, to seek to understand what WE mean by the term “one nature?” In the exact same way that I affirm that Chalcedonians have absolutely no justification to impose their own understanding of the term “one nature” on us, I also affirm that non-Catholics have absolutely no justification to impose their own understanding of Catholic teaching on Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching must be understood according to how the Catholic Church teaches it, not according to what non-Catholics think it means.

So you’ll see HG Bishop Youssef using them in the Q&A I posted earlier, but also saying that we do not believe in the IC. So “original sin” in that case must not include some “stain” that St. Mary must be preserved from, since we do not affirm it (so it’s wrong in its mechanism and wrong in the problem it is claiming to cure, which is not an actual problem in the first place, but the result of Roman speculations).

First of all, I’m almost positive that St. Athanasius used the word “stain” to refer to original sin. Other Fathers used the word “spot” or “mark” or “blemish,” Secondly, as explained, the word “stain” to Latins means the absence of Original Justice/Original Holiness (i.e., spiritual separation from God), which is a consequence of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. In this light - i.e., according to how the Latins use the term - do you see the problem of stating that it is “wrong in the problem it is claiming to cure?” Basically you are yourself claiming that Mary did not need redemption.

Now, you could say “well, you do, but you don’t think you” (as Fonebone has said to Apotheoun), but how is that different than my stance that the IC really does teach error when RCs say it doesn’t?

The BIG difference is that brother Fonebone presupposes the need to understand the Latin theological terminologies according to how the Latins understand it, while your premise seems to be the exact opposite - that it is OK to impose non-Latin understandings on the Latin teaching. If what you say is the correct approach, then Chalcedonians were perfectly justified in imposing their own understanding of “one nature” on how we miaphysites use the term and for calling us heretics; Protestants are prefectly justified (because of their misunderstanding) to say that Eastern Orthodox are heretics for the prayer “Mary save us”; etc.; etc. Can you give a reason why your rationale does not reasonbly lead to these conclusions?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Obviously one (or maybe both) is wrong, as it is clear that the IC says…something.

Or it could be a matter of misunderstanding. Do you completely discount such a possibility?

But what it says – again, based on what I’ve read in the document that proclaimed it – is wrong. St. Mary was not “stained”, as we are not stained either, so there is nothing to be preserved from. The Theotokos was born in the natural way, with no special exceptions to the one human nature involved in her conception or her birth, and as such the IC is unnecessary. We are born with the results of the sin introduced to the world by Adam and Eve (mortality), but that’s it.

I must strongly challenge you on this. Show me a single Coptic Orthodox source that claims that the ONLY consequence of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve is mortality. I have lived the Coptic Tradition most of my entire life, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the COC teaches - and has always taught - that not only mortality, but also spiritual separation from God, were the conseqences of Original Sin. I’m not sure if you are claiming this is what CO’xy teaches, or if this is your own personal belief, but I suggest - as a brother of the Coptic Tradition - that if you claim to adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Faith, you adhere to it correctly, and represent it to others correctly.

What can be said to be removed, the power of sin and death which is the consequence of sin, is removed by the redemption of Christ on the cross, not by St. Mary being singled out as receiving some sort of extra special grace as Ineffabilis Deus claims ("…by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…").

I explained this whole matter earlier - that the term “merits of Jesus Christ” refers exactly to the Grace of the Cross. Are you saying it is completely outside of the Orthodox experience to refer to the application of the saving power of the Cross on the Christian as “grace?”

Anyway, enough. I hope I’ve explained why I wrote what I did. The point is not to say “we don’t have to listen to what Catholics say they mean”, but rather “we don’t have to agree with what the documents say”. So when we read these documents and come away with certain objections that you as RCs don’t find to be convincing, it’s okay.

Yes, it’s OK. My point has always been that we need to get beyond the theological terminologies and try to understand what the other side is actually saying. If the theological terminologies are causing confusion and rejection, that’s completely understandable. But that is no reason to blindly or blithely reject the explanation of those terminologies by the other party, for we may not actually be understanding those terminologies in the same way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jwinch2]

One thing I would add is that it seems to be a common occurrence in the Catholic Church for official definitions of a dogma to be presented within a council but not included in the documents of the dogma itself. For example, I would refer you to Gasser’s Relatio giving the official definition of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I prior to it being voted upon, but then not being included in Pastor Aeternus. In addition, it is common for Rome to define a dogma and then later come to more clearly explain, in an authoritative fashion, what the dogma actually means and how it is to be applied. This can also be clearly seen following Vatican I.

Long story short, Church documents on a particular dogma don’t seem to contain all necessary information to properly understand and apply the dogma in question. There is little doubt that the Immaculate Conceptions falls into this category as well.

 

[brb3]

Hmm. Putting Mardukm’s inappropriate racial analogies aside (as I didn’t find them illuminating last time, either), there is something to be said for allowing Vatican documents to stand for themselves, and I have not done anything else in this thread. For those for whom these documents are teaching the truth, then it obviously does not do to point out that the Orthodox would object to the doctrines that they outline. So I get this whole “but what about what the doctrine actually says” idea. You are saying that the IC does not say what the Orthodox apologetics say that it does. That you disagree with the idea that it puts her outside of human nature. That’s fine. All I’m saying is that when Orthodox read the Vatican documents, that’s how it seems. Again we are heading back into the same territory that Mardukm and I have been in time and time again, so I’ll just say it once again and bold it so that Mardukm can read it and I won’t have to repeat it over and over: There is a world of difference between accepting the claims of Rome as claims (as in, “Rome is claiming X”) and accepting Roman claims as true (“X is true”). Reading through Ineffabilis Deus, the document in which the IC is defined, we find things like the following:

This is just a plain untrue statement, I’d say. The celebration of St. Mary’s birth occurs on May 9 every year in the Coptic Orthodox Church (Bashons 1 in the Coptic calendar), and you will not find a mention in it of such ideas as her soul being “preserved from all stain of original sin”, either “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ” or by any other way. We don’t believe such things. Even certain Latin saints taught against this doctrine. It is not terribly ancient, by any unbiased (read: non-retroactive) account. And this is not only the case in the Coptic Church, but in all Orthodox churches likewise. When you do find Orthodox using terms like “original sin”, a little bit of investigation in context generally shows that they have very different understandings of what those terms mean than the Latins do. So you’ll see HG Bishop Youssef using them in the Q&A I posted earlier, but also saying that we do not believe in the IC. So “original sin” in that case must not include some “stain” that St. Mary must be preserved from, since we do not affirm it (so it’s wrong in its mechanism and wrong in the problem it is claiming to cure, which is not an actual problem in the first place, but the result of Roman speculations). Now, you could say “well, you do, but you don’t think you” (as Fonebone has said to Apotheoun), but how is that different than my stance that the IC really does teach error when RCs say it doesn’t? Obviously one (or maybe both) is wrong, as it is clear that the IC says…something. But what it says – again, based on what I’ve read in the document that proclaimed it – is wrong. St. Mary was not “stained”, as we are not stained either, so there is nothing to be preserved from. The Theotokos was born in the natural way, with no special exceptions to the one human nature involved in her conception or her birth, and as such the IC is unnecessary. We are born with the results of the sin introduced to the world by Adam and Eve (mortality), but that’s it. What can be said to be removed, the power of sin and death which is the consequence of sin, is removed by the redemption of Christ on the cross, not by St. Mary being singled out as receiving some sort of extra special grace as Ineffabilis Deus claims ("…by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…").

Anyway, enough. I hope I’ve explained why I wrote what I did. The point is not to say “we don’t have to listen to what Catholics say they mean”, but rather “we don’t have to agree with what the documents say”. So when we read these documents and come away with certain objections that you as RCs don’t find to be convincing, it’s okay. We don’t find the documents themselves convincing in the first place, or else we’d already agree with you. And you say we already do.

so, …u would propose that the Document say " CLEANSED OF THE STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN …IN ( or at) the Moment of her conception " ?

You do realize this would be Very Early on …at the ZYGOTE stage of her conception !!! Way before she left the Womb !!