The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[Apotheoun]

Uh…again, how is this different than telling non-Latins that they believe as Latins believe? So it is important that all of us understand the Latins as they understand themselves, but not that the Latins do the same for the rest of us (even their Eastern Catholic compatriots, like Apotheoun)? Isn’t that what you were frothing at the mouth in response to what I supposedly did several posts ago, when other people told you to cool down?

Dzheremi you have described a fairly common apologetical approach among Western Christians. When an Eastern Christian rejects a Western doctrinal theory, e.g., the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque, it is because the Eastern Christian - at least according to certain Western apologists - has failed to properly grasp the real meaning of the Western theory. This type of “argument” (and I use the term “argument” loosely) simply does not hold water. I know plenty of Eastern Orthodox Christians who fully understand the Western theories mentioned above, and who still reject them. Heck, as an Eastern Catholic I reject them, and I do so after having been a Roman Catholic for 18 years, and also after having received a formal graduate level education in Western theology. So Dzheremi is correct, it is possible to grasp the Western teaching and to simultaneously reject it as unnecessary, or inaccurate, or even false.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Theotokos is conceived and born mortal (i.e., subject to death - both physical and spiritual) like us all, and to posit anything else is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.

Adam and Eve were both physical and spiritual like us also. Anything else would also be contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.

You exegesis distracts from the point which is exactly “when”.

No one disagrees that God alone could…

1] Recreate all

2] Suffer for all

3] Represent all to the Father

Repentance could not avert the execution of the Law OT.

 

[Apotheoun]

Adam and Eve were both physical and spiritual like us also. Anything else would also be contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.

You exegesis distracts from the point which is exactly “when”.

No one disagrees that God alone could…

1] Recreate all

2] Suffer for all

3] Represent all to the Father

Repentance could not avert the execution of the Law OT.

No my exegesis - as you call it - does not distract anyone from anything. In fact my point is merely that the ancestral sin brings death (physical and spiritual) to all of mankind. In addition I simply stated a fact, that is, that no one is conceived or born sinful or guilty (however that guilt may be defined), and that the Theotokos - from the moment of her conception - was subject to death (physical and spiritual) like us all. In other words, the Theotokos was subject to all the consequences of the ancestral sin, and the theory of the Immaculate Conception - which is quite foreign to the Orthodox tradition - makes no sense to Eastern Christians, nor is it necessary in the theology of the East.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Theotokos - from the moment of her conception - was subject to death (physical and spiritual) like us all. In other words, the Theotokos was subject to all the consequences of the ancestral sin

Prove it then. My case is presented, repentance could not nor did not avert the law. Keep that in mind when you start. And also what I stated about Adam and Eve. That’s “where” you and I are at in this conversation.

btw lets get off the high horse and resort to Christian Charity. Maybe we can gain understanding, just maybe.

The rest of your post has no relevance here.

 

[joe370]

No my exegesis - as you call it - does not distract anyone from anything. In fact my point is merely that the ancestral sin brings death (physical and spiritual) to all of mankind. In addition I simply stated a fact, that is, that no one is conceived or born sinful or guilty (however that guilt may be defined), and that the Theotokos - from the moment of her conception - was subject to death (physical and spiritual) like us all. In other words, the Theotokos was subject to all the consequences of the ancestral sin, and the theory of the Immaculate Conception - which is quite foreign to the Orthodox tradition - makes no sense to Eastern Christians, nor is it necessary in the theology of the East.

So eastern orthodoxy rejects Mary’s IC due to the disbelief in original sin, but admits that she lived a sin-free life, In other words, as per another EO Christian:

“Tradition tells us that she never sinned at all, not even in thought. We also believe that she became holier than all of the angels, Heaven itself, and indeed all of creation even before she conceived Christ. Apocryphal writings tell us of her being ministered to by the angels while she was seated upon the altar inside the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant used to be.”

Is that a correct assessment?

 

[Apotheoun]

So eastern orthodoxy rejects Mary’s IC due to the disbelief in original sin, but admits that she lived a sin-free life, In other words, as per another EO Christian:

“Tradition tells us that she never sinned at all, not even in thought. We also believe that she became holier than all of the angels, Heaven itself, and indeed all of creation even before she conceived Christ. Apocryphal writings tell us of her being ministered to by the angels while she was seated upon the altar inside the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant used to be.”

Is that a correct assessment?

Actually I would not agree, because there are Church Fathers who assert that the Theotokos did commit sins during her life time, and there is no consensus among the Fathers that specifically “dates” a moment of sanctification for the Blessed Virgin (e.g., some hold that she was sanctified at her entrance into the Temple, some place it before that event, while still others hold that she was sanctified only at the annunciation and incarnation of the Logos). The sanctification of the Virgin Theotokos is not a dogma in Orthodoxy, and so no one is required to believe in on pain of excommunication or schism. Be that as it may, it is most certainly a pious belief to hold that she remained sinless throughout her life, but no one is required to believe that, because it is simply an opinion, i.e., it is a theologoumenon. No one will go to hell for holding that the Virgin committed personal sins during her life time, nor will a man lose his salvation if he fails to believe that she was sanctified at a particular moment in time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is everything the Early Church Fathers said “infallible” in the EO? Or does that reservation go to the Councils?

 

[Apotheoun]

Prove it then. My case is presented, repentance could not nor did not avert the law. Keep that in mind when you start. And also what I stated about Adam and Eve. That’s “where” you and I are at in this conversation.

btw lets get off the high horse and resort to Christian Charity. Maybe we can gain understanding, just maybe.

The rest of your post has no relevance here.

Prove it, LOL. Prove to me that God is a Trinity of persons.

Your whole approach is Scholastic and Pelagian. I have no interest in proving that the Virgin Theotokos was or was not conceived in some special manner. It is enough for me that she was conceived and born like any other human being, and that she assented to become the Mother of God. All this speculation about the Virgin Mother is pointless. I do not believe in her; instead, I believe only in God.

 

[joe370]

Actually I would not agree…

Well, you are not disagreeing with me; you are disagreeing with an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=244

 

[Apotheoun]

Is everything the Early Church Fathers said “infallible” in the EO? Or does that reservation go to the Councils?

The whole idea of “infallibility” is a late Medieval Western construct that I reject. I believe that the Fathers of the Church (especially when they are assembled in an ecumenical council) are God-inspired, and that what they teach, that is, when there is a clear consensus among them, is binding upon Orthodox Christians. But when the Church Fathers legitimately differ on speculative points, there is, and always shall be, freedom of opinion on the point in question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Prove it, LOL. Prove to me that God is a Trinity of persons.

Your whole approach is Scholastic and Pelagian. I have no interest in proving that the Virgin Theotokos was or was not conceived in some special manner. It is enough for me that she was conceived and born like any other human being, and that she assented to become the Mother of God. All this speculation about the Virgin Mother is pointless. I do not believe in her; instead, I believe only in God.

That’s because there is no refuting whats stated.

So you answer is no answer. Typical terrible strategy to reverse the direct confrontation. And you would be wrong since I’m using all Eastern Fathers in fact Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor. Your argument sounds like Plato with matter before God.

And were still at the critical questions you have no answer for which I did provide.

 

[Apotheoun]

I hold, as an Eastern Catholic, that the theory of the immaculate conception is utterly unnecessary within the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox), and that the Western attempts to dogmatize this particular point in the end only cause arguments and divisions among Christians. The sooner the West stops trying to dogamtize its own theological speculations the sooner there can be real progress in ecumenical dialogue.

 

[joe370]

The whole idea of “infallibility” is a late Medieval Western construct that I reject. I believe that the Fathers of the Church (especially when they were assembled in an ecumenical council) are God-inspired, and that what they teach, that is, when there is a clear consensus among them, is binding upon Orthodox Christians. But when the Church Fathers legitimately differ on speculative points, there is, and always shall be, freedom of opinion on the point in question.

No infallibility i.e. inerrant truth, when the catholic councils defended and defined the Trinitarian dogma in the 4th century? If that is the case perhaps Arius and company were right if said council made a fallible pronouncement. Did the catholic council, (well before the late Medieval Western period) regarding the Trinity, make an infallible declaration or a fallible declaration?

 

[Apotheoun]

That’s because there is no refuting whats stated.

So you answer is no answer. Typical terrible strategy to reverse the direct confrontation. And you would be wrong since I’m using all Eastern Fathers in fact Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor. Your argument sounds like Plato with matter before God.

And were still at the critical questions you have no answer for which I did provide.

From my perspective you have not actually proposed a question; instead, you have simply regurgitated the common Western Catholic viewpoint. I see no need for a theory of immaculate conception, and as an Eastern Catholic I do not believe in such a thing in connection with the conception of the Theotokos.

 

[Apotheoun]

No infallibility i.e. inerrant truth, when the catholic councils defended and defined the Trinitarian dogma? if that is the case perhaps Arius and company were right if said council made a fallible pronouncement. Did the catholic council, (well before the late Medieval Western period) regarding the Trinity, make an infallible declaration or a fallible declaration?

You will never find the word “infallibility” used in the first millennium, but you will find that in the prayers of the Eastern Churches the Holy Fathers are called “God-inspired.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hold, as an Eastern Catholic, that the theory of the immaculate conception is utterly unnecessary within the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox), and that the Western attempts to dogmatize this particular point in the end only cause arguments and divisions among Christians. The sooner the West stops trying to dogamtize its own theological speculations the sooner there can be real progress in ecumenical dialogue.

Apotheoun you’ll never hear me debate the idea of Dogma with you. And I respect your belief and opinion.

 

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun you’ll never here me debate the idea of Dogma with you. And I respect your belief and opinion.

Thank you. If you think about it, there really is no point to debating the issue of the Immaculate Conception, because Eastern Christians do not believe in it, while Western Christians do. The theory makes no sense from an Eastern Christian perspective, but because Westerners have been influenced by the ideas of St. Augustine there has been a desire to protect the Theotokos from a perceived “stain of original sin.”

East and West approach these issues differently, and it is unlikely they will ever agree on the points in dispute.

 

[joe370]

I hold, as an Eastern Catholic, that the theory of the immaculate conception is utterly unnecessary within the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox), and that the Western attempts to dogmatize this particular point in the end only cause arguments and divisions among Christians. The sooner the West stops trying to dogamtize its own theological speculations the sooner there can be real progress in ecumenical dialogue.

Perhaps you should just respect the rights of Catholic Christians to believe in the IC, and Catholic Christians should respect the rights of the Eastern Orthodox Christians to view it as utterly unnecessary? Does not seem fair to suggest the following if in fact it is important to the CC: “The sooner the West (catholic church) stops trying to dogamtize its own theological speculations the sooner there can be real progress in ecumenical dialogue.” Does it? Catholic Christians could suggest the same thing to Eastern Orthodox Christians, but that too would be unreasonable if Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as yourself, truly believe that it is utterly unnecessary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From my perspective you have not actually proposed a question; instead, you have simply regurgitated the common Western Catholic viewpoint. I see no need for a theory of immaculate conception, and as an Eastern Catholic I do not believe in such a thing in connection with the conception of the Theotokos.

Right and you continue to regurgitate nothing. So much for the condescending wit.

The Eastern which I see no need to uphold either in light of what I find lacking also, Being repentance did not avert the law OT. Why exactly is it that Marys did in the “just like us” reality you placed her in?

Is the question clear enough or are you still dancing?

 

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps you should just respect the rights of Catholic Christians to believe in the IC, and Catholic Christians should respect the right of the Eastern Orthodox Christians to view it as utterly unnecessary?

Where have I failed to respect the rights of Roman Catholics to believe theories that are proposed by their sui juris Church? I do not believe that I have anywhere said what Roman Catholics must or must not believe. I have said only that they must stop turning their Church’s theories into dogmas somehow binding on everyone (that is, on Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics alike).

I am not offended by what Roman Catholics believe about the Theotokos even though I do not share their beliefs about her (e.g., the idea that she was immaculately conceived, or that she was impeccable, etc.). I do not see the different approaches to Mariology as necessitating ecclesial division, that is, unless the Roman Catholics wish to impose their specific theories on Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. If they (i.e., Roman Catholics) try to do that there will of course be problems.

Does not seem fair to suggest the following if in fact it is important to the CC: “The sooner the West (catholic church) stops trying to dogamtize its own theological speculations the sooner there can be real progress in ecumenical dialogue.” Does it? Catholic Christians could suggest the same thing to Eastern Orthodox Christians, but that too would be unreasonable if Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as yourself, truly believe that it is utterly unnecessary.

I think it is quite fair, because sadly the Roman Church has often tried to dogmatize its pet theological theories and make them binding on everyone. I think it should stop doing that and worry more about keeping its own house in order.

As far as Orthodox Christians are concerned, I have rarely seen them trying to impose their theological theories on Roman Catholics. Now perhaps it has happened somewhere, but I do not know where.

Postscript: Just a point of clarification . . . I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian; instead I am an Eastern Catholic (Melkite Catholic to be specific).