The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[Vico]

brb3,

Did you know that the Franciscans and the Dominicans debated the issue for hundreds of years until the Holy Father said enough!, under pain of excommunication?

The faith of the Immaculate Conception was expressed in the 1661 A.D. Apostolic Constitution Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum of Pope Alexander VII. But there has been additional commentary and so the dogma includes:

1. freedom from the stain of original sin,
2. freedom from concupiscence, and
3. is a singular privilege which was never granted to another person.

Blessed Pope John Paul II said in 1997:
2. The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception expresses the essential datum of faith. Pope Alexander VII, in the Bull Sollicitudo of 1661, spoke of the preservation of Mary’s soul “in its creation and infusion into the body” (DS 2017). Pius IX’s definition, however, prescinds from all explanations about how the soul is infused into the body and attributes to the person of Mary, at the first moment of her conception, the fact of her being preserved from every stain of original sin.

The freedom “from every stain of original sin” entails as a positive consequence the total freedom from all sin as well as the proclamation of Mary’s perfect holiness, a doctrine to which the dogmatic definition makes a fundamental contribution. In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.

Pius IX’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not explicitly include the freedom from concupiscence. Nevertheless, Mary’s complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which, according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS 1515).

1. Granted “by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God”, this preservation from original sin is an absolutely gratuitous divine favour, which Mary received at the first moment of her existence.

The dogmatic definition does not say that this singular privilege is unique, but lets that be intuited. The affirmation of this uniqueness, however, is explicitly stated in the Encyclical Fulgens corona of 1953, where Pope Pius XII speaks of “the very singular privilege which was never granted to another person” (AAS 45 [1953], 580), thus excluding the possibility, maintained by some but without foundation, of attributing this privilege also to St Joseph.

The Virgin Mother received the singular grace of being immaculately conceived “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race”, that is, of his universal redeeming action.

The text of the dogmatic definition does not expressly declare that Mary was redeemed, but the same Bull Ineffabilis states elsewhere that “she was redeemed in the most sublime way”. This is the extraordinary truth: Christ was the redeemer of his Mother and carried out his redemptive action in her “in the most perfect way” (Fulgens corona, AAS 45 [1953], 581), from the first moment of her existence. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that the Church “admires and exalts in Mary the most excellent fruit of the Redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 103).

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19960612_it.html

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5646

The Dominicans followed St. Thomas Aquinas that sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be before animation because it is 1) the cleansing from stain of original sin, and 2) sin cannot be taken away except by grace for the rational creature alone. So there can be no sanctification before the infusion of the rational soul.

The Franciscans followed Duns Scotus that sanctification after animation must follow in the order of nature rather than of time so the redemption of the Blessed Virgin was through preservation from all sin.

 

[dzheremi]

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?

This is not a very good analogy, as none other than our teacher St. Dioscoros excommunicated Eutyches, so the charge of Eutychianism is contradicted by what the Alexandrian Church actually did. Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. The discussion of the IC seems like something of a different animal, to put it mildly. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “should we have let their perception stand” – that perception is still out there. It didn’t really go anywhere, and only began to be seriously reconsidered quite recently. The Orthodox position on why the IC is wrong has not really be reconsidered, at least not in any of the writings I have consulted about it (not just from the Copts, but also from the Armenians, Ethiopians, and Malankara Orthodox Syrians). So I don’t see the connection beyond your wanting to say that because the Chalcedonians are wrong about the Orthodox Copts, Syrians, Ethiopians, etc., therefore we must be wrong in rejecting the IC. If you want to convince anyone who is Orthodox of that, you need to show why we should believe in it when we never have, not just say that we’ve not understood it as you do. We know that we don’t understand it as you do. We think it is wrong and you think it is right. That’s evidence enough.

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.

I have no idea what this even means. “I was involved in a thread where you stated this, but I never engaged you in it.” Okay. All of my replies to you in any thread are always about this point, because it’s a very basic point and you don’t seem to grasp it.

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?

Effff…again? That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Rome may teach one thing, but the truth is elsewhere (in this particular case and in many others).

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?

Yes. There was even a very long thread here some time ago about whether or not a “treasury of merits” exists. I insist(ed) that it does not, while my RC interlocutors insisted that it did. Much Vaticanese was posted. No one was moved.

Until you can say that the explanation provided by the Catholic Church is heterodox, then how can you say the belief is actually heretical?

There is no Orthodox explanation of un-Orthodox ideas. If Rome came out with a theologically/philosophically brilliant treatise tomorrow explaining that the sky is really green, it would still actually be blue.

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?”

Frankly, why should I? I can certainly find many sources that convince me of the correctness of the Orthodox belief regarding the Theotokos, but it is harder to find so many that will justify to a Catholic the belief that Catholic doctrine is wrong…which is, after all, not what I’m aiming to do here. (Keep in mind, my original post in this thread was to show a RC that Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception. Rome’s self-conception or the self-conception of particular Roman Catholics is something of a different issue than providing evidence that the OO/EO do not believe in the IC.) It is foolishness to suggest that I should produce for you something that will ‘justify’ (to who? You?) what is plainly evident from every Orthodox piece of writing on this topic: St. Mary was born just as you and me, an inheritor of the one human nature (Fr. Tadros Malaty quotes Augustine in saying that she was “sprung from Adam”, with all that entails). That the IC apparently addresses the “stain of Original Sin” as something different than Original Sin itself (as pointed out by another poster; I don’t really get a sense of what the difference might be from reading Ineffabilis Deus, but that’s hardly a shock) is not really of any consequence, then, as we maintain (again) that there was no “stain” to be preserved from in the first place, and that St. Mary is the pride of our race not through special preservation (which would render her personal sinlessness something of an underwhelming achievement, would it not?), but because she bore the Son of God, obeyed her (our) Lord and Savior completely, and remained sinless and pure through that obedience and faith. This is why I have taken great pains in this thread to say that the IC is unnecessary, rather than strictly heretical (I’ll leave that to someone of more theological acumen than me to determine). It addresses a problem that exists only for Western theologians, due to specifically Latin/Western speculation, which is not to be confused with truth or reality.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Marys Nature was just as Adam and Eves, pre-fall. They [Adam and Eve] were no longer in communion with Christ, the fall from Grace was a fall from Communion. They were naked and ashamed “before they were cursed” they were tempted “before” they were cursed, they cultivated and cared for the garden and animals before they were “cursed”. Mary wasn’t “cursed” for you can not be in commiunion with Christ and be cursed by him at the same time.

What was Adam and Eves Nature pre-fall? That was what Marys Human Nature became as a result…per the Early Church Fathers.

One of two things happened here, either were now changing in fact what the early fathers stated, or the teaching is Mary remained Ever Immaculate, before, during and after birth, without birth pains. That is the tradition. Now if you want to say thats our human nature? How? Since the human nature is the point of contention, how is Marys like all other humans with birth and Ever Immaculate according to the East? Can we get the “OFFICIAL” Eastern view with this?

Were the “Early Church Fathers” all wrong here, how about the Bible? Or do we pick and choose which early church father seems to fit what you think?

I’m not sure what all assume happened in that Garden, or what is assumed the human nature of Adam and Eve actually was. There seems to be some undo credit given this pre-fall state.

 

[Vico]

Marys Nature was just as Adam and Eves, pre-fall. They [Adam and Eve] were no longer in communion with Christ, the fall from Grace was a fall from Communion. They were naked and ashamed “before they were cursed” they were tempted “before” they were cursed, they cultivated and cared for the garden and animals before they were “cursed”. Mary wasn’t “cursed” for you can not be in commiunion with Christ and be cursed by him at the same time.

What was Adam and Eves Nature pre-fall? That was what Marys Human Nature became as a result…per the Early Church Fathers.

One of two things happened here, either were now changing in fact what the early fathers stated, or the teaching is Mary remained Ever Immaculate, before, during and after birth, without birth pains. That is the tradition. Now if you want to say thats our human nature? How? Since the human nature is the point of contention, how is Marys like all other humans with birth and Ever Immaculate according to the East? Can we get the “OFFICIAL” Eastern view with this?

Were the “Early Church Fathers” all wrong here, how about the Bible? Or do we pick and choose which early church father seems to fit what you think?

I’m not sure what all assume happened in that Garden, or what is assumed the human nature of Adam and Eve actually was. There seems to be some undo credit given this pre-fall state.

According to the usual theology, their state changed (having supernatural or preternatural gifts), not human nature itself. There is the supernatural, the preternatural, and the natural. Supernatural is completely beyond human nature. Preternatural is that which is beyond the natural but is not strictly supernatural. Three gifts given to Adam and Eve, but that we have lost, are preternatural: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality.

 

[GaryTaylor]

According to the usual theology, their state changed (having supernatural or preternatural gifts), not human nature itself. There is the supernatural, the preternatural, and the natural. Supernatural is completely beyond human nature. Preternatural is that which is beyond the natural but is not strictly supernatural. Three gifts given to Adam and Eve, but that we have lost, are preternatural: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality.

I agree, yet how does Mary fit this equation, and here resides what appears to be the issue.

 

[dzheremi]

Not a single Latin saint taught against the doctrine of the IC.

During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine, according to EWTN (and about a bazillion other Catholic and non-Catholic sources on Catholic history that I’ve read).

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.

Well that’s just…wacky. :compcoff:

The only difference was that they believed that the spiritual conception occurred at a different, later point in time than the physical conception.

That seems like a pretty big difference, seeing as how just made a big point (I could tell it was big because it was in ALL CAPS) out of the idea that it was “spiritual conception” that occurred at a specific time, but whatever. Not my doctrine either way.

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.

That’s funny…I can’t seem to find a single thing on this “spiritual conception” business in the CCC section dealing with the IC (here), nor have I heard that from any RC priest ever, anywhere (including the one who oversaw my RCIA classes, who was old school, pre-VII, blahblahblah all the way), nor does this Catholic Answers tract on the IC mention it, nor is anything about a “spiritual conception” found in the text of Ineffabilis Deus (here), which defined the dogma. I’m no Latin theologian, but I don’t believe you.

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.

It would seem from the texts linked above that there was certainly a spiritual dimension to all this, which you can call her “spiritual conception” all you want, but that’s not what any of what I’ve read, listened to, or been told (from multiple Latin priests in several different dioceses in different parts of the country) calls it. That’s not what anyone else seems to be referring to when they talk about the IC, or at least not what the doctrine is about in any sort of primary sense (or else where is it in all of these solidly Catholic resources? Is this one of those things that only you understand/advocate, like your famous High Petrine/Low Petrine sandwich?).

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” …]

Oh boy. This again. I’m going to stop responding to this analogy, for the reasons I gave in my last response to it. It is a qualitatively different disagreement than Orthodox disagreement with the IC. We did something about it that showed where our convictions really are. It’s done. Leave it alone. Sueltalo. Khalas.

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.

No, I am claiming that St. Mary was not preserved from the effect of sin on the one human nature that she shares in common with us, and that was taken up and blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through His incarnation in her holy womb. But if it is as you say, maybe then you can explain to me how it is that another poster (Fonebone, I think?) wrote earlier in this thread that the “Stain of Original Sin” is something different than Original Sin, because I’m not seeing it. It was with that understanding in mind (that this “stain” was something other than the inheritance of the one human nature affected by sin) that I wrote that we do not believe in this. The Theotokos was not in any way “stained”, but she did inherit the effect of sin in common with all of us (not the guilt, of course), since she is a human being just like we are.

(cont’d.)

 

[dzheremi]

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.

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? You don’t see how you’re doing the same thing. All I’m saying is that it’s impossible not to do that, because I can’t be a Latin just because Latins use words in a way that doesn’t make sense to the rest of us. Believe me, I tried. It should be obvious now that as it didn’t take when I was actively in that environment, it’s even less possible now that I am miles and miles away (spiritually/intellectually/whatever) from it. You may fancy yourself the great synthesizer of East and West or Orient and West or whatever, but for the rest of us, who don’t speak Latin theological language, this stuff is really not congruent with our already held Mariology, nor particularly clear or necessary. You might as well be telling me to turn into a dog before I ever comment on the quality of dog food. I can’t just do that, but I can tell without doing that that dog food does not belong in my diet, just like I don’t have to inhabit the Latin mind (which, again, is impossible) to know that the IC does not belong in my faith.

This would all make a lot more sense to you if you’d drop the whole “that’s not what Rome says/everything that the Orthodox say Rome is wrong about is actually a misunderstanding/we all believe the same thing/I’m Orthodox in Communion with Rome” string of bad ideas (which is why I keep bringing up that we don’t need to adhere to Roman anything just because Rome put it in a document at some point, since Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not compatible in many respects) but you don’t, so this is never going to end.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Original Sin or Ancestral Sin adds but one thing to with the equation…severed Communion.

Nevertheless Christs redeeming action not only frees us, but also preserves us. Gods Grace preserved Mary from the onset. We must conclude that Gods Grace “preserves”. Then why is it Gods Grace couldn’t preserve Mary from the on-set? Oh wait…it could and did. Preserved is the Spirtual connection in Communion with God.

Augustine states…“We make an exception for the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom, for the sake of the Lord’s honour, I would in no way like to be mentioned in connection with sin. Do we not know why she was granted a greater grace in view of the complete victory over sin, she who merited to conceive and give birth to him who obviously had no sin?” (De natura et gratia, n. 42).

The debate intensified from here forward. That is from the “patristic” era forward.

When we say what the CCC states, that’s surface reading without researching the footnotes in patristic understanding.

No different than with the Assumption or Marys “resurrection in the Dormition”. As affimed in the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[dzheremi]

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

Based on what I have read from Catholic sources (linked in earlier posts, including the actual encyclical which proclaimed the dogma), I don’t believe that the Orthodox have misunderstood the Immaculate Conception. So I don’t know how to answer that. Is it possible that they don’t understand it as Latins do? Yes. In fact, more than possible – that’s clearly the caae. Does it mean that Latins are right and the dogma is true and Orthodox are wrong in opposing it? No. You are confusing understanding with truth. Also, if anything strikes me as a misunderstanding (relative to the RC sources I’ve provided links to), it’s your “the IC doesn’t deal with Mary’s physical birth” idea, but I’m sure you’ll come up with something to substantiate that, which I will ignore because it’s crazy and anyway I’m way past the point of ever hoping to come a mutually satisfactory conclusion on these matters with you.

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.

“Only” in the sense that it is mortality due to the sinfulness we are now infected with, and not the guilt that Augustine wrote about in The City of God, as we are not guilty of Adam’s sin. We didn’t commit the sin ourselves, so how could we be guilty of it? Rather, it was through that first sin of our first parents (ancestral sin, original sin, whatever you want to call it) that humanity knew sin at all, so of course there was an effect. And so now man is born into a fallen world and…well, you know the story. True, some in the COC will split it up into different sorts of consequences, as Fr. Athanasius Iskander did in his writing on Original Sin (in the October 2007 issue of Parousia magazine, a publication of St. Mary COC, Kitchner, Ontario, and your requested reference), by naming the inheritance of Adam’s sinfulness and the death that came through it as two different effects, but any number of effects can all be summarized likewise: as death would not exist were it not for sin, as separation from God would not exist were it not for sin, etc., it all goes back to the same point of origin (that’s why we talk about ancestral or original sin in the first place) I simply chose death because it makes no sense to say to talk about all of these other things as though they are not synonymous with death anyway, as it is the Holy Bible itself that tells us that the wages of sin is death. What is death if not spiritual separation from God? (Recalling that of course it is traditional in the Orthodox Church to say that so-and-so has “entered their rest”, rather than “died”; to be without God whether in this life or the next is to be truly dead). I don’t think splitting hairs really helps all that much if the end result is the same, and since Orthodox do not have a division between ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sins in the first place…

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.

And I’ll take your suggestion under advisement when you return to the Coptic Orthodox faith.

(cont’d.)

 

[dzheremi]

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?”

I know that we don’t believe in merits. “Grace of the Cross”…as opposed to what other? As far as I can tell, only Catholics have this idea of different types of graces. When I’ve asked people from church about it (after encountering the idea of the “treasury of merits” here on CAF some time ago), they looked me like I was nuts. And yet it is in the very encyclical in which the IC was proclaimed dogma, quoted by me, that we find this phrasing “a special grace”. So I’m going to assume that it means what it says and that it’s talking about something other than…I don’t know…ordinary grace? This whole concept is just as strange to me as it was to the poor people at church that sometimes have to deal with the confusion that my interaction with Catholics brings to the Agape meal discussions.

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.

You’ve written similar things before, and I still haven’t the foggiest idea what they mean. And off-board, I’m a linguist! But we are all adults here, I assume, and we all use words to communicate, not telepathy or whatever. So it is a nonsense statement to me to say that we need to get “beyond theological terminologies”. Those terminologies were invented or assumed precisely to express the theologies of the people who use them. They’re the words we have to indicate the things we mean to the extent that we can. If your words aren’t cutting it in theological discussion with people who don’t understand them as you do (because they’re not you; in an almost literal sense, you speak different ‘languages’), you have two options: (1) try to explain what you mean without using those words (kinda difficult when those words exist for the specific purpose of explaining these concepts; see above), or (2), try to translate what you mean into your interlocutor’s language (difficult as well, since it’s not yours). In neither case are you “moving beyond” words/terminologies themselves, since that’s not possible to begin with.

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.

I already know we’re not. My point is that we’re not going to, either. This isn’t pessimism, either. You can see for yourself how much has been accomplished in terms of understanding in the dialogues of the EO and the OO. Ask those involved (or at least supportive; there will always be ideologues who don’t care and just want to wreck everything) and you’ll likely find that this is because they largely (outside of Christology, that is) ‘speak the same language’, in the layman’s sense of what that means: They recognize that the guy across the isle is more alike than different. So it is possible (though we have to be realistic about how quickly we can expect concrete results; the EO and OO are still not in communion, after all). But do the Latins and the Orthodox ‘speak the same language’? As you yourself have pointed out in several instances in this thread, no, they do not. So it’s not going to happen by ‘moving beyond’ terminology (which is impossible), or by Orthodox understanding these things as Latins do (which is impossible). It’s not impossible, full stop, that the two might still resume communion at a future date (all things are possible with God), but it is, at least as you’ve outlined it, built on impossible premises.

So good luck with your impossible non-word communication project.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Guilt has noting to do with anything. False path with a non-existing barrier between Ancestral and Original sin.

Communion is the issue with the fall.

Aquinas corrects Augustines misunderstanding, and Scotus corrects Aquina’s.

Perhaps its becoming clear how the pick the choose Early Church Fathers doesn’t help.

 

[Aramis]

Is Mary’s IC scheduled for discussion in talks between Benedict & Patriarch of East ?
If Mardukm is right, wouldn’t these two WISE MEN, aided by HS, be able to resolve the confusion…and remove this matter as an issue of dispute?

If not on schedule, could we, CAF brotherhood/sisterhood … petition them to add it to discussions, … to foster Christ’s call for ONE UNIFIED CHURCH ?

The question isn’t if the two of them can come to an agreement - the question is whether the much less wise men of the Orthodox Churches will follow HB should he do so. Even if every one of the Suffragans of the Patriarch were to come into visible union, the rest of Orthodoxy would likely just excommunicate them.

It’s a fundamental ecclesiological and administrative issue there is no “Eastern Orthodox Church” - There are 30-some independent churches in communion with each other, but without any ability to actually affect other canonical Orthodox churches’ internal matters. That inherent lack of administrative unity makes it impossible for any one bishop to speak “for all Orthodox Christians” … at best, he speaks for 1-3 of those churches (his own, and possibly a non-autocephalous church or two canonically dependent upon it). The Orthodox see this as a strength - it avoids being absorbed as a whole.

 

[joe370]

mardukm;10178207]CONT’d

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.

That is true, as per my understanding.

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.

Seems reasonable, and if one does not agree one can simply reject said teachings, in favor of their own or the teachings of their church on the matter. A perfect example, from a evangelical perspective: insisting that Catholics worship Mary, in spite of the fact that the CC has never taught such a thing. Those folks are simply imposing their own disinformation/misinformation, in terms of understanding Catholic teaching, on Catholic teaching.

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,”

Blemish, spot or stain equals original sin to the ECFs.

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.

Makes perfect sense.

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 reasonably lead to these conclusions?

I will check out his posts.

 

[joe370]

CONT’d

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

I believe this to be a considerable obstacle when attempting to reconcile differences with our eastern orthodox brothers and sisters, and it can cut both ways.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi - Effff…again? That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Rome may teach one thing, but the truth is elsewhere (in this particular case and in many others).

Hey Dzheremi, I certainly admire and respect your fervor for the Eastern Orthodox faith. :thumbsup:However, you seem to be saying that “the truth is elsewhere”) as a matter of fact. Am I understanding you correctly? I do not want to read anything into that statement…

 

[joe370]

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? You don’t see how you’re doing the same thing. All I’m saying is that it’s impossible not to do that, because I can’t be a Latin just because Latins use words in a way that doesn’t make sense to the rest of us. Believe me, I tried. It should be obvious now that as it didn’t take when I was actively in that environment, it’s even less possible now that I am miles and miles away (spiritually/intellectually/whatever) from it. You may fancy yourself the great synthesizer of East and West or Orient and West or whatever, but for the rest of us, who don’t speak Latin theological language, this stuff is really not congruent with our already held Mariology, nor particularly clear or necessary. You might as well be telling me to turn into a dog before I ever comment on the quality of dog food. I can’t just do that, but I can tell without doing that that dog food does not belong in my diet, just like I don’t have to inhabit the Latin mind (which, again, is impossible) to know that the IC does not belong in my faith.

This would all make a lot more sense to you if you’d drop the whole “that’s not what Rome says/everything that the Orthodox say Rome is wrong about is actually a misunderstanding/we all believe the same thing/I’m Orthodox in Communion with Rome” string of bad ideas (which is why I keep bringing up that we don’t need to adhere to Roman anything just because Rome put it in a document at some point, since Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not compatible in many respects) but you don’t, so this is never going to end.

What you are saying, in terms of what you can and cannot believe, certainly seems reasonable, and no one should try to encourage you otherwise, IMHO. Therefore, I believe that an impasse has been reached. On a side note, I sure wish Eastern Orthodoxy would recognize the validity of the Catholic sacraments, in the same way the CC recognizes the EO mysteries aka sacraments, to the CC. That would be cool!

 

[joe370]

dzheremi - “Only” in the sense that it is mortality due to the sinfulness we are now infected with, and not the guilt that Augustine wrote about in The City of God, as we are not guilty of Adam’s sin. We didn’t commit the sin ourselves, so how could we be guilty of it? Rather, it was through that first sin of our first parents (ancestral sin, original sin, whatever you want to call it) that humanity knew sin at all, so of course there was an effect.

So, just death as opposed to guilt which led to condemnation i.e. separation from God? Perhaps I am overlooking something in the following passage. Of course we are not guilty, per se, of Adam’s sin, (for only Adam committed it) but scripture still says the following, in terms of many being made sinners because of the one man, namely, Adam. Why should we be made sinners because of the sin committed by the one man, Adam? A little help?

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Romans

 

[brb3]

brb3,

Did you know that the Franciscans and the Dominicans debated the issue for hundreds of years until the Holy Father said enough!, under pain of excommunication?

The faith of the Immaculate Conception was expressed in the 1661 A.D. Apostolic Constitution Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum of Pope Alexander VII. But there has been additional commentary and so the dogma includes:

1. freedom from the stain of original sin,
2. freedom from concupiscence, and
3. is a singular privilege which was never granted to another person.

Blessed Pope John Paul II said in 1997:
2. The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception expresses the essential datum of faith. Pope Alexander VII, in the Bull u of 1661, spoke of the preservation of Mary’s soul “in its creation and infusion into the body” (DS 2017). Pius IX’s definition, however, prescinds from all explanations about how the soul is infused into the body and attributes to the person of Mary, at the first moment of her conception, the fact of her being preserved from every stain of original sin.

The freedom “from every stain of original sin” entails as a positive consequence the total freedom from all sin as well as the proclamation of Mary’s perfect holiness, a doctrine to which the dogmatic definition makes a fundamental contribution. In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.

Pius IX’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not explicitly include the freedom from concupiscence. Nevertheless, Mary’s complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which, according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS 1515).

1. Granted “by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God”, this preservation from original sin is an absolutely gratuitous divine favour, which Mary received at the first moment of her existence.

The dogmatic definition does not say that this singular privilege is unique, but lets that be intuited. The affirmation of this uniqueness, however, is explicitly stated in the Encyclical Fulgens corona of 1953, where Pope Pius XII speaks of “the very singular privilege which was never granted to another person” (AAS 45 [1953], 580), thus excluding the possibility, maintained by some but without foundation, of attributing this privilege also to St Joseph.

The Virgin Mother received the singular grace of being immaculately conceived “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race”, that is, of his universal redeeming action.

The text of the dogmatic definition does not expressly declare that Mary was redeemed, but the same Bull Ineffabilis states elsewhere that “she was redeemed in the most sublime way”. This is the extraordinary truth: Christ was the redeemer of his Mother and carried out his redemptive action in her “in the most perfect way” (Fulgens corona, AAS 45 [1953], 581), from the first moment of her existence. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that the Church “admires and exalts in Mary the most excellent fruit of the Redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 103).

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19960612_it.html

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5646

The Dominicans followed St. Thomas Aquinas that sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be before animation because it is 1) the cleansing from stain of original sin, and 2) sin cannot be taken away except by grace for the rational creature alone. So there can be no sanctification before the infusion of the rational soul.

The Franciscans followed Duns Scotus that sanctification after animation must follow in the order of nature rather than of time so the redemption of the Blessed Virgin was through preservation from all sin.

Thank you VICO !!

Now, we are getting to the nitty gritty of debate. Why doesn’t CC spell it out on day one … rather than waiting centuries to cover all the nuances on the IC ?

But for the Dominican - Franciscan debates, and the Eastern church points of contention…we would of never truly understood Mary’s UNIQUENESS…to the degree your recent info now provides.

I’ve still a further question, which you should be able to answer. Does Mary’s SINGULAR, EXTRAORDINARY creation apply only to her Spirit … or to the Flesh also ?

Might the slow development of doctrines/ dogma be due to fact Man/Woman over last 20 centuries was not able to face/handle the full truth on Mary til recently?

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;10178714I know that we don’t believe in merits. “Grace of the Cross”…as opposed to what other? As far as I can tell, only Catholics have this idea of different types of graces. When I’ve asked people from church about it (after encountering the idea of the “treasury of merits” here on CAF some time ago), they looked me like I was nuts.

No doubt the east - west schism has led to different traditions, and in turn different beliefs, especially in terms of linguistics, language barriers etc., and the way in which the CC chooses to define certain doctrines and Eastern Orthodoxy chooses to leave well enough alone. I do believe that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholics are indeed a lot closer, in terms of doctrine, than most would like to believe, but that is just me. I certainly enjoyed reading the exchange between you and Mardukm this morning.

 

[brb3]

So, just death as opposed to guilt which led to condemnation i.e. separation from God? Perhaps I am overlooking something in the following passage. Of course we are not guilty, per se, of Adam’s sin, (for only Adam committed it) but scripture still says the following, in terms of many being made sinners because of the one man, namely, Adam. Why should we be made sinners because of the sin committed by the one man, Adam? A little help?

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Romans

Joe 370…

The only way OS makes sense to me is via genetics …clearly our DNA WAS ALTERED. We don’t live forever, are subject to disease & aging. And, our bodies crave sexuality pleasures, drunkenness, cursing, fighting, mental pleasures of arguing, revenge, etc.
The human race is polluted and this solution is passed down genetically & environmentally …to 3rd generation offspring …per scripture!!

So, if Mary were born of Adamaic genes …and she was !!! And, if she didn’t have an IC birth ( question of church debate), then she needed a Saviour…which she says she DID !!!

Now, if someone is PREVENTED FROM SIN …the stain never touched em, then Mary is a different creature from rest of us. Certainly God could do this, if desired or necessary …but, I fail to see the necessity of PREVENTION.
Actually, a Mary …just like us, who chose to obey God at very young age, who desired grace & received it, and who never Had Doubts or lost her zealotry…would be a Mary we would find most admirable & inspirational.
On the otherhand, a Mary predestined from conception, not redeemed like we, and different in kind from us, protected from All Sins, …just doesn’t seem right to me.
God desires our cooperation & love …not a manipulated, robotic, automaton person …w/o need of a savour.