The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[joe370]

If you believe that the ancestral sin causes death (both physical and spiritual) without involving sin and guilt, then we are in basic agreement, but if you hold that people are born with a stain of sin on their souls, then it follows that we are not in agreement.

1 Corinthians - 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die.

I understand that Adam’s sin caused death for all that followed him.

Romans - 5:16 - the judgement following one single trespass brought condemnation for all.

Romans 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.

Why were many made sinners because of Adam’s sin, resulting in condemnation?

Ancestral sin is when one inherits the results of Adams sin but not his guilt, therefore I am not guilty of Adam’s sin, meaning that I was born with no stain of sin on my soul (born immaculate). Why the need for baptism prior to sinning? Why then does Adam’s sin adversely effect me in a way that brings condemnation and death? Condemnation and death should only occur once I sin.

If people are not born with the stain of sin then what is being passed on as part of the human condition from Adam, due to his sin?

 

[Cavaradossi]

1 Corinthians - 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die.

I understand that Adam’s sin caused death for all that followed him.

Romans - 5:16 - the judgement following one single trespass brought condemnation for all.

Romans 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.

Why were many made sinners because of Adam’s sin, resulting in condemnation?

Ancestral sin is when one inherits the results of Adams sin but not his guilt, therefore I am not guilty of Adam’s sin, meaning that I was born with no stain of sin on my soul (born immaculate). Why the need for baptism prior to sinning? Why then does Adam’s sin adversely effect me in a way that brings condemnation and death? Condemnation and death should only occur once I sin.

If people are not born with the stain of sin then what is being passed on as part of the human condition from Adam, due to his sin?

So then according to your definition of the stain of original sin, the virgin was conceived as an immortal being. What Church Fathers may I find who taught the immortality of the Virgin?

 

[dvdjs]

So then according to your definition of the stain of original sin, the virgin was conceived as an immortal being. What Church Fathers may I find who taught the immortality of the Virgin?

I think that you know the answer to this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9674388&postcount=279

 

[GaryTaylor]

"I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to.

Jesus Christ is Mary’s Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke—the Magnificat—where she says, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” If Mary had been “sin-proofed,” so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.

Mary is the “new Eve” who said “yes” to God where the first Eve said “no.” She did have a choice, and you may wish to ask your local parish priest to share with you the text of the Kanon from Matins for the Great Feast of the Annunciation, in which you will see a beautiful dialogue between Mary and the Archangel Gabriel in which she debates whether or not to accept the archangel’s news, only in the end accepting that which he announced."

Orthodox Church in America

I can answer both these questions by the Saints and Sacred Scripture.

The Savior aspect is very simple. “And you will bear a son and call Him Jesus”. which means “Savior” because you will experience nothing of the maternal conditions and pains, as conception was given without seed, so His birth will be without corruption of pain, and it will be for the Salvation of the World"

I say thinking back to Daniel that Mary needed a Savior more than anyone.

Now the dialogue with the Archangel I find of most interest. Oh She believed the Archangels message, She was astonished which is why She answered “How can this be” She was in fear for She knew no man and was Consecrated to God, and without a man conception was not possible and he just related to Her a loss of virginity which it seems was a on-going plan with God for Her in Consecration. She was completely unfamiliar with marriage and no “desire” for that.

That is why the Holy messenger resolved Her astonishment with “Fear not Mary”

Maximus the Confessor on the Annunciation

Mary wanted to go home, home is with God, She was well aware of the state of man.

 

[Vico]

That is what I thought. This site shows only 20. Hmmm…

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Scratch that; it say over 20…

It happens often that the count is off because the Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia sui iuris is not counted. Former Yugoslavia was of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. (Kosovo is not recognized as a sovereign state by the Vatican.) Now there are two eastern Catholic churches sui iuris from Former Yugoslavia:

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro:

• Eparchy of Križevci (1777): Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia
• Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia and Montenegro (2003): Serbia and Montenegro

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia**:**

• Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia (2001)

This is according to the Annuario Pontifico of the Vatican 2012:

cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf

 

[Aramis]

It happens often that the count is off because the Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia sui iuris is not counted. Former Yugoslavia was of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. (Kosovo is not recognized as a sovereign state by the Vatican.) Now there are two eastern Catholic churches sui iuris from Former Yugoslavia:

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro:

• Eparchy of Križevci (1777): Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia
• Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia and Montenegro (2003): Serbia and Montenegro

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia**:**

• Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia (2001)

This is according to the Annuario Pontifico of the Vatican 2012:

cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf

It also doesn’t list the Russian Church (since it’s faithful and clergy are ‘under the omophor’ of Roman Hierarchs)

 

[Vico]

It also doesn’t list the Russian Church (since it’s faithful and clergy are ‘under the omophor’ of Roman Hierarchs)

I noticed that the Belarusian Catholic Church is not there in the statistics either. Their members are under the care of the hierarchy of other Catholic Churches because they do not have their own hierarchy. Some may be cared for by the Ordinariates for Eastern Catholics where they are.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No, I do not believe in the Western theory of the Immaculate Conception, and in fact I view it as quite unnecessary, because I do not believe in the idea of a “stain of original sin” in Adam’s descendants. No one is conceived or born sinful or guilty - either personally or collectively guilty.

Well, we Latins don’t believe anyone is conceived or born sinful or guilty, either. That’s not what the “stain of original sin” means.

Earlier in this thread, I quoted CCC 405, which states that original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

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.

Forgive me for pressing the point, but persisting in the notion that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception makes the Theotokos immortal is the surest way to demonstrate that one doesn’t understand the teaching.

I also believe that she was conceived and born mortal.

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.

In this particular case, it absolutely holds water as long as you speak of the Immaculate Conception as something that makes the Theotokos immortal.

There is absolutely no way that such a claim is compatible with an accurate understanding of what Pope Pius IX dogmatized in the 1850s.

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.

Well, then you should know better.

Why do you insist that the Immaculate Conception makes the Theotokos immortal when it does not? Please, if you don’t mind, I really would like an answer to that question. It is a sincere question on my part.

Remember that the Latin tradition includes the teaching that the Theotokos died. The same papal document that dogmatized her Assumption also mentions her death explicitly.

So Dzheremi is correct, it is possible to grasp the Western teaching and to simultaneously reject it as unnecessary, or inaccurate, or even false.

Of course. I fully acknowledge that. But that is not what appears to be happening here. Statements that the Immaculate Conception makes the Theotokos immortal, or someone who doesn’t share our nature, etc. demonstrate without a doubt that the teaching has not been “grasped.”

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.

Don’t you think we already have? No new dogma has been declared since 1950…

If you believe that the ancestral sin causes death (both physical and spiritual) without involving sin and guilt, then we are in basic agreement, but if you hold that people are born with a stain of sin on their souls, then it follows that we are not in agreement.

The so-called “stain of sin” refers simply to a deprivation of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: a privation of original justice and original holiness.

The “guilt” language is purely analogous. CCC 405 explicitly says that original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

Do you understand that speaking of the Latin teaching on original sin in a way that implies our inheritance does include personal guilt (culpa) is totally inaccurate?

I am a member of the Melkite Catholic Church, and that defines my spiritual, liturgical, and theological life, while you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Side note: the world at large uses “Roman Catholic Church” to mean the whole Catholic Communion. I don’t like it, either, but it’s how it is.

Whereas I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion, FWLIW I will offer one observation. I have ever been amused by the fact that both of the two most “controversial” (for lack of a more charitable word at the moment) dogmatic declarations of the Roman Church were made within 20 years of each other and of course under the very same Roman Pontiff.

What’s the other one? I genuinely don’t know.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Thank you for engaging me on the matter.

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.

I’ve actually never wondered about this before, but what is the historical basis for claiming that Pope St. Dioscorus excommunicated Eutyches? Was there a synod, a letter? I know that his successor condemned Eutyches from the historical sources, and even Chalcedonians admit this fact. But the claim that Pope DIoscorus condmened Eutyches only seems to come from non-Chalcedonian sources. But regardless of that – that didn’t stop Chalcedonians from historically making the accusation (“monophysitism” is equated to “eutychianism” in the minds of many Chalcedonians today, and moreso in the historical past). The fact is, despite the eventual condemnation of Eutyches, Miaphysites still use the theological vocabulary of “one nature,” which can understandably be easily misunderstood by Chalcedonians. The Coptic Church may have excommunicated Eutyches, but it appeared that she still adhered doctrinally to Eutyches.

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.

My only point was a consideration of the principle of who should we expect to be correct about what A is actually teaching - what B claims A is teaching, or what A states A is teaching.

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).

I agree with this. The apologetics I’ve read do not even consider the Catholic responses that exist. In truth, from what I’ve read on the ecumenical dialogues over the years from all the OOC’s, the matter of the IC has not even come up in discussion. Either the matter is not really considered a great obstacle, or our hierarchs consider other matters to carry greater import at this time. If the latter, I’m sure it will be dealt with in the future once the more pertinent issues are dealt with. But it never hurts for the grass-roots to engage in the discussion, especially if one side is claiming “heresy.”

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.

“Wrong” or “right” is a value judgment that I do not attach to this matter, since that implies willfulness. I assert that there is simply misunderstanding, and it is the job of the Churches for the sake of unity to overcome misunderstanding. As stated before, if the OO reject the IC according to THEIR understanding of it, that’s fine (just like I’ve said in another thread that there is absolutely nothing theologically problematic with statements that EO such as St. Photius and Mark of Ephesus have made against filioque, if their statements are understood according to the Eastern theological presuppositions, which is admittedly different from the Latin theological presuppositions). Being faithful to the Coptic Tradition, I myself also reject the ideas that the COC rejects - that Mary was not saved by God, that Mary did not need redemption, that Mary does not have a fully human nature, etc., etc. It’s just that objectively speaking, these are simply not what the CC teaches or has ever taught.

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.

I’ve never claimed you SHOULD believe it. What I’ve claimed is that you have misunderstood it. I doggedly adhere to the proper goals of the ecumenical dialogue that unity must be achieved only through understanding, not by imposition of one Church’s preconceived notions and theological presuppositions on another Church.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

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.

The claim is not enough at all. One must give reasons for why one side thinks it is right and the other is wrong. We must base our judgment on an investigation of whether the reasons are justifiable, not on mere claims of right or wrong. I and others have given so-far-unanswered reasons why certain Orthodox have a misunderstanding of the IC in response to initial claims by certain Orthodox that the IC is heresy. I understand that OO, in particular, don’t really have an authoritative source to appeal to beyond initial accusations of heresy at this point because OO authorities have not even felt inclined to actually discuss the matter in any of the ecumenical dialogues. That is fine as far as it goes, but there is an actual accusation of “heresy” here, and one would think that an OO such as yourself would be able to justify that position beyond the initial claim of heresy (which has been amply answered).

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.”

I never responded to you in that thread where you made that claim.

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 don’t grasp how the claims of B ABOUT what A teaches has more objective truth than what A actually teaches.

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).

Like I said, the Truth that the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches, I accept, being faithful to the Coptic Tradition. For example, the COC teaches it is wrong to say that God did not save Mary. I fully agree with this teaching. But that is completely different from trying to claim that this is what the CC actually teaches. The teaching being professed - that it is wrong to say that God did not save Mary - is true and orthodox. The claim that the CC actually teaches that God did not save Mary is, on the other hand, wholly false.

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.

I’m not impressed by certain Latin Catholic apologetics on certain matters either. Merits are simply the Graces Christ obtained from the Cross. I don’t see how any Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) can deny that Christ gained Graces for us from the Cross, and that these Graces are infinite, and that God sanctifies us with these Graces, and increases these Graces by virtue of our free-will response (i.e., obedience) to Him. But that is a matter for another thread.

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.

Actually, I believe that’s the other way around. Non-Catholics can claim all they want about what it thinks the CC teaches, but that is not going to change the objective reality of what the CC actually teaches. We’re not talking about claims of orthodoxy. We are talking about what is actually being taught. “That is orthodox,” “that is heterodox,” “that is correct,” “that is incorrect.” These CLAIMS are only value judgments on a teaching, and they are meaningless in and of themselves without reasonable justification for the claim. What I am trying to get at here is what is actually being taught.

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.)

Again, value judgments are absolutely meaningless without any reasonable justification to back them up. What I’m talking about is what is actually being taught. E.g., the teaching “God saves Mary” is a teaching. Whether this teaching is “orthodox,” “heterodox.” “right,” “wrong,” “correct,” “incorrect.” — these are value judgments on that teaching. I am not talking here about the value judgment, but the actual content of the teaching. Certain Orthodox accusing the CC of heresy must back up their claim that the CC teaches heresy by proving that the CC actually teaches that God does NOT save Mary; must back up their claim by proving that the CC actually teaches that Mary did not have a human nature; must back up their claim by proving that the CC actually teaches that Mary did not have a natural human conception; etc.; etc. So far, these certain Orthodox cannot. There have been initial accusations of heresy on particular points. These accusations have been amply answered. There has been no reasoned responses available (again, I grant that for OO at least, this might be because OO authorities have not seen it fit to discuss these matters in the ecumenical dialog).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

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).

The CC teaches these as well. What I am asking for is simple — proof that we don’t teach these things to justify the accusation of “heresy.”

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

As explained, the “stain” according to the Latins is the spiritual separation from God due to the Original Sin from Adam and Eve. Base your response on what the term means to the Latins, not merely on the terminology itself (which you claim is foreign to the Coptic Tradition). Are you claiming that the COC teaches that humanity was not separated from God due to the Original Sin of Adam and Eve; are you claiming that the COC teaches that each new person has not inherited this spiritual separation from God as a condition of human nature? Again, respond to what the Latins mean by the term, not to the mere term itself.

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.

First of all, Catholic “pride” in Mary is for the very things you claimed as well. It’s unreal to claim otherwise. Regardless of the non-Catholic claim that the CC teaches that St. Mary is the pride of our race merely through a special preservation, that claim is wholly false. The fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that the preservation was a GRACE; the fact is, the CC explicitly teaches that ALL creatures must respond to Grace by free will for it to be effective. How non-Catholics conclude therefore that just because Mary was given a special Grace, then that somehow means she never freely chose to be holy in God’s eyes, and that this is not the reason she is thus venerated by all Catholics, Latins, Easterns, and Orientals alike, is not reasonable.

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.

I don’t completely accept everything you state here, but I accept most of it, and I understand fully what you are saying.

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).

Fine. Claims, even by EWTN are useless if they cannot be backed up.

Well that’s just…wacky. :compcoff:

Why?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

That’s funny…I can’t seem to find a single thing on this “spiritual conception” business,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?).

Here’s the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parenst. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”

Here’s the authoritative statement from Pope Alexander VII back in the 17th century:
“Antigua es la piedad de los fieles cristianos para con la Santísima Virgen María, que sienten en su alma, que en el primer instante de su creación e infusión en el cuerpo, fue preservada inmune de la mancha del pecado original, por singular gracia y privilegio de Dios, en atención a los méritos de su Hijo Jesucristo…”

As you can see, the decree of Pope Alexander VII is almost exactly identical to the wording of the dogma of the IC, except on its more explicit teaching that the doctrine of the IC refers to the spiritual conception (when the soul of Mary was created and infused into her body) - not the physical conception - of Mary. This is because during the time of Pope Alexander VII, the matter of when the body is animated (i.e., the spiritual conception/ when the soul is created and infused into the body by God) was still debated. By the time that the dogma of the IC was promulgated, almost 200 years later, it was already generally settled and held that spiritual conception (i.e., the soul is created and infused into the body by God) occurs at the same exact instance as the physical conception (by the parents).

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.

By the same token, then, how can any Orthodox claim that the CC teaches that Mary did not have a natural human conception when there is historical record of a Pope actually, positively and authoritatively asserting that Mary did have a natural human conception – in fact, it was not by mere mention of the fact or by implication, but in explicit opposition to the contrary claim. As mentioned, despite the condemnation of Eutyches, Miaphysites still use the theological vocabulary of “one nature” which can be easily misinterpreted by the Chalcedonians.

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.

Thanks for the question. What brother Fonebone means (and he can corroborate or deny this, but I’m pretty sure he will corroborate it) is that “Original Sin” has a more general meaning than “stain of original Sin.” The stain of Original Sin exclusively refers to one of the consequences of the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve - namely, the consequence of spiritual separation from God. The documents of Trent specifically refers to this stain (i.e., the spiritual separation from God) as the condition that is corrected or removed by Baptism. In distinction, “Original Sin” can refer to the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, and when it does so, it is inclusive of ALL the consequences of Original Sin, including mortality and corruption (which would be equivalent in your understanding as the inheritance of the fallen human nature), and can also refer to the original act that is the sin of Adam/ Eve.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

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.

Understood, as this is what I was taught about the IC when I was in the COC. I was taught that the “stain” was equivalent to “Original Sin,” when what the CC actually teaches is that the “stain” is merely one aspect of “Original Sin.” (Btw, though you would probably be miffed to the edge of derangement by the claim [sorry!], the CC does not actually teach - and never has - that we inherit guilt from Adam, though I fully admit that this is probably what not a few Catholic believe. The proof, if you are at all interested, is very straighforward, and doesn’t involve any mere implications or inferences).

Uh…again, how is this different than telling non-Latins that they believe as Latins believe?

It is different in two ways. First of all, the matter in the Fonebone/Apotheoun exchange is about what is BELIEVED. In distinction, our discussion is about what is being TAUGHT. Fonebone can claim correctly, in response to brother Apotheoun that we BELIEVE the same thing because we have the same Faith despite the different theological terminologies. If brother Apotheoun stated that we TEACH different things, and brother Fonebone challenged that statement, I would side with brother Apotheoun because HOW the same Faith is expressed (i.e., the theological language and theological presuppositions) - and therefore taught - is indeed different between East and West.

Secondly, brother Apotheoun’s claim seems to be based on Eastern theological presuppositions. Brother Fonebone’s claim is based on assessing the matter upon what the Latins are actually teaching despite the different theological terminologies. In distinction, your claim seems to be based on the exact opposite - of assessing the matter upon what is claimed the CC teaches, not upon what the CC actually teaches (again, a reminder, I am not referring to value judgments of orthodoxy, correctness or otherwise, but the actual content of the teaching).

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)?..You don’t see how you’re doing the same thing.

When I say “understand,” I’m not referring to value judgments of orthodoxy or heterodoxy or correctness or incorrectness, etc. I’m referring to the actual content of what is being taught. “What are you actually teaching?” is what I’m getting at when it comes to “understanding,” not “Is your teaching orthodox?” Whether you or I believe the teaching of the CC is heterodox or orthodox is inconsequential. What I’m trying to discuss is what it is that is actually being taught (which direclty relates to my request to justify the claims of heterodoxy or orthodoxy, etc).

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

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.

We don’t have to accept the theological terminologies or presuppositions of the Latins as our own. We just have to understand what they are really trying to teach. The question that the ecumenical dialog insists on is “can you please explain that in a way that we can understand?” Some examples -
(1) “What do you mean/teach by ‘stain of Original Sin’?”
“We mean the spiritual separation from God that is a consequence of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.”
“Oh, is that all you mean? Well, we certainly do believe as well that spiritual separation from God is one of the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. We are just not used to referring to that reality in those terms.”
(2) “What do you mean/teach by saying that we inherit ‘the guilt of original sin?’”
“Well, we certainly don’t mean the blame for Adam’s original sin. What we mean is the condition of lack of holiness that we inherited from our first parents that humanity is required to recover.”
“Oh, OK. We certainly also believe that we are born with this condition of a lack of holiness that humanity is required to recover.”
(I thought I’d take the opportunity to clarify that point )
(3) “What do you mean/teach by saying we receive merit from God? Aren’t we obligating God by this teaching?”
“Merit is the Grace of holiness Christ obtained for us from the Cross. We can obtain and increase this Grace of holiness by metanoia with penance and other good works.”
“Is that all it means? Thanks for the explanation.”
(4) What does the CC mean/teach when she uses the word “Purgatory?”
"All we mean is that there is (a) a condition or period of cleansing/purification/growth in holiness for the soul after death and before the FInal Judgment, (b) that this includes suffering of some kind (it could be as sanguine as the sense of loss for the old self, in St. Paul’s words), (c) that the prayers and suffrage of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass aids these souls in this condition or period of cleansing/purification/growth for the sake of that cleansing/purification/growth.
“Is that it? Well, there doesn’t seem to be anything objectionable about that.”

The examples can be multiplied. To repeat, we just need to understand, not necessarily adopt their theological terminology.

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.

It will never makes sense to me why one would believe that what A claims about what B teaches (I’m not talking about the value judgment, but the teaching itself) is more true than what B actually teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Fone Bone 2001,

Immaculate Conception (1854): Ineffabilis Deus.

Vatican I (1870): Dei Filius (doctrine against the manifold errors due to Rationalism) and Pastor Aeternus (the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome).**************

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve actually never wondered about this before, but what is the historical basis for claiming that Pope St. Dioscorus excommunicated Eutyches?

It is recorded in the Ethiopian Synaxarium (Nehasse 23/August 29).

But the claim that Pope DIoscorus condmened Eutyches only seems to come from non-Chalcedonian sources.

And?

 

[joe370]

So then according to your definition of the stain of original sin, the virgin was conceived as an immortal being. What Church Fathers may I find who taught the immortality of the Virgin?

I did not mention Mary’s name. Please respond to the post?

1 Corinthians - 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die.

**I understand that Adam’s sin caused death for all that followed him.
**
Romans - 5:16 - the judgement following one single trespass brought condemnation for all.

Romans 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.

**Why were many made sinners because of Adam’s sin, resulting in condemnation?

****Ancestral sin is when one inherits the results of Adams sin but not his guilt, therefore I am not guilty of Adam’s sin, meaning that I was born with no stain of sin on my soul (born immaculate) - correct?

Why the need for baptism prior to sinning? Why then does Adam’s sin adversely effect me in a way that brings condemnation and death? Condemnation and death should only occur once I sin.

If people are not born with the stain of sin then what is being passed on as part of the human condition from Adam, due to his sin?**

 

[joe370]

It happens often that the count is off because the Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia sui iuris is not counted. Former Yugoslavia was of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. (Kosovo is not recognized as a sovereign state by the Vatican.) Now there are two eastern Catholic churches sui iuris from Former Yugoslavia:

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro:

• Eparchy of Križevci (1777): Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia
• Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia and Montenegro (2003): Serbia and Montenegro

1. The Byzantine Catholic Church of Macedonia**:**

• Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia (2001)

This is according to the Annuario Pontifico of the Vatican 2012:

cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf

 

[joe370]

Fone Bone - The so-called “stain of sin” refers simply to a deprivation of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: a privation of original justice and original holiness.

The “guilt” language is purely analogous. CCC 405 explicitly says that original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

Since the fall of the human race, sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have been lost which means that the privation of original justice and original holiness has occurred, necessitating the need for baptism.

Do you understand that speaking of the Latin teaching on original sin in a way that implies our inheritance does include personal guilt (culpa) is totally inaccurate?

 

[joe370]

Merits are simply the Graces Christ obtained from the Cross. I don’t see how any Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) can deny that Christ gained Graces for us from the Cross, and that these Graces are infinite, and that God sanctifies us with these Graces, and increases these Graces by virtue of our free-will response (i.e., obedience) to Him. But that is a matter for another thread.