The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
The problem is, the West through St. Augustine adopted a radically different view—that men and women not only inherit the damage, the blurred vision to see God and His Will, but ALSO they inherited the guilt and culpability. They’re just as guilty for that exact sin in the Garden as Adam and Eve. The East NEVER agreed to this. It just perpetuated in the West."
Click to expand...
The above claim - that the West adopted St. Augustine’s belief that we inherit the guilt and culpability of Adam and Eve’s first sin - is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor of the Latin Catholic Church. It is a popular belief, but it cannot be called a teaching of the Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
dzheremi said:
Alright, and I will keep repeating “the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary at best” until that sinks in. Fair deal. 😛
Click to expand...
I can agree with this. But any time someone accuses the CC of teaching heresy with the IC, I’ll fight tooth and nail to prove that source is wrong and misrepresenting the CC.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The above claim - that the West adopted St. Augustine’s belief that we inherit the guilt and culpability of Adam and Eve’s first sin - is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor of the Latin Catholic Church. It is a popular belief, but it cannot be called a teaching of the Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I agree: I was just sharing Scott’s entire quote. 👍
 
mardukm said:
:eek::eek::eek: Not even Mary appearing to St. Bernadette asked for a definition. I’m glad that the Church correctly regards Marian apparitions as “private revelations,” to which none of the faithful are bound to adhere.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Me too. 👍
 
dzheremi said:
Thanks, Vico. I was struggling to come up with a way to explain it to Mardukm, but that simple definition actually does it, at least to some degree (keeping in mind that this is not a doctrine I’m invested in, and I find it unnecessary at best). Ineffabilis Deus makes a big deal out of differentiating between ‘the first instance of conception and the second’, without really explaining what either of those actually are. So, if taken in concert with the quote from Pope Alexander VII, the ‘first instance’ of conception must include the infusion of the soul into the body (as per the quote), but not the physical conception of St. Mary by Joachim and Anna (as per Mardukm’s objection). The trouble with that, of course, is that conception does refer to physical conception (even in Catholic sources, as you’ve shown), regardless of whether or not there are additional ideas about the infusion of the soul in the process (which, I have to wonder, if when that happens is not the point, why is this part of it? The quote from Pope Alexander VII talks about “the first instant”, and the rest of the paragraph talks about “the first and second” conceptions, so clearly this is about solving some kind of temporal problem or laying out some kind of temporal sequence). It seems like another instance where words mean whatever Rome wants them to mean, and if you object to that you just don’t “get” it. Well, fine. I don’t get it. That much is clear. I don’t understand why this is necessary in the first place, after all.
Click to expand...
The choice of words is not arbitrary but is in response to the terms used throughout the ages by the Doctors of the Church.

From 1854 we see the reason for the definition at that time:“Accordingly, from ancient times the bishops of the Church, ecclesiastics, religious orders, and even emperors and kings, have earnestly petitioned this Apostolic See to define a dogma of the Catholic Faith the Immaculate Conception of the most holy Mother of God. These petitions were renewed in these our own times; they were especially brought to the attention of Gregory XVI, our predecessor of happy memory, and to ourselves, not only by bishops, but by the secular clergy and religious orders, by sovereign rulers and by the faithful.”
The basic idea is that Eve was free from corruption (this means more than virginity) when she was addressed by the serpent. By implication it seems to follow that Mary too was free from all corruption when she was greeted by the angel.

In patristic times, St. Augustine shows the belief in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary.

In the early Church in the west, St. Augustine wrote against Pelagius (who reckoned a number of persons were presumably sinless in support that human nature was not corrupted by original sin). St. Augustine said these persons were not sinless “except the holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honor of the Lord, I wish to raise no question when discussing sin.”

– De natura et gratia, Chapter 42 [XXXVI.] — The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

The Second Council of Orange, 529 A.D., condemned Semi-Pelagianism, that is, that one can make the first move towards God without grace. CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
Then in the Middle Ages:
  1. Sanctifying grace was not yet a developed idea. The original sin was thought of as a positive element transmitted through the marital act, rather than a lack of sanctifying grace.
  2. It was not clear how an Immaculate Conception would be congruent with universal redemption though Christ.
  3. Duns Scotus provided an way with the concept of preservation from (stain of) original sin, and remarked that “no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so”.
  4. Sixtus IV in 1477 made the celebration universal in the Latin Church. (Bull Cum praeclesa, 1476).
We see that St. Thomas Aquinas failed to understand that the grace of redemption might be of preservation and prevention simultaneously. According to St. Thomas, the human body is animated successively in vegetative, sensitive, and rational soul, such that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary, descended from Adam materially and seminally, contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal generation, and are the results of the privation of original justice. Redemption could occur only once there is a rational soul, the third step. The dogma has decided against that position.

The dogma clarifies the issue, especially needed in light of the great respect for St. Thomas Aquinas.

The dogma counters Semi-Pelagianism because the Blessed Virgin Mary made her election only with God given grace. Semi-Pelagianism arose again later at the Reformation.
 
I still want to know why, that is if everyone is done with Western thinking, according to the Eastern Essence/Energies theory of Palamos you would suggest the Immaculate Conception is not possible? I fail to see the argument. Always willing to learn from you guys.

.
 
He became man in order to divinize us in Himself (Ad Adelphium 4)]. Autos gar enenthropesen, hina hemeis theopoiethomen. He became man in order that we might be divinized (De Incarnatione 54)]. Athanasius

He also divinized before He became man. “Characteristic of theosis is, according to the Fathers, precisely “immortality” or “incorruption.” For God alone “has immortality”—ho monos echon athanasian (I Tim. 6:16). But man now is admitted into an intimate “communion” with God, through Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. And this is much more than just a 'moral” communion, and much more than just a human perfection. Only the word theosis can render adequately the uniqueness of the promise and offer. The term theosis is indeed quite embarrassing, if we would think in “ontological” categories. Indeed, man simply cannot “become” god.

But the Fathers were thinking in “personal” terms, and the mystery of personal [communion] was involved at this point. Theosis meant a personal encounter. It is that intimate intercourse of man with God, in which the whole of human existence is, as it were, permeated by the Divine Presence." Orthodox Christian information center.

per·me·ate

púrmee àyt ]

1.spread through: to enter something and spread throughout it, so that every part or aspect of it is affected.

permeated by the Divine Presence is the thinking.

“Communion”

being a key word. 👍 We are in agreement we have a “living tradition” right?
 
Also one other question for the East which mardukm quoted above “the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary at best”

My thinking here is, this indicates to do away with something thought to be inconsistent. If so where is it inconsistent? I believe its affirmed its not. Also keeping in mind the “Living Tradition” which of course we acknowledge we do have and on the Orthodox sights also.
 
dzheremi said:
And again, I hate to keep harping on this, but your response (and Mardukm’s similar response) is doing nothing to disabuse me of the notion that this is a particularly Latin conceit that makes no sense outside of that context. This is why we say it is unnecessary, as it rests upon assumptions and ideas that we do not share.
Click to expand...
Oh, no problem; I certainly don’t deny that the language with which the dogma was pronounced uses exclusively Latin terminology.

I’m totally happy with eastern Christians - eastern Catholics, even - basically saying, “That’s not a part of our theology.” Because, well, they’re right about that. I only say more than that if someone begins to attempt to contradict it. (I say “attempt” because usually - though not always - they usually don’t even succeed in really denying it, as is the case with the common objection that the Theotokos was mortal)
dzheremi said:
Okay, hence I wrote “paging John Cassian” (a saint in the RCC, I see), as he is remembered as having provided correctives to Augustine’s writings which went so far in their mission to destroy Pelagianism so as to provide a “Patristic” foundation for the likes of Calvinism, which certainly no apostolic church finds acceptable.
Click to expand...
Of course. Suggesting that we all - even the Theotokos - need God’s grace in order to choose to obey Him isn’t Calvinistic, though. It’s just true. 🙂
brb3 said:
Fone Bone —

U and Mardukm are great spokesmen for the reasoning / rationale of IC of Mary, and what it means & doesn’t. U two have done a great service clearing away misconceptions held by Eastern Church & some in the RCC who needed clarification on the implications of Mary’s IC.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you; that’s very generous of you.
Vico said:
The dogma counters Semi-Pelagianism because the Blessed Virgin Mary made her election only with God given grace. Semi-Pelagianism arose again later at the Reformation.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Also one other question for the East which mardukm quoted above “the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary at best”

My thinking here is, this indicates to do away with something thought to be inconsistent. If so where is it inconsistent? I believe its affirmed its not. Also keeping in mind the “Living Tradition” which of course we acknowledge we do have and on the Orthodox sights also.
Click to expand...
It is inconsistent with the Eastern viewpoint of what “original sin” means.

It is not inconsistent with the Western viewpoint.

However, if you are trying to keep to the Eastern theological outlook, it’s best to stay within that context and not try to “mix n match”.

Imagine a Star Trek fan being told he has to find a place on the bridge for Luke Skywalker. Nothing wrong with Luke Skywalker, but he just doesn’t belong there. 😉
 
Based on the New Advent website on Original Sin, this is my conclusion of the West’s understanding of Original Sin:

Original Sin
Original sin is defined as the lack of sanctifying grace.
The lack of sanctifying grace causes us to be, from the moment of conception, turned away from God.
Since it is sinful to be turned away from God, the lack of sanctifying grace is original sin.

Supernatural Man (pre-fall) and Natural Man (post-fall)
Supernatural man had the gift of being exempt from physical death.
Lack of exemption from physical death and suffering are a part of natural man.

Supernatural man had the gift of complete mastery of his inclinations.
Lack of mastery of the inclinations of the flesh is a part of natural man.

Supernatural man had the gift of sanctifying grace; it allowed him to remain turned towards God.
Lack of sanctifying grace is part of natural man; it causes him to remain turned away from God.

Summery
Man lost the Divine gifts of God after the fall, however, the nature of man has in no way been changed. Rather, man lost the Divine gifts that were dependent on his obedience to the command of God. Sanctifying grace is a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. Consequently the lack of sanctifying grace is a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God. Also, this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam.

There is no sin in physical death and suffering; these are natural to man.
The the lack of complete mastery of inclinations is not sinful in and of itself.
The lacking of sanctifying grace, therefore, is the hereditary stain we call original sin.
 
Zekariya said:
Based on the New Advent website on Original Sin, this is my conclusion of the West’s understanding of Original Sin:

Original Sin
Original sin is defined as the lack of sanctifying grace.
The lack of sanctifying grace causes us to be, from the moment of conception, turned away from God.
Since it is sinful to be turned away from God, the lack of sanctifying grace is original sin.

Supernatural Man (pre-fall) and Natural Man (post-fall)
Supernatural man had the gift of being exempt from physical death.
Lack of exemption from physical death and suffering are a part of natural man.

Supernatural man had the gift of complete mastery of his inclinations.
Lack of mastery of the inclinations of the flesh is a part of natural man.

Supernatural man had the gift of sanctifying grace; it allowed him to remain turned towards God.
Lack of sanctifying grace is part of natural man; it causes him to remain turned away from God.

Summery
Man lost the Divine gifts of God after the fall, however, the nature of man has in no way been changed. Rather, man lost the Divine gifts that were dependent on his obedience to the command of God. Sanctifying grace is a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. Consequently the lack of sanctifying grace is a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God. Also, this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam.

There is no sin in physical death and suffering; these are natural to man.
The the lack of complete mastery of inclinations is not sinful in and of itself.
The lacking of sanctifying grace, therefore, is the hereditary stain we call original sin.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between supernatural (beyond all created nature) and preternatural (beyond nature by not beyond all created natures, e.g. angelic powers). The infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality are the preternatural gifts possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall. At the Fall they lost the divine friendship and preternatural gifts for themselves and all their human progeny. Grace is a supernatural gift which was originally conferred on the angels and Adam and Eve.

So “Supernatural Man” means natural man with gifts which are beyond human nature and even beyond created nature. Human nature itself does not change.
 
Vico said:
There is a difference between supernatural (beyond all created nature) and preternatural (beyond nature by not beyond all created natures, e.g. angelic powers). The infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality are the preternatural gifts possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall. At the Fall they lost the divine friendship and preternatural gifts for themselves and all their human progeny. Grace is a supernatural gift which was originally conferred on the angels and Adam and Eve.

So “Supernatural Man” means natural man with gifts which are beyond human nature and even beyond created nature. Human nature itself does not change.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn’t sure on how to word it. 🙂
 
dvdjs said:
How so?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…0&postcount=35
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=36
Click to expand...
Just that I have been told that the Eastern churches do not have the same viewpoint about what “original sin” means, so the concept that Mary was free of original sin would not necessarily have the same meaning in the East as in the West.

And I must say I do get a little tired of Latin Rite Catholics telling Eastern Rite Catholics what they should or should not believe. We are supposed to be of equal importance in the Church, or so they keep telling me. :rolleyes:
 
I guess that’s why several Ukrainian Catholic churches in the US and Canada are named for the Immaculate Conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top