The Immaculate Conception: An Eastern Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZoeTheodora
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PS to GrzeszDeL

“1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted;”

i.e. the loss of sanctifying grace
 
PS to GrzeszDeL

Erratum Post 20

Should be:

“It seems Pope Paul VI has added many changes to the RCC, but regardless of those changes, which are interesting, the basic teachings remain the same as they have done since Augustine and his ilk’s imput. So the arguments still hold good.”
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
Well, sir, it seems that you are making an affirmative claim here, namely that the Cathoilc Church has for many centuries positively taught that we inherit Adam’s guilt. Can you cite a source for this claim? Certainly not Trent or Florence, both of whom constitute the highest teaching authority of the Church on matters concerning the subject of “original sin.” I am curious to know how you conclude that your depiction of the Catholic teaching on original sin is the actual teaching of the Church, and not merely the teaching of certain prominent theologians.
Click to expand...
Is this what you’re taught? I find it surprising that you’d make such a statement anyway, the arguments against RCC doctrines over the centuries have been from heavyweights, especially from the Orthodox.

stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm

Whether you’d agree with him on all counts is another question, but he does know which doctrine he’s arguing against:

“This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this- that “the All-blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Bull of Pope Pius IX concerning the new dogma). In other words, the Mother of God at Her very conception was preserved from original sin and, by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it was impossible for Her to have personal sins.”

As an aside, I think there’s an over-emphasis, especially in the West among the ‘Protestants’, on Christ’s sinlessness, making him less than fully human, which misses out this idea:

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)”
 
Dear Myhrr,

Not that I have any objections to reading Tridentine decrees, but you could have saved yourself the trouble. I have read the decree on Original Sin before, and I just re-read it now, and I still do not see anything in there that makes clear that the Catholic Church ever claimed that we inherit Adam’s guilt for his disobedience (at least in the sense that somehow I am just as guilty as Adam because Adam lied and I am descended from Adam). Perhaps you might care to clarify how you derive such a claim from the Tridentine text?
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
Dear Myhrr,

Not that I have any objections to reading Tridentine decrees, but you could have saved yourself the trouble. I have read the decree on Original Sin before, and I just re-read it now, and I still do not see anything in there that makes clear that the Catholic Church ever claimed that we inherit Adam’s guilt for his disobedience (at least in the sense that somehow I am just as guilty as Adam because Adam lied and I am descended from Adam). Perhaps you might care to clarify how you derive such a claim from the Tridentine text?
Click to expand...
  1. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; …anathema.
I don’t know how else to answer you, this is your Church’s doctrine. It’s been understood to be that by your Church, taught by your bishops, argued against by various Churches because it’s your doctrine. But you say it doesn’t exist even though it’s clearly stated in the above.
 
Dear Myhrr,

I was careful to define “guilt” in my earlier post precisely because it is not obvious to me that the word “guilt” in the passage you cited is really meant to be understood in the sense of “culpable fault.” Canons 1 & 2 make clear that Adam’s fault has lost us a good rather than gained us a bad (which is necessarily the case in light of the fact that evil has no objective existence, but is rather, as per St. Augustine, merely a privation of some good). It seems to me, then, that the word “guilt” in canon 5 refers to this privation of innate justice and not an actual voluntary offense ascribed to individuals who clearly had no hand in the deed. In other words, the onus on you here is a bit steeper than canon 5 can establish. In order to claim that the Catholic Church once taught that we could inherit the culpability for an ancient fault, you must cite a passage wherein this is the only plausible interpretation of the wording. Canon 5 does not meet this standard, especially when read in the broader context of Session V as a whole.
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
Dear Myhrr,

I was careful to define “guilt” in my earlier post precisely because it is not obvious to me that the word “guilt” in the passage you cited is really meant to be understood in the sense of “culpable fault.” Canons 1 & 2 make clear that Adam’s fault has lost us a good rather than gained us a bad (which is necessarily the case in light of the fact that evil has no objective existence, but is rather, as per St. Augustine, merely a privation of some good). It seems to me, then, that the word “guilt” in canon 5 refers to this privation of innate justice and not an actual voluntary offense ascribed to individuals who clearly had no hand in the deed. In other words, the onus on you here is a bit steeper than canon 5 can establish. In order to claim that the Catholic Church once taught that we could inherit the culpability for an ancient fault, you must cite a passage wherein this is the only plausible interpretation of the wording. Canon 5 does not meet this standard, especially when read in the broader context of Session V as a whole.
Click to expand...
These canons are written with this particular understanding of inherited guilt, “2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:”

It’s a positive guilt that’s inherited and passed on by generation.

Even though your pastoral theologians would rather emphasise some general ‘consequence’ description now, as you put it, ‘a loss’, I wonder if you’d find a bishop in good standing with the magesterium who wouldn’t correct you on that. You’re not reading Trent with the classic RCC understanding of terms.

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”[12]
  1. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
“Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ.”
From: HUMANI GENERISConcerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine) Pope Pius XII
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12HUMAN.HTM
&

**continued **
 
continued to GrzeszDeL

&

From another doctrinal paper *

II
2. The fact underlying the descriptive forms that really matters is of a moral nature and is imprinted in the very roots of the human spirit. It gives rise to a fundamental change in the human condition. Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness—status naturae lapsae.

This is saying that man, you and I, is positively in a state of sinfulness, so the following ‘inclination to sin’ shouldn’t be read as contradicting that.

It is a state in which sin exists and is marked by an inclination to sin. From that moment the whole history of humanity will be burdened by this state. In fact, the first human being (man and woman) received sanctifying grace from God not only for himself but as the founder of the human family for all his descendants. Therefore, through sin which set man in conflict with God, he forfeited grace (he fell into disgrace) even in regard to the inheritance for his descendants.

"IV
  1. Man in the beginning (in the state of original justice) spoke to the Creator with friendship and confidence in the whole truth of his spiritual/corporeal being, created in God’s image but he now has lost the basis of that friendship and covenant. He has lost the grace of sharing in God’s life: the good of belonging to him in the holiness of the original relationship of subordination and sonship. But sin has immediately made its presence felt in the existence and the whole comportment of the man and the woman: shame for their transgression and the consequent condition as sinners and therefore fear of God.
  2. The biblical texts on the universality and hereditary nature of sin as through “congenital” in nature in the state in which everyone receives it at the moment of conception from one’s parents, lead us to examine more directly the Catholic teaching on original sin. (Also quoted: Ps 50, Rom 3:9, 19; Eph 2:3)
It is a case of a truth transmitted implicitly in the church’s teaching from the very beginning which became a formal declaration of the Magisterium in the XV Synod of Carthage in 418 and the Synod of Orange in 329, principally against the errors of Pelagius (DS 222-223; 371-372). Later, during the period of the Reformation, this truth was solemnly formulated by the Council of Trent in 1546 (DS 1510-1516). The Tridentine Decree on original sin expresses this truth in the precise form in which it is the object of faith and of the church’s teaching. We can therefore, refer to this Decree for the essential content of the Catholic dogma on this point.
  1. Our first parents (the Decree says: Primum hominem Adam), in the earthly paradise (and therefore in the state of original justice and perfection) sinned gravely by transgressing the commandment of God. Because of their sin they lost santifying grace; likewise they lost also the holiness and justice in which they were “constituted” from the beginning, drawing down upon themselves the anger of God. The consequence of this sin was death as we now know it … we note that the Tridentine Decree refers to the “sin of Adam” inasmuch as it was our first parents’ own personal sin (what the theologians call peccatum originale originans) but it does not fail to describe its fateful consequences in the history of mankind (the so-called peccatum originale originatum).
It is especially in regard to original sin in this second meaning that modern culture raises strong reservations. It cannot admit the idea of a hereditary sin connected with the decision of a progenitor and not with that of the person concerned. It holds that such a view runs counter to the personalistic vision of man and to the demands which derive from the full respect for his subjectivity…

****continued

**%between%
**
 
continued to GrzeszDeL

V
  1. The Council of Trent solemnly expressed the Church’s faith concerning original sin. In the previous catechesis we considered that Council’s teaching in regard to the personal sin of our first parents. Now we wish to reflect on what the council says about the consequences of that sin for humanity.
  2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship.
  • From:
SUMMARY OF CATECHESIS ON ORIGINAL SIN
Pope John Paul II

**
I’ve just noticed under IV, that points 2 and 3 are missing from the document.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORSIN.HTM

The above gives a selection of points argued against from the time of Pelagius on…

"Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness", isn’t just a loss, it’s a positive, the RCC teaching is that man gained the guilt of being a sinner through disobedience of Adam.

All these points and more have been argued about for centuries and they all have their origin in Augustine’s impact on the Church in the West. The Orthodox say Augustine misread ‘you will die’, consequence, instead reading it ‘I will kill you’, disobedience and punishment from an angry God. Kalomiros’ River of Fire is an Orthodox explanation of the differences from that error. Pelagius also said that Augustine’s arguments were Manichean which annoyed him as he’d argued against the Manicheans after he left them and converted, but this aspect of the RCC Original Sin doctrine does have the appearance of being influenced by a belief that matter is evil.

Some interesting perspectives on encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Original**%**20sin

**Sorry, I can’t get rid of all the bold, maybe it’s just in preview.
 
Does anyone know where I can find the complete Catechis on Original Sin by Pope John Paul II? I’ve tried various Catholic sites containing documents and I’ve tried the vatican site, but its search engine doesn’t bring it up and I can’t find where it would be filed if filed at all.
 
The document you found over at EWTN was a summary collated from several weeks worth of public audiences. The complete text of each audience is available here.
 
The Immaculate Conception, as it is known in the Latin Church, is not Eastern in any way.

This is plain to see when one reads Ineffabilis Deus (which can be found here ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.HTM)

In the section titled “Veneration of the Immaculate” it says… (bold emphasis added)
Finally, in their desire to impress this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
upon the hearts of the faithful, and to intensify the people’s piety and enthusiasm for the homage and the veneration of the Virgin conceived without the stain of original sin, they delighted to grant, with the greatest pleasure, permission to proclaim the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in the Litany of Loreto, and in the Preface of the Mass, so that the rule of prayer might thus serve to illustrate the rule of belief.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top