www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox objections to Original Sin ?

What exactly is the Orthodox objection to what I've heard described as the Augustinian concept of Original Sin ? I know this may not exactly be conducive to a succint answer, but since I've registered on the Forum, I've noticed it mentioned frequently.

Sam

Dear Daddy ( )

This is also an objection by EC's as well as Orthodox.

That being that the Augustinian notion of Original Sin is that the guilt of Adam's personal sin of disobedience is passed down to us, and not only the effect of that sin (death, concupiscence, weakening of the will etc.).

Although RC theology today says that what Orthodoxy believes about Original Sin is the same as the "Stain" (rather than inherited guilt) of Original Sin, the fact is that the Immaculate Conception is based on the idea of the Mother of God being conceived without "the stain of sin" (meaning the contracting of a sin on her soul from Adam).

So the IC doctrine is based on that same Augustinian view of Original Sin.

Orthodoxy believes that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness, which is why it has always celebrated the feast of the Conception of St Anne.

And it is this holiness that mitigated the consequences of the effects of Original Sin in her (ie. she did not feel pain in giving birth to Christ and her death was a sweet sleep etc.).

But the fact that she did die, as the liturgical services state, means, for the East, that she could not have been born outside the "order of Adam's fall" ie. without Original Sin (as the East understands OS).

Alex

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Alex is right that the CCC does not hold this "Augustinian concept"; I don't know that it ever was considered "dogma".

Perhaps EO's, like Alex, make an incorrect interpretation of "stain" that problems in understanding the IC. The links above should help.

Dear djs,

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not an EO (not even a "CEO!").

Yes, I understand the notion of deprivation of Grace as the "Stain" of Original Sin."

That is not how RC theologians have always explained it, as the second artile admits at the end.

It says that the exaggerated ideas of communication (of Adama's sin itself) has been abandoned today by the RC Church.

In addition, if the articles you quote are truly serious about the notion of the stain of Original Sin as deprivation of Grace etc., then the very wording of the Immaculate Conception doctrine might have to be changed to avoid giving the idea that the Mother of God was prevented from incurring the sin of Adam etc.

The EO understanding of the Mother of God being conceived in holiness in the womb of her mother, St Anne, is the "tried and true" understanding from ancient times, and these articles seem to confirm that!

Thanks, once again, for the compliment!

Alex

Dear Alex:

There is a current(?) best-seller:

"Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation"

Allow me to explain to you a better understanding of the RC doctrines here. Apparently you have been mislead.

The Catholic understanding is not - that one soul contracts sin or guilt from another soul. (That sounds like a virus). While we can use a comparison with passing on some physical illness - - it remains only a 'like' comparison.

[1873] Sin is rooted in the heart.
Not the physical heart but what Eastern theology also calls �the heart�. It is the invisible �I�- or person. The real interior - �me�.

From the CCC
Certainly the Latin church does not teach that - another is punished for someone else�s offence. Or that sin is a physical thing that is passed on genetically and leaves a physical stain.

A problem arises whenever someone does thinks of these spiritual things as physical object. We must often talk in terms proper to physical objects - but when this is done the words are - pointers - to something that is not physical.

Neither sin, nor Agustine's "stain" nor the soul - is a physical object.

While sin does have a physical expression - sin itself is a spiritual condition. It root is in the heart and mind. It has no physical being itself. There is no �stain� that is physically passed on. So the word �stain� is being used as a pointer to something that is similar to a physical stain - but is not a physical stain.

The Catholic Church does not teach in any way that sin is passable from soul to soul. What is passable is the inclination to sin - a disposition - a desire toward sin. An inclination or disposition which had it first beginning in Adam (if we want to think of Adam as the first man who sinned) and is passed on spiritually (in the mind) as an inclination, disposition, tendency or desire. Not an object. A spiritual inclination.

Let us look at a comparable example. For many years medicine believed that some illnesses were inherited through genetics (now this is similar to how some say Augustine taught sin is passed). For example it is said that homosexuality is a genetic orientation - passed down - genetically. This stance is something that Nazi Aryanism claimed and would justify genetic cleansing. Others would say that homosexuality it is not a genetic inheritance but its inclination or disposition is passed on through being long exposed to such a life style or social environment. While being only an inclination and disposition - the actual homosexual act - is still a matter of free will and of personal sin. One is not entirely helpless when under inclinations, disposition and desirers - one still retains the freedom to deny to go along with it or give in to such inclinations. The rapist must do something about his desire to rape and he has personal sin if he give into that desire.

Psychology can modify these subconscious inclinations - but it can not remove then to non-existence. For example - the ex-smoker will always have the inclination to smoke - because it his past habitual smoking. Only grace can remove - the inclination to sin. Grace replaces the inclination.

Mary - being �full of grace� had all grace applied to her - from her conception. Meaning that she had no inclination or disposition to sin - whatsoever. She still had free will and could have sinned if she had chosen to. But unlike you or I - she had no interior desire or �inherited� inclination toward sinning.

One should not think of Augustine�s �stain� as being a physical thing. Just in the same way that no one should think of the �uncreated energies� to be something that you can store in a battery. Or that the Holy Spirit is indeed a physical wind that you feel on your skin while in the woods.

Jesus himself used words which are physical �things� and bent them to speak about what is not physical �I am the living waters� and we well know that the body of Jesus was not �solid water�. He often compared himself to the light of a lamp - yet his body was also not made of fire.

These are words taken from our physical experiences - and bent - to represent something which has no physical manifestation. Both the theology of the East (Greek) and the theology of the West (Latin) have these words.

Problems arise when it is imagines that these words have the same use and meaning in both Eastern based theology (expressed through the words and terms of Greek philosophy and Eastern cosmology) and Western theology (expressed through the philosophical concepts of Western culture with terminology rooted in the Latin language). Certainly - both theological expression do share many terms to mean the same thing in both - but other terms and words have different meanings dependent upon which theology (East or West) they are being used within.

What the EC and the Orthodox do not like about the doctrine of Original Sin - is indeed a bad doctrine of Original sin - however - it is also not the Roman Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. We must always look beyond the words to the intention and meaning of the speaker himself.

The origins of language - and words - are physical experience (the experience of the senses) - yet man things about also spiritual �things�� and so he is forced to use words appropriate to physical things - to indicate that which is not physical but a spiritual (of the mind) experience.

Eastern theology warns - in several ways - that one must look beyond many of the words of its terminology - to spiritual realities which the words stand for and point to. I need not give examples. The same use exists in Western theology. One should not mix the two (as if both could have the same meaning word for word) unless one understand that - both mean the same �thing�.

------

The more and more that I examine the disagreementns between East and West on doctrine and theology - the more and more I recognise that the disagreements stem from the human tendency to assume that each should be interchangable as regards word terminology and meaning. That is simply an inherient impossibility. It would rob each of its value as vehiles of the gospel.

If one is to understand each theology correctly - one must take each on its own terms and not assume literal transposition. Not mix - the two - untell one regonises thier singularity of origin.

As alway Alex - I used your post only for the sake of a jumping off point. I am always respectful of your great inclination (a good one!) to try and unite all things of the church. You always have my respect.


(As always - these opinions are my own)


-ray

Thanks for the insights !

Alex, you said the following, which makes it sound as though the Orthodox believe that, while she was conceived and born "all-holy", somewhere during her life the Mother of God, reaquired the predisposition toward sin and as a result, died like the rest of the sinful mass of mankind.

I thought the RC teaching on her Assumption (Dormition in the Eastern Churches)left a question mark as to why she reposed at the end of her earthly life. I have heard the idea put forth that, just as her Divine Son died without actually having to, the Most Holy Theotokos died because she was following in her Son's path and not because she was under the "order of Adam's fall". After all, as the Creator of All, God the Father could have simply decreed that mankind was redeemed by virtue of His decree as Almighty God without the Infinite Sacrifice of His Son.

Tell me if I'm all wet, please. At 49 years of age, I'm still a bit of a theological infant.

Sam

Dear Daddy,

Actually, I'm 48 . . .

Don't pay attention to what djs and Ray say above .

In actual fact, they are right, but the RC church did not always teach what they and current catechisms teach today, but I'll leave that for now . . . When the current RC church establishes consistency in this respect, that will be a joyous day indeed!

The Patristic, Eastern approach to Original Sin is to see it as a condition of spiritual weakness and darkening of the mind - that includes an inclination to sin as well as death.

The Mother of God was conceived in holiness at her Conception (only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated so this feast implies that she was conceived in holiness), and she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at her Annunciation, at Pentecost etc.

She was never even in the shadow of actual sin at all - who could tolerate such blasphemy?

And this sanctification by the Spirit MITIGATED the effects of Original Sin on humanity in her, meaning that she felt no pain in giving birth to Christ etc.

But IF she did die, as the tradition and liturgical books say she did (there is even a liturgical funeral dirge for her at her Dormition), THEN she could not be said to have been born without Original Sin - understood as the state in which we all inherit death.

But even then, her death was a "sweet falling asleep."

Ultimately, I believe the RC and Orthodox traditions are saying the same thing here, but doing it by different routes.

I'm not convinced that the tradition of "inherited sin" with respect to Original Sin is completely gone from RCism - the article posted by djs affirms that this was formerly taught in the RC church. And if the RC's have thought better of it, that is good!

At no time did the Mother of God ever fall into sinfulness etc. She was always "Most Holy" and as the Eastern Church says of her:

The Most Holy, Most Pure, our Most Blessed and Glorious Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

Alex

As with all humans - many RC's past and present do not understand RC doctrines either fully or in right ways. So you will not find any consensus really - and you can find lots of articles anywhere with varied views on any particular doctrine or teaching. But we can also find that variation among the East... articles posted or printed from Orthodox that vary widely on - teaching and opinion. Many involved with Eastern theology do not fully understand Eastern theology or misunderstand it - and teach their misunderstandings as if it were the church itself. There is no difference in humans East or West.

We must make a difference between what the Spirit of the Church teaches (by authentic documents and Councils) and what human representative (bishops, clergy, laity) may teach. Each teacher may teach it - almost correct or mostly wrong - it depends on how well they themselves understand it. There are no super-human clergy or teachers either in the OC or RC. We can not extend infallibility to every Catholic or every Eastern - nor demand it from them.

When one goes to school to learn math - does one expect that the math teacher will be entirely correct in everything he teaches? Are there not some teachers better than others? Does �math� reside - in - the teacher or is math - separate from the teacher. If the math teacher teaches something wrongly - must we say it is math itself that is incorrect and false??

No.

Then why must we judge what the Spirit of the Church teaches - by flawed human fallable human teachers?? If it were �true� that the subject is only as ture as its teacher then no student could ever learn a science any better than his teacher.

If it were true in the spiritual life (church) than no person would ever become more holy than his particular teacher had been. It would be impossible for someone to understand something better than his teacher did.

Shall we say that every math student comes away with total math understanding in an unflawed way? No. Then why do we expect this superhuman feat from every teachers of the church? Was not the teacher once a student? Are not some better than others?

If we did come to understand something better than our teacher... Do we now turn around and condemn our teacher (as was done to Origin)??

Are not the doctrines of the church a separate thing from its teachers? Like math is a separate thing from its teachers?

If we do not make a difference between what the Church actually does teaches as a mystical entity that is Christ himself - and what the teachers teach - then what we do is replace Christ with flawed humans (clergy though they might be).

Shall we look on the web and find the varied Orthodox and RC �teachings� from articles and such - about the second coming? If we find some official teacher from an Eastern Church and he is teaching a flawed understanding of the second coming - shall we say then that it is the Eastern Church which has the false teaching?? We can certainly find a flawed teching about it from both Eastern or RC. What we certainly will find is that in any church we can find offcial 'teachers' who will teach opposing views as if it were true church doctrine.

Is RCism - THE CHURCH?
Is Orthodoxism - THE CHURCH?

Thjere are many error not gone from either Eastern church members and RC church members. Many. Shall we then say that it is each church - that is teaching error?

No.

You ask far too much of humans.

-ray

Ray said:

Ray, the fact is that "THE CHURCH" was established by Christ, not by mere "humans". It is guided by the Holy Spirit through all ages of the world.

Your statements indicate that you do not believe that there is such a thing as THE CHURCH, but rather, there are disparate imperfect communities who each have a piece of the truth, but not the whole thing. Perhaps in your view the Orthodox and Catholic churches are remnants of the Church that Christ founded, but neither of them is really it.

If this position were to be upheld, then we would have to conclude that Christ did not leave us any means of knowing THE TRUTH about the most important things, among them God Himself.

If Christ did not leave us any means of knowing the truth, or any authoritative voice, but rather mere "human" error-bound guides, then where does that leave us? Why follow Christianity at all?

Please be wary of the implications of what you are saying.

The fact is that if I didn't BELIEVE that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the Apostles, with Peter the chief among them, and that she still remains His spotless bride despite her sinful members, then it would not make sense for me to be a Catholic.

If I didn't BELIEVE that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Aposolic Church that I profess in the Creed, then it would not make sense for me to be a Catholic.

Thoughts???

LatinTrad

LatinTrad,

With all due respect, what you just did was an error I like to call selective quoting.

You completely skipped the question before the "NO", and concluded that Ray meant that neither the Orthodox nor Catholic Churches are the true Church.

Or perhaps you were simply making the point that Ray was also making, albeit in a more ironic, and humorously snide manner, that the Church is filled with humans prone to error?

Blessings

Marduk

My apologies Alex...

My over-defense of the RC is showing. My word could have been better chosen. If Catholic teaches pretty much en-mass have taught as you say (and that surely may be the case) then they have sewn a confusion which is real. And I would not doubt it at all - so you see my frustration with members of my own church. I should not blindly defend them. I should not take out my frustration with them - on you - which is what I think I did.

I tried to delete my reply but I was too late.

I should slip away quietly now - least I seem to tarnish the real good you often spread to others.

-ray

Originally posted by LatinTrad:
Your statements indicate that you do not believe that there is such a thing as THE CHURCH, but rather, there are disparate imperfect communities who each have a piece of the truth, but not the whole thing. Perhaps in your view the Orthodox and Catholic churches are remnants of the Church that Christ founded, but neither of them is really it.


Thank you for opening discussion. I always appreciate it when I meet a thinking man - and I usually learn less when people agree with me - and more when people disagree. Alex has often opened my eyes to a thing here or there. He debates well. And that is all this is - a discussion and debate were we can often experiment and examine just what it is that we really do believe. In the end - only we - what we really believe may be shades different than what we say here.

It is not a sacred languge which makes something holy. It is the 'holy something' that makes the language sacred. You will see what I mean further down.

------------

Would you not agree that there can be and often is a difference between what the Church is - and what the church is perceived to be? What the church is saying and what people think the church is saying? I will assume that you will say yes.

My good friend Alex was casually coining a phrase when he said �RC-ism� - unknown to him - for me to think of the church as an �ism� is to empty it of Christ. Communism, capitalism, Marxism. Socialism, � to me all �isms� are human constructions. And I am sure that is not what he intended and so I offered my apologies to him. I reacted not to what he meant - but to how I read him myself.

I read him and I gained an understanding - but while I believed I understood what he was saying - I really did not fully - I misunderstood - and I attributed to him - my own misunderstanding.

I did - exactly what I had been writing about. I called Alex �false� and �wrong� for what I understood him to be saying - and that was not fair to him. I attributed to him - my own misunderstanding - of what he was saying.

I certainly didn�t mean to demonstrate my point - but I guess I have.

My point has been that we should make a difference between what we think the Church is saying and what the church is really saying. We should realize that we can (and do) have misunderstandings in degrees. It is impossible for anyone to fully understand and not be mistaken in degrees - when it comes to the full church. Only Jesus himself understand the church entirely and fully.

We ordinary people (Catholics or Eastern) have a concept of the church in our heads. And it is a sure bet that someone who is a saint - has a better and less mistaken concept of the entire church - than we do. If this saint we to teach the church and we were to teach the church at the same time - He would teach it with less misunderstanding than we would. And no doubt that if you or I were to teach what we know of the church today - it would be with more insight and better understanding than we might have taught the church ten years ago. (Well - we hope that we had made some progress).

Would you not agree that what you believe to be the church in all her doctrines - has grown, developed, and deepened? And that the understanding that you have of her now is much better and much more correct than the understanding you had of her as a child?

Have you understood each doctrine completely and fully the first time that you read and considered them? Or was it that you began with an understanding which you came to comprehend better and more fully over time?

Certainly you are going to answer �Yes - this is true. Compared to what I knew ten years ago about the church - I know it much better now.� and certainly you are here at this message board because you want to know here - better - and deeper - and clearer - even still.
Here - let me use a comparison.

St. Peter and St. James - apostles - initially began by teaching, among other things, that all gentiles coming into the church should be circumcised and follow all the Jewish rules. It was not until the council of Jerusalem - and Paul - that this policy was changed - as being wrong. And it was decided right then and there that there would be no more of that. Up to that Council - anyone believing in Jesus and joining the church - was to follow Jewish dietary laws and become a Jew. Now that was not something that Jesus wanted (he did not want new Christians to be forced to become Jews). And the way he changed things was through Paul.

Now since Peter, James, and all the other elders taught that there must be circumcision for gentiles and all must follow Jewish dietary laws - and then after the Council they changed their teaching - should we then say that it was Christ - who changed his mind?

What I am saying is that Jesus - is the Church. In fact the line �upon this rock I will build my church� could just as well be translated in meaning as �upon this rock I will build - myself� because he told us many times that he was the true temple (church). And �Destroy this temple (church) and I will rebuilt it in three days.�

I do not believe he was being metaphorical.

When Paul was persecuting Christians (the church) Jesus said to him �Why do you persecute - me?� and yet what Saul/Paul was doing was persecuting individual Christians. And so Jesus was identifying himself - as the church.

I am much too tired to make sense with anything more (if I have made senses at all)� I will post again and explain how I see each human in the church - begins in mostly misunderstandings as - ascends - the truth. It is steps and degrees.

I myself do not fault past Christian teachers. There is an evolution - a development to each individual Christian - and so there is also an evolution and development to Christianity as a whole within the human side of the church. Just as Peter and James and almost everyone at the first Council - came to understand better what the mind of Christ was in the matter of what should be required of Christians and what should not.

Christ (the CHURCH) is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He does not change his mind. If there is some understanding, some valid expression of an item of doctrine - we should be able to go as far back in the church as we have records - and find that very same thing - yet expressed in a less developed way. And when I say we should be able to find it in a less developed way - I do not mean the �truth� itself is less developed - I mean the words, the language used, the human concepts that - we - have of it.

The Church - teaches much more than words and sentences. All that - is secondary. It uses - words and sentences but that is not what it - teaches. The true teaching of the church is - intention and meaning (what the words point to). And so it is that we can listen to several flawed teachers - yet even if the teachers have been in parting a mixed bag and degrees of �truth� - we begin to understand the intention and the meaning behind it all - despite - the flaws of the teachers. We begin to know ourselves what to take inside as good and what to ignore. And how is it that this happens? It is because Jesus himself is building within us.

You can not tell me - that every Catholic (or Orthodox for the Orthodox) teacher with authority to teach (sermon of bible or what have you) has been perfect and error free or has never spoken something that you know to be a misunderstanding. They are all - flawed - in some way - all short of the kingdom. A mix of truth, misunderstanding, self opinions, etc... human. But if they have good intention then God can use them (as flawed as they are) so that he can teach you himself. Be the teacher an Orthodox priest or a Catholic priest - Eastern theology or Western - if they have good intentions and you do not stop at the words - you will find them saying the same thing because Jesus (the church) is the same.

The letter of the Law (the words, the sentences) are entirely secondary - they are a vehicle - for the meaning and the intention and the understanding. It is not the language (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc..) that makes something sacred. It is the that which language points to - that is sacred.

It is not a sacred languge which makes something holy. It is the 'holy something' that makes the language sacred.

If you understood that - you have understood it all.

Something that language itself can not contain in itself - it is meaning, intention, and understanding. And so if, for many years, Catholic teachers taught that Original sin was a strain like a physical stain and that sin was passed in some genetic way - what misunderstanding they were teaching does not become - the mind of the Church. That misunderstanding does not become �what the church teaches� no - it - points - to what the church teaches (the Church being Jesus Christ himself). So when every any part of the church speaks (be it RC or Orthodox or Byzantine, or Copt etc..) we must always assume that if we think the teaching is wrong and false then we have not yet penetrated to its meaning and intention. The one who is teaching (the human with authority) may not necessarily understand it correctly (and certainly he does not understand it fully) but that human teacher and his word are secondary. Pointers.

OK.. Now I have really digressed.

-ray

Dear Friends,

I don't agree with Orthodox Catholic's conclusion in this and many regards. However he is occasionally confident and quite sincere and certainly very good hearted when balancing understandings.

Quote:

"Ultimately, I believe the RC and Orthodox traditions are saying the same thing here, but doing it by different routes."

I think Matthew Steenberg sums it up quite well from a consistent Orthodox Patristic perspective as indicated below.

Dear all,

Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of 'original sin' as centered in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this 'congenital defect' that the Virgin's lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer 'like me' in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and Christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary's person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was 'protected from sin' from 'before her birth', specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn't sin, but that she couldn't sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well -- often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary's holy birth and sinless life -- which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy 'has no doctrine of original sin'. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC.

INXC, Matthew

In my surfing of Orthodox websites, I did come across one that I found to be most objectionable to my Catholic - and I dare say most Orthodox - beliefs. Sorry to say I didn't bookmark it for future reference, but the gist of the site's refutation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was that the Mother of God was not without sin inasmuch as she questioned Our Lord at the wedding at Cana!

To me, this smacks of an anti-Catholic Protestant convert to Orthodoxy who was using his limited knowledge of the Orthodox concept of the Blessed Virgin's purity to try to trash Catholicism by trashing one of its most treasured doctrines.

Any thoughts / comments in reply ?

+In Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Sam