www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Trinity and the Papacy

"One such opinion, that started with Augustine, is that we somehow inherit the guilt of Adam's sin as opposed to the effects of that sin in terms of a weakened nature and death.

This view, that was never defined by the Western Church as an ex cathedra doctrine, held that we are born with the stain of sin on our souls."


Alex,
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the above is not official catholic teaching because the Pope has not used the his petrine infallibility to define it? We know that an ex cathedra statement in NOT needed for a doctrine to be "De Fidei", after all the real presence of Christ in the most holy Eucharist has never been proclaimed ex cathedra and it is of course De Fidei. Secondly, the new CCC states regarding Adam's sin that "Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a SIN with which we are ALL born afflicted, a sin which is the death of the soul.Because of this Certainty of Faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin."

Is this simply western opinion or truth? If it is truth, is there a line dividing east and west over which this truth becomes only suspect opinion? Perhaps it's my Latin mindset, but, the thought that a truth in the west is not a truth in the east is troublesome. If there is no agreement on the level of doctrine is there really true unity? Any help here would be most gratefully appreciated.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Laus Tibi, Christe. ]

Dear Ray,
One of the problems with these damnedable machines is that you stare at a cold emotionless screen, and voice inflection & body language provide about 75% of communication, when we are in direct contact with someone. However, my contact with fellow Byzantines is limited, as we are two hours from the nearest church. So I have to make due with this forum and books, as cold as they are. To my understanding, the A and the O of Byzantine Theology is meditation on the Liturgical cycle. If you really want the nitty-grits, then take a passage from the Liturgy (the Typicon, Irmologion, Horologion, or esp from the Menaion) and meditate upon it for fifteen minutes in the morning as a part of your daily morning exercises, or whenever is the best for you. The text does not have to be long, a Tropar, Kondak, or (my favourite) Dogmatik. My mother has been trying for years to get me to stop trying to know Our Lord with the mind, but rather with the heart. The mind is clouded with reason, thoughts, memories and other distractions, and can be easily led astray; but a heart that is open and pure and comes to the Lord with total abandon and trust cannot be led astray. i find that such meditation every day is a good way to refocus the heart and redirect one's self to the Lord, to know Him in His Presence and His Energies, and, as the Apostle would say, to be taken up in spirit, that we may turn our minds, bodies and actions towards him and make of our selves an unceasing prayer.

Slava T'bi, Hospodi!

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Laus Tibi Christe:

I think it is very difficult to have a Universal mentality, that is appreciate all the unique theologies and spiritualities of the various Ritual Churches or "Rites" and view the Church from that awareness, about the Church. There are many other Catholic sui juris Catholic Jurisdictions such as the Armenian, Coptic, et al, that I have never investigated; and I am sure they might have another unique and yet equal presentation of the Catholic Faith as the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics, such as myself, or Latins, such as you, have. The challenge for us is to restore absolutely all of our Eastern Traditions and Theology, as mandated by the Second Vatican Council and the current Pontificate, and that means taking on other theological expressions other then, perhaps we would say, the default Latin theological expressions. It has always been affirmed by Rome since the Unias that our theology is totally and completely Catholic and yet we phrase things differently and express the Faith of the Catholic Church in our own Eastern manner.
On the things that were not really dealt with by the Eastern Church dogmatically, such as purgatory, we, at the time of Unias, agreed to not make it an issue, and Rome accepted that agreement. It is the role of all Catholics of whatever Ritual Church to extend his or her theological boundaries and open up to the other historical and ancient theologies of the various sui juris Churches in Communion with the See of Peter. That is our challenge and our adventure.

In Christ,


Robert

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

How this connect with Infant Baptism if the Church of East does not believe in Orginal Sin?

The friends of Nicholas do love him, the friends of Nicholas revere Him, many favors he bestows, many graces he obtains, Mighty Patron Nicholas!

God Bless!

Brendan and Alex,
I hope you can clear up some confusion I have regarding the Orthodox / Byzantine formulation of the Theotokos's sinlessness before the Annunciation. Schmemann writes in Sacraments and Orthodoxy about the feasts of Mary's Nativity and Presentation in the Temple that "the meaning of these feasts lies precisely in their recognition of Mary the Virgin as the goal and fulfillment of the whole history of salvation . . .The Orthodox Church rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception precisely because it makes Mary a miraculous 'break' in this long and patient growth of love and expectation, of this 'hunger for the living God,' which fills the Old Testament" (pg.106, 1965 edition). I understand this passage to mean that throughout the Old Testament, God revealed Himself more and more to humanity, and humanity, in turn, grew to love God more and more, i.e. humanity slowly improves throughout the Old Testament as it experiences God again and again. The climax of this growth and improvement is the Virgin Mary herself, who as a result of this process of improvement, is able to respond perfectly to God's will.

Question 1: Am I understanding Schmemann correctly?

Question 2: I am uncomfortable with this formulation because it seems to make Christ's coming as the Savior unecessary. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies that Mary is saved through Christ before His coming into the world. If Mary was able to remain sinless and conform her will to God's without any grace or status which is not common to all humans, wouldn't it follow that eventually all humans could achieve conformity to God's will without Baptism or the other Mysteries? I am eager to understand the Eastern Theology of the Theotokos's "chosen-ness" more completely. Thank you for your thoughts and for correcting my understanding! =)
Agape

Roman Catholic Guy,

While the East does not hold that infants bear personal guilt for Adam's sin, they are in need of baptism because they are mortal and without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The East believes we are born in a fallen state. We just don't believe that state includes guilt for Adam's sin The mortal cannot become one with the immortal without the indwelling of Holy Spirit. So from the Eastern perspective, Baptism is about restoring life to the dead.

From the ritual of Baptism:

"O Lord, our master and our God: call Your servant, N., to your Holy Illumination and account him worthy of the great grace of Holy Baptism. Strip him of his old self and renew him unto everlasting life. Fill gim with the power of Your Holy Spirit unto union with Christ, Your Anointed One, so that he may no longer be a child of natural descent but rather a child of Your kingdom..." (Euchologion-Basilian Press).

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Vatican II spoke to the need to allow such reformulations.

Brendan,

What to do with those Orthodox who seem eager to delay a "cleansing" for the Theotokos to the Annunciaton? I've met quite a few Orthodox who would be resistant to anything approximating the Immaculate Conception (even if we allowed that Latins and Greeks were talking about two different understandings of Original Sin.) Ex-Protestants maybe?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Agape --

I think you have understood the sense of Fr. Schmemann's remarks on this topic.

Mary was preserved from actual sin by a singular act of divine grace and her singular act of accepting that grace and cooperating with it. The grace was necessary, and is mediated by Christ in the Holy Spirit. The Theotokos could not have "done it herself", so to speak. Her preservation from actual sin was a result of synergy of divine grace and human will/acceptance of/cooperation with that grace. What Orthodox don't like is the idea that Mary's sinlessness was not the product of this kind of synergy, but was as a result of her having a different quality of nature -- born immortal, not subject to the same tendency to sin as the rest of us are. To us, that diminishes her as an example, because it shifts the root of her actual sinlessness away from her act of will to cooperate with grace to a divine miracle performed at her conception. Still, my own view is that the Latins should be entitled to believe this because it meshes with their own theology -- but it can't be a universal matter.

Dave --

I think that Orthodoxy doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about when the singular act of grace happened and the singular act of cooperation with/acceptance of that grace. It's true that the liturgical texts for the Annunciation refer to her womb being cleansed immediately prior to the incarnation in her womb. The significance of that tends to be viewed differently by different people. To me, the most convincing understanding of it supports the Orthodox view on the nature of the Theotokos -- namely, that even though Mary was preserved from actual sin through singular divine grace, her nature remained mortal and human and subject, in that sense, to the inheritance of Adam and therefore it had to be "sanctified" in some sense prior to/concurrently with the incarnation of Christ in the womb. In that sense, it's similar to what was often the view artiuclated by Latin theologians in favor of the IC dogma -- but different in that (1) it does not draw the conclusion all the way to state that after the "sanctification" Mary's nature was changed to an immortal nature and (2) it does not place this event at the time of conception. In fact, if the Theotokos was preserved from Original Sin as defined by the Latins, then the references to sanctification taking place in the texts for the Annunciation make little sense -- which is why IMO the IC, at least as understood by and expressed by the Latin Church, can't be a universal dogma.

Brendan

Brendan,
Thank you for your reply. I have a few follow-up questions: If Mary was free from
actual sin her entire life, and the singular act of grace / acceptance did not occur until the
Annunciation, then Mary's "state" before the Annunciation was the same as every other
human before the Annunciation, thus making her a more true example of humanity in the
Orthodox view. Mary was without actual sin before the Annunciation, too; doesn't that
imply that it is possible for a human to remain sinless and comply completely with God's
will without Christ's coming to save us, without the Holy Mysteries? Would the Orthodox
answer be that Mary was sinless, but did not have an immortal soul until after she
accepted God's will at the Annunciation? I have always understood Mary to be a true
example for us because she had those graces which we receive at Baptism.
Also, could someone clarify the distinction in Eastern Theology between the
pre-Baptism mortal soul and post-Baptism immortal soul? I have always understood that
all humans are created with immortal souls, but Baptism restores God's image in the soul
and opens heaven to it. The Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, for example, did not
go into non-being when they died, even though they had not received Baptism. It is
Baptism which allows a soul to have eternal life with God, but isn't the alternative eternal
life without God, not non-existence. Maybe eternal life without God is the equivalent of
death?

Thank you, all, for your replies. I am learning so much.

In Christ,
Agape

Dear Agape,

Sometimes certain Orthodox reacted against Roman Catholic formulations of doctrine, especially about the Theotokos, and introduced what could even be called "innovations" into Orthodoxy that have no basis in either the liturgical or theological traditions of the East.

Kallistos Ware points this out with respect to the Assumption doctrine where certain Orthodox who were approached about it seemed not only to deny the necessity of such a doctrine in the East, but went further to suggest that somehow the East doesn't accept the "pith and substance" of that doctrine. If that was what they were saying, then they would be wrong, as Ware also affirms.

The issues you relate with regard to the Annunciation as another opportunity for sanctification for the Mother of God meshes completely with the dynamic Eastern view of theosis as something that isn't static, but ongoing and that continues even in Heaven.

What we've been a bit reticent in affirming for fear of somehow doing damage to the Eastern tradition (!) is that the Most Holy Theotokos was not only born with an absence of the "stain" of any sin and all that that implies as Lance said, but that She was sanctified from Her very beginning while in the womb of Her mother St Anne.

We know this because of the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, that She was born sanctified since only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated. (This is also why the Nativity of John the Baptist is celebrated too since He was sanctified in the womb of His mother at the Visitation, by tradition).

The Mother of God felt no pain in giving birth to Christ, as our liturgical tradition celebrates, but She did at the foot of the Cross.

John Meyendorff, in private correspondence with me (I think he liked me because others I spoke to said he never responded to their inquiries!) said that the Orthodox Church could understand the Immaculate Conception as the sanctification of the Mother of God from Her very conception and he believed in what he called an "Orthodox Immaculate Conception" in this way.

In this sense, the Orthodox view of the sanctification of the Theotokos, a sanctification that deepened as She lived, especially at the Annunciation (and while we're at it, the Visitation) and at other times, pays even greater tribute to the Mother of God than the view conditioned by the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin.

The Theotokos is the Receptacle of Divine Grace par excellence. Her entire being was enveloped and permeated by Divine Grace and this was enhanced through Her humble and complete faith and trust in God throughout Her life.

She was not exempt from the laws under which we live, but She was sanctified and prepared by God for Her exalted calling as Mother of God, in which role all Her holiness and privileges reside.

Alex

Agape --

In my own view, the point you raise is why I would tend to disagree with those Orthodox who claim that the singular act of grace was not conferred until immediately prior to the incarnation. To me, it should be viewed as something that happened earlier, in order to preserve the Theotokos from actual sin. IOW, it's pretty close to the RC view, without getting to the point of saying that Mary's nature became immortal from the outset.

Mortality and immortality are viewed, in Orthodoxy, as complete states -- spiritual and physical. Adam's rejection of God's will caused spiritual death (separation from God, quite graphically displayed in Genesis), which led inexorably to physical death -- the eternal absence of God in body and soul. As God created humanity for eternal communion with Him, the separation of humanity from God following Adam's sin led to an unbridgeable chasm (at least from humanity's point of view). We were inexorably mortal -- that is born into a life and death of separation from God -- and could not change that state without divine intervention. Following the incarnation-death-resurrection of Christ, that divine intervention is available for all who are baptized into that incarnation-death-resurrection, thus restoring the person to the position of Adam - a state of communion with God, which is eternal life. The contrary position -- eternity without God -- is an eternal death, an eternal mortality, if you will.

What we're struggling with here is the distinction between two metaphysical categories, which can be confusing. When we say "mortal", we tend to think "temporal/finite", but really in spiritual terms we simply meaning tending to death, which begs the question of what "death" means. The Fathers tell us that "death" means separation from God -- in that sense the fallen humanity is already dead, and is simply marching down the road to the physical manifestation of that spiritual death that is already present in their person. Therefore the concepts of "death" and "eternal" are not contradictory, when one views death not as a temporal ending point but rather as a metaphysical category of separation from God.

The Theotokos was, in Orthodox eyes, born into the state of existential death that we all are, but yet was preserved from actual sin by a singular act of grace. The incarnation-death-resurrection of her son, and her acceptance of Him and His salvation, restored her metaphysical condition to that of Adam before he sinned -- meaning that her means of salvation, in a metaphysical sense, were identical to the rest of humanity. The Latin view holds more or less the same, but postulates that the effects of the incarnation-death-resurrection were imputed retroactively to the Theotokos in the womb of St. Anne, whereas Orthodoxy would tend to disagree with that, relying rather on the Theotokos' free acceptance of that salvation as the relevant time-frame.

Brendan

Brendan,

There's no question of the mortality of the Theotokos. But, don't you agree that the liturgical texts are quite clear about the utter holiness of the Theotokos all her life (as for example in the texts for the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple)?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave --

Yes, I agree, which is why I said I disagreed with those Orthodox who hold that she was not "sanctified" in any way prior to the Annunciation. Maybe I didn't make that clear....

Brendan

Dear Dave,

Don't worry, Brendan is perfectly, well, "Orthodox" on this issue . . .

I always appreciate Orthodox converts from Catholicism.

They know where the bridges are.

Alex

I am still going through all the very thoughtful responses to my original post in this thread (thank you ALL!!!), and I have to say that some of these were breaths of delightfully fresh air.

Its interesting that a discussion on the Immaculate Conception sort of evolved, because that was not my intention, although, it certainly is something that has confused me for awhile concerning Eastern Christians and Western Christians, because many of the differences were made known to me through hostile comments made about Roman Catholicism and its "heresy" by Eastern Orthodox Christians and hostile comments made by a Lutheran friend of mine who is thinking of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. I have been told by Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Immaculate Conception is a grave and evil heresy that "denies theosis" and that because of Roman Catholicism, we have Trinitarian heresies, and that the Latin Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches do not have valid Sacraments (this also being the fault of Roman Catholicism, according to these certain Eastern Orthodox Christians), so the responses that many of you have generously and kindly given me were a very pleasant surprise, especially since some of the responders are Eastern Orthodox.

Anyway, I was very pleased with some of the discussion on the Immaculate Conception, and what I saw was that many Eastern Christians saw that it was at worst, simply not very necessary, but certainly not an evil heresy dooming Latin Catholics to heterodoxy and maybe even hell.

As to the responses on the Trinity, I am still confused, BUT, as long as there seems to be a reasonable answer in existence, I am content and simply chock my confusion off to just not being able to understand one of God's many beautiful Mysteries.

Anyway, thanks you ALL for your wonderful and kind posts. God bless you all!

Your brother in Christ,
Rick Okarski, Jr.