Dear brothers Matthew and Orthoman,

The following will be a response to your first posts dated 8/10/04. Sorry I have been away for awhile.

Matthew:

As to the first point made by your friend regarding the Catholic Church's understanding of original sin, there was a very good thread on the issue of original sin a couple of months ago (I don't remember if original sin was the actual issue of the thread, but it came up). The thread ended with everyone's apparent agreement (I say "apparent" because no one else posted after the fact, but silence does not necessarily dictate agreement) that though several (even many) Latin theologians taught in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries the idea that original sin was Adam's actual sin and actual guilt for that sin transmitted to each generation, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The official position of the Catholic Church has been succinctly stated by Trent, and the current Catechism, which do much to dispel the non-Catholic myths about the Latin understanding of Original Sin. I made my statement in light of that, so though I understand that Orthodox have more complaints against the Latin doctrine of Original Sin than just the issue of physical death, I certainly do not and cannot agree with the first point your friend has made, which is based on that mythology that has unfortunately (sometimes unfairly, sometimes not) arisen around much of Catholic belief, and not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church.

As to the second and third points, theologians explaining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception state that Mary was physically conceived like any one of us. It is simply that she was perfected before anyone else. It is rather inconsistent to criticize this about the dogma of the IC, yet we as Orthodox admit that John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb before his birth. From my understanding, Mary was simply santified a little earlier than the Forerunner. There is a further inconsistency when we accept the orthodoxy of such Fathers who state "Mary COULD NOT sin," yet somehow charge the Catholics of heterodoxy when THEY say the very same thing!!!

For me personally, I cannot accept that the Immaculate Conception can be a cause of disunity. If I say it is, then I condemn myself of hypocrisy.

Orthoman:

Thank you for your hearty appeal for the definition of terminology. I think we are saying the same thing here. My point is not to let the terminology itself be a cause of division. BY ALL MEANS, DEFINE the terminology, for it is only by getting at the real meaning that one can truly assess the worth of the issue at hand. And I believe that much of the present division is BECAUSE there has not been enough investigation of the actual definitions of terms. If we approach the issue by DEFINITIONS, and not by TERMINOLOGIES, then there will be a better chance at unity. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk