|
1 members (San Nicolas),
375
guests, and
101
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,514
Posts417,578
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
As an Eastern Catholic I do not subscribe to the Augustinian understanding of original sin; and so, I do not accept the Latin theory of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos.
No one is conceived with a stain of guilt, nor is anyone born sinful; instead, sin and guilt are hypostatic realities that require the exercise of the will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 42
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 42 |
You wrote in respose to Apotheun's excellent explication of the Orthodox belief and phronema:
"It's important to note that the Immaculate Conception is not merely a theory, but a dogma of the entire Church:...."
It is a dogma of the Latin Church and with greater or lesser faithfulness, of those particular churches in communion with it. It is not dogma, it is not even theologoumennon, of Holy Orthodoxy for precisely the reasons Apotheun set forth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41 |
The Immaculate Conception is not a "Latin theory", but a Catholic dogma. There can be more than one way of approaching it, but the essential dogma was defined for all Catholics. All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.
--Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, #598 Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
--Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
We will have to agree to disagree, because as an Eastern Christian I subscribe to the doctrinal tradition of the Byzantine Church. In other words, I refuse to accept the Latin tradition as normative for the whole Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
It is important to remember that the CCEO has been imposed upon the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never accept it as legitimate. Moreover, the Melkite Patriarch himself has openly expressed dissatisfaction with it, and has said that it does not conform to the Eastern tradition, especially in connection with the authority of the Patriarchs of the East, who are equal to the Pope in authority within the Church. H.B. Gr�goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melkites, Syria
It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.
In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.
It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.
With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.
Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.
Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.
Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.
We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.
We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.
Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.
We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology! [ vatican.va]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
All-
As far as the dogma of the IC; it seems quite clear that the IC is a dogma of the Catholic Church.
But, is the Augustinian idea of original sin (or for that matter anyone else's notion of original sin) also a dogma? i.e. if IC is necessary because of the Augustinian notion of "stain" of original sin, does that therefore make the Augustinian notion of original sin a dogma?
If so, what parts of the Catechism can we find it? And does it mean that alternative concepts of orignial sin are denials of dogma?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
MarkosC,
Certainly, you have a right to your opinion, although I do not agree with you as far as the immaculate conception is concerned.
The immaculate conception theory makes sense only if a man accepts the Augustinian understanding of the original sin, because if he believes that there is a "moral" stain of guilt on all of Adam's descendants, then -- for the sake of piety -- he needs to exclude the Theotokos from that stain, but there is no need for the immaculate conception theory if a man does not accept the idea that there is a stain of hereditary guilt passed on to all mankind since the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41 |
But, is the Augustinian idea of original sin (or for that matter anyone else's notion of original sin) also a dogma? i.e. if IC is necessary because of the Augustinian notion of "stain" of original sin, does that therefore make the Augustinian notion of original sin a dogma?
If so, what parts of the Catechism can we find it? And does it mean that alternative concepts of orignial sin are denials of dogma? Those are valid questions. I'm not against asking questions, but what I do not believe is that it is acceptable for a Catholic to flat out say, "I reject the Immaculate Conception." The idea that Eastern Catholics can ignore a defined dogma of the Church, which the Church has explicitly proposed for assent by all the faithful, defeats the concept of communion with the Holy See. There are many different ways of approaching Catholic doctrine, but an essential unity in doctrine and worship is what defines an ecclesiastical communion. "Catholic" is the most important word, not "Byzantine" or "Roman". If Eastern Catholics can basically believe whatever they want in the name of "Byzantine tradition", then how does that distinguish them from Orthodox Christians? If the Holy See doesn't understand the doctrine of the Church as universal, and expects Eastern Catholics to believe whatever they want so long as it's "Byzantine", then there would be no obstacle to reunion with the Orthodox. We would restore communion, the East would do its thing, and the West would do its thing. However, I think that's an incorrect understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Our Eastern and Western traditions must be subservient to the universal teaching of the Church, particularly its dogmatic definitions. We can ask questions, see if there are new points which may have been overlooked, ask for clarification from the Church. But at the end of the day, we have to check our individual theologies at the door, and take as our authority the doctrine of the Church, whether in Council or in the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. There have been many Western theologians and theories which have overstepped the boundaries of the universal doctrine of the Church, and were corrected; or which were once legitimate speculation, but were later judged by the Church. Western Catholics can no more rest on "Latin tradition" against the judgement of the Church than Eastern Catholics can rest on "Byzantine tradition". Anyway, that's a little off topic, but relateable because we are discussing a Catholic dogma and its validity for every particular Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
"One of the main arguments of Eutyches was that, if Christ had a real human nature, He would also have inherited the stain of sin. Since at that date Mary's immaculate conception was unknown, Pope Leo could not argue from it, but had to make a distinction between the nature, which Christ did indeed assume from Mary, and the guilt which He did not assume, 'because His nativity is a miracle'... Any idea of Mary's own preservation from original sin, however, is ruled out not only in the Tome but also in Leo's sermons, for example: In 62,2 we read "Only the Son of the blessed Virgin is born without transgression; not indeed outside the human race, but a stranger to sin... so that of Adam's offspring, one might exist in whom the devil had no share."
-- Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of Doctrine and Devotion
Alexandr
Last edited by Slavipodvizhnik; 12/09/06 04:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 42
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 42 |
You wrote to Apotheoun:
"However, I think that's an incorrect understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Our Eastern and Western traditions must be subservient to the universal teaching of the Church, particularly its dogmatic definitions. We can ask questions, see if there are new points which may have been overlooked, ask for clarification from the Church. But at the end of the day, we have to check our individual theologies at the door, and take as our authority the doctrine of the Church, whether in Council or in the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff."
This is a very fair and open and honest statement of the position of the Latin Church, one which should be continually repeated as there are those in Orthodoxy who would overlook this insistance on "subservience" to the Magisterium or the Pope of Rome, believing that we Orthodox, after a reunion, would be allowed to continue to believe as we always have. From my pov, it is a particularly pernicious delusion. A reunion entered into without a full understanding and acceptance of this mandatory subservience, as we see applied, at a minimum, to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, would be doomed from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Wondering,
The Orthodox reject the Augustinian notion of "original sin," and as a consequence of that, they reject the Western theory of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos.
Now of course, since no one is born sinful, I suppose it can be said that everyone is "immaculately conceived," that is, if you were to try and blend Augustinian notions with those of the Eastern Fathers.
Personally, I think it is better to simply say that all human beings -- because of the ancestral sin of Adam -- are born mortal.
God bless,
Todd Todd, I agree with you. I was just trying to be the comic by saying it is not the East who is rejecting but the west who is. Unfortunately, I know many Latins who could not agree with your statement concerning the effects of the original sin because they do not believe it possible for Mary to have died. I know several who were appalled to learn about underlying theology concerning the Feast of the Dormition. They'd been told it was the eastern word for the Assumption feast. They thought the east all heretics for thinking Mary could have died because it called into question the Immaculate Conception, which called into question Papal Infallibility. I had to give them credit for making those connections at the very least. They didn't see how we could celebrate the Dormition and still hold to the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, then why should I try to?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 41 |
Papaflessas, Don't take my statements as "the position of the Latin Church". I try to express the teaching of the Church (the universal Church) as best I can, but it's best to look to the Magisterium itself for a trustworthy explanation. Whether you would "be allowed to continue to believe as you always have," I don't know. That is for the Church to decide; that is part of the reason why we have an ecumenical dialogue, to look at our respective theologies and see if they can't be harmonized. I think the Latin Church would be willing itself to change its own traditional ways of thinking, to a certain extent, because there is room for diversity in theology; particularly in ecclesiology I think Pope John Paul II already introduced the possibility of a new structure without compromising what is essential to the Petrine primacy. A lot of theology between East and West is just two sides of looking at the same coin, and so the Church can adapt herself accordingly; there is a difference between the Church's doctrine and how she systemetizes doctrine in theological diversity. When it comes to strict doctrinal matters, that is a more complex question, and whether we really have substantial doctrinal differences is for the Bishops to discern. Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church", and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.
Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it. In my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli, I recalled that this was the very reason why Saints Cyril and Methodius laboured to translate the ideas of the Bible and the concepts of Greek theology in the context of very different historical experiences and ways of thinking. They wanted the one word of God to be "made accessible in each civilization's own forms of expression". They recognized that they could not therefore "impose on the peoples assigned to their preaching either the undeniable superiority of the Greek language and Byzantine culture, or the customs and way of life of the more advanced society in which they had grown up". Thus they put into practice that "perfect communion in love which preserves the Church from all forms of particularism, ethnic exclusivism or racial prejudice, and from any nationalistic arrogance". In the same spirit, I did not hesitate to say to the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia: "You do not have to be divided into two parts ... Jesus calls you to accept his words and his values into your own culture". Because by its nature the content of faith is meant for all humanity, it must be translated into all cultures. Indeed, the element which determines communion in truth is the meaning of truth. The expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning.
--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint"
Last edited by Era Might; 12/09/06 04:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The error of Augustine -- as far as the ancestral sin is concerned -- is centered upon his confusion of nature (physis) and person (hypostasis) in both Christology and anthropology, and it is this confusion that ultimately leads to the theory of the immaculate conception in the Latin Church. That being said, as a Byzantine Catholic I agree with St. Maximos the Confessor, who pointed out in his "Disputation with Pyrrhus," that nature -- both before and after the fall -- is good. As a consequence, the natural will and energy of man, which was assumed by the eternal Logos in the incarnation, was unaffected by the ancestral sin. Thus, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, the ancestral sin of Adam causes mortality and corruption in his descendants, but not sin itself, because sin -- by definition -- requires a personal act of will, and so it follows that sin is not something that can be passed on from one man to another.
Now clearly, the Augustinian view of the original sin, which has had a major impact upon Western theology, contains within it a Manichaean tendency (i.e., a dualism in connection with good and evil, which posits the false idea that nature itself has -- in some sense -- become sinful), along with a tendency toward a form of Monothelitism, because it sees the natural human will -- as opposed to the hypostatic enactment of the natural will and energy of man -- as affected by the ancestral sin, placing it (i.e., human nature and the natural human will and energy) in a type of dialectical opposition to the divine will and energy.
None of this Augustinian nonsense is a part of the Byzantine doctrinal tradition, and that is why the Byzantine Church has not accepted, nor will it ever accept, the Western theory of the immaculate conception. In fact, from a Byzantine Christian perspective, the theory of the immaculate conception is unnecessary, because -- as I have already said -- no one is born (or conceived) with a stain of hereditary guilt or sin.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Wondering,
The Orthodox reject the Augustinian notion of "original sin," and as a consequence of that, they reject the Western theory of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos.
Now of course, since no one is born sinful, I suppose it can be said that everyone is "immaculately conceived," that is, if you were to try and blend Augustinian notions with those of the Eastern Fathers.
Personally, I think it is better to simply say that all human beings -- because of the ancestral sin of Adam -- are born mortal.
God bless,
Todd Todd, I agree with you. I was just trying to be the comic by saying it is not the East who is rejecting but the west who is. Unfortunately, I know many Latins who could not agree with your statement concerning the effects of the original sin because they do not believe it possible for Mary to have died. I know several who were appalled to learn about underlying theology concerning the Feast of the Dormition. They'd been told it was the eastern word for the Assumption feast. They thought the east all heretics for thinking Mary could have died because it called into question the Immaculate Conception, which called into question Papal Infallibility. I had to give them credit for making those connections at the very least. They didn't see how we could celebrate the Dormition and still hold to the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, then why should I try to? Those Latins are just ignorant of what was actually written by Pope Pius XII: 17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."[11] The only Infallible phrase is this: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Pope Pius XII NEVER defined whether or not the Holy Mother of God actually died. Moreover he quotes not a few fathers who speak of her death. Unless I missed something in the encyclical... which I doubt. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
So what can East and West agree on as far as the Holy Mother of God is concerned? Did she ever commit a sin? Did she ever have any other children? (I'm gonna say no on both of those!  ) Did she die or was she Assumed before death? (The Fathers say that she did die.) What can we all agree on, besides that she was the greatest Lady who ever lived?
|
|
|
|
|
