www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What is the difference between East/West understanding of...

Dear Mary,

I am serious about the great theological insights contained on this forum! I know two bishops who have complimented the Administrator and the FITK (Forumites In The Know)!

Original Sin for the East is no sin at all, is what I'm saying. To be touched by it is to be simply touched by the impact of Adam's sin on human nature. Grace can and does mitigate those effects, and has done so in the life of the Theotokos, John the Baptist and others (ie. St Nicholas whose Nativity we celebrate on August 11th) and also the great Saints (St Theodosius of the Kyiv Caves Lavra has his date of repose listed as his "Falling asleep").

The impasse here is based on what is as yet an unanalysed difference between Original Sin in East and West.

The dogma of the IC simply states that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was prevented from the stain of Original Sin - and what does that mean, to the East, if her death indicates she indeed did have Original Sin (but not in the sense of any actual sin whatever)?

Once again, you have brought matters to the central crux of the matter.

For the East, if she did not contract Original Sin, then she would not have died. If she did die, then she contracted Original Sin.

Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, is another case altogether.

Alex

Dear Mary,

Orthodoxy does indeed teach that original sin is the loss of original justice and the corruption of the will and . . . death.

That doesn't change the notion that original sin is "no sin at all" in the "actual sin" sense. And Orthodoxy has historically understood the Catholic and Protestant West as teaching the same thing on Original Sin - that we inherit the guilt or the stain of the sin of Adam.

Not all do and it is certainly not the case. My only comment is to say that the West's "stain of Original Sin" does more for allegory and poetry than it does for theological precision and clarity.

Alex

Dear Mary,

O.K. - nothing is absolutely necessary but certainly death did come into the world because of sin. The exceptions belong with God who is not bound by this in any absolute sense.

Alex

Dear Mary,

As for the Latin Catholic Church's teaching on Original Sin in history - words and expressions change and others have no other recourse to follow except take Latin theologians at their word and to "say what they mean."

The Catholic Church does not waver in its fundamental teachings. However, we are speaking of pardigms and perspectives and ways of expressing the truth. But theological expressions can - and have, such as with Vatican II as we've seen. Much of the anger of Latin traditionalists comes from their disagreement with the change of theological expression which THEY say affects the faith etc.

The Eastern Fathers were rather more precise when using the notion of "stain" ...

Again, if we are to give the impression that the Churches are agreed on so much - why the historical separation? The Papacy was NOT the precipitating factor in the schism between East and West. Theology was. Yes, the issue of one side concocting something the other side never held to is an important and ongoing concern.

But you are the one who quotes one Orthodox Bishop to which you append the views of a number of unnamed Orthodox monks and priests - all this together do not official Orthodox teaching make.

I've yet to read any major Orthodox theologian or Orthodox quote Bishop Hilarion. And all the monks and priests they make mention of are scrupulously footnoted in their appendices.

One may, as has occurred before, paint post-schism Orthodoxy as being unfaithful to the first millennium of Christianity.

Dear Joe,

Yes, but if we look at the liturgical prayers for the Conception of St Anne, we see that the Theotokos is invoked as a full Saint etc. Other than John the Baptist, who was likewise sanctified from the womb, no other Saint is honoured at his or her Conception. To do so would be to tacitly affirm their sanctity at that time of their lives.

In addition, both the Theotokos and St John the Baptist were conceived miraculously as you say.

The miracle was achieved by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit on both St Anne and St Elizabeth.

The Church sees in this miracle not only the physical miracle of conception, but also the holiness of the conceptions themselves.

The miracles only occurred due to the high roles that the Theotokos and the Forerunner played in salvation history. Their holiness is therefore related not to themselves, but to Christ and His Mission.

One problem when talking about Original Sin is that we need to remember that we are not talking about an actual sin and also, in Orthodoxy, of the dynamic Theosis that continues to be experienced even when we are in heaven.

The sanctification that the Mother of God received at the Annunciation was simply another step along the way of her Theosis, again in view of her receiving into her womb God the Word Incarnate (can we even fathom such a high Mystery!).

That the Mother of God worried about her Son, asked Him how He could have let her and St Joseph search for Him for three days in sorrow etc. are a "mother's faults" and Her Son, to be sure, loved His Mother ever the more for such "faults!"

She was the greatest of Saints and also still the Mother of Him Whom she held fast in her arms, watched Him begin to walk, consoled Him when He cried, and saw Him grow into Manhood.

These were no moral faults nor sins, but the suffering of a mother because of her love for her Son, a love that would see her standing beneath His Cross one day.

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions of Christ on Calvary relate that, at one point during that ordeal, the Mother of God whispers to Her Son on the Cross, "Please let me die with you!"

At that, Anne said she saw Jesus look at His Mother and turn away, refusing to grant her this request. It would be the only time ever that He would refuse her a request.

Alex

Dear Alex, all of what you have mentioned does not necessarily imply that the saint being honored was absolutely, in every way, without sin. At least, that is what we Orthodox believe.

Joe

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple


At Orthros the Magnificat is replaced by these words:

"Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement, seeing how the Virgin entered into the Holy of Holies" (p. 190 Menaion )

The kontakion of the feast:

"The All-pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Bridal Chamber and Virgin, the sacred treasure of the glory of God, is led today into the house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine Spirit. Of her God's angels sing in praise: "She is indeed the heavenly Tabernacle." (P. 195 Menaion)

From Small Vespers:

O ye gates of the sanctuary, into the Holy of Holies receive ye a Virgin, the spotless Tabernacle of God the Almighty.

Ye virgins, joyfully bearing torches, attend the pure Virgin on her way, as she enters the Holy of Holies, the Bride of the King of all.

The living Bridal Chamber of God the Word receives bread from the hands of a divine angel, as she dwells in the Holy of holies.

From Great Vespers:

Led by the Holy Spirit, the holy Maid without spot is taken to dwell in the Holy of Holies. By an angel is she fed, who is in truth the most holy Temple of our Holy God. He has sanctified all things by her entry, and has made godlike the fallen nature of fallen men.

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone to dwell in the temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O Virgin all-undefiled, to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O Mother of God without stain or blemish, glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.

Ann, truly blessed by God's grace, led with gladness into the temple of the Lord the pure and ever-Virgin, who is full of grace, and she called the young girls to go before her, lamps in hand. `Go, Child,' she said, `to Him who gave thee unto me; be unto Him an offering and a sweet smelling incense.

Go into the place which none may enter: learn its mysteries and prepare thyself to become the pleasing and beautiful dwelling-place of Jesus, who grants the world great mercy.'

From Matins:

From Eve of old the transgression came upon mankind, and now from Eve's stock has flowered forth our restoration and incorruption, even the Theotokos, who is brought today into the house of God.

Be glad today, O Joachim, and rejoice exceedingly in spirit, O Ann, who now present unto the Lord your daughter, as a three-year old victim of sacrifice, holy and utterly without spot.

The ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish, the tabernacle that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the holy temple.

Three years old in the flesh and many years old in the spirit, more spacious than the heavens and higher than the powers above, let the Bride of God be praised in song.

Seeing the beauty of thy soul, O undefiled Virgin, Zacharias cried out with faith: `Thou art our deliverance, thou art the joy of all. Thou art our restoration, through whom the Incomprehensible appears comprehensible to me.'

O Virgin all-undefiled, past understanding is thy wonders! Strange is the manner of thy birth: strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most marvellous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are beyond the telling of mortal men.

A child in the flesh but perfect in soul, the holy Ark enters into the house of God, there to feed upon divine grace.

The ranks of angels rejoiced exceedingly and spirits of the righteous were glad, when the Mother of God was led into the sanctuary.

Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel in the temple of the Lord.

Receiving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the Saviour according to the flesh, increased in wisdom and grace.

O pure Theotokos, thou hast a clean and shining beauty of soul, and artfilled from heaven with the grace of God. Thou dost ever enlighten with eternal light those who cry aloud in gladness: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high above all.

Beholding the entry of the All-Pure, the angels were struck with amazement, seeing how she entered marvelously into the Holy of Holies.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see something beyond speech; a body that was never subject to the taint of sin. Therefore in thanksgiving I cry to thee: O pure Virgin, thou art truly high above all.

Angels and men, let us honour the entry of the Virgin, for in glory she has gone into the Holy of Holies.

Mary,


So, this is why I think that any opinions about how the Virgin was sanctified and entirely pure should be considered theological opinions and not Dogma. This is why the Orthodox will not accept the Immaculate Conception as a Dogma that is binding on all Christians and the Pope does not have the authority to proclaim a theologemon of some theologians to be Dogma. Whether the Virgin was immaculately conceived as the West understands it or was purified in some other way is not given to us by divine revelation and so it does not belong to the deposit of faith.

Joe

Dear Joe,

In the first place the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not the "brain-child" of one man, but a doctrine declared dogmatically in the Church from the already existing deposit of faith.

Furthermore, you need to be very careful with this kind of reasoning that you use in the paragraph above, because the same reasoning can be used to dispute the "iota" of the Incarnation, which is essentially a derived doctrine and not one that was spelled out clearly in either Scripture or Tradition...until it was formally declared.

In that light, what we are really talking about, with the Immaculate Conception, is not a matter of form in the definition of doctrine, but a matter of time.

Mary

Sorry Mary, but I respectfully disagree. I think that the historical evidence proves that it was not considered authoritive doctrine, even by its proponents, until after Trent. The most eminent of the Latin theologians rejected the doctrine.

Until the formal definition given in the 19th century, no one was obligated to believe it, even though there was a public feast of the Latin Church and the pontiffs on previous occasions indicated that opponents of the doctrine were not permitted to accuse the proponents of heresy (and vice versa). This proves that for the longest time that the Immaculate Conception was not considered to be a dogma but rather, even in the West, a theologomeun.