www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

It hasn't been officially declared by the Latin Church, but it is a widely held theological opinion in the West (and I presume most of the East as well) that St. John was born "immaculately"...

I plan on reading Are We All Schismatics by Bishop Zoghby soon.

Todd,

I find that perplexing since we are ever circling around the notion of returning to the papacy at it was practiced in the first millennium. (Not just here, but in every piece of Orthodox literature I can find on the subject.) Would not a study of how the papacy functioned vis-a-vis the Eastern patriarchates within the conciliar tradition be a fruitful study and yield insight into how it can function today?

If anything it would either more fully clarify the papacy of Rome as it was later defined (or at least partially contextualize it) or demonstrate how much it contrasts with earlier practices.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

The primacy of the bishop of Rome can only be clarified by placing him once again into his proper relation to the ecumenical councils, which means that he cannot be seen as above the universal episcopate, nor can he be seen as the final arbiter for determining the faith of the Church, but must be seen instead as the protos within the universal episcopate gathered in an ecumenical council.

That said, ecumenical dialogue will go nowhere if the Latins continue to insist upon their theological innovations in connection with primacy, because the bishop of Rome is not the center of unity in the Church, Christ is the center of unity. Nevertheless, the bishop of Rome is the first among equals within the universal episcopate, but he is not above the other bishops, who are all sacramentally equal.

Ultimately, the role of the bishop of Rome in a reunified Church of East and West will not be the role given to him by the Latin Church during the second millennium. In fact, the bishop of Rome is simply a patriarch among the patriarchs, which means that he has no jurisdiction outside of his own patriarchate; instead, he is the protos, with a certain directive function among the patriarchs (and the other bishops), but he is not their master, and has no power over his brothers (see the articles by Nicholae Dura and Vlassios Phidas in The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue).

Finally, as Dr. Phidas said in his essay, "All that was not attested in the first millennium lacks the ecclesiological and canonical premises that are necessary to serve as a starting point for dialogue," and from this statement it is clear that the innovations of the later Western synods in connection with the doctrine of primacy must be set aside as the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches work toward restoring a vision of primacy that conforms to the teachings of scripture, and to the patristic and canonical tradition of the first millennium.

God bless,
Todd

The idea of an "immaculate conception" makes absolutely no sense in Byzantine theology, because no one is born sinful. The effects of the ancestral sin are mortality and a return to non-being, and both St. John the Baptist and the Theotokos were born mortal.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The Western notion (ascribed to Scotus) that original sin is the privation of grace in the descendents of Adam is unworkable in the Eastern tradition, because all men are born indwelt by divine energy (i.e. grace). In fact, all that has being exists through the power of the divine energy (i.e. grace). As St. Gregory taught, everything in nature participates in the divine energy, but for theosis to occur one must willing cooperate with God's deifying energy, for it is "by virtue of what one achieves through free choice that one is close to or distant from God" [St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 78].

As I understand the Western position, St. John was supposedly purified from the "stain" of original sin in utero, when the Blessed Theotokos visited his mother. But again the Eastern tradition does not accept the idea that babies are born with a "stain" of sin.

There is no such thing as inherited guilt or sin; instead, both guilt and sin are personal reality that require the activity of a person's will.

Dear Todd,

Guilt and sin are truly personal realities. But the effects of Original Sin, including an inclination to self-centredness and rebellion against God's Will, are passed on to us (along with death, concupiscence et al.).

We are conceived with a nature that inclines toward rebellion against God, even though we are not bereft of Grace.

The Conceptions of the Theotokos and John the Baptist were holy because the Spirit indwelt in them at that time to mitigate the effects of Original Sin.

The Theotokos is not on our level at all, owing to her exalted role as Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate.

The fact that the Church liturgically venerates her FROM her conception and invokes her as a Saint AT THAT TIME of the beginning of her very existence indicates, from the lex orandi standpoint, that she was sanctified.

We are sanctified too at Baptism and yet have no clue as to Theosis and what is to be done etc.

No other saints have their Conceptions liturgically celebrated which means the Church wishes to underline that time in their existence as being holy.

If there is another way to understand this lex orandi tradition, please let me know.

If there is another way to understand this mystery, again, let me know.

I understand fully your exposition (scholarly as per your usual) on Theosis.

If the Theotokos and John the Baptist were conceived as were we all, why does the Church celebrate their respective Conceptions?

Again, why not celebrate the Conceptions of all the Saints - or yours and mine for that matter?

This is not a question of an "Immaculate Conception" but a "conceiving in holiness."

The Spirit anoints where He wills. He anoints us as babies in Baptism, Chrismation and even Holy Communion.

I don't understand the counter argument at all.

And because there is no Eastern Father whose words may be quoted to make precise this matter - does not mean that the mystery itself isn't one or that we are not to believe it.

Alex

Alex,

Human nature is unchanged by the sin of Adam. One cannot posit any kind of moral corruption in human nature without it affecting Christ, because He assumed a human nature identical to our own.

Men sin because they are mortal, and they try to prolong their mortal existence. That said, I do not accept the Augustinian teaching on concupisence, because one must always bear in mind -- as I indicated above -- that anything that is predicated of human nauture, must also belong to Christ, since He assumed a human nature identical to our own.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - If there is a natural inclination to sin, it follows that sin itself would be natural, but sin is always contrary to nature.

The Church venerates St. John from his conception too, but he was not "immaculately" conceived. The concept of the "immaculate conception" is founded upon a faulty view of the nature of reality.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

Surely, our nature has fallen as a result of Adam's sin? Surely we incline toward sin?

Are you sure you don't have an overly exalted view of human nature that MIGHT lead one to accept Pelagianism?

In any event, I think we've come to the hub of the matter and will agree to disagree!

Cheers, learned friend!

Alex

Because we are mortal, our nature will be dissolved with our personal existence. But nature is not sinful, nor is there a tendency to sin inherent to it; sin is always, and only, a personal reality. As I have said before, natures do not act, only persons act.

P.S. - Anything that one attributes to human nature, must be attributed to Christ as well, since He assumed a human nature identical to our own.

The difference between what I am saying and what Pelagius taught is that I hold that man needs the grace of the incarnation in order to fulfill his true destiny. Nature by itself (even though it is not sinful) is not enough, because God intends for man to transcend his nature and become uncreated and divine. Theosis requires both God's energy and man's energy, working together in a true synergy.

Dear Todd,

Yes OLGS Jesus Christ was like us in all things SAVE SIN (or also "sinfulness" or the inclination toward sin that is in us re: Original Sin).

There is a qualitative difference in His Human Nature, even though it did not "spill over" into His Divinity as well. As you said, when He acted, it was the Divine Person Who acted.

There was the debate, also associated with Eutyches, where it was not acceptable to say that OLGS Jesus Christ was consubstantial with US but with HIS MOTHER.

The lex orandi tradition also emphasizes how Her exalted state mitigated the effects of Original Sin in a way that we are not.

There is absolutely no scriptural foundation for the notion that we do not incline toward sin or that our nature is not damaged by Original Sin. Despite that inclination and "pull" toward sin, the decision to sin is still ours.

Alex

Dear Todd,

But Pelagius never taught that we do not need the Grace of Christ, as you said.

There are quotes from his writings discussing the effects of the Grace of Christ and I quote this from memory from Pelagius "Let others see the great impact on us of the Grace of Christ that flows from reading and prayer."

The debate on whether Pelagius was truly a heretic or not is a separate one (I don't believe he was, even though the system named for him certainly was).

Your discussion here also begs the question, "Why baptize infants? Why is such baptism necessary?"

Alex

Dear Todd,

Please don't concern yourself with my natterings!

I've come to deeply admire your learned person and have just come to realize that there is lots of study that I need to do to even be in your shadow!

And rather than grandstand with my commenting on the Forum (and the Forum and its Administrator and I have had a real disconnect for some time now), I'll commit to doing some real study in Eastern theology.

Cheers and have a great summer!

Alex