|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,518
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I will certainly agree that it does not seem reasonable that God should hold us responsible for someone else's sin. However, our friend Gordon made an interesting point when he said:[quote=ebed melech]To my mind, there is no difference theologically between "effects" and "stain" I don't see it that way, but I'm honestly not trying to deconstruct someone else's belief in this regard. Interesting phrase "White Russian clergy." Sorry, all I meant were the Belarusian and Ukrainian clergy who were deeply influenced by the west and then transmitted that influence eastwards. I meant that in a generic and not specifically national sense. Here's what Fr. Florovsky says about the period With the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Mogilan epoch reached a climax, when the school and culture Mogila had established at Kiev came to its fruition. In theology and in other fields as well the period during the rule of the hetman Mazepa (1687-1709) represents the height of what may be termed the Ukrainian Baroque. 217 For a time the Kievan Academy (promoted to the rank of "Academy" in 1701) was even referred to semi-officially as the "Academia Mogiliano Mazepiana." But its climax was also the end. The flowering was also an epilogue. Probably the most representative figure of this final chapter in the Mogila era in Kievan intellectual history was Ioasaf Krokovskii (d. 1718), reformer, or even second founder, of the Kievan school. For a time he served as its rector and later he became metropolitan of Kiev. More than any other figure he seems to exhibit in religious activity and intellectual outlook all the ambiguities and contradictions of Kiev's cultural "pseudomorphosis: Educated at the Greek College of St. Athanasius in Rome, Krokovskii for the rest of his life was to retain the theological set of mind, religious convictions, and devotional habits he acquired there. At Kiev, he taught theology according to Aquinas and centered his devotional life - as was characteristic of the Baroque era - on the praise of the Blessed Virgin of the Immaculate Conception. It was under his rectorship that the student "congregations" of the Kiev Academy known as Marian Sodalities arose, in which members had to dedicate their lives "to the Virgin Mary, conceived without original sin" ("Virgini Mariae sine labe originali conceptae") and take an oath to preach and defend against heretics that "Mary was not only without actual sin, venal or mortal, but also free from original sin," although adding that "those who regard her as conceived in original sin are not to be classed as heretics." 218 Krokovskii's acceptance of the Immaculate Conception and his propagation of the doctrine at Kiev was no more than the consolidation of a tradition that for some time in the seventeenth century had been forming among various representatives of Kievan theology, including St. Dimitrii of Rostov. And in this realm, too, it was but an imitation or borrowing from Roman thought and practice. The growing idea of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was intellectually linked with an evolving trend in the interpretation of Original Sin, but, more profoundly, it was rooted in a specific psychology and attitude developing historically within the bosom of the western Baroque. The veneration of Panagia and Theotokos by the Orthodox is by no means the same. 219 It is grounded in a spiritual soil of an altogether different kind.
Although the Ukrainian Baroque came to an end during the early eighteenth century, its traces have not fully vanished. Perhaps its most enduring legacy is a certain lack of sobriety, an excess of emotionalism or heady exaltation present in Ukrainian spirituality arid religious thought. It could be classified as a particular form of religious romanticism. Historically this found partial expression in numerous devout and edifying books, mostly half-borrowed, which at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries were coming out in Kiev, Chernigov, and other cities of South Russia. Interesting parallels to these literary documents can be found in the religious painting and ecclesiastical architecture of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear AMM, As great as Florovsky is/was, and speaking here as a sociologist and not, of course, as a theologian of any kind, I detect in his writing, as in that of many theologians, a certain lack of precision when discussing religious vs cultural issues. The "romantic emotionalism" of the Ukrainian Baroque was not, if this is what he implied, as a result of the impact of the Latin West - indeed, it IS the Ukrainian emotional character and this, along with other factors, contributed to Ukrainians seeking out and appreciating these elements of the Western religious culture. Russian/Muscovite culture was completely different in temperament and outlook - so much for the "Little Russian" model concocted as part of Great Russian/Muscovite colonialism. Ukrainians were and are a people unto themselves. However, in the published doctoral dissertation on the Ukrainian contributions to Russian culture (whose author's name escapes me now but I have it readily accessible at home), an entire chapter is dedicated to the Kyivan Mohyla Academy where it is shown that far from falling apart in the 18th century (and in this, Florovsky uncritically accepted the negative assessment of the Academy of other Russian academics) the academy continued unabated well into the 19th century and EVEN continued its exclusive use of Latin! In so doing, many students from all over Europe came to study in Kyiv/Kiev (if you insist on Church Slavonic  ) and Kyiv's social/cultural/academic intercourse with Europe developed and blossomed. It is largely to the Kyivan Mohyla Academy and its close links with the cultural achievement of Europe (all the while disparaging the "barbaric Muscovites" i.e. St Peter Mohyla and many others) that Ukrainian national, independent identity was developed (and not because of outside forces, as is often tendentially maintained by many, including Ukrainian nationalists). Again, religion is not independent of cultural, social and political forces. Romanticism is an integral part not of a period of Latinization represented in the Kyivan Baroque. It is something that would have come out anyway, and in different ways if the Baroque had not occurred. Florovsky's analysis of the cultural aspects of these developments contain gaping and unfortunate holes - but then again he was a theologian, not a social scientist. But one could argue that seminaries need to be open to the insights of the social sciences in coming to terms with religion as a cultural system (and not only as a theolgical system of ideas). Alex
Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 01/09/08 05:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Again, religion is not independent of cultural, social and political forces. Indeed it is not, and the whole period of interaction with western thought and culture in this period is certainly worthy of its own discussion. Florovsky's analysis of the cultural aspects of these developments contain gaping and unfortunate holes - but then again he was a theologian, not a social scientist. Which indeed may be true, and I'll trust your judgment. The theological portion is really what I was trying to get at. He notes that the period represents a falling away from that which is authentically Eastern, whether the outside influences were sought out or simply made their way in (and it could be debated as to how much there is of each). So the adoption of the belief in the IC to him represented not a testament to the compatibility of the teaching with that of Orthodoxy, but a distortion of Orthodoxy itself (and it was just one of several such points of belief). That is really why I thought he makes sense to take in to consideration. I do think it's also worth noting that in my estimation Fr. Florovsky was not a Muscovite idealogue, and was equally critical of elements within that church that he felt like were distortions of the true traditions of the church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 262
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 262 |
Certainly, in the time of the Kyivan Baroque where Orthodox students studied at Western universities, there were Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception who wore a form of the Miraculous medal with the inscription "O All-Immaculate Theotokos, save us!" and even took the "Bloody Vow" (to defend to the death the IC). (This information is contained in an article published by the Marian Library at the university of Dayton that I have somewhere at home). Can you tell me the primary sources quoted in this article? I notice also in the citation from Florovsky that no promary sources are quoted. Thus, we may be able to conclude that this incident was an an aberration or deviation from standard Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
In practice, I think you will find that the IC simply makes assumptions that are not shared by Orthodox theologians. No official decree is really needed. The "immaculate conception" diminishes the blessed Theotokos' capacity to be a model of faith, since she would not need to struggle (practice ascesis) as we do. Also, the notion that Gordo suggested (that the Theotokos voluntarily "fell asleep") only goes to make the Orthodox point, that the IC necessitates that the Theotokos did not share in the common weakened nature of humanity. So, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, the IC is based on two faulty assumptions:
1) That the Theotokos needed to be preserved from the "stain" of original sin, meaning personal guilt inherited from Adam.
2) That the Theotokos was not subject to the effects of the Fall.
St. Paul says that in Adam all die, and in Christ all shall be made alive. If the Theotokos was not subject to death, then we have a contradiction with the biblical text. Whether the Theotokos was actually sinless or not (a matter not definitely settled), she had to stand with us as a fallen being in need of redemption. She did die because she was a child of Adam.
For these reasons, I do not think that the IC is compatible with Orthodoxy, but rather, it is based on needless speculation and is heterodox.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/09/08 06:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
And the reason that the conception of the Theotokos is celebrated is not because she was fully divinized at conception, but because her conception was miraculous. If the Church wanted to, the Church could celebrate the conception of Isaac, since this conception too is a biblical miracle. But we should not infer from that that Isaac was divinized from the moment of conception.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 144
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 144 |
As for this:
"That the Theotokos needed to be preserved from the 'stain' of original sin, meaning personal guilt inherited from Adam"
Is by this sentence you mean that we are inheriting Adam's personal sin?
I believe that is not the Latin's position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."[289] The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."[290]
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with 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".[291] Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.[292]
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,[295] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)[296] and at the Council of Trent (1546).[297]
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".[298] Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action[299] and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world".[300] This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins.[301]
409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"[302] makes man's life a battle:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.[303]
Granted, the language of the Catechism teaches that original sin is not a "personal fault" of each individual, yet the same Catechism also says that all are implicated in Adam's sin and that the sin itself is transmitted, not simply the effects of sin.
In my opinion, I think that the Catechism is being too vague and equivocal here. It is attempting to soften the older view that "we sinned in Adam," while not repudiating it.
From the Council of Trent:
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
and
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Clearly, according to Trent, original sin in infants needs to be expiated.
Granted, in the Catholic Church, there is development of doctrine, yet the dogma of IC was promulgated with Trent's definition in mind (the promulgation was pre-Vatican II). If we do not stand condemned to hell because of Adam's sin, then the IC makes no sense.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
And I think the clear sense of Trent which is still operative in the current CCC is that by being implicated in Adam's sin, we are judged guilty from the moment of conception. Even though the sin is not one of "personal fault" we still contract it and with it we are judged by God.
Trent again:
�If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, let him be anathema.�
and from both Lyons and Florence,
�The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.�
That one can depart into hell and be punished while not committing any personal sin makes no sense if we are not, in fact, judged guilty by Adam's sin.
The problem the current CCC has is that whatever it teaches has to be in conformity with what has already been taught.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
...and from both Lyons and Florence,
�The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.� Joe, Can you provide the context for that quote? Thanks... Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
A slightly fuller excerpt from the council of Florence, for context: Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
A slightly fuller excerpt from the council of Florence, for context: Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htmThanks, Joe and Andrew! Gordo, who is pondering...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Here is an article from what seems to be a traditionalist Roman Catholic group. I am not stating that I agree with this article necessary, nor am I stating that this article speaks for all Catholics, but it does seem well reasoned and defends the view that Catholic teaching holds that we incur guilt because of Adam's sin. http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
And I think the clear sense of Trent which is still operative in the current CCC is that by being implicated in Adam's sin, we are judged guilty from the moment of conception. Even though the sin is not one of "personal fault" we still contract it and with it we are judged by God. One distinction that must be maintained, however, is that the "guilt" of Trent is not precisely what we mean by "guilt" in English. The word used in Latin has the meaning of "effects of judgement", not of personal fault. So just as the children of a man who lost his house due to illegal activity share in his homelessness (his "guilt" in the Latin), so we share in the darkness of Adam, the loss of Original Holiness. Remember also that in Latin theological parlance, sin is not only used to mean the action of evil, but also the state of being out of Grace. So when we share in the sin of Adam, we are sharing in his state and not at all in his action. In fact, the entire point of the term "stain" is to represent this darkness of the soul, not some outside, clinging taint. So when it is said that Mary was conceived without the stain Original Sin, all that is being said is that she is conceived with the Light of God in her soul, rather than the darkness of its absence. As for her still being mortal, I remind everyone that Christ, God Himself, was mortal and yet without any kind of sin. The Mysteries of God are great indeed.  Peace and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
