www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West EOC & Immaculate Conception

Dear AMM,

I think that ultimately as long as we agree on a view of Original Sin that does not impute any moral fault or sinful rebellion against God of any kind to the Most Holy Mother of God the Word Incarnate while underlining her complete and total holiness as the human being closest to God - then I'm O.K. and you're O.K.!

Alex

Dear Recluse,

You are more than correct. The Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God is breath-taking!

What impresses me most is the way in which her veneration is so integrated into the Orthodox liturgical tradition with its constant focus on her in her great role in our salvation.

And then there is the prayer, unique to Eastern Orthodoxy:

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

This discussion is really about the "how" and not about the "that" of her complete holiness.

It was by the power of the Most Holy Spirit, Whose august Temple she was and is, that she was "higher than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim."

Our constant outpouring of loving devotion and honour to her, at the same time, links us more closely to Her Son.

When we go to her, she tells us, as she did so many years ago at the wedding feast at Cana: "Do whatever He tells you."

And Christ is always ready to hear her prayer of intercession for us, something He Himself underscored when He said, at the same wedding feast, "My time has not yet come - but since you ask this of Me, I will do it."

Most Holy Mother of God, save us!

Alex

Dear Ghosty,

You are too kind - but it is I who must ask you about the resources you have studied!

In this case, it is largely Meyendorff's work and the prayers of the Byzantine liturgical tradition.

Cheers,

Alex

That's not how I would say it. I would say subject to the effects of the fall (i.e. mortal), like any other child born in to the world. None of whom have the power or ability to sin.

Alex


I can't exactly say, because I don't know what that view of Original Sin is. What is "it" in that case? I gave my view of it above. I can't see what somebody would need to be precluded from since there is nothing "there". Additionally, a point that Recluse brought up which is a good one, is the complete absence of any of this in the Bible.

Dear AMM,

That is precisely the view of Original Sin - that it is not a stain on the soul, but the impact on our nature of Adam's sin. That is still "Original Sin" - and we should leave it alone since I believe we agree.

As for the complete absence of this or that in the Bible as a standard - there is so much in our Eastern Christian heritage that is not given us by the Bible that if we kept to a "Sola Scriptura" position only - our Church would be all the poorer for it.

Alex

Yes. That is more accurate than the words I used.

There many areas of our faith where we are blessed by basking in the mystery of the unexplainable.

Dear Recluse,

That is what makes the faith so wonderful and exciting!!

As for the Theotokos, don't you just, well, LOVE HER!?

And happy feast of St Theophan the Recluse today!

Alex

The problem I guess is that is not what the dogma says to me. The exact wording from the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus

in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin

The New Advent Encyclopedia says about the stain

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

It is clear the dogma was formulated to address something different. Something is "there", otherwise there would be no need for it. Unfortunately I personally don't just believe the dogma is superfluous, I believe it the actual content of it is incorrect. The manner of its proclamation simply being a further issue.

I also want to be clear my intent is not to show you or anybody else are wrong. I'm just trying to explain why from my own standpoint the dogma doesn't make sense to me.


My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that in that view the Bible is self interpreting and self authenticating, or in other words the church proceeds from the Bible and everything should be found explicitly and clearly there. I certainly believe the Bible is a product of the tradition of the church, but something from which all other dogmatic tradition of the church must proceed and be firmly rooted on.

Amen. You can not imagine how the Godbirthgiver has protected and interceded for me and my family over the years.

Thank you Alex. He is one of my favorite saints. I have learned much through his writngs!

This is also how I feel. It saddens me that the Latin Church did not leave this as a great and glorious mystery.

Dear AMM,

I'm not disagreeing with you (about Original Sin or the Bible exegesis etc.).

You are right - it is because of the West's understanding of Original Sin as a stain that is "there" that the dogma of the IC was formulated (as also affirms Kallistos Ware in his "The Orthodox Way").

Apart from that, the doctrine would never have been formulated.

At the same time, the feast of the Conception of St Anne began to be celebrated in the East in the sixth century and was later introduced in England and elsewhere.

My point is not that how we understand Original Sin is superfluous or is "all the same."

But that the All-Holiness of the Mother of God is held by both East and West.

The West's Augustinian view of Original Sin simply put it at a disadvantage (even though Augustine himself always insisted that the Theotokos was exempt from his view of Original Sin - obviously implying that something is "there" but in her case, wasn't).

I've had run-ins with Protestants over the Bible of late. When they started on me, I felt put-off since I'm not into memorizing scripture "proof texts."

What was interesting from that experience however was instead of trying to think up "counter texts" one can simply open the Bible and read out loud the entire text they are quoting.

Thus, one quoted a text as "proof" that the Theotokos was not Ever-Virgin i.e. the brothers of Christ.

Yet, when one reads the text, it is about what other people thought and what they thought was that Joseph was the father of Jesus. To take that text literally (which is what they do) would mean that they would have to deny the Virgin Birth . . .

When Jehovah's Witnesses were going on about Christ being Michael the Archangel, one could just begin reading, as I did, the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews . . . A better refutation of their viewpoint could not be had.

However, there is much in the Eastern Orthodox Church especially that comes from Tradition that may or may not be Bible-based. In fact, it might all be quite indifferent to it.

The controversy with Arianism is one where the same Bible was interpreted quite differently, as we know.

In any event, coming out of a sociological milieu, I'm naturally suspicious of any assessment of any historical event or literary work where the subjective nature of that assessment is somehow not overtly admitted.

We simply cannot understand such events or writing outside our subjective perspectives (which is not to say that our perspectives are wrong).

Even the assumption made today in scholastic circles and elsewhere that for an historical event to be "true" there has to be documents, writing of some sort.

And in fact we know that in the early days of Christianity and before, written accounts and records were always suspect since so many frauds tried to misrepresent Christian theology and even used the names of individual Apostles as a way to get people to agree with them, like the Gnostics.

Word of mouth and actually lived praxis were the best indicators of one's faith and this is the sociolinguistic milieu in which the term "Orthodoxy" was coined and used to describe the Christian faith. From a sociological point of view, that term is both brilliant and highly practical.

Alex

My point is that in our individual conscience, we must weigh what we believe and what we don't. I honestly don't view this as an East/West question.

Dear AMM,

You are right - it isn't.

Alex

I agree, dogma sort of closes the door to that subjectiveness though, which is why it can be difficult to deal with. Reading the Protoevangelium of James, it's a little hard not to get that "subjective" feeling.


I agree.