www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate conception - eastern view?

I agree.

Since "papal infallibility" is only a theological opinion, and not a dogma, it cannot be called heretical; instead, it can at most be called an invalid or erroneous opinion.

I believe that is what I said.

Speaking generically that is true, but no one is a generic Catholic.

As an Eastern Catholic I hold the opinions expressed at Vatican I in connection with the papacy to be invalid, but what a Latin Catholic thinks about those opinions is his own business.

As a working definition, the term Catholic means member of a Church in communion with the Church of Rome. Communion is a state of mutual recognition and love. As long as we recognize the Bishop of Rome, and he recognizes us, then our opinion regarding certain of his decrees and certain positions taken by the Latin Church have no impact upon our communion with Rome. Rome is free, any time it wishes, to condemn those of us who dispute certain teachings peculiar to the Latin Church, but, interestingly, Rome has not done so, even when such statements are made publicly by members of the hierarchy of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Contrary to popular perception, Rome is generally quite slow to issue condemnations (which are mostly counterproductive anyway). From this it can be inferred that there is rather a lot of room for theological discernment and discussion within the Catholic Communion.

.

Too much, according to some. There is also a tendency on the part of non-Catholics to ascribe to the Catholic communion a monolithic uniformity that does not exist. This parallels a tendency to ascribe to the Pope far more power than he actually wields.

Overall that is a good working definition, and I basically agree with the sentiments expressed in it . . . except that I see those who are commonly called Eastern Orthodox Christians as Catholics too, even though they are not in communion at the present time with the bishop of Rome.

As a working definition, the term "Orthodox" (or, more completely, "Eastern Orthodox") refers to those Churches of the Byzantine/Constantinopolitan rite that are not in communion with the Church of Rome. This definition, together with the definition of Catholic given above, are accurate and useful designations for two families or communions of particular Churches--both of which happen to possess the fullness of the Church of God, being both catholic and orthodox in their faith, and inheritors of the Apostolic Tradition as handed down from the Fathers.

Dear brother StuartK,

As an Oriental, the theological modes of expression of the Latin Church as regards Original Sin is pretty much the same as what I learned when I was not yet in communion with Rome. So I guess it was easier for me to accept the dogma of the IC.

Apparently, this is also the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas: He Who is the preexisting and good Word of the Father, moved by His unutterable love for mankind and compassion for us, put on our image, that He might reclaim for Himself our nature which had been dragged down to uttermost Hades, so as to renew this corrupted nature and raise it to the heights of Heaven. For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Sermon on the Entry of the Theotokos

It seems St. Gregory Palamas does not agree with your understanding. I have read from some EO that the current view of many EO on original sin is not in line with the Tradition of the Eastern Fathers (e.g., http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html, http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/ [scroll down to the link to the book "The New Soteriology"). I think they trace the origins of this apparent gap between the Eastern and Western understanding on original sin to have been no earlier than the 19th century, whereas before that time, there was really no difference, which would account for the many testimonies to the belief in the Immaculate Conception teaching in the EO Church. As an example among many, in the Ukraine, there was actually a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception which was formed in the 18th (17th?) century.

Blessings,
Marduk

Please take great care with anything written by Vladimir Moss. While Catholics who are unfamiliar with him may accept him as a reliable Orthodox source they need to be aware that Orthodox priests would advise parishioners to avoid his
writings.

Here is one caution placed by a priest on another list:


"Anyone who has wandered around the rather odd online analogue of Orthodoxy that exists on the internet for a little while has encountered the name Vladimir Moss. He's a sectarian extremist whose main mission in life is to prove over and over again that he and maybe half-a-dozen others are the only true Orthodox left on earth, although exactly which half-a-dozen are right changes from time to time as the little sects of faux-ultra Orthodox splinter and realign themselves.
If he and his ilk are where you're getting your information about Orthodoxy, no wonder it's so bizarre."

Ephrem Bensusan is a bit of a maverick convert and known for pro-actively striving to influence Orthodoxy to adopt a Protestant-style teaching on Atonement. Since he is not read in Athens and Moscow we should be fairly safe. :-) He has not had the blessing of an Orthodox theological education but comes from the Protestant Graduate Theological Union of UC-Berkeley. I am sure that Orthodox clergy would advise people to exercise some caution when reading his theological thoughts.

Hieromonk Ambrose,

Thanks for the information on Vladimir Moss.

God bless you,
Todd

Dearest Father Ambrose,

I am more interested in a refutation of the numerous sources Vladimir Moss quotes, if you can offer one, than a mere attack on his credibility. Same goes for Ephrem Bensusan. In the absence of such, let's leave it to the reader to judge the merit of their statements, instead of trying to prevent others from reading them in the first place by merely impugning their character.

Humbly,
Marduk

One thing I'd like to add:

I read about 10 pages of the link to Vladimir Moss' "New Soteriology," and I found it disturbing that he claimed the early Eastern Fathers taught that guilt is inherited. I know that they didn't. It's just the "guilt is inherited" idea that bothers me, since not even the Latins teach that. I think perhaps he is not claiming that we inherit the guilt of Adam per se, but only that we inherit a lack of holiness that would translate to "guilt" in God's eyes. I'm not positive, and I would have to read more. So far, his appeal to Eastern (i.e., Byzantine) sources is eye-opening, and I pray people here are open-minded enough to read what he writes before judging.

Ephrem Bensusan's defense of Western Christianity against the misconception that she teaches that the guilt of Adam is inherited is a worthy read.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bless, Father,

Am I correct in thinking that Moss is the Londoner who has a history of church-hopping, particularly among the various OC/"True" jurisdictions (although, if he's the one I recollect, I think he spent time with ROCOR as well)?

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

As I read the two posts from Father Ambrose, I see him urging caution - not trying to prevent anyone from reading the two authors - a caution that certainly rings true with me from what I've heard of Moss.

Many years,

Neil