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

I'll try St Leo's Latin on this one:

"Nature, not its faults, was assumed from the mother of the Lord..."

I do not think the Latin text says or even implies that the culpa belong to the Theotokos, but rather to the human nature which Christ assumed from her. Faultiness?

Interesting, you're right; it doesn't refer to "her faultiness" at all, but simply to "fault" in relation to nature.

I wonder who did the English translation on that website. In this particular case, at least, the Latin has clearly been butchered in favor of a statement against Mary.

Peace and God bless!

Dear brother Michael Thoma,

How can this be? Jesus had to assume our mortality in order to transform it by His Resurrection.

I think the translation given by Father Ambrose is just a distortion of the original text. It seems the "her" in the text he gave is an additive interpretation to promote an agenda, not a faithful translation.

Blessings

As the Liturgy informs us, Jesus laid down his life voluntarily. He did not have to die. The Theotokos, her sinlessness not withstanding, had no choice in the matter, as man has inherited his mortality from Adam.

Granted, but I think that is beside the point. His decision to sacrifice Himself for us is a separate question of whether Christ assumed our mortality.

Remember the old addage - what was not assumed, was not raised up.

Blessings

But mortality was not an inherent aspect of human nature, rather a deformation of it; so if Christ assumed and perfected human nature, it would not be mortal, hence the risen Christ possesses a glorified "spiritual" body which has qualities beyond that of fallen man.

Dear brother StuartK,

Well, this would be one of the distinctions between Orientals and Easterns (though I don't think all Easterns hold your view). Oriental (as well as Western) anthropology is basically Athanasian. We don't beleive death is a deformation of human nature, but is merely part of human nature. According to Pope St. Athanasius, man was immortal by a gift of Grace. Without it, he was naturally mortal. Adam and Eve lost that gift for us, and we were left with our natural mortality.

The Syrian Oriental Tradition, with St. Ephrem, is even more profound, seeing death not as a curse, but as part of the natural process to Eternal Life.

So Christ died because he indeed was able to die, having assumed our mortal human nature.

For you to say that Christ did not inherit mortality would be, ISTM, a violation of basic Christology. You seem to be confusing Christ's Incarnation with Christ's Glorification/Resurrection. Our Lord indeed took on mortality at the Incarnation. But Human Nature was not perfected by Christ until the Resurrection. So your statement "if Christ assumed and perfected human nature, it would not be mortal," is altogether strange to me.

Blessings

Yes, I tend to agree, but where may we see an accurate translation of the original text? It was to establish the original text that I made mention of this on the Forum. The text I gave was presented on another Forum. It raised doubts for me, and I wanted to get to the original text and to an accurate translation.

I've found the original Latin but have still not found a good English translation.

Sorry, I haven't followed this thread from the beginning. What is the original Latin? My Latin isn't very good, but at least I could get an idea of the meaning.

Assumpta est de Matre Domini, natura, non culpa

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_04.shtml

The site has the Latin, English and Greek texts.

There can be no doubt about the meaning of culpa. It means "sin" or "fault."

The main problem here is that there are no pronouns in the original Latin. Assumpta est de matre domini natura non culpa. Whose nature, whose sin?

Therefore, I suggest looking at the rest of the text. There we find references to naturam nostram, naturae humanae, and naturam corporis. In other words, I suggest Pope St. Leo the Great is talking about human nature as opposed to human sin and fault.

Accordingly, what Christ received from His Mother was human nature, not human sin and fault.

Context is vital. I'd agree that HH St. Leo was talking human nature.

About the angelic salutation, to defend the Immaculate Conception, Arch. Pedro Arbex (Arbash) (eternal memory!), founder of St. George Melkite Church in the city of Juiz de Fora, state of Minas Gerais, wrote in the book "Teologia Orante na Liturgia do Oriente":


Arch. Arbex also quotes a Byzantine hymn:

I came upon a letter from an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and his parishioners in the States to Patriarch Shenouda of the Copts.

We can see that

1. At least one Ethiopian bishop accepts the Immaculate Conception and has disciplined an Ethiopian priest in the States who rejects it.

2. The Coptic Orthodox Church, in the writings of Pope Shenouda, rejects the Immaculate Conception.

Please see
http://www.medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/Letter_to_HH%20Shenouda.pdf

Name of the book: The Holy Virgin St. Mary
Author: His Holiness Pope Shenouda ill
Editor: Orthodox Coptic Clerical College, Cairo
Edition: 1999
Press: Amba Rueiss, (Offset)
Deposition number at "The Library": 9173/96

"THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY IN THE CHURCH'S FAITH"

The Orthodox Coptic Church honors our Lady The Virgin with due
honor without exaggeration, and without lessening ofherposition. <snip>

The sanctifying by the Holy Spirit of her depository, makes the
One born of her, be conceived without the impurity of the original sin. As
for The Virgin herself, her mother conceived, like all people, and so The
Virgin said in her hymn: "my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior"
(Luke 1:47). That is why the Church does not agree that The Virgin was
conceived without the impurity of the original sin, as our brothers the
Catholics believe.

That's very interesting, Father. Has Pope Shenouda responded yet?

It would not be the only serious doctrinal inconsistency within the non-Chalcedonian communion.