www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why is the Immaculate Conception considered Ex-Catherda?

I don't believe this question has been addressed fully:


The reason for baptism - infant or adult - is entry into the Church (i.e. the ekklesia, the assembly of Christians, the body of Christ). The baptized participates in the fullness of life and the deification which God gives to the church through its worship. It's one of three essential stages in a person's "putting off the old man for the new", his joining of the community which is the body of Christ and his "ordination" for his ministry as one of the people of God*.

This is integral to the "Byzantine" tradition, as can be seen in the rite of baptism/chrismation/Eucharist for initiates into the Church. Certainly, Baptism forgives the sins that the baptized committed beforehand. But its fundamental purpose is to renew the person so he can participate in the Church (i.e. its common worship, its sacramental life and the fruits thereof - one is not saved individually).

For infants, the baptism is also the parents and sponsor's affirmation that they will participate in the church and raise the child to participate. The child would otherwise be outside the church and would live a life without grace until his later baptism. The "fruits" of the sacraments are not limited to what can be grasped rationally.

My $0.02.

*sorry, my current vacation reading is Father Nicholas Afanasiev's "Church of the Holy Spirt" and it's rubbing off some. Though he went a bit far sometimes, I personally can't find fault with his basic points.

I can accept this as your statement of transubstantiation, and in that sense, your theory of transubstantiation. You use what is usually considered as scholastic terminology by invoking "accidents." You state that your theory is "contrary to what Pope St. Gelasius taught." While you may state your theory and make comparisons, the actual teaching, the dogmatic statement of the Catholic Church, is what is relevant. Do you know what the actual teaching says?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Even as a Roman Catholic, even when I used to be a proud papist ignorant of the east as a whole, I had issues with the IC because as I understand it, this belief states that Mary was conceived in state that she was already saved. In other words, she was in that state that baptized Christians are in. It was like she was pre-saved if you will. That's how I understood it. Is that how any of you who are proponents of the IC understand it? That she was in a state of salvation before salvation was available? In doing some research on this, it seems that the Dominicans took up Thomas Aquinas' position until it was dogmatized which I find interesting.



Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Glory to Jesus Christ!

So I have been doing some reading in the CCC and reflection on this whole controversy. I have a few questions that may seem redundant, but please humor me in answering even those that may seem self explanatory. First a comparison between the states of Adam and Eve before and after the fall.

Before the fall: they were immortal, had a will that was fully intact, were not inclined towards sin, had infused knowledge, had (what the Roman Catholic Church refers to) preternatural gifts (not sure if there is an equivalent term or belief in Eastern Christianity), and a certain union or life with God.

After the fall: they were mortal, had a weakened will, were inclined towards sin (either because of concupiscence or of their passions), a darkened understanding, had to learn knowledge, lost their preternatural gifts and were spiritually dead.

We are born into this latter state (of Original Sin or of the consequences of the ancestral sin).

A few questions:

Q1) Is the original holiness and justice that Adam and Eve lived in a life of grace? In other words, did they share in the life of God as we baptized Christians do?

Q2) If no, what was their relationship to God if they were not sharers of His grace, sharers in His life? Obviously it is different from both our baptized condition and that of non-baptized persons.

Q3) If after the fall, we were separated (from whatever kind of relationship our first parents had) from God and all are born in this state of spiritual death, then how would the most Holy Theotokos be "full of grace" if she is in a state of spiritual death as the rest of humanity if there was no Immaculate Conception?

Q3) Unless she was made "full of grace" at the moment of the angel's salutation and had lived a life without sin (which we all, east and west agree on, well, I guess not all as I just remembered some Orthodox believe she did sin ) then how could the God from whom we are separated be held in the womb of a creature which is in spiritual death? (I ask this question this because 1) I understand as stated that there is an understanding that she was made "full of grace" upon the salutation. But, 2) the counter argument being proposed instead of the Immaculate Conception is that she was in the same state as any other individual except that she did not sin.)

Upon reflection of this last question, in the Eastern understanding, are all men after Adam and Eve born in a state of spiritual death or does one have to commit sin to be spiritually dead? If one is not spiritually dead unless they commit a mortal sin and the Eastern understanding is not that we received spiritual death from Adam, then I could better understand the counter argument for Mary being in the same state as the rest of humanity.

Again, these may seem self-explanatory but please humor me in answering these questions.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

I always hear this question as a rhetorical and supposedly self-explanatory point that Mary "must have been" sinless in order for Jesus to be residing in her womb. I've never understood that necessity, as if God would have had His hands tied in the matter somehow.

Glory to Jesus Chris!


jjp,

If you read carefully, you will notice I kinda cover my bases here with full spectrum. And if you read carefully, you may see why Roman Catholics need it. Why their theology calls for it.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Some on this forum have stated that all of us are immaculately conceived. Would that mean we are born already saved?

Glory to Jesus Christ!


ajk,

Be careful not to mix Eastern and Western theology here.

*Will you people stop nit picking and trying to gotcha parts of my post when I know you guys are intelligent enough to read my post in whole and understand there are parts that deal with Eastern theological understanding and there are parts that deal with Western theological understanding.*

If you are trying to be smart I will not respond. But in this case I will not assume that.

No, they do not mean that ajk. Because that belief that marry was redeemed at the moment of her conception is Roman Catholic and not Eastern. And if you read carefully, the Roman Catholic theology needs that because it is Roman belief that we received spiritual death from Original Sin.

I am about to go to work, so I won't be able to post from the CCC for reference until later tonight.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Allowing that saved has a broader connotation -- we are being saved -- then, yes, in that baptism remits the stain of original sin from which Mary was preserved. As the dogma says:
It is best to stick with the words of the dogma. It does address a nascent aspect of salvation, being preserved from original sin.

That is a contradiction and, consequently, incorrect.

Since Aquinas was not a proponent of the IC, you should reexamine your research. It was the theology of the Franciscan John Duns Scotus that is said to provide explanations and framework.

ajk,

What I mean is that the Dominicans were against the IC up until it was dogmatized by the Pope. Not that they were proponents for it.

Thank you for your responses.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The mixing, as I have said and as the divergence of this topic in this forum alone shows, is what should be desired. By that I mean a homogeneous expression of the theology -- of The Faith -- understandable to East and West, because there is not a separate Truth for each.

To those who see "nit picking" I offer that "God is in the details." The feeling of "gotcha" should be overcome by explanation. It may be, however, the proper feeling for those who offer lofty theological concepts, often glibly stated, that are found wanting when scrutinized.

Dear ajk,

I do not think that it is a matter of there being two truths here, but rather that there are different expressions of that truth. Also, these theologies are distinct and bound in the nuances of history as well.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Dear ajk,

Isn't the traditional subject of that quoted saying a tad different . . . lol.

And do not try to put ideas (lofty theological concepts) into someone else words. I do my best to be humble and that is why I offer my thoughts in question format but will defend them if I feel someone is treating them unfairly and without context.

When you say:


You are mixing different understandings of the same word, Immaculate. There are two worlds that you are trying to force together. The understanding in the IC works for Roman Catholicism because of the belief that spiritual death was passed was passed on to all of humanity:


Once someone answers the questions I posted, I will have a clearer understanding if one of the understandings in the East is that spiritual death was not passed on to us, Adam's decedents. If spiritual death was not passed on to us, then what need is there in that theological context for the IC?

I'm just trying to clear what has become to me a muddled picture of mixing and not keeping distinct these two spiritual heritages. I contend, contrary to your opinion, that it is this mixing that causes the greatest confusion.

But oh how far (and I have definitely become part of this) we have come away from the main question:


AJK, if you wish to continue, I would suggest starting a new thread.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The subject of this thread provides the context for the terms. That is the given understanding. Nevertheless, what are the "different understandings of the same word, Immaculate"?

To my understanding, here is another possible way of probing the same topic:

Was such a spiritual death "passed on to us"?

Which churches of the communion that is the Catholic Church (as in Catechism of the Catholic Church) holds a view that diverges from that stated in CCC§403 above?