www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Heart of Mary

>>>"Orthodoxy, while holding in high honour the role of the Blessed Virgin as Christ's Mother, sees no need for any dogma of
the '"Immaculate Conception."'As defined by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854, this doctrine states that Mary, from '"the
first moment of her conception"' by her mother St.Anne, was exempted from '"all stain of original guilt."'....Orthodoxy does
not envisage the fall in Augustanian terms, as a taint of inherited guilt. If we Orthodox had accepted the Latin view of
original guilt, then we might have felt the need to affirm a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. As it is, our terms of
reference are different; the Latin dogma seems to us not so much erroneous as superfluous." The Orthodox Way by Bishop
Kallistos.<<<

You stopped a little short, there, ignoring what Bishop Kallistos wrote in "The Orthodox Church", to the effect that, insofar as the Orthodox Church had not authoritatively condemned the doctrine of immaculate conception (or anything else concerning either the conception of the Theotokos, or HOW she was preserved without sin), it would be acceptable for an individual Orthodox Christian to hold such a belief as a private theological speculation, provided he did not attempt to impose it upon others or present it as the teaching of the Church as a whole.

>>>There can only one true understanding of the story of Original Sin. <<<

Really, Robert? Which Ecumenical Council says this? Historically, is this how the Church approached the question? Or rather, did not the East and West have very different understandings from the beginning, a product of differences in language and culture? The Council of Carthage in 245 was the first to formally expound on the notion of the sin of Adam as inherited guilt, the notion that sin is transmitted through procreation was found throughout the Ante-Nicene Latin Fathers. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, the West had become thoroughly imbued with this atttitude, YET IT DID NOT AFFECT THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST WITH THE CHURCH OF THE WEST. Please explain, then, how that which was irrelevant to the Fathers suddenly becomes relevant to you? Is it not really more a matter of not having one Tradition impose its expression of doctrine upon another Tradition? Or is it necessary to be Byzantine in order to be Orthodox?

Robert,

Thank you for taking the time to offer what you thought I was missing. Briefly, indulgences do not flow out of the idea of Original Sin, but rather out of the sinfulness of all of us. The idea of an "indulgence" is, in fact, based upon the merits of Jesus and his redemptive death and resurrection. None of us merit heaven, we are not worthy, even, of being saved. And, yet, Jesus died and rose for us, conquering death and offering us salvation. His merits offer us indulgences. There are many great and notable saints who also add to the treasury of graces. Simeon the Stylite, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Greate, and many others. From their abundant good works it is possible for us to benefit.

Purgatory is a recognition that when we die we are not yet fully purified. In the Orthodox Church there has been an ongoing discussion regarding "toll-booths" which is another way of looking at the issue of a final recognition of what we were called to be and how far short of that goal we came. Again, this flows not out of Original Sin, but out of our own sinfullness.

Here's how I reconcile the Orthodox and Catholic positions. Both agree that the sin of Adam is passed on to all human beings in some way. For the Catholic Church this is reflected in a teaching that we are born with Original Sin on our soul. As a consequence of this we are born estranged from God, our intellects are weakened and our ability to resist sin is compromised. For the Orthodox we are born into a world that is affected by Original Sin. As a result we are not in a right relationship with God which is why we need to be baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus (the image and likeness of God are present in us, but are deformed), we are affected by the fallen world and are subject to temptation, we struggle to find the right path (orthopraxis).

What you call "guilt" in the Catholic Church's definition is what I call the consequnces of Original Sin in the Orthodox view.

Again, I see the two as opposite sides of the same coin. The Catholic Church looks at the personal effects while the Orthodox Church looks more at the global effects. Yet, in essence, I see them as being the same thing. The differ only in point of focus, not in effect.

Edward, deacon and sinner

StuartK,
There are Protestant beliefs that have not been condemned neither by an Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church. Should we entertain them as some Byzantine Catholics entertain latinization? Sounds like relativism! Perhaps an Eighth Ecumenical Councilis needed to clarify teachings that have had no Ecumenical weight. The West's misunderstanding of Original Sin bore fruit later in time in doctrines of indulgences, purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc. I am sure language and culture and geography were factors in the understanding. You are correct in that communion was one between East and West. If it were irrelevant to the Fathers it probably did not make itself manifest until centuries later. As you correctly indicated, language, culture, and geography were the dominant players. The Church Fathers did not see Original Guilt coming into a predominant takeover of the Roman Catholic mindset perhaps due to ignorance. Tell me something StuartK, how are you honestly capable of reconciling the Roman Catholic version in contrast to Orthodoxy's understanding? DO you know about Original Guilt having an impact on people and mindsets? What do you think of Indulgences in connection to Original Guilt?

>>>There are Protestant beliefs that have not been condemned neither by an Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church.<<<

This is a reductio ad absurdum, as well as a red herring. We are not talking here about relatively modern deviations from Holy Tradition, but fully legitimate expressions of Holy Tradition whose continuity within the theology of the Western Church can be traced back to the third century.

During the period between Tertullian and the Anathemas of 1054,the Eastern Church was fully aware that the Western Church had a different way of thinking about and expression the consequences of the fall of Adam. It did not seem to bother the Fathers of the East, not one whit. Nor, for that matter, did the elaborations of theology that emerged from the rather more pessimistic understanding of human nature held by the West.

Rather, conflict only erupted when the Church of the West attempted to impose upon the Church of the East its own particular views on the matter, promoted to matters of "dogma". This is the same pattern that emerged in the debate over the procession of the Holy Spirit. Various Eastern Fathers were fully aware that the Latin Church spoke of the procession of the Spirit from the "Patrum et Filioque", including, most noteably, Maximos the Confessor. He was fully comfortable with the expression, noting that due to the limitations of the Latin tongue, when the Latins say "from the Father and the Son, they mean the same as "from the Father through the Son", which Maximos considered the Orthodox position. There the matter could rest until the Latin Church, led by reform-minded Frankish monastics and bishops, attempted to foist their expression on the Eastern Churches not as a particular expression of doctrine, but as an essential "dogma".

And so there, in a nutshell, is the problem: one Church, at one time, pronounced various "dogmas" without the consent of the other Churches. Un-dogmatized, such expressions are acceptable within the boundaries of Orthodox thought as theological speculations. Dogmatized, they represent an imposition on the Byzantine Tradition. Undogmatic speculations that did not explictly contradict the patristic consensus were broadly tolerated by the Fathers. They avoided dogmatic definitions whenever possible, and never made any unless driven by extreme pastoral need; abstract theologizing for its own sake was not for them.

Therefore, the solution to the current problem lies not in formulating even more "dogmas", or by the Orthodox proposing an equal and opposite set of dogmas to the Latin dogmas of the second millennium, but for BOTH sides to step back from unequivocal dogmatic statements about matters not essential to faith, recognizing that the patristic consensus was just that--a consensus around a wide range of beliefs and opinions.

As a general rule, I propose that "He who dogmatizes least has the least need to dogmatize". That is, when one declares something to be dogma, one implicitly dogmatizes all of the assumptions behind that particular definition. And that in turn requires the implicit dogmatization of all the assumptions behind the assumptions, ad nauseum. Taken to its logical conclusion, one will reach the point where every last jot and tittle of the faith will be dogmatically defined. At which point, the faith will die, for a Tradition which is not dynamic, forward looking, apocalyptic, does not reflect the indwelling and activity of the Holy Spirit within the Church. At that point, Tradition is reduced to traditionalism, liturgy becomes cult, and we can all sleep in on Sunday, because we will have missed the point of Liturgy and Eucharist, entirely.

>>>Tell me something StuartK,
how are you honestly capable of reconciling the Roman Catholic version in contrast to Orthodoxy's understanding? DO you
know about Original Guilt having an impact on people and mindsets? What do you think of Indulgences in connection to
Original Guilt?<<<

Interesting question. In the first place, I think you operate under something of a misconception. The Latin Church no longer holds to a doctrine of "original guilt", and in fact, has not done so for several centuries. Admittedly, that is how Tertullian and several other of the early Latin Fathers viewed the matter, and Augustine inherited much of that background and made it his own. The Schoolmen of the Middle Ages elaborated upon this, in an attempt to explain, to their satisfaction, the mystery of salvation. The doctrine of purgatory arises from that attempt, and it actually tells us more about Medieval German jurisprudence than anything else. But since the Counter-Reformation, the Latin Church has been backing down from this position, and that tendency has accelerated since the early 20th century and the patristic revival in Western theology.

As a result, both the doctrines of purgatory and of indulgences have been greatly attenuated, losing much of the features that distinguished them from the patristic Tradition espoused by the Eastern Churches. Put differently, in this, as in most other bones of contention, the Orthodox have won, should declare victory, and go home. All that is left is the shell of the medieval understanding of the doctrines.

Based on what is currently taught, both purgatory and indulgences seem to me to be nothing more than particular expressions by the Latin Church regarding the work of redemption and salvation through grace. There are vestiges of hylomorphism, but they are fading rapidly as the Western Church reattaches itself to its patristic roots.

Bottom line--so long as the Latin Church does not impose its expressions of doctrine on me,and do not express something that is explictly contrary to Holy Tradition, I am willing to let them explain the mystery in their own way.

By the way, your comment about "guilt trips" incorrectly limits the phenomenon to Roman Catholics. In fact, it is an almost universal phenomenon, well known among Jewish and Slavic, as well as Spanish and Italian mothers.

Fr. Deacon Ed,


Fr. Deacon Ed: �For the Catholic Church this is reflected in a teaching that we are born with Original Sin on our soul. As a consequence of this we are born estranged from God, our intellects are weakened and our ability to resist sin is compromised. For the Orthodox we are born into a world that is affected by Original Sin.�

Elias: The Western understanding is one where human nature is sinful and is inherited. But here is the problem: If human nature is sinful, then Jesus did not become fully human. If this estrangement from God is a tendency to sin (concupiscence), then we are talking about hypothetical or virtual sins, that is, in effect but not in fact. Such ideas of a sinful nature borders on Gnosticism. The consequences of sin is Death or immortality and decay or incorruptibility. These are ontological and is a big difference from individual moral acts. Even Jesus� fully human nature had to bear the consequences of an ontologically mortal nature. Jesus shared fully in our humanity and in its consequences of death. There is a difference between the ontological and the moral. Our human nature suffers from death and decay. This is inheritable, but not personal sins resulting from our concupiscence. I see a parallel between the Western confusion of the concupiscence to sin with the ontologicl reality of our nature AND Arius� own confusion of the natural and orthodox subordination of the Son to the Father with the Son�s ontological subordination to the Father. No wonder why Athanasius got uptight.

Fr. Deacon Ed: �Again, I see the two as opposite sides of the same coin. The Catholic Church looks at the personal effects while the Orthodox Church looks more at the global effects. Yet, in essence, I see them as being the same thing. The differ only in point of focus, not in effect.�

Elias: Sorry. Arius thought he saw the same thing too but not Athanasius. It is not a matter of �focus� or �different points of view.� It is plain confusion which later has to be rectified in considering the nature of the Theotokos. Thus, we have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The West got themselves painted into a corner with their confusion between the moral and the ontological; now they have to get out of their self-imposed trap with an air-mounted escape ladder. The Byzantine Catholic Church still does not celebrate the Immaculate Conception. Why would it? It would invite contradictions and confusion into its traditional Christian anthropology; unless you talk about them Ukrainian Catholics who name their Cathedral in Philadelphia after the IC. (Note: Some of their churches have rid of the IC title and have gone back to St. Mary instead). I know this sounds rather blunt, but so far no Byzantine Catholic bishop I know of has made an official pronouncement of accepting it personally or in a synod. Nor is it in our liturgy books. This is a reality that Eastern and Western Catholics will have to face.

BTW, what is the Greek version of Romans 5:12?

Elias, not the Monk



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 10-25-2000).]

Elias (non-monk):

What you have posited as the "western understanding ("The Western understanding is one where human nature is sinful and is inherited.") is more Protestant than Catholic. Here's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, as taken from the CCC: Yes, there was a tendency to focus on the flesh as "evil" which did grave damage to the fact that Jesus took on flesh to make it holy. Yet, unless you know something I don't, we still have to fight temptation, concupiscence still exists and tries to lead us into sin. These things are ultimately conquered in Christ, yet they are also things that we, through dependence on grace, must conquer in ourselves.

You are quite correct that Jesus had to deal with these same issues. He, too, inherited the human condition. It is in his triumph that we are given hope, it is through him that we find the grace to triumph for ourselves. If the consequences of orignal sin were completely eliminated then we would not have this struggle, we would already be saved (as opposed to being in the process of being saved), and we would not sin.

Edward, deacon and sinner

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 10-26-2000).]

I have enjoyed reading the discussion since I first posted my question and introduced this topic.

There is one more thing I would like an opinion on regarding a person who:
1. Holds strictly Orthodox theological and spiritual beliefs.
2. Would find it more to their advantage for certain reasons to become Byzantine Catholic rather than Orthodox.
3. Views the Pope as only the first among equals, rather than having universal supremacy and jurisdiction.

Could such a person be Byzantine Catholic, without being forced to believe or profess Latin dogmas,such as the I.C. or Papal infallibility, and consider themselves truly Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

Thanks

What do you mean by "forced" and what do you mean by "profess"? I know converts to the Latin church have to make some kind of oath to the church and say they believe everything it teaches. When I became a BC, our priest did not make me take any such kind of oath. Maybe it was because I wasn't ready or able, maybe he forgot, or maybe Ruthenians just don't do it. I don't know.

If you really believe as the Orthodox, be honest to yourself and become Orthodox. If you don't believe papal infallibility, then Rome says you are anathema and you really aren't in communion although no one is going to prohibit you from the chalice. Heck, Hans Kung, Ozzy Osbourne, and Andrew Greeley are still Catholic.

Moronikus,

I don't think Papal Infallibility was the reason why the Orthodox became Uniates. I don't think they knew what it was back then. Eastern Catholicism is Communion with Rome. Is there really any other thing besides that which defines Eastern Catholicism? Many have tried to make other dogmas and things the reasons but that ended up being like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Didn't work. If Orthodox bishops state that the role of the Pope is the ONLY remaining difference, then I would gather that Papal Infallibility is included since this was added to the baggage many years later after the Unia.

Eastern Catholics enjoy a union which the Orthodox cannot, though that communion has witnessed many headaches and heartaches. But it was a testing-ground to see if Rome means what it says and says what it means. Lately, Eastern Catholics seem to be more of a thorn in Rome's side than we may think.

Many of my parishioners who come over to the East (from the RC church or Protestantism) are now asking if they are at the wrong address. Much emphasis has been made on the Eastern spirituality - which is fine, and on the Orthodox mindset - which is fine. But little is made on that one thing which unites us Catholics - and that is the Pope. The topic usually falls back on Papal Infallibility, but that is a crutch or an excuse. We Eastern Catholics have to come to terms what it means to be in communion with Rome.


Elias, not the Monk

>>>Could such a person be Byzantine Catholic, without being forced to
believe or profess Latin dogmas,such as the I.C. or Papal infallibility, and
consider themselves truly Orthodox in Communion with Rome?<<<

Well, there's me. I CHOSE to be a Byzantine Catholic at the ripe old age of 40--baptized, chrismated and communicated in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, Epiphany Sunday, 1997.

During my catechumenate, none of the issues in question were ever mentioned,and insofar as I have neither seen nor heard any liturgical text that mentions them, I consider them to be utterly irrelevant to my spiritual life.

Elias not the monk,

I don't think Papal Infallibility was the reason why the Orthodox became Uniates. I don't think they knew what it was back then. Eastern Catholicism is Communion with Rome. Is there really any other thing besides that which defines Eastern Catholicism? Many have tried to make other dogmas and things the reasons but that ended up being like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Didn't work. If Orthodox bishops state that the role of the Pope is the ONLY remaining difference, then I would gather that Papal Infallibility is included since this was added to the baggage many years later after the Unia.

You�re right, papal infallibility had nothing to do with it; that would be putting 19th-century words into 16th-century people�s heads and mouths (bad historianship). Orthodox in what are now Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus) who sought reunion (under persecution by their Polish ruler, let�s not forget) did see things as you describe them, hoping such a restoration of communion (with them as a full Church intact) would give them a break from Polish oppression. But frankly, Rome reneged (a.k.a. bait and switch, �Indian giver�), treating them like individual �schismatics� returned and not like a Church in communion with the Roman one. So really, until reforms about 30 years ago, they weren�t a Church anymore but were a part of the Roman Catholic Church (till the 1800s under the cardinal in charge of missionary activity!!) allowed by sufferance to keep their �foreign� (and �suspect�) rite until they could be romanized and with a mission of soliciting Orthodox. Even today these groups are pretty much treated like the US government treats Indian reservations (the government used to take the children and send them to boarding schools to erase their cultures and make them culturally white - today the reservations are basically ghettos).

Eastern Catholics enjoy a union which the Orthodox cannot, though that communion has witnessed many headaches and heartaches. But it was a testing-ground to see if Rome means what it says and says what it means. Lately, Eastern Catholics seem to be more of a thorn in Rome's side than we may think.

Many of my parishioners who come over to the East (from the RC church or Protestantism) are now asking if they are at the wrong address. Much emphasis has been made on the Eastern spirituality - which is fine, and on the Orthodox mindset - which is fine. But little is made on that one thing which unites us Catholics - and that is the Pope. The topic usually falls back on Papal Infallibility, but that is a crutch or an excuse. We Eastern Catholics have to come to terms what it means to be in communion with Rome.

The Schism was a mistake. The creation of the Byzantine Catholic churches at the Orthodox� expense was also a mistake, frankly. Two wrongs don�t make a right.

But your main mission now is to show that the Church is bigger than either Rome or Byzantium by itself. Be a witness to Catholicity, not to the definitions used by a foreign particular Church, the Roman, that are superfluous to what should be your complete-in-itself Orthodox tradition.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 10-27-2000).]

Just to add to the fine comments already made here. In the Melkite Church I do not preach on the Immaculate Conception -- it is not part of the Melkite Tradition so it simply doesn't come up. Nor do I preach on Purgatory or Indulgences.

Papal Infallibility has never been an issue since I don't find it in the Gospels that we read every Sunday, and I tend to preach on the Gospels.

I do agree that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a role in helping the Church to recognize that she is bigger than the Eastern Church and bigger than the Western Church. The Catholic Church is not monolithic, although it sometimes sees that way, especially when talking to fundamentalist Catholics (both Latin and Eastern). I am proud of the role of the Melkite Patriarchs at Vatican I and Vatican II -- they have been particularly outspoken on the reality of the Church as a whole.

At Vatican I the patriarch refused to sign Pastor Aeternus -- although he later did, adding the caveat that the "right and prerogatives of the patriarchs" not be impacted. At Vatican II the patriarch spoke out on the liturgy in the vernacular and communion under both species.

Yes, uniatism was the wrong approach. However there is still a chance that a real working relationship can be achieved -- if both Latins and Easterns will work together for the good of the Body.

Edward, deacon and sinner

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 10-27-2000).]

Of course PI wasn't the reason. You can read the treaty of Brest for the reasons. None of them at all seem to be theological. I wonder if anyone else thinks that it was a type of "Sergianism" (although that word wasn't coined until the 20th century)?

In our liturgy, the papacy is present though. In the litanies the pecking order is clearly established: Holy Ecumenical Pontiff--the Pope of Rome, Archbishops and Metropolitans, Bishops, priests, etc.