www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question for Ruthenians, Melkites, and those who left for Orthodoxy

I stand by my earlier statement.

I do not care to discuss such issues further on a public forum such as this. I think for you to publically attack one of our priests on this Forum is the wrong place to do so.

This may give the appearance that you won this "debate." I submit that what you have done is in very bad taste and I will not by what I say add any further to your attack.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Hi Dave,
To be quite honest with you with all due respect I do not know if there is grace in view of Catholic sacraments. I do not dare to speak for the Holy Spirit. At times I feel that there may not be grace. This is due to the schism as you know. I do know that the words of the Institution are invoked and the "Host" is administered & refered to as the Body of Christ. The Blood is an option that may be taken or not. This is a serious error if not quite offensive. Catholics that I have encountered do not know or refer to the sacraments as mysteries. They know sacraments revolve around something holy or Christ but not as mysteries. It is as if Christ has been defined or stripped of mystery. From this perception it may be tempting to say that there are no mysteries in Catholic sacraments. God only knows if He allows Himself in Catholic sacraments. I believe God is known and experienced through His divine energy,the Eucharist, when performed by an Orthodox Bishop/priest. Therefore, I cannot say with accuracy on Catholic sacraments. I am afriad I cannot truthfully answer but remain agnostic on this one. One other issue that troubles me deeply is the administration of the "Eucharist" by Catholic laity rather than the Bishop or priest. As I have told you before my friend, Unity of the Faith is far from becoming a reality in my lifetime with Rome. Perhaps, this can be the era for corrections and the push for Unity if we can seriously diagnosis issues that are not acceptable with the East. The Pope is always pointing to us in the East because of our rich & preserved apostolic heritage. He may be seeing something in Orthodoxy that is lacking in the West that is needed very badly. However, it is ironic that the East does not reciprocate because it believes to contain the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. The dialogues between the East & the West are always taking place more frequently. I think it is a positive. We as Orthodox do need to speak and share our Faith without any form of compromise on the teachings handed down by the Saints.

"Do you reject the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin? For what reasons?"

Yes, because according to our Eastern theology that means she was born immortal. I understand that Western theology views original sin differently, and that's why the Orthodox have a different opinion about this matter than the Latin Catholics do.

"If you believe that Mary was conceived with original sin, why do you believe that Christ was conceived without original sin? After all, he was born fully human and fully Divine, and He received His human nature from Mary."

There are two responses: first, as the Byzantine hymnography for the Annunciation reflects, Mary was sanctified immediately prior to the conception of Christ in her womb. Personally, I don't draw the conclusion from that that the Theotokos was previously in a state of sin, or that only thereafter did she become sinless -- but some Orthodox do. The better view, in my opinion, is that expressed by Bishop Kallistos (Ware) in "The Orthodox Way": "Secondly, this notion of salvation as sharing implies -- although many have been reluctant to say this openly -- that Christ assumed not just unfallen but *fallen* human nature. ... Christ lives out his life on earth under the conditions of the fall. He is not himself a sinful person, but in his solidairity with fallen man he accepts to the full the consequences of Adam's sin. ... It may seem a bold thing to ascribe all this to the living God, but a consistent doctrine of the Incarnation requires nothing less." In Orthodoxy, Original Sin = "consequences of Adam's sin" - so we are not troubled that Christ would have partaken of flesh subject to the consequences of Adam's sin, because in so doing he redeemed that flesh and made it holy.

At the end of the day, all of this relates to a significantly different understanding of Original Sin in Latin and Byzantine theology.

Brendan

No. For to do so puts one outside the Catholic faith.

Dear Friends,

Catholic theologians today posit two ways in which Catholics may understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The first way is that the Most Holy Theotokos was preserved free from Original Sin understood as an actual "stain" much like Actual Sin is.

The second way is for those (like Byzantine Catholics) who do not accept the Augustinian notion of Original Sin as an actual stain on the soul with which we are born.

The Catholic Church has NEVER defined Original Sin in the Augustinian sense.

This second understanding of the Immaculate Conception is that the Theotokos was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived in Holiness, from Her very beginning, as befits the Mother of the Word Incarnate.

Sanctification is also a dynamic process, so this doesn't preclude Her growth in sanctity throughout Her life and even in Heaven.

The Orthodox Church, as Bishop Ware and Brendan (two great theologians!) have said, does not accept the Immaculate Conception because it does not accept that Original Sin is a "stain" on the soul.

If it accepted the Augustinian view of Original Sin (inherited guilt rather than inherited consequences), then perhaps, Bishop Ware writes, the Orthodox Church would have looked at a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception etc.

There were also Orthodox saints and writers who accepted BOTH the Augustinian view of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception as John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote about.

St Dmitri of Rostov is one Orthodox Saint who certainly did practice devotion to the Immaculate Conception as understood by the West.

For this he was "called up on the carpet" by the church authorities in Russia.

He prayed a Hail Mary with the ending "Most Holy and All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!" at the turn of each and every hour of the day and night.

The Orthodox Church canonized him a saint and therefore allows her members to believe in the Immaculate Conception as such by way of private opinion or theologoumenon.

Alex

Brendan wrote:


How about this as a common agreed statement on the Theotokos:

The most holy, immaculate, pure Theotokos never was subject to sin from the first moment of her existence. She had free will and (thanks be to God!) freely chose to bear Christ for our salvation. After her death her body was raised to heaven.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I've got a question. I believe that the Virgin Mary was sanctified from the first moment of her existence. Having read all of what was said in recent days about the IC, I still don't know exactly how to verbally express that belief (hint hint, someone come up with an acceptable phrase or something for a guy with a final exam in fifteen minutes ).

We believe that Mary had free will. Now if she did, that means that she could've chosen not to become the Mother of God. So why would God want to prepare her from the first moment of her conception, rather than sanctify her when she accepted? Is this simply a case of God knowing from all eternity that she would say yes, but having that in no way influence her choice when she made it in time? I'm thinking along those lines...does anyone have any insight? Thanks!

Dear Dave and Catholicos,

I think we're missing Brendan's point which is also that of the Orthodox Church.

The East has never understood "Original Sin" to be a "stain on the soul" or inherited guilt as per Augustine.

Therefore, the East has ALWAYS believed Our Lady to have been FREE of any stain of sin whatever, especially from the moment of Her Holy Conception.

Unity between East and West can be achieved on this very easily and could involve the West formally rejecting the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin.

Both East and West celebrate Our Lady's sanctification and Her being conceived in holiness.

The East also sees our Lady progressing in sanctification throughout her life and also in heaven.

(For example, in our own Liturgy we do pray FOR the Theotokos as well as invoke her prayers).

She could have rejected the invitation of God to become the Mother of God and this option was always open to Her. But God always knew what Her choice would be, just as He knows what our choices are and respects them - for all eternity.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for your reply. Based on it, I have a question.

So the East has never understood original sin to be inherited guilt or a stain on the soul...if I'm understanding the Orthodox teaching right, we aren't born with original sin in the sense that we share Adam's guilt for his sin, or that that sin was passed on to us as if we committed it ourselves, but rather we inherit the consequences of that sin, because it has brought about the fall of humanity, and we are born into that fallen humanity.

Given that (and if I'm wrong, please let me know), is it safe to say that all human beings are conceived without the stain of sin, but that they inherit the consequences of that sin, and indeed do commit sins on their own later, but that the Mother of God did not commit sin?

This stuff confuses me...on a brighter note, my two hour final exam on the Old Testament only took me thirty minutes...who's the man? :p

Dear Catholicos,

You're the MAN, Big Guy, er, Your Reverence! Congratulations!

I was wondering what you were doing back here so soon after your exam . . .

You are right in what you said.

I give you top marks as well!

Alex

Mor --

"Given that (and if I'm wrong, please let me know), is it safe to say that all human beings are conceived without the stain of sin, but that they inherit the consequences of that sin, and indeed do commit sins on their own later, but that the Mother of God did not commit sin?"

Yes. The difference between you, me and the Theotokos (in this regard) is that the Theotokos never actually committed sin, and was therefore completely without actual sin -- pure, all-holy, immaculate, etc. She was, however, from the Orthodox POV, born into a mortal state based on the fallen nature, the nature that bore the consequences (mortality) of Adam's sin. That's really the only difference on this point between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Brendan

Dear jmaccabeus,

You ask if I reject the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin, and mention the Immaculate Conception in your post. What I reject, is an Augustinian, will-based framework for salvation, along with the transfer of merits, which the Immaculate Conception is based upon. These things are foreign to an Eastern ontological, being-based framework. The teaching on the Immaculate Conception is not mine to either have to accept or reject, since her conception has never been called into question or dogmatized in the East. Why should I be asked to even understand or accept a Latin dogma that pertains to the concept of original sin found only in the Roman Catholic Church, especially if it is not found in the Eastern Divine Liturgy or Typicon, and has no bearing on my spiritual or Liturgical life? I don't find Western concepts necesary to explain the Theotokos, or the Holy Mysteries for that matter, as if Eastern spiritality is somehow incomplete. I also do not agree with inserting Western theology into the Liturgical worship of an Eastern Church in an attempt to validate or justify Latin concepts, thereby casting suspicion on Eastern spirituality, as if it is somehow deficient in expressing the life of the Church. The Theotokos is Holy, Pure, All-Blameless, and Immaculate, even without the I.C. dogma. I am satisfied to call her by all the titles she has been given in the Divine Liturgy, and let the Latins worry about defining the moment of her conception for their own purposes. Eastern theology never provided a way for the Theotokos to have sin at her conception in the first place, so why add on any more baggage for the East to deal with? Roman Catholics are the ones who have to do something about original sin to protect the Theotokos from stain. Why should Eastern Churches be compelled for Rome's sake, to ignore their own spirituality, and pretend that in order for Mary to be free from sin, she had to be concieved differently from other humans,when it is not necessary in an Eastern framework?

You ask if your belief in the I.C. makes you any less Byzantine. I would in turn ask you: If, from an Eastern perspective, I cannot not see the necessity of the I.C. dogma to clarify Mary's sinlessness, does that make me any less Catholic?
I cannot pretend for Rome's sake, that Mary's conception required something extraordinary to preserve her from something she would not have inherited in the first place.

In conclusion, since none of us inherit the guilt of Adam, I don't see how the Latin dogma about Mary's conception adds anything to the Eastern concept of Mary's sinlessness that wasn't already there. The actual mode of her conception in relation to sin is a purely Western concern generated by their own scholastic theologeons. Therefore, Eastern Churches should not have to defend their love of the Theotokos by adopting Western Augustinian terms/concepts, or allowing them to infiltrate their Liturgical traditions, as if those traditions are inferior in expressing the sinlessness of Mary.

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Double_Eagle ]

As a non-literalist in reading the Bible and a firm believer in evolution as more than a theory, I always found the Eastern interpretation of being conceived into sin (sin = estrangement from God and the vehicle of mortality) more acceptable than the Western notion of being conceived with the guilt of "Adam's Original Sin." Mary was born into the human condition, as we are, but the fullness of her grace marked her as initially in a full relationship with God which she preserved all her life by not committing any actual sins.
I am indebted to the poster, on another thread I think, who suggested that Mary was conceived in the state into which each of us enters only upon our baptism, the a state which we "children of the light" nonetheless dim by our subsequent sinning. This is intriguing, and I will think it through some more.

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: durak ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Double_Eagle:

"What I reject, is an Augustinian, will-based framework for salvation, along with the transfer of merits, which the Immaculate Conception is based upon."

I don't believe that Mary was sinless by her own virtue, power, or merit. Any "merits" applied at her conception (or at any other point in her existence) were not her's but those of Christ.

Neither do I accept a "will-based framework for salvation, along with the transfer of merits" for myself or anyone else. I believe I am saved by Christ's mercy. Neither my faith nor any good works can save me apart from that. Possibly some Catholics would disagree with me, but I haven't run into any from either the Eastern Churches or the Western Church who have. (Apparently, based on Brendan's response, not all Orthodox agree with respect to Mary's state of sinlessness; we Catholics disagree on various issues as well.)

"Why should I be asked to even understand or accept a Latin dogma that pertains to the concept of original sin found only in the Roman Catholic Church, especially if it is not found in the Eastern Divine Liturgy or Typicon, and has no bearing on my spiritual or Liturgical life?"

Well, basically, you brought up the question. I do not believe that because you reject the teaching necesarily makes you any less Christian than I am. For all I know, you may have a far better understanding of the Christian Faith than I ever will. However,if you don't want to understand how I as an Eastern Catholic view the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

"I don't find Western concepts necesary to explain the Theotokos, or the Holy Mysteries for that matter, as if Eastern spiritality is somehow incomplete."

I didn't mean to imply that you "need" Western concepts to explain anything Eastern, and neither did I make the claim the Eastern spirituality is incomplete. What I was asking is what you believe about Mary with regard to the grace that we all agree she received at some point prior to becoming the Mother of God. I am just trying to learn exactly how the Orthodox view Mary's role in Christ's salvation. (To that end, Brendan's response was very good.)

"I also do not agree with inserting Western theology into the Liturgical worship of an Eastern Church in an attempt to validate or justify Latin concepts, thereby casting suspicion on Eastern spirituality, as if it is somehow deficient in expressing the life of the Church."

Neither do I. But that doesn't mean that I reject Western "concepts" outright just because they are Western. And if I were really spiritually comfortable with all things Western, then I would probably be attending a Western Church rather than an Eastern Church.

I agree that there are Byzatine Catholic churches which are highly latinized. That doesn't mean that I find latinization acceptable. I don't.

"The Theotokos is Holy, Pure, All-Blameless, and Immaculate, even without the I.C. dogma. I am satisfied to call her by all the titles she has been given in the Divine Liturgy, and let the Latins worry about defining the moment of her conception for their own purposes."

Well, I would say that we definitely agree that the Theotokos is Holy, Pure, All-Blameless and Immaculate, regardless of any dogma.

"Eastern theology never provided a way for the Theotokos to have sin at her conception in the first place, so why add on any more baggage for the East to deal with? Roman Catholics are the ones who have to do something about original sin to protect the Theotokos from stain."

Based on the responses I have read, I think that that you would agree that Mary received a special grace to become the Theotokos. She brought forth God the Word by accepting the role of a Living Tabernacle for God. I don't clearly understand why she would not have been granted this grace at her conception. The Hymn to the Theotokos in the Divine Liturgy decribes here as "ever-blessed" and giving birth to God the Word "without defilement."

"Why should Eastern Churches be compelled for Rome's sake, to ignore their own spirituality, and pretend that in order for Mary to be free from sin, she had to be concieved differently from other humans,when it is not necessary in an Eastern framework?"

I'm not suggesting you should. As I said before, I was only asking why you reject the teaching. I do not agree, however that Mary was conceived differently than other humans. She was as human as you or I, however, I believe that as the Theotokos, she was sinless from the moment of her conception through the grace of her Son.

"You ask if your belief in the I.C. makes you any less Byzantine. I would in turn ask you: If, from an Eastern perspective, I cannot not see the necessity of the I.C. dogma to clarify Mary's sinlessness, does that make me any less Catholic?
I cannot pretend for Rome's sake, that Mary's conception required something extraordinary to preserve her from something she would not have inherited in the first place."

As I stated above, I don't believe you are necessarily less "Catholic" or "Christian" than I am just because you disagree with me or the Catholic Church. First, it is not my place to judge your relationship with Christ. (That does not mean that I can't respectfully disagree with you on some aspects of the Christian faith.) Second, neither I am going to pretend that I do not believe that Mary was endowed with grace at her conception that removed the effects of Adam's rejection of God (death, hell, and sin) to prepare her for her role as Theotokos.

"In conclusion, since none of us inherit the guilt of Adam, I don't see how the Latin dogma about Mary's conception adds anything to the Eastern concept of Mary's sinlessness that wasn't already there."

Well, you have answered my question then. The important underlying issue seems to be the transmission of sin. Here's a question: when the Orthodox talk about "death" which humanity inherited from Adam, do you mean only physical death, or both physical and spiritual death?

"Therefore, Eastern Churches should not have to defend their love of the Theotokos by adopting Western Augustinian terms/concepts, or allowing them to infiltrate their Liturgical traditions, as if those traditions are inferior in expressing the sinlessness of Mary."

If I honestly believed that I could judge Orthodox Traditions as being inferior to Catholic Traditions, I would never have bothered asking about what you believed about the sinlessness of Mary. I wanted to consider your reponse for the sake of my own understanding. (And keep in mind you were the first to bring up the subject.)

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: jmaccabeus ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendan:
[qb]Mor --

"Given that (and if I'm wrong, please let me know), is it safe to say that all human beings are conceived without the stain of sin, but that they inherit the consequences of that sin, and indeed do commit sins on their own later, but that the Mother of God did not commit sin?"

Brendan,

At what point in our existence as human beings do we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin? What do you believe these consequences include?

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: jmaccabeus ]