The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#121926 10/02/03 07:34 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
I am concerned about reconciling the views of Eastern view of original sin and the Western view of the Immaculate Conception. I understand that the East views the primary effect of original sin to be bodily death, whereas the West views the primary effect of original sin to be concupiscence.

I am wondering if it is possible to view the Eastern understanding not in terms of the effect OF death, but the EFFECT of death � that is bodily corruption. In this understanding, one can see a possible rapprochement between the Eastern and Western view. I mean, if we interpret the Eastern view not according to DEATH, but BODILY CORRUPTION, then one can still hold the Eastern view while believing in the Immaculate Conception. I mean, even Jesus died, yet he did not have original sin. So the fact that Mary died does not necessarily mean she had original sin. And if one views the effect of original sin as bodily corruption, then problem solved, because East and West both believe that Mary�s body was not subject to corruption.

I�m sure someone will ask, �then how about the incorruptibles?� Are you saying that all these saints did not have original sin? I think one can account for this by adding the corollary of the Assumption. One can say that the absence of original sin in the Lord and his mother is evidenced not only by preservation from bodily corruption, but also by glorification. Since the incorruptibles were still stained by original sin, then they were not able to experience immediate glorification.

I don�t think this will generate much discussion. A �Yes� or �No� will do.

God bless

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Francis,

You think we haven't discussed the Immaculate Conception here enough, do you? wink

Basically, the East doesn't accept that Original Sin is an inherited "stain of sin."

The East liturgically celebrates the Holy Conception of the MOther of God in the womb of her mother, St Anne.

This means that the East believes that the Holy Spirit sanctified the Mother of God to be a saint right at her Conception - liturgical celebrations are only for saints.

We also celebrate the Holy Conception of John the Baptist.

There are private views that John the Theologian and St Nicholas were also conceived in holiness in the wombs of their mothers and were born saints already.

The West never defined Original Sin as the inheritance of a "stain of sin."

And the CCC, the way it defines Original Sin, shows that it has returned to the general Patristic understanding.

Therefore, we don't hold to an "Immaculate" Conception but to a "Holy" Conception.

There is no problem any longer - don't make it into one.

Get back to your rosary.

Alex

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Hey, dude. I only asked for a �yes� or �no.� wink

BTW, I�ve only posted once in this forum a long, long, long time ago, so I am not aware of how often this issue has been discussed.

In Christ

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Quote
Originally posted by francisg:
Hey, dude.
question: Do Californians really still talk this way? Far out, Dude!

Quote
Originally posted by francisg:

I only asked for a �yes� or �no.� wink
reply: Last time I checked, this was still a free country. As far as I can tell, this forum is meant for dialogue between brothers with mutual respect. I'm not the Administrator but I think he would agree when I say, when you ask a question you should at least be willing to hear others out on it rather than requesting, yes or no's as you are doing.

Btw, my answer is "no" for reasons you apparently aren't interested in because they require more than one word.

Ghazar

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
Try using the search option. Here are the latest discussions of this issue, there have been many more over the years. Don :rolleyes:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000902

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
Francis wrote:
I am wondering if it is possible to view the Eastern understanding not in terms of the effect OF death, but the EFFECT of death � that is bodily corruption.
Sure it�s possible. But it would be incorrect. The inheritance from Adam and Eve is mortality. Changing our theology in order to make it more agreeable to a point you wish to make seems rather pointless.

Pick up a copy of Fr. Meyendorff�s �Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes� (SVS Press) and study it. It provides a solid overview of how Western theology differs from Eastern theology.

I agree with Ghazar. If you�re going to redefine our theology to support a theological argument you wish to make, then you should expect people to respond and be willing to listen.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
WOW! I thought the �wink� icon meant �Just kidding� or �just joking around� or �don�t take me too seriously.� I guess there is a really, basic ontological difference between easterners and westerners! Now I�m accused of not being willing to listen. Hahahaha! I guess my comments to Alex in another thread about Eastern sensitivity is getting some serious validation here. wink biggrin

I took the time to read the link to the old thread on the Immaculate Conception. Fortunately (or unfortunately) it did not cover what I am intending to discuss here

1) I was hoping for a better discussion than �it is pointless to change the Eastern theology.� If understanding �death� to mean �bodily corruption� is unacceptable, tell me why. St. Paul himself certainly EQUATED death with corruptibility! Can you please clarify, once again, then, how this notion is tantamount to �changing eastern theology?� I�m sure no one is saying it is because St. Paul is wrong.

2) Though it was discussed in the original thread, it was not properly resolved: If one basically equates original sin with bodily death, how does one account for the fact that Jesus died? The only reasoning I have read in other places is that Jesus did NOT have to die, it was only because Jesus CHOSE to die. This view is certainly completely incompatible with the infallible declarations of Nicea and Chalcedon. This reasoning suggests that Jesus was not fully human. Certainly if Jesus� death was simply a matter of him choosing it, then it cannot be said he was fully human because humans CANNOT choose whether they can die or not. I would appreciate a thoughtful, theological response to this latter assertion of mine.

As it is, the only way I believe this can be mitigated is if one views the primary effect of original sin as physical death, but rather corruptibility. This not only successfully rationalizes the fact of Jesus death with the fact that he did not have original sin, but it also completely agrees with all the evidence of science, and St. Paul�s equation of death with corruptibility (by which it cannot be said that Eastern theology is being changed, unless one believes Scripture is not part of the patrimony of the East). If we see corruptibility as one of the effects of original sin, and not physical death per see, one can still see why we die. That is, because the physical law of entropy (Alex � you are probably smiling wryly with your knowledge that I am an engineer and therefore have a scientific background, if only that this is all you know about me J) inevitably leads to death.

Now, the biblical considerations: Equating death with corruptibility is completely in line with the biblical evidence. First of all, since Paul himself equates death with corruptibility, it is wholly valid to state that when Paul said, �the wages of sin is death,� he meant �the wages of sin is corruptibility.� Secondly, one can have in mind Gen 3:3. Interpreting this to mean corruptibility and not death per se can still be valid if 1) one understands the verse to refer to spiritual death � that is eternal separation from God; or 2) one actuality interprets the outcome of eating the fruit as �being subject to corruption.� In the latter view, one should take into consideration that the Bible assigns a tremendous age to the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. This is evidence the human body was slowly being corrupted and eventually died; because of that corruptibility, the body died, not necessarily because of original sin. I guess I am saying that original sin is only the proximate cause of death; the immediate cause of death is actually corruptibility. Since corruptibility eventually leads to death anyway, it cannot be said that this goes against the Eastern understanding.

The scientific consideration: Aging is not the result of the fact that we can die. Aging is the result of entropy � that is, corruptibility. In other words, we do not age because we can die � we die because we can age. This is a physical truth that cannot be denied. Now, understand that I am not equating GROWTH with corruptibility; I am only equating ENTROPY with corruptibility. Otherwise, it cannot be said that Mary or Jesus actually had the capacity to grow up because they did not have original sin (corruptibility). But I am not saying this just to �get out of� an apparent inconsistency in my theory. This assertion is based on valid philosophical/theological/scientific considerations. It is a point of fact that science cannot explain the existence of life, and it cannot explain the existence of growth, without the assertion of some external force or design. Indeed we can grow, but this is not the result of corruptibility � it is the result of the divine design of the universe. But at SOME point, growth no longer occurs, and corruptibility or entropy sets in which eventually leads to physical death (I have read some theories or views actually equate entropy with the force of evil).

In conclusion, once again, I propose that the Eastern view of �the effect of original sin as death� can validly be viewed without detriment to the Eastern tradition as �the effect of original sin as corruptibility.� In those terms, there is a real rapprochement between the Eastern and Western understanding. To be more clear, it can no longer be said that Mary had original sin BECAUSE she died � in point of fact, Jesus ALSO died though he did not have original sin. Rather, it can be truly said that we may conclude Mary did not have original sin because she did not experience a corruption of her body, as was the case of Jesus.

Here is where the interesting complementariness of the dogma of the Assumption comes into play. The fact that Mary was glorified immediately must be asserted in order to distinguish the idea of incorruptibility with those who DID have original sin. It is interesting that it is generally taught that the Assumption is a DIRECT consequence of Mary�s freedom from original sin. In fact, we can view glorification as THE litmus test for freedom from original sin. Thus, the effect of freedom from original sin is not only freedom from corruptibility, but also necessarily, glorification. If we look back at Genesis, one sees that one of the direct effects of Adam and Eve�s sin was that they were thrown out of Paradise. It is logical to conclude that if one did not ever have original sin, one should be glorified immediately after the completion of life on earth � as in fact did occur with Jesus and Mary, the only two that have (dogmatically anyway) been asserted to have been freed from original sin. (I added the qualification of �dogmatically anyway� because I know that the East also has various traditions regarding other saints such as the Baptist)

3) Andrew�s statement that the doctrine of IC is �not critical� was shocking to me. In Western theology, Mary�s Immaculate Conception is absolutely INDISPENSABLE and NECESSARY in dramatic consideration of the UNFATHOMABLE holiness of Christ. Can anyone ever imagine that the all-holy God-man could EVER deign to be born of something that was even touched by sin at any moment? I guess some in the East don�t think such a consideration is �critical.� Before Eastern sensitivity gets its ire up, understand that I�m not talking about those in the East who believe in the IC, both Catholic and Orthodox, or those in the East who have such awesome liturgical traditions celebrating the �most holy� Theotokos. This criticism is directed against those who, even with those beliefs, think that such a doctrine is �not critical� or �unnecessary.� And yes, I do understand the distinction between believing the IC is �not critical� and � not necessary,� from the understanding that its dogmatic PROCLAMATION is �not critical� and �not necessary.� But Andrew definitely expressed it in the former terms. I guess I felt those in this forum should have expressed a greater discontent with Andrew�s statement. It is not so much that I view it as a disparagement of Mary�s holiness, but a disparagement of the unimaginable magnitude of CHRIST�S holiness.

I hope we can engage in some real theological discussion here, instead of demagogic and emotional appeals and accusations.

In Christ always

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
I think Francis is making a compelling theological point here.

I am not an Easterner, so I don't know if he is violating Eastern theology, but his explanation seems to reconcile East and West on this issue, in a manner I have never seen tried before. Kudos to Francis.

Discussions like these could be the springboard for real progress in East-West relations.

LatinTrad

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240
Dear Francis,

This is a great forum. Everything will be fine. Speak what you have to say in love and the members will, almost every one of them, always respond that same way.

Your question is a valid one but not easily answerable since some of the premises between Eastern and Western soteriology are indeed different.

Certainly, Eastern teachings are various on the Dormition and Translation to Life (Metastasis) of the Theotokos. I just signed a truce on a recent war on this same forum over this same issue. Easterners indeed may hold that the body of the Theotokos remains buried and has corrupted. Also, they may believe that she was assumed bodily into heaven.

To wit, the Dormition of John the Theologian was celebrated on September 26th. This Feast is actually called "the Translation of John the Theologian." The same word "Metastasis" is used to describe what happened to the Theotokos and John after their deaths. But John's body is buried on Patmos (or, so I recall).

Part of the problem with the question also lies in failing to recognize one of the principal distinctions between Jesus of Nazareth and the rest of us.

God doesn't will that we die, but that we have life, and life abundantly. But, we inherit mortality because of Adam's sin (eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus being prohibited from eating of the previously not proscribed Tree of Life), hence "in sin" from the moment of conception. This, in my opinion, is where Western "Immaculate Conception" and Eastern "Immaculate Conception" (a conception in the way that God intends children to be conceived but not isolated from the inheritance of mortality) differ in premise.

That's right, ALL are in sin if only because they will ultimately die. Statements similar to these from me caused the previous war over the "sinlessness" of the Theotokos. We don't need to return there. I like peace, even if in disagreement smile .

Now, regarding our incarnate Lord, we must remember that he is the only person whose whole purpose on earth is to die for us. Thus the icons of His Nativity depict him wrapped in a death shroud at his birth. The prophecies, the Gospels, the witnesses all confirm this. Were He to have rejected the bitter cup at Gethsemane and chosen life, THAT would have been sin!

So, we aren't supposed to die but Christ is supposed to die so that we can go through death hoping in the Resurrection to come, in which He has preceeded us.

In Christ,
Andrew

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Dear Admin:

The only �addition� I have proposed here is to accept the BIBLICAL equation that St. Paul makes between death and corruption.

I have a background in engineering, so let me express this in mathematical/philosophical terms:

If A = B, then A+C = B + C.
A = the concept of death, B= the concept of corruption, C=the rest of Eastern theology

This is the reality of what I am proposing (in mathematical/philosophical terms). What YOU are saying I am doing is:

If A = B, then A+C = B+C+D

It doesn�t make sense to me. Admin, can you please demonstrate how I have added anything to the Eastern concept, and it doesn�t have to be in the language of mathematics.

Here is another example for you which is more theological, though mixed in with mathematical analogy:

NOWHERE DOES SCRIPTURE SAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD. The Fathers determined this by a concise DEDUCTION from Scriptural texts.

For example (among many scriptural deductions):
The Holy Spirit is the Lord.
God is the Lord
The Holy Spirit is God.

In mathematical language:

If A = B, then A+C = B+C

A = the Holy Spirit, B = God, C=the rest of Christian Tradition.

Admin, did the equation of God with the Holy Spirit according to Scripture ADD anything to the Christian faith? In fact, there was no addition was there?

Conversely, if you believe that my equation of death with corruption according to Scripture DOES add something to the Faith, then defend your position that the equation of God with the Holy Spirit DOES ADD something to the Faith.

I have read in this forum that Easterners do not have to �defend� or �justify� their position to the West. But in this case, Admin, you are going to have to mount some kind of defense, but it will not be a defense of the East against the West. It will have to be a defense of Admin�s view against the historic and universal patrimony of both Scripture and the Second Ecumenical Council which made the formulation in question.

In Christ always,
Glenn

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
francisg wrote:
I have read in this forum that Easterners do not have to �defend� or �justify� their position to the West. But in this case, Admin, you are going to have to mount some kind of defense, but it will not be a defense of the East against the West. It will have to be a defense of Admin�s view against the historic and universal patrimony of both Scripture and the Second Ecumenical Council which made the formulation in question.
No, I do not have to defend what I believe to you. You are a guest in our house. It is you who needs to present something worth considering. So far you have not. Please either develop some respect for your hosts or go away.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your response. I didn�t know that Mary�s bodily corruption was an acceptable Eastern viewpoint. In fact, this is the first I�ve heard of it. I always thought the only difference was only whether she died or not, and since the Pope never defined that particular issue, it was acceptable either way.

Well, you learn something new everyday, something I would never have learned if I never started this useless thread (well, useless according to the Administrator).

I guess this puts a kink in my theory. However, I must wonder how prevalent and popular is the view that Mary�s body was actually corrupted, in view of the fact that there exist both Western AND Eastern saints whose bodies have remained incorruptible. I mean, if these saints had the benefit of incorruptibility, should not the Lord�s own mother?

Hold on, did I just express a purely or MOSTLY Western view that might insult someone here? Sheesh! You can�t tell nowadays.

In Christ always

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Admin,
You seem mad. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY do want to hear your views. That is why I started this discussion. I want to know if what I am proposing is possible according to the Eastern understanding. If you say there has been an addition, I really need for you to show me, just so I can learn more.

In Christ always

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Francisg,

Andrew is alone in his opinion that the Theotokos suffered bodily corruption. He will quote out of context one or two Fathers to back up his claim but I have yet to see him produce any teaching from a Council, Majority of Fathers, or the Liturgies or anything else to substantiate such a bold claim. No Orthodox cleric I know would agree with him and in fact at least one on this forum has offered him correction which he has refused. The East firmly teaches the Theotokos was free from the corruption after death.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
F
Member
OP Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 76
Admin,

BTW, as LatinTrad had astutely pointed out, my position is novel. It is NOT the WESTERN view. So I do not see how you could possibly interpret my motive as trying to IMPOSE the western view on the Eastern view. I am simply SUGGESTING a POSSIBLE solution (and if you reread my post, it was only a SUGGESTION), and was hoping to get some feedback.

However, you have immediately responded with accusations of �addition� and uselessness. The accusation of uselessness aside, I am still willing to learn, so can you please show me how my SUGGESTION is an addition.

I mean, the way I see it, it can only possibly be an addition if it is not found anywhere in the Tradition of the Church. But it was St. Paul himself who made what you would call an �addition,� so it cannot truly be an addition, can it?

Eagerly fishing for more knowledge,
In Christ always

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5