Dear Stuart,
You are correct that the Catholic Church maintains there are hierarhies of truth.
1. De Fide. (These are maters of domatic definiton.)
2.Proxima Fides - theologians regard as a truth of revelation fut h ave not be declared so by the Church.
3.Theoligice Certa they are truth of logical conclusions from other doctrines.
4. Sententia Communis those things acceptable and not in opossition to faith and piety. In other words they are theological oppinons.

Papal Primacy and Infallibility are De Fide matters.
However how these are exercised are matters of opinion.
The Pope is the universal shepherd of the Church and is its servant to keep it in the unity of faith and the bond of peace.

These doctrines are not "new" they have always been there. However our understanding of these truths do develope.

Peace,
Stephanos

Brendan, So what is the problem. The Catholic Church accepts this. It is a consensus of the Church and Theologians that Mary did indeed die. Yes she is totally human one with us in our humaity and because of this she tasted the pains of death.
The doctrine of the Imaculate Comnception states this that Mary was preserved by God from Sin. She is all holy, all pure, the ever virgin Mother of God. To this the Orthodox Faith firmly attests!
The Catholic Church states:
Mary suffered a temporal death! (Sententia Communior)
Even if reliable historical reports as to the the place (Ephesus or Jerusalem). the time and the circumstances of Mary's death are lacking, still the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is "expressly" affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church. The Scaramentarium Gregorianum notes this fact!
Mary according to Catholic theology is no "superhuman" but the lowly handmaid of the Lord, who said; "Be it done unto me according to Your word."
and "My soul magnifies the Lord, who has done great things for me."


Stephanos


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 05-15-2001).]

Stephanos --

Notice that I said what I did in response to Ignatius intimation that the Theotokos did not die, and that I said that "Orthodoxy hesitates" -- not "Orthodoxy outright rejects".

The hesitation is due to the fact that this can mean that Mary was not human, or that Mary was not subject to human death, or that Mary did not die. To us, to say that the Theotokos was free of the effects of Original Sin is not correct. We can agree that she was free from the "stain" of Original Sin, but in this way she is not unique because we would say that noone is personally stained with Original Sin -- so why the need for a dogma? We can agree that the Theotokos is free from actual sin, through a unique cooperation with divine grace -- on that we are in perfect agreement. But it seems to us that if the IC dogma does not intend to remove from St. Mary the effect of Original Sin, but only its "stain", no dogma is needed, because this is the case for everyone -- or, rather, the Immaculate Conception dogma should be a dogma for every human being, because we are all conceived without the "stain" of Original Sin, but are nevertheless subject to the effects of Original Sin.

See the problem?

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Very good post on the Immaculate Conception.

However, it is a particular doctrine that teaches that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin according to the soul. The premise for that doctrine is one that Orthodoxy would not agree with (right?) and so it cannot be applied to every human for that reason. It is something that is discarded by the East entirely (right?).

With respect to the effects of Original Sin, our liturgical tradition denies that Mary suffered the pangs of birth-giving (an 'effect' of Original Sin), yet suffered greatly under the Cross.

She was most certainly sanctified to the nth degree by the Holy Spirit as the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant etc.

There is no dogmatic definition in the East here not only because there is no need for one, but also because of the mystical approach to such issues that are seen by the Christian East as properly belonging to the internal life of the Church (as opposed to its public preaching). Right?

Alex

>>I was under the impression that the East also says there are consequences of original sin, not just the stain of original sin. Our Lady was also conceived without the consequences of original sin, wasn’t she? (i.e., no physical death, no pain in child bearing, etc.)<<

>The Byzantine Feast of the Dormition makes it very clear that Mary died in the body, and was immediately resurrected and assumed in a glorified body. Thus, she was subject to the effects of Adam's sin, without being born into sin. Pius XII's declaration on the Assumption is agnostic on whether she died.<

Indeed. I think the East and the West are somewhat talking past each other on this issue. Please see my quote from the Catechism below for a little bit of clarity.

I believe Pope John Paul II has made statements to the effect that if Mary died (and he seems to think this is likely) that it in no way contradicts the Immaculate Conception. The physical death of Our Lady can be seen as a participation in the life of her Son. Since he was his most faithful disciple and participated in a special way in His passion it does seem to make some sense that she would also experience a physical death, freely taken on.

>As to giving birth without pain, the liturgical texts basically say Mary gave birth while remaining a virgin throughout. Take that however you will.<

Strictly speaking, the issue of painless childbirth and perpetual virginity seem to be related, but tangentially. After all, if one is a virgin how painful can the childbirth be?

Seriously, though, the painlessness of the Virgin Birth would be only fitting since Christ would not want to harm His mother in any way (a la St. Thomas Aquinas).

>The most important thing, from the Byzantine perspective, is that Mary is ontologically very much a run of the mill human being. Precisely because of this, she is for us the Great Example, not the Great Exception; her likeness to us makes her all the more accessible to us, and demonstrates to us that resurrection in the flesh is available to all.<

From a western perspective we would say that she isn’t run of the mill. Rather, she is FULLY human second only to Christ is perfection of human nature. There’s no ontological difference between Our Lady and you and I. She is a human. The difference is in the level of perfection – she’s a lot more deified that I am.

>Thus, from the Byzantine perspective, Mary's conception was the same as that of any other person: we are born without any inherited stain of sin, but we are all subject to death and corruption. Death and corruption, and consciousness of our own vulnerability and mortality, makes us prone to sin. Mary was preserved from actual sin through the anticipatory grace of her Son, with which she had to coorperate fully. Despite that she died in the flesh, but being free from sin, and in recognition of her exceptional merit AS THE THEOTOKOS, she was immediately resurrected and her glorified body assumed into heaven.<

The preservation from actual sin is also believed in the west. While the Immaculate Conception does away with concupiscence Mary could have still fallen (after all, Adam and Eve did and they didn’t have concupiscence).

Alex:
>The Augustinian "original sin" in all this is to have given rise to the notion that someone's personal sin can be inherited, rather than the effects of that sin on the human nature we have in common with him.
This is also why I disagreed with our learned friend, Stuart, on this matter.
Immaculate Conception implies that one is prevented from contracting a sin that was coming one's way. Orthodoxy rejects that.<

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that original sin is called sin by way of analogy because it is NOT personal sin. Strictly speaking we’re not “guilty” of original sin in the same sense that we’re guilty of personal sin.

CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". 293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. 294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

The effects are inherited but the sin isn’t (quite honestly, I think the “stain” vs. “effect” is a difference without distinction, the effect IS the stain, but I could be wrong). It’s like having your dad squander your rightful inheritance before coming of age. I had nothing to do with it, but I still get the effects.

>To be truly "immaculately conceived" from the RC position (irrespective of what the grammatical meaning of those words are) would mean that we are also exempt from the consequences of Original Sin which we are most certainly not.<

Exactly! Alex, you’re too smart for your own good!

Stephanos:
>Yes she is totally human one with us in our humaity and because of this she tasted the pains of death.<

Here’s the thing, though. Adam and Eve were totally human and were NOT made to die. Death is NOT natural, it is a result of sin. Whether or not Mary would have died does nothing to her being totally human. I think we’re all looking at “natural” from the wrong perspective, i.e. from the perspective of the Fall.

Brendan
>One of the reasons why Orthodoxy hesitates when it reads this dogma is that it implies that Mary was born immortal and not subject to death -- which makes her a superhuman, or as Fr. Alexander Schmemann once said, the great exception to humanity instead of the great example to humanity.<

The only thing is that this is exactly the case with Adam and Eve and they weren’t superhuman. Our Lady isn’t the exception, she’s the perfection.

[This message has been edited by Ignatius (edited 05-15-2001).]

Speaking of the differences betwen East and West on Our Lady's Immaculate Conception (or lack thereof), I was hoping someone could direct me to a work on the subject from an Eastern perspective.

Please note, I would prefer something from one or more of the Fathers over a modern author.

Thanks a lot.

>>>But it's what they said and what they continue to say. They were very clear at the time as to what they were doing -- it was not sloppy,
but to the contrary the decrees of Vatican I are remarkably precise, canonical statements under penalty of anathema. <<<

On the other hand, nobody in the Latin Church has ever been anathematized for denying papal infallibility. Indeed, a good many of the anti-infalliblist bishops who returned from Vatican I not only did not sign the prescribed statement of faith, or did so with a reservation, an amazing number openly stated that they would not teach the new doctrine, nor would they hold any of their suffragan bishops or priests to it. And Pio Nono let it slide. Since that time, any number of Latin theologians have openly questioned Pastor Aeternus, and none, to my knowledge, have ever been excommunicated or even strongly rebuked for it. Ergo, the words of Pastor Aeternus are rather hollow.

Hi Ignatius,

"The physical death of Our Lady can be seen as a participation in the life of her Son. Since he was his most faithful disciple and participated in a special way in His passion it does seem to make some sense that she would also experience a physical death, freely taken on."

But not like Christ, because Christ was not subject to death at all because his human nature was en-hypostasized into the divine-human person of Christ, and thereby was not subejct to death -- he entered death by condescension, he freely accepted death, not because he was subject to it. The Theotokos was subject to death like you and me are -- not because we accept it, but because of our nature.

"There’s no ontological difference between Our Lady and you and I. She is a human. The difference is in the level of perfection – she’s a lot more deified that I am."

Yes, but Stuart was speaking in terms of her ontological nature -- that is "run of the mill". What makes the Theotokos special is her perfection in spite of her "run of the mill" ontological nature.

"Here’s the thing, though. Adam and Eve were totally human and were NOT made to die."

Yes, but the Theotokos inherited not Adam & Eve's original nature, but their fallen one. That's the real issue, isn't it? Did the Theotokos share in the ontological fallen nature that you and me do, or was she preserved from that, and therefore ontologically different. Is the Theotokos a pre-Fall human being or a post-Fall human being? Orthodoxy says she was a post-Fall human being like everyone else born after Adam & Eve fell.

"The only thing is that this is exactly the case with Adam and Eve and they weren’t superhuman. Our Lady isn’t the exception, she’s the perfection."

But that places her completely outside of all of the rest of post-Fall humanity in terms of the ontology of her nature. It means in a very real way that she is the great exception to post-Fall humanity, in terms of her ontological nature. If the Theotokos is a replica of a pre-Fall human nature, that makes her born immortal (how more different from you and me can that be?), because Adam & Eve as you point out are not created subject to the law of death. And that brings us back to square one with respect to the Theotokos. Orthodoxy does not accept that the Theotokos was conceived and born immortal, was not subject to death like every other post-Fall human being, and that her death is akin to Christ's in that it was not subjected to her because of the Fall, but was freely accepted to her by her will (as in Christ). That makes her ontologically different from every other human being born after the Fall, and that's why we have difficulties with it.

Brendan

Dear Ignatius,

The Catholic Catechism's definition of Original Sin is actually what the Orthodox Church (and the Fathers) have always believed about it.

The Augustinian notion of "inherited guilt" or "stain" was never made a point of doctrine by Rome (which is a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say ).

There is a very good discussion about the Immaculate Conception from a Patristic point of view on this website of the (independent) Celtic Orthodox Christian Church:
www.Celticchristianity.org

Meyendorff does a good job of it too in his "Byzantine Theology."

St John Maximovitch talks about the Immaculate Conception in his work on the Mother of God from the Orthodox perspective.

The most important thing for me in all this is to underline the fact that neither the RC West nor the Orthodox East believes that the Mother of Christ our God was ever in the clutches of the Evil One through personal or actual sin on Her most pure Soul, however we understand it.

And Orthodoxy doesn't believe in a 'static' existence in Heaven either.

Indeed, we continue to pray for Her (as well as to Her) at each Divine Liturgy, something
that would be theologically impossible in the Western Church where Masses may be offered in honour of Mary and the saints.

Her relationship to God is a unique and dynamic one.

Christ gave Her to us in the person of St John the Theologian at the foot of the Cross.

John took Her home with him. After coming to Faith in Christ Crucified and Resurrected, so should we!

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

Alex

>>>Papal Primacy and Infallibility are De Fide matters.<<<

De Jure, but not de facto. Rome does not ACT as though they were "de fide", hence they are NOT de fide.

Dear Stephanos,

You are more than correct!

Stuart's point, especially with respect to "mythology of infallibility" is itself mythic with respect to Catholic doctrine. A hierarchy of truths exist, but this doesn't mean once we get beyond a certain set of "absolutes" it is "every man for himself" thereafter.

My problem is that I cannot recognize either Orthodox doctrine or Catholic doctrine in Stuart's explanation.

I'm not saying he has no right to hold his views, only that they seem to be neither "fish nor fowl."

I say we should be one or the other. To be "in between" serves no real purpose.

In penitence,

Alex

>>But that places her completely outside of all of the rest of post-Fall humanity in terms of the ontology of her nature. It means in a very real way that she is the great exception to post-Fall humanity, in terms of her ontological nature. If the Theotokos is a replica of a pre-Fall human nature, that makes her born immortal (how more different from you and me can that be?), because Adam & Eve as you point out are not created subject to the law of death. And that brings us back to square one with respect to the Theotokos.<<

I thought that ontology refers to ones nature as such. It seems that by stating Adam and Eve were ontologically different from us then either they or we aren't human. since neither of these is the case I think the term "ontology" wouldn't apply here.

Man is, by nature, immortal. This doesn't mean he can't die from violence however (it seems to me that Hebrews 2:14-15 would apply to Adam and Eve).

"I thought that ontology refers to ones nature as such. It seems that by stating Adam and Eve were ontologically different from us then either they or we aren't human. since neither of these is the case I think the term "ontology" wouldn't apply here.

Man is, by nature, immortal."

We're getting off topic here, but FWIW, man was created to be immortal -- that was the intention. It was squandered and human nature was changed thereby to become mortal. That is a material change in human nature (we can quibble about "ontological" -- most definitions I've seen say "study of nature of being", which would be applicable to a change in the nature of humans after the Fall) -- the difference between a mortal nature and an immortal nature.

Brendan




[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 05-15-2001).]

Well, I don't think we're getting TOO far afield because the fact of the matter is that immortal or mortal Our Lady is just as human as you or I. By stating she had a different ontology a whole 'nother can of worms would have been opened.

It's the same thing for Jesus. He was immortal but freely gave up his life. He had an unfallen nature because if He didn't He couldn't redeem Man as a man.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by StuartK:

"De Jure, but not de facto. Rome does not ACT as though they were "de fide", hence they are NOT de fide."

Stuart, good point friend. Vatican I is very clear in its pronouncement on papal infallibility. However, the PRACTICAL APPLICATION of this dogma has been different. It is more in line with the pope in union with bishops (it has the flavor that is not bitter to the Orthodox pallet).

Therefore, did the Church err in its pronoucement on papal infallibility at Vatican I? If the Church did not err, then why has the practical application of this dogma been so different from its original formulation, acting as if Vatican I never took place? If the Church did err on the de fide dogma of papal infallibility, what does that tell you about the Catholic Church?

The point is: according to the Catholic Church, the pope has supreme jurisdiction over all Catholic churches. How the pope chooses to exercise this supremacy is up to him. He may choose to always be in union with his bishops; or, he may choose to be a "spiritual dictator" per se. The fact is, no matter the practical application, he still has supremacy.

I'll play devil's advocate: There is no way the Orthodox will accept papal supremacy. How does the Catholic Church get around this? Do they say that some of their post-schism de fide dogma is bogus?

Here is my problem: I believe the Orthodox Church contains everything needed for salvation: the Sacraments, Ecumenical Councils 1-7, the Tradition, a treasury of prayers, saints, etc. The only BIG difference, at least for me, is that the Catholic Church teaches that papal infallibility is necessary for salvation also. I don't think that this is a popular Catholic understanding of things.

So, what is it about papal infallibility that is necessary for salvation? That the Church won't err on its teachings? It seems that everything that is post-schism dogma in the Catholic Church is just gravy or is simply understood by the Orthodox (which they feel does not need to be defined).

Greg