I have been reading various discussions about the apparent challenges faced by Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome. From what I understand, they are trying to regain their identity in relation to their Eastern patrimony, spirituality and theology. Apparently, the Light for Life catechism series has tried to focus on what is important for the East, while at the same time not offending Rome by denying certain doctrines, thus leaving just enough room for everyone to be comfortable. I see that some Byzantines simply choose not to deal with certain issues because it does not directly affect them or their spirituality, while others attempt to try and explain how East and West are theologically saying the same things with different terms, while yet, others leave the Byzantine Catholic Church to become Orthodox.

I have qustions which are directed specifically to Ruthenians and Melkites, and those who left either of these Churches to become Orthodox.

1. For those who are still Byzantine Catholic or Melkite, I would like to know if there is anything you can point to in your Liturgies or Churches that you consider to be influenced by Latin theology. For example, is there anything in the Divine Liturgy or homily which has anything to do with infallibility of the Pope, defining Mary's conception as being without original sin, or which Councils are truly ecumenical, etc.? When, if ever, are you called upon to try and reconcile Eastern and Western spirituality or theology in your Church worship experiences? Practically speaking, does Latin theology really make any intrusions into your Churches at the local level at all?

2. For those who left a Byzatine Church to become Orthodox, I would like to know if you experieced any theological conflicts caused by something in the Divine Liturgy and/or Church you attended. Were there any Roman/Western/Papal dogmas that you felt were forced on you, and made you feel uncomfortable? If there was nothing you could pinpoint in your regular worship experiences that was theologcally unacceptable, was it an inner conflict about remaining in Communion with Rome? Did you leave because inwardly you felt Rome expected you to accept things you did not believe, even though these issues did not present themselves openly in the Church setting?

Dear Double Eagle,

I am one of those who are still Byzantine Catholic and really do appreciate your questions on this topic.

The Latinizations I've experienced at the local parish level and still do aren't things that are somehow "forced" on us by Latins.

They are maintained by a number of our own clergy who have support for them from different sectors of our laity.

Whether or not a given priest is "Latinist" depends on where he was trained.

Those formerly trained in Rome and in the seminary of Bl. Bishop Khomyshyn in western Ukraine are definitely of the Latinist school.

Right now, however, those trained in the Seminary at Rome set up by Patriarch Josef are well-nourished in the well-springs of Eastern theology and spirituality.

Latinist practices range from Stations of the Cross, no iconostasis (and never one), really shortened services, strong emphasis on Purgatory and indulgences, emphasis on the Filioque, practical ignoring of any way to commemorate the Epiclesis, celebration of Latin feasts using modified Latin forms ("moleben" to the Sacred Heart and the Virgin Mary which it really is not and Patriarch Josef counselled us to stay away from these prayer forms), kneeling during Sunday liturgy and that's about it for the main items.

Alex

Hello Double,

"I would like to know if you experieced any theological conflicts caused by something in the Divine Liturgy and/or Church you attended"

Not directly. The parish where I attended was a parish that tries to be very similar to the Orthodox (really, very similar to some of the more conservative groups within Orthodoxy, in my view). The conflict I had was not with the liturgy or with the parish -- but it was rather with the blinkers you had to have on, which means it was "indirect". See below.

"Were there any Roman/Western/Papal dogmas that you felt were forced on you, and made you feel uncomfortable?"

The only two times I can remember are (1) one homily where the visiting priest (and a former Orthodox priest at that) made pains to point out that as Catholics we believe that there were twenty-something (I can never remember how many exactly) Ecumenical Councils, which I didn't believe then and don't believe now and (2) Melkite Bishop John's various writings about a number of issues, most notably on Purgatory and Indulgences.

"If there was nothing you could pinpoint in your regular worship experiences that was theologcally unacceptable, was it an inner conflict about remaining in Communion with Rome? Did you leave because inwardly you felt Rome expected you to accept things you did not believe, even though these issues did not present themselves openly in the Church setting?"

In a way that's true, but I would state it rather differently. I was not comfortable with saying "don't worry about the larger issues, just keep your head down because this is a fine parish and we're just like the Orthodox anyway". I believed then, and believe now, that Orthodoxy is true -- which is why I eventually became Orthodox. For me, remaining a Melkite would have been quite silly simply because the local Melkite parish is a good one, for the Church is about the Church, not about a particular parish or a particular priest. I felt that since I believed what the Orthodox do, it was not right, in fact it would have been, in my personal opinion, somewhat hypocritical, to remain in the Catholic Church while defying its own dogmatic beliefs. Others feel less strongly and are less conflicted about this -- each person has their own tolerance, I think, for this.

Brendan

Hello Double Eagle

I was received into the Orthodox Church (OCA) in November. Prior to this, I was a Melkite Catholic and before that a Roman Catholic.

To make a long story short...I really fell in love with my OCA parish and the Liturgy there. I had a hard time reconciling some Roman dogmas that an Eastern Catholic must accept (ie. papal infallibility) with Orthodox spirituality, history, etc. So, instead of spending my time worrying about these things, I jumped ship and became Orthodox. I love it...no regrets. I finally feel like I am at home.

Not all Eastern Catholics go through this, but some do and I was one of them.

Greg

Slava Jesu Kristu,

I, on the other hand, was born Roman Catholic, became Greek Orthodox in college and then returned as a Ruthenian Catholic. Papal infallibility was one of the reasons I returned. I too have no regrets.

Mir s Toboy
Dmitri

Thanks Double Eagle for asking these questions. I am a Ruthenian Catholic who "crossed the Bosphorus" for a year and a half and then returned to the Catholic Church. I believe that where the Eucharist is there is the Church. So I accept Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrians, Armenians, etc. along with Catholics as part of the Church. Why did I return to the Catholic Church? Because I believe fully in the Petrine ministry of the Successor of St Peter as exercised in the Bishop of Rome.

Latinizations have been a problem in the Easten Catholic Churches. Many latinizations also exist in Orthodoxy. One can find the use of Western devotions in Western Rite Orthodoxy (which also suffers from some byzantinizations). The Rosary in itself is not evil (though I've known some former Catholics who would seem to think so).

As far as theology I would agree with Fr Lev Gillet who wrote in Orthodox Spirituality:



One "theological difference" mentioned was the Immaculate Conception. As has been noted elsewhere here recently there really isn't that much difference between Catholic and Orthodox undestanding of the Theotokos. The issue deals more with a difference of undestanding of original sin. From my perspective I'd rather have to deal with that issue (explaining the doctrine minus the Western view of original sin) than deal with theologians and laity who seem anxious to find sin in the Theotokos until the Annuciation.

A lot of the diffences boil down to the papacy. Some modern Orthodox apologetic would make it seem that this was all a late first millennium development and that the increasing claims of Rome in this regard were not fully understood by the East. That's a very selective and faulty reading of history IMO. One has to be careful not to project our undestanding today back as we read the historical texts but Rome claimed and was at times accorded much more than just a primacy of honor (for example, the Formula of Hormisdas).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

What scares the daylights our of me is the fact that we can even formulate questions of this sort.

For me, it is the "pathway to God". And the pathway is relevant insofar as it brings individuals to God. I'm not sure that the 'theological controversies' or 'doctrinal disputes' are quite as relevant as many people would propose.

The reality exists in how these theological/doctrinal elements influence a person's prayer. While both Eastern and Western elements can surely lead an individual to God, I think the psychological impact is important to the INDIVIDUAL (not the Church!).

So, follow the pathway that you have chosen. And stick with it. DON'T get caught up in the theological differences; rather: examine how close you are coming to God. If you're making progress, keep on keepin' on. If you're not making progress, talk to your priest or spiritual director.

Blessings!

Hi Double_Eagle,
I could have remained in the Roman Catholic Church but I felt it to be compromised with secularization and "Protestantism". I felt no comfort. I could have remained in the Melkite Church where I did attend an established mission for a short time(unfortunately I see it dying and many are attending my Orthodox Church from time to time). After I did some homework and studying about Orthodoxy, I could not resist Orthodoxy's attractiveness. I had to conclude that Orthodoxy cannot ever be compromised nor compatible with Catholicism. With all due respect to my Byzantine Catholic friends here, to accept and believe so leads to relativism which is the realm of the Melkites or uniatism. Unfortunately, there are some Orthodox who are relativists that think this way as well. The essence of Orthodoxy is beyond compare or even the thought of compromising herself with the world.
I could still remember nine years ago when I "discovered" Orthodoxy for myself and my encounter with my current priest. I did not even realize that I was heading towards Orthodoxy and away from Catholicism. Actually, I did not leave the Catholic Church because I discovered her to be in the fullnes of the Orthodox Church. At first, I did not reject the Roman or Melkite Church in angry or harsh terms. Later on in my journey, once I discovered the truths about the Roman Church in relation to the Orthodox Churches then I was greatly disturbed. Rome is not to be trusted. Trust will happen when she returns to Orthodoxy if that ever happens. The Melkites will remain to be stuck in the middle of East & West by compromising the essential truths of Orthodoxy with Catholicism.

Slava Jesu Kristi

With all due respect, Rum Orthodox, I disagree with your assesment of the Melkites and unia. Although I agree that Eastern Catholics have had to strugle in their efforts, their willingness to remain faithful to both the Papacy and their customs has helped heal some of the alienation felt between Latins and Orthodox. It is the unification under one head that sets us apart.
Just my thoughts...
Dmitri

Dear Dr. John,

You are right, but you are a bit of a spoil sport!

We're having so much fun with seeing "how Latinized were/are you?" And "Who's fault was it?"

Any initiator of a thread who can get our brother, Rum Orthodox, to open up as he has is to be congratulated!!

Have a nice day and I hope your trip to Alaska was "cool" in more ways than one!

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Hmm...I am wondering about something. What is this nonsense about the Byzantine Catholic Church not being Orthodox or being an Orthodox Church? We didn't give up anything with our union with Rome, we united with Rome because we wanted to retain our connection to the Holy See which is historical as per SS Cyril and Methodius and earlier; sure others had intentions, but if it was only for power and prestige, why would so many Greek Catholics die for unity with the Pope? I am so tired of these endless diatribes from so-called traditionalist Orthodox who glorify their Churches who are endlessly anathematizing each other and forming all kinds of vagante groups. What are the fruits of all of that? The fruits are clearly seen and demonstrated to be rotten; I mean look what those fanatics did to ROCOR's old retired Metropolitan in Canada. I mean give me a break. Having a visible Head uniting the Body of Christ is the answer to all of that chaos - as is seen in Catholic unity. We substantially demonstrate the Unity Christ prayed for. Each person is on their own journey and some come back to Rome and leave and come back etc. Some stay; some are Orthodox and become Catholics. The Orthodox Faithful who made their path to Rome at the Unias were prophetic in that they testified to the wholeness of the Catholic Church, who's Vicar is the Pope. Does anyone think that our union with Rome is worse then the non-canonical mess going on in world Orthodoxy? I seriously doubt it. Ask Father David Anderson who became Ukranian Catholic; ask the many Orthodox who have either become Byzantine or Latin. Many find Catholicism's unity comforting and a great source of consolation, including myself. And if I posted anti-Orthodox nonsense on a Orthodox forum I would be booted off in two seconds. So get a grip.

In Christ,

Robert

Robert,

Here on Byzcath you claim to be a Byzantine Catholic. On Orthodox Forum you claim to be OCA. Make up your mind and stop insulting Orthodox anyway. We Greek Catholics DO NOT want to hear that garbage.

You talk about Orthodox becoming Catholic, like Fr. David Anderson. Well I talked to that guy on the phone and he is real wonderful. But he obviously did not come to Catholicism for some "I believe the Pope is infallible vicar of Christ" belief. He was involved in the Ben Lomond fiasco and might have even been excommunicated by Metropolitan Phillip (I am not sure so someone please correct.) What about all the Greek and Roman Catholics who became Orthodox, like Bishop Nathaniel of the OCA, Bishop Peter of the OCA, etc. etc. Pushing forward "famous converts" just doesn't cut it because people convert for varied personal reasons.

anastasios

Dear Robert,

Yes, I have met (formally) Orthodox Christians who believe that the Pope would provide an excellent source of unity for Orthodoxy and would concur wholeheartedly with your other excellent points.

I too believe that so very little changed in our union with Rome that our religious patrimony was actually preserved, despite the annoyance of Latinization.

Our Orthodox friends are always welcome to post here and I do believe we are more open to them than Orthodox forums would be to us (am I wrong? I wouldn't be upset if I was!).

We need to respect each other's patrimony and not impute motives and bring forward agendas.

It's both the Orthodox and Catholic thing to do!

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Anastasios:

My brother John Horwath, who is still OCA, posts on some of the Orthodox Forums. He uses my email account and computer. I don't mind him doing it and am not really concerned about it. I can see where the confusion comes from, but out here in internet land you could be Betty Boop and I would probably never know nor would I care.

As far as your post about what I said. I can see both points, but I was responding to Rum Orthodox. I mean are Greek Catholics going to have to continue to put up that nonsense forever, even on our own Forum? I am starting to see why it is such a strong issue in eastern Europe; the historical pain is continually being dug up and frankly today was not my day to be reading posts like that from Orthodox who rub their sophistries in our face.

In St. Josaphat,


Robert

Robert,

Thank you for clarifying the issue. This caused a stir on Orthodox Forum so you might want to tell your brother to set up his own ID since it is free and easy to do.

I agree that BC's should not take crap from Orthodox. But we can't then turn around and insult the Orthodox, either.

In St. Alexis Toth,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Ah, but can't we remind our big "O" friends to be kind to us on our own turf?

I got my knuckles wrapped by Dr. John (God love him!) for not going after a Muslim friend who had said some untoward things.

I'm still wondering if I was wrong or if I was right?

I must have been wrong since Dr. John is always right!

A blessed Christmas!

Alex

Good morning America,

Dimitri,
"unification under one head that sets us apart" is exactly what separates us. For you it's "King" Peter subjucating the Apostles and for us the Councils that include St. Peter and the Apostles. The Apostolic Orthodox Church is lead by His Holy Spirit and not by your King Peter. Again, you believe in a Papal Monarcy that does not mesh well with the Conciliar Tradition. Do you believe your Pope is more holier or more special than our Popes & Patriarchs? Please spare me!


Alex,
Thanks again friend for your understanding.


Robert,
Why cant a guy tell his story about coming to Orthodoxy(the focus of this topic) without being scrutinized?!!! Fear? Not sure why people go back and forth between East & West like yourself? For me I thought the gold was in the West but the old Man told me "Go East my son". I have no regrets about that. My personal encounters with the West(moreso with Roman Catholics) has led me to believe that Catholicism is responsible for the millions led astray. I really do not see unity with Catholicism. Yes, I am biased and in favor of Orthodoxy 100%. There are Orthodox elements within Catholicism but lacks the fullness of the Orthodox Church. The Byzantine Catholic Church does resemble the Orthodox Church but it is not. If having a visible head like the Pope is the cure to the chaos in the world you better read your papal history. Rome's backyard is full of chaos. Must I list my "99" grievances to make my point? Even the Orthodox Patriarchs have their own problems even though they are heads of their Churches. Sorry, patriarchal infallibility does not work outside the Church.

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Rum,
I am not sure what you mean by "Papal Monarch?" I do, however, believe that the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church. Do not all councils have chairmen? This does not mean that I feel he is "holier" then the other Patricarchs, simply that his Chair is the first among them. Again, I mean no disrespect to my Orthodox brothers. I find the actions of the other Patrtiarchs to be very apostolic and inspireing (for the most part). I hope I have clarified my statements.

Dmitri.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Rum Orthodox:

First of all you can talk about Orthodoxy; you can discuss it and present your case; that it all well and good, but you should expect people, like me who are still trying to wake up and drink their coffee in peace, to get upset about anti-Byzantine Catholic rhetoric.

I mean what I keep getting from you is that we are just a shell; that Greek Catholicism is mere formalism, something akin to High Church Anglicanism. But that view lacks substance and shows dire ignorance not only of Byzantine Catholicism, but also Catholic Dogma and teaching. And please list your "99" grievances! List 500 grievances if you will! Entertain me. What is this nonsense about Catholicism leading millions astray? You talked about Papal history, but what about the other Patriarchates, hmm! What about them. You gave your disclaimer about them making mistakes, well then what is your point about the Roman Pontiffs? But, the teaching of the Church today all the way down to Jesus, from His very mouth, was that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built and He holds the Keys and the power to lead the Church and to guide Her with the Teaching of Christ, The Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ!

Anastasios:

What are these Ben Lomond Contraversies that would of gotten Father David excommunicated? I mean what are you talking about? He would of never made a jump that big unless he believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In Christ and Mary,

Robert

Was just reading the latest posts. Wanted to jump in here and thank all those who have responded to my questions and participated in the discussion so far.

Rum Orthodox

I would really LOVE to hear your 99 grievances against the Holy Catholic Church. Please enlighten me!

[What are these Ben Lomond Contraversies that would of gotten Father David excommunicated? I mean what are you talking about? He would of never made a jump that big unless he believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church.]

Father David Anderson, from what I understand was originally a Ukrainian Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy and was part of the OCA. When the so called (at the time) Evangelical Orthodox were received into the Antiochian Orthodox jurisdiction, Fr David was reassigned to the Antiochian Archdiocese by an agreement between Metropolitan Phillip and Metropolitan Theodosius. He was put on special assignment to teach the new converts Orthodox Liturgics, etc and assigned to Ben Lomond. Thus began experimentations with Liturgical practices. For instance the one time I attended Liturgy at Ben Lomond the Liturgy began with all the priests in the Nave of the church where they remained until the Gospel was read. They then processed into the Sancturay. Similiar to what is done when a Hierach is present. Anyhow, Metropolitan Phillip & Bishop Joseph wanted uniformity in the Liturgical practices within the Archdiocese so Ben Lomond was instructed to get rid of the innovations. This they refused to do. The priests in question (including Fr David) were put under suspension and given a year to conform. They, in turn, reacted by trying to join with the OCA. This put the OCA in a predicament, because according to the canons one Orthodox Church cannot accept clergy from another Orthodox Church who are under suspension by their Bishop unless that Bishop takes back the suspension and agrees to release the clergy to the other Orthodox Church. Since Father David was originally OCA, and assigned to the Antiochians Metropolitan Theodosius personally went to bat for him and asked Metropolitan Phillip to release his suspension so he could be received back into the OCA. Metropolitan Phillip honored Metropolitan Theodosius request and Father David was received back into the OCA under the direct authority of Metropolitan Theodosius. In the mean time, one of the Deacons who was still under suspension (and may have been excommunicated by that time) died. Father David was told by Metropolitan Theodosius that he could attend the funeral but could not serve at the funeral of a deposed cleric. Father David, decided to once again disregard the instructions of his ruling Hierach and served at the funeral. And for this he was deposed by Metropolitan Theodosius. So you see, he did not return to the Ukrainian Catholic Church because of any beliefs in the the teachings of the RCC, BCC, UCC. He returned simply because there was no place left for him to go. The very fact that he disregarded the authority of not one, but two of the ruling Hierachs whose authority he was under, meant that no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction would take him. And that's the true story behind Father David Anderson. One can only wonder what he will do if he doesn't agree with the instructions of the current Ukrainian Bishop he is under.

OrthoMan

Just letting everyone know this list has one dumb Slav that never did anything different than stay in the Catholic patrimony he was born into with the impression that learning about those beyond the ghetto of the Ruthenian Church was interesting and curious, but not essential to salvation.

Boringly yours,

K.

Dear Kurt,

Ho-hummm! Strrrretchchch!

Sounds O.K. by me!!

Alex

Hi Robert,
I really do not want to antagonize you. You have presented words such as "Greek Catholicism" & "Byzantine Catholicism" which are misnomers and misinforming about Orthodoxy. Roman Catholic dogmas are not compatible within Orthodoxy or even with our perception of life's mysteries. They are not even compatible with the Eastern Tradition of the Church. The basis of uniatism was based on faulty grounds or a misalliance and should not continue to flourish. The need to return to Orthodoxy is a serious issue. I am not saying come home by breaking communion with Rome but bring Rome home with you to Orthodoxy. Can you and the rest of the Eastern Catholic rites do that? If you seriously cannot diagnosis the issues that keep us apart from one another then there is no need for further dialogue.
Based upon my experiences living in America the Roman Catholics I have encountered do not abide with the teachings of Catholicism which range from practicing birth control, promoting the idea of ordaining women into the priesthood, pro-choice, abortions, etc. Even the Roman Catholic schools have many teenage pregnant girls. I know priests that allow gambling in their churches to generate an income. I know a priest who goes to Las Vegas to gamble and is tolerated by his archdioceses. I have met many bright Roman Catholic students that do not believe in Catholicism(I don't know if you would consider them bright). I figure we can classify those Catholics as not Catholics or nominal or secular Catholics. Somehow for some odd reason Catholicism is not an attraction to someone like myself that believes mysteries should remain mysteries rather than rationalized mysteries. Orthodoxy is not about fostering beliefs in dogmas to make sense to the rational mind. The mindset of the West is not that of the East any longer. Maybe there is a revival amongst the West by Easterners like you to save the West from themselves. Please note that the Rock is Christ and St. Peter & the Apostles are little rocks.
Everyone repeat after me "Kyyyrie eleiiiisooon"

OrthoMan wrote:



I think our Forum has reached new lows here. The situation at Ben Lomond was much more complex and what OrthoMan says here amounts to a smear against someone who is not here to defend himself. Suffice it to say there is much more to the story about Ben Lomond.

That OrthoMan's basic facts about the Ben Lomond affair (as apart from his smear on Fr David on which I do not care to comment on) are in error please see:

http://www.ephesus.com/BenLomond/Archives.html

The vast majority of the parish (and clergy) had wanted to leave the Antiochian jurisdiction and enter the OCA before any suspension as OrthoMan claimed. The issues were not "innovations" but the requirement they become "Antiochian." Their request for a release to the OCA was not received favorably. The priests were laicized and later excommunicated. This pre-empted any chance for reception into the OCA. One should consider this background when one would judge whether or not someone should be denied Christian burial because they were excommunicated under such circumstances.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

For Rum Orthodox:

You are welcome here on this board. I'll ask again in case you missed the question I asked you a few days ago:

Originally posted by Rum Orthodox:


Just wondering. Robert, what is your view of Catholic mysteries? Do they have grace? When Catholics receive the Eucharist in Catholic parishes are they receiving the Body and Blood of Christ? I'm not asking for an official view--just your view.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[The situation at Ben Lomond was much more complex and what OrthoMan says here amounts to a smear against someone who is not here to defend himself. Suffice it to say there is much more to the story about Ben Lomond.]

So you are denying that Father David was disobient to not one but three Orthodox Bishops whose authority he was under (Metropolitan Phillip, Bishop Joseph, and Metropolitan Theodosius)? There may or may not have been other factors regarding Ben Lomond but that doesn't justify nor change the fact the this priest has a problem with Hierachal authority and showed it not once but on three differnet occassions. When he disobeyed direct orders from his Hierach. If you have proof that he did not then please present it.
My response was to the post that he became Ukrainian Catholic because of the truths he found within the RC structure. If that was so he would never have left it to begin with.

OrthoMan

In peace, let us pray!

Dear Rum Orthodox,

It is true that the mind of the West is not that of the East. Your perception is correct.

I admire your restraint in not posting the 99 thesis. Your concern for the Chruches in Communion with Rome is admirable. Would that we all shared the depth of interest in them that you do!

Beyond this, I am passing!


Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Double_Eagle:

For those who are still Byzantine Catholic or Melkite, I would like to know if there is anything you can point to in your Liturgies or Churches that you consider to be influenced by Latin theology. For example, is there anything in the Divine Liturgy or homily which has anything to do with... defining Mary's conception as being without original sin...?

Double_Eagle,

I have a question for you regarding "defining Mary's conception as being without original sin." Being a former evangelical Protestant who coverted to Byzantine Catholicism, you would probably expect me to have a lot of trouble accepting the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Actually, after carefully considering what Holy Scripture says about God's nature, I really had no problem accepting this teaching.

The Old Testament is clear the God does not exist in the presence of sin. Adam and Eve were expelled from God's presence (Paradise) because of sin; God told Moses "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live" (Exodus 33:20); Psalm 104[103] indicates that sin is not intended to be part of creation, i.e, "Let sinners be consummed from the earth..." Considering just the Old Testament teachings about God, I have a very hard time NOT believing that Mary was conceived without original sin to bear God as a child.

Additionally, Catholics understand the grace referred to in Luke 1:28 as "at once permanent and of a singular kind." In other words, Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace from the beginning of her existence. She was given this grace as a special gift to be able to participate in God's plan of redemption through Jesus Christ, who is fully God.

I don't view this teaching as "just for Latins", as it seems to be a pretty basic statement about not only who Mary is, but more importantly, who Jesus Christ is. I don't understand why accepting it makes me any less "Byzantine" than someone who does not.

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

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 ]

JM --

We inherit the consequences when we are conceived. The consequences are, as God told Adam in the Garden, "death". What does that mean? It means estrangement from God, which is spiritual death (without communion with God we cannot spiritually be alive) and which, in turn, leads to physical corruption and death. The facts of spiritual death and the entailing physical corruption and death tend to lead one toward sin. The Theotokos was unique in this regard, that despite the fact of being born into the human condition she remained more open, more willing to accept, God's initiative than any other person of OT history -- so much so, in fact, that she perfectly cooperated with God's grace and did not commit actual sin at any time in her life.

Brendan

Brendan,

Thanks for your helpful response (I'm keeping a copy for future reference.) I would like to clarify that I don't believe the Orthodox understanding of "spiritual death" is intellectually or theologically inferior to the Catholic understanding of "original sin", nor do I believe that the Orthodox are less respectful of Mary than Catholics. Sometimes, though, when I discuss such matters with other Christians (Orthodox as well as Protestants) it seems like their tendency is to attack or belittle the Catholic position rather than explaining why they accept their church's teachings. Therefore, I think I tend to be a little more defensive initially than I ought to be. (Sorry if I offended anyone - that was not my intent.)

I still would like to have some discussion on "spiritual death" versus "original sin", particularly in regard to Holy Scripture, e.g., Romans 5:12. Would you mind discussing this issue in the future (I am really busy this week.)

Thanks again for your help.

"As a non-literalist in reading the Bible and a firm believer in evolution as more than a theory..."

Durak,

For the record, I hope you are not assuming I am a "literalist" with respect to "reading the Bible" because I noted that I was formerly an Evangelical Protestant. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of all Scripture. I do accept evolutionary theory as well as scientific facts provided by geology (I am a geologist) and biology with respect to the age of the earth and past (extinct) flora and fauna. I do appreciate your consideration of my understanding of Mary's state of grace.

No, I wasn't assuming anything about you personally. Romans 5:12 indeed is worthy of its own thread, no?
To review:
Augustine's interpretation of the Greek eph' ho ("in quo" - in whom - in the VL)obtained in the west, carrying the meaning that death comes to all from Adam, in whom all have sinned.
The East renders eph' ho as "because", thus ascribing to all persons an individual reseponsibility for death. (Death thus coming to all men because all sinned.)
Is this a correct stating of the issue?

Actually it's more like the interesting Latin translation of the phrase. The Latin translation of the Bible, as has been famously pointed out, translated this phrase to have a slightly different meaning than that of the Greek original (although this slight difference in meaning has had much larger consequences than anyone could have imagined at the time). If you study the Greek original, you can see where the Eastern tradition regarding the Original Sin comes from, while, at the same time, it is fairly easy to trace the Western understanding to this translation issue. It is highly, highly unfortunate that this difference in understanding was introduced by a, shall we say, "interesting" translation, and it should serve to underscore the need for accurate translations across the board.

jmaccabeus,

I too wish to apologize if I offended you or anyone else by being defensive.

brendan,

Thanks for participating on this thread. You did a better job of explaining things from an Eastern perspective than I could have.

I would like to pursue the meaning of "spiritual death" in the Eastern understanding of Original Sin. I am an amateur explorer in this area, coming from a Western origin. Perhaps it is presumptuous, but I find it hard to believe that Original Sin really deprived humans of the ability to share God's life until Jesus came. Several examples from Scripture seem to indicate otherwise. Moses was God's "intimate friend," whose contact with God made his face so radiant that he had to wear a veil in the presence of other Israelites. When Samuel the prophet grew up in Shiloh with Eli the priest, "the Lord was with him, not permitting any word of his to be without effect." When David was anointed by Samuel in the midst of his brothers, "the spirit of the Lord rushed upon David." Elijah was borne away from this world in a fiery chariot drawn by flaming horses, and he went to heaven in a whirlwind. Scripture does not mention his death. Going forward to the period we are reliving in Advent, the period just before the coming of the Lord, we find Zechariah and Elizabeth described as "righteous in the eyes of God," Elizabeth at the time of Mary's visit "filled with the Holy Spirit," Simeon both "righteous and devout" and having "the Holy Spirit . . . upon him," and, finally, Joseph described as "a righteous man." How could all this have been true, if Original Sin meant (and means) spiritual death, keeping humans separated from God until baptism incorporates them into the Body of Christ?

Double Eagle,

No problem (you didn't.) And to futher address your orginal inquiry, one issue that I do agree with the Orthodox on is that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (Period.)" We don't include the filoque in the creed at the Byzantine Catholic church I attend.

Christos Rodilsja!

Plainsman,

A relationship with God and eternal life with God are two different things. The fact that people lived righteously or were favored by God in the Old Testament has no bearing on the fact that the consequences of Adam's sin rendered them incapable of entering heaven. Only Christ's Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection made it possible for man to truly live again and grant him access to life eternal. The Righteous of the Old Testament remained in Hades until Christ at his Resurrection freed them.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate