www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Theology is Not Heretical

Dear Friends,

The only problem with the idea that the Mother of God was somehow connected to "sin" (and I believe the Orthodox Church has a completely different idea of what constitutes "Original Sin" than the Catholic Church) is that there is the Feast of the Conception of St Anne in the East that would NOT be celebrated IF the Mother of God was not sanctified from the moment of her Conception. The same holds true for John the Baptist.

His All-Holiness Pat. Bartholomew, in fact, is not asserting the Western view of Original Sin - but the Eastern view and so we cannot say that he is saying Mary was conceived in sin as in i.e. the "stain of Original Sin."

If she died, as we know from the liturgical services she did, then she was conceived in the same state of Original Sin as we all are.

HOWEVER, owing to her sanctification at her Conception, the effects of Original Sin were mitigated so that, for example, she felt no pain in giving birth to Christ.

We MUST pay fine attention to what the different Churches mean when they speak of sin and Original Sin.

That is difficult, but no one said this would be easy.

Alex

Alex,

Interestingly enough, the western Church holds that St. John the Baptist was not immaculately conceived but was cleansed in the womb. Also, I don't think that it is dogma that St. John the baptist never sinnned, though maybe it is. Still, your words are good food for thought.

Joe

Joe,

It is a pious theory that St. John the Baptist was cleansed from all sin in his in utero meeting with Our Lord. And it is also in that theory that he never committed a personal sin, as he was the greatest man born of woman. (Our Lord said that somewhere.)

If I may I want to add something as a Latin trying to switch over to the UGCC. I think that East and West are really like 2 blind guys describing his end of the elephant, if you know what I mean. The West says the Theotokos was conceived without Original Sin (in its Augustinian terms) the East says that she is All Holy. Is there really a difference or is it that one blind guy says that he feels a long snake like rubbery thing and the other guy says that he feels a large thick wrinkly tree trunk type thing?

Remember that St. Thomas Aquinas didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception as he didn't think that the soul entered the body until the sex could be determined, for girls it is about 80 days after conception. We now know that the sex is determined at conception. The problem is that identical twins do not split until 2 days after conception. (So when does the soul actually enter? Does it split in the case of identical twins? This is probably better for another thread.)

This is interesting to contemplate but does not fit any reality that I have ever encountered when speaking to Orthodox clergy and monastics. Across the board it has been explained to me that the Feast of St. Anne is a celebration of the miracle of a conception in a barren woman.



Once bilateral discussions begin on this subject it is going to be necessary to drop this mantra of east and west and original sin. One needs to see what the Catholic Church defines as the "stain" or "blemish" of original sin and compare that meaning to what Orthodoxy means by the wounding of human nature in original sin, and more to the point what both traditions say is healed in Baptism and what is not healed on this side of the grave.

This is not the thread to do it in but there are some very helpful texts available to support this kind of comparison. The primary western text would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and from the east would be Bishop Hilarion's text that is online as the Russian Catechism.

The "stain" that the Theotokos has been healed from in the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is the rupture of man's original holiness [the loss of justification] and a darkening of the will. Upon examination, it is this very "wounding" of human nature that Orthodoxy says is healed in Baptism. If one interrogates "wounding" and "stain" one finds that the meaning of the two expressions is the same for both. Loss of original justification and a darkening of the will and intellect.[This latter being a teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor.]

The other consequences of the ancestral sin as enumerated in Scripture are not healed. so that the following statement is not really true. The Immaculate Conception doctrine, as it is stated in the dogmatic constitution, does not insist that the Theotokos is healed from anything but that which we are healed from in Baptism.

Therefore the following statement does not represent any kind of logical reality expressed in the dogmatic statement. The Catholic Church teaches both the Immaculate Conception and the fact that the Theotokos dies at the end of her time here on earth.



So it will take time to dispel the myths that have come into common use from all kinds of local catechisms and devotional teachings, but the time is coming when the reality of the teachings, necessarily, will be made more clear. I belive that Bishop Hilarion's text Mysteries of the Faith is a very good start in that direction.

There is also an on-line catechism by a Greek Orthodox bishop in Canada that has some helpful words on the ancestral sin that can be used to help our mutual understandings.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

I have that Greek Orthodox Catechism and am actually meeting with that Metropolitan at the legislature today so I will ask him about it, to be sure!

He certainly does believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the actual sin of Adam is passed on to us. If that is not the case, then it is up to the Catholic Church to explain how and what.

The definition of the Assumption of Our Lady by the Pope contains NO reference to her ever dying and no teaching of the Church has asserted that. As Fr. Hardon SJ says in his Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is permissible for Catholics to believe that our Lady did NOT die as flowing from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. IF that is the case, then clearly the Latin Church DOES teach that the actual sin of Adam is passed on to us but that Mary was preserved free from it.

Original Sin is an important point and the myths that need to be dispelled are what appear to be shifting theological positions on this by the Latin Church in history.

The miracle of the Conception of St Anne is focused on the Mother of God - when we examine the liturgical texts, we see this. In addition, the Orthodox have an icon for this feast which is an icon of Our Lady similar to that of the Miraculous Medal!

The feast is a Marian one and would not obtain were Mary conceived in sin.

Again, IF the Latin Church believes Mary died, then, according to the Eastern Church, she WAS conceived with Original Sin.

Alex

Then why not print out my post and take it to him so that he has the issues that I raise as I raise them and not as you present them. I use very specific and formal language in that post and it is the language of the formal Catholic theology. To present in your own terms will only put the issue right back to the local and colloquial understandings.



Then you might wish to direct him to the CCC where it says that there is no personal sin guilt, or actual sin passed on through the generations. What is passed on are the conseqences of that sin, and the words "guilt" and "stain" or "blemish" are used, explicitly in an analogous sense. Also the language of "guilt", "stain", and "blemish" are used by the fathers in their discussions of the ancestral sin, as well as, in post-schismatic discussions in the west. That is an easy matter of record.



The pope in his explanation of the need for the doctrine, in the actual dogmatic constitution, mentions explicity those who have professed that she died, was entombed, and later assumed into heaven. It seems to me that these things would not have been used as the fundament for the dogma if the Church thought her death was "optional."

I can offer any number of Catholic articles concerning the Assumption that speak freely of her death and the ancient traditions that have come down concerning the manner of her death and burial. I believe it would be news to many well informed Catholics that we do not teach that she died.



In looking at the actual dogmatic constitution for both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which are the two documets that would be used in any bilateral theological consultation, it is clear that Father Hardon, however sincere, is expressing a local and devotional approach to the actual teachings of the dogmatic constitutions. Father Hardon will most likely not be being invited to future meetings of Orthodox and Catholic theologians.

As I said, if you present your position then you will get a predictable response. If you present my own words, there might be food for further thought.

Take him these two posts of mine so that he may see what I am proposing as an alternate and more accurate truth. I would not offer it, if I could not support it fully with the formal teachings of my Church.

Mary

Dear Mary,

The Metropolitan disagrees with your presentation.

That is all we have time for right now and we must be in the Legislature.

He also says that he values my own understanding of Orthodox theology and praxis!

I have said nothing to him of my own right now, but why you would even care to be involved in a conversation with someone as colloquial etc. as myself is beyond comprehension. The dogmatic explanation does not refer to her death - if you could present where it does, that would be helpful.

The point is that IF RC's believe Mary died, then to the Orthodox, THAT means she had Original Sin.

I'm sorry you feel I'm colloquial and simple.

Off to the Legislature now.

Alex

Dear Moderator Alice,

How about a ruling on Mary's complimentary remarks above? Sorry that you feel I'm colloquial and simple as well.

Alex

The teaching on the death of the Theotokos does not get any more clear than this...Mary

From Munificentissimus Deus:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

35. In like manner St. Francis of Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"[38] And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."[39]

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,[44] would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.[45] Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."[46]

The point is simply that if the Theotokos died, then she could not have been conceived without Original Sin, in the Eastern Orthodox view.

Alex

Anyone who would like more? There is much more....Mary

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES

Father Clifford Stevens

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don't know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as <Aelia Capitolina> in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the "Memory of Mary" was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the "Falling Asleep" ("Dormitio") of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth."

All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior.

The Assumption completes God's work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God's crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity. The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.

The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

The prayer for the feast reads: "All-powerful and ever-living God: You raised the sinless Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul, to the glory of heaven. May we see heaven as our final goal and come to share her glory."

In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution <Munificentissimus Deus>, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.

Father Clifford Stevens writes from Tintern Monastery in Oakdale, Neb.

Alex,

How about taking a little break until you cool off?

I haven't even had a chance to have my morning coffee yet, I have been so busy. As soon as I have a chance to read through all the posts, I will decide if something is rude or not.

In the meantime, I urge you AND Mary to stop posting on this thread for a while, and to 'chill out'...(to be colloquial myself)!

I think that this argument has been presented by both sides, without a conclusion, agreement, or compromise.

I remind all posters that the key to personal holiness is not how much we know, but how humble we are.

Thank you.

Alice, Moderator

This does not bear out in a formal interrogation of texts with respect to:

1) The Orthodox and Catholic shared understanding of what is forgiven of original sin during Baptism. What is forgiven in Baptism for both is the loss of original justification and the darkening of the soul and intellect. The rest of the consequences of original sin remain.

2) The Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception includes the fact that the Theotokos is not preserved from temptation, suffering and death according to the formal teaching.

In the formal teaching of the Immaculate Conception the Theotokos is preserved from loosing what we are freed from, and restored to, at Baptism: original justification, and the darkening of the will and the intellect.

The parturation of the Theotokos is virginal but that is to retain her ever-virginity and does not exempt her from other suffering, emotional and physical, temptation toward sin, and death.

Mary

Originally Posted By: Orthodox Catholic
Dear Moderator Alice,

How about a ruling on Mary's complimentary remarks above? Sorry that you feel I'm colloquial and simple as well.

Alex


Alex,

How about taking a little break until you cool off?

I haven't even had a chance to have my morning coffee yet, I have been so busy. As soon as I have a chance to read through all the posts, I will decide if something is rude or not.

In the meantime, I urge you AND Mary to stop posting on this thread for a while, and to 'chill out'...(to be colloquial myself)!

I think that this argument has been presented by both sides, without a conclusion, agreement, or compromise.

I remind all posters that the key to personal holiness is not how much we know, but how humble we are.

Thank you.

Alice, Moderator