www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Drawn to Orthodoxy????

The RC is silent on the death part. I wonder, is the Prophet St. Elijah and Enoch who did not experience death appears much privilege than the Theotokos? Isn't the taking up into heaven of St. Elijah foreshadows the Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

Dear elexie,

Yes, Pope Pius deliberately made no reference to whether the Theotokos died or not in his definition of the Assumption - there were and are Catholics who believe that since Maryam was conceived without the "stain of original sin" then she could not have died, death being a consequence of original sin.

And that is, in fact, taking the Roman IC doctrine to its logical conclusion.

What it shows is a gap in RC Mariology that could possibly be filled with the Eastern Patristic perspective.

That perspective sees Original Sin in terms of its effects on our nature, that Maryam was under the same law of these effects as we were, but that the Holy Spirit sanctified her from her Conception as the Temple of God the Word Incarnate.

The sanctification Maryam experienced mitigated the effects of Original Sin, however, as the Orthodox liturgical tradition shows - she felt no pain in giving birth to Christ.

And though she did die, as the same liturgical tradition indicates, her death was but a "falling-asleep," peaceful and gentle as befits the Most Holy Theotokos.

The RC IC doctrine was really intended NOT to deny that Maryam was not under the law of Original Sin, but that she had no "stain" of any kind.

In effect, the RC Church was forced into a corner with the IC doctrine to respond to Augustine's "stain of Original Sin" view.

The East never accepted that view, but emphasizes, instead, the great holiness and glory of Maryam, the Mother of God.

Alex

Just a little comment, Alex: the Roman Catholic Church has never subscribed to the "stain" view of Original Sin. I often hear OS explained this way, and it's a very BAD explanation. Original sin is not a "stain", it's not a THING that must be REMOVED, but a DEFICIENCY of sanctifying grace. I cringe whenever I hear the phrase "stain of original sin."

IT'S NOT A STAIN!!!

Okay, I'll hop down off my soapbox now. Thanks.
:-)

Dear SaintClare,

The CCC no longer teaches the "stained" Augustinian view of Original Sin - that's because it has returned to the Patristic, Eastern perspective.

But St Augustine did, in fact, teach the stain of Original Sin - and I was taught that throughout my RC and Basilian (same difference) schooling.

The doctrine of the IC was precisely defined to prevent Our Lady to be spoken of as ever having had a "stain" of any kind of sin on her soul.

If the RC Church never taught that stained view of Original Sin, the IC doctrine would never have been proclaimed.

What would have been the point then?

And what does the papal definition of the Immaculate Conception say? Does it not affirm the stained view? Please check for yourself and you will see that the stain of original sin is a papal definition.

RC doctrine is not just what the CCC today says - there is a history of Augustinianism in your Church which it is, thankfully, slowly expunging.

Alex

This is an illogical conclusion.

You are quite right that the word "stain" is used, but what this concept entails in the context of OS and IC is more specific: it is what SC74 says; not every consequence of the ancestral sin.

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000756

If you hybridize AN Orthodox view of OS, namely, that its immediate consequence is mortality, and, then, because of mortality sinfulness, etc., then of course there one would might connsider the IC to raise the question of the mortality of the Theotokos.

Such a hybridization, however, constitutes logical error (victory by definition). If one held to the CCC on the OS, or for that matter OTHER Orthodox views compatible with it (the consequences of OS include death and ...), and held also to the particular meaning attached to "stain" then the issue does not arise at all.

I hasten to add, that my interpretation of Orthodox views on OS are informed, as detailed at the above link, by statments on the subject made at websites of Orthodox churches. And will repeat a request for clarification if I am missing the point on "death and therefore ..." versus "death and ..." in understanding gamut the Orthodox perspectives on OS.

Posted by Saintclare74:

"the Roman Catholic Church has never subscribed to the "stain" view of Original Sin."

Dear SaintClare 74,

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Alex is correct.

The terminology about inheriting the stain of original sin was taught in Catechisms used by the Latin Church before Vatican II. It was taught in elementary school and high school religious studies classes that I went to in schools sponsored by the Latin Chruch. It was taught in Latin Catholic minor and major seminary where I studied. In fact, I taught using those terms in CCD classes and classes in Catholic schools following their curriculua.

So I guess that my perspective from experience, is different from yours. At least my memory in regard to the Chruch teaching using the terminology "stain of Original Sin" is different.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

If anybody wants to give St. Augustine a fair shake, I might be able to start a thread over the weekend.


St. Augustine, pray for us!

__________________________

Thou hast made us for Thyself O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.

Late have I loved Thee, O Beauty ever-ancient, ever-new; late have I loved Thee!!

The link that I postd above in which the consequences of OS are parsed, and in which the meaning of "stain" is specificed, is from the ca. 1900 Catholic Encyclopedia - long before Vaican II.

Dear Alex and Steve,

I know the stain thing was popularly taught IN the Latin Church, but my contention is that is was never *formally* taught BY the Church-- and St. Augustine, wonderful as he was, wasn't infallible. In other words, many Catholics were taught a misconception about Original Sin that the Church never actually taught.

I have a copy of both the Catechism of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism, as well as the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, and there is no reference to the "stain" of original sin. In fact, the Baltimore Catechism actually defines OS as a deficiency of grace. Now, granted, I might be missing something-- if I am, please let me know.

Alex, you said something about the Immaculate Conception being dependent on the "stain" view of original sin-- I don't see how. The Immaculate Conception simply means that Mary, at her conception, was endowed with the fullness of sanctifying grace-- the grace the rest of us are conceived without-- and maintained it throughout her life. Gabriel didn't greet her, "Hail, full of grace" for nothing. :-)

God bless,

Karen

Dear Karen,

Anything you can show to indicate the RC Church now has the good sense to agree with Eastern theology on the Mother of God (or "Theotokology") will be most warmly applauded by myself and many others here!

One thing I don't understand is why there is a tendency, especially among RC's to deny the whole "stain" thing as if it is agreed it was all a bad idea that was never taught by Rome, but was misinterpreted for centuries by laity and clergy alike.

Augustine was certainly not infallible and his views on the impact of Original Sin on our human nature were never well received by the Christian East - which is one reason why he is today generally called "Blessed Augustine" only.

But if the "stain" view of Original Sin was not taught by the Roman Church then why: 1) is it explicitly mentioned in the papal definition of the IC; and why 2) do we even need a papal definition of the IC at all?

The fact is that the East, since early times, celebrated the Conception of St Anne liturgically - the English Church was the first Western church to adopt it.

The services for the Holy Conception of St Anne show the Church's strong affirmation that the Mother of God was a saint, sanctified at her Conception by the Holy Spirit.

This is also why the East did not, and still does not, understand why the West needed to dogmatize about this or about the Dormition of the Mother of God and her being taken to heaven in both body and soul.

I've also read that RC's may legitimately believe in "two" versions of the Immaculate Conception, the Western and the Eastern.

But ultimately, if "Stain" was not implied, then why is "Stain" even used as a word in the entire debate?

And if, as Aquinas, showed, "And the Son" meant "Through the Son," then why not use the latter and avoid the pitfall of the former whose use could suggest that there are two Origins of the Spirit within the Trinity.

I've often heard from my RC profs that the RC Church let bad theology and bad theological terminology go on unchecked for long periods of time.

No kidding . . .

Alex

Alex write:

[And if, as Aquinas, showed, "And the Son" meant "Through the Son," then why not use the latter and avoid the pitfall of the former whose use could suggest that there are two Origins of the Spirit within the Trinity.]

Alex you get to sound more like me every day! I have been trying to get that across for yesrs!

Keep up the good work!

OrthoMan

Maybe I am missing something. I must be missing something entirely.

Anyway . . .

What is wrong with using the word "stain" to refer to Original Sin?

For real . . .

I for one am not at all ashamed of the title "Regina sine labe originali concepta." The Church is not saying that the soul is a corporeal thing with a literal stain on it--the "stain" is an image, a reference to the soul without grace. And we know that the Theotokos was filled with grace from the first moment of her existence.

Why does everybody here take it as a foregone conclusion that St. Augustine was wrong to use that terminology? Mortality, concupiscience, passibility, etc., cannot be considered a stain on our existence? Original sin DOES stain us!


Okay, now shoot me.

Dear Orthoman,

You are my Father in faith too - not just all those other tykes whose Spiritual Guide you are!

Please accept my deep spiritual bow of reverence to you, my Father!

Alex

Dear LatinTrad,

I don't have to tell you to "come clean" - since you are into cold showers these days . . .

IF that is what "stain" is all about, then fine. But Original Sin does more than "stain" us - it weakens our nature etc. and baptism can't wipe out that kind of "stain" that is with us throughout our lives.

But it is still poor theological language that leads to imprecisions and so . . .

Just like the "Filioque," from the Greek perspective, immediately suggests "two Origins" or Principles in the Trinity.

Whether that is actually implied or not is not really the issue - bad theological language is.

Speaking of Original Sin, who won your latest bout with the concupiscence of the flesh?

If it's any of our business - but I think Dolly might like some extra inspiration from you just about now . . .

Alex

Dr. Roman--can you clean out your inbox so I can PM you?